This morning I heard an ad on the radio which struck me as a poignant commentary about the United States. It is increasingly obvious to me that our values and institutions are centered on commerce, and commercial interests dominate decisions which are supposed to be dictated by principle and concern for the "public good." While I have been aware of this state of affairs for upwards of a decade, recent developments have for some reason rekindled my interest in the questions of why America looks like it does, why we Americans act as we do, and how the public policies that determine these things are set.
I plan to research and write a series of posts dealing with these questions and how they relate to America's place in the world and particularly how they shape the presidential race. For now, I want to get back to the radio ad.
McDonald's recently introduced a breakfast sandwich called the Southern Style Chicken Biscuit, which true to its name consists of a fried chicken patty on a biscuit. It accompanies a number of other greasy, disgusting biscuit-based items which have reportedly been added to McDonald's menu in the years since I stopped eating there. Some consider the new sandwich remarkable in that it has moved chicken onto the breakfast menu, but as Joel Klein of TIME notes, this is not an unprecedented coup. Furthermore, there is no coherent reason why pork should be included in our morning meals while chicken is categorically proscribed. If there ever was some sanctity of breakfast, it was long ago defiled by the introduction of cereal shaped like waffles and sausage on a stick wrapped in pancakes, corndog style.
The radio ad for McDonald's new arterial calamity began by extolling the US's hallowed freedom of speech. How lucky we are to live in a nation where each person can express his ideas without fear of repression by his government! All manner of divergent opinions are tolerated in this nation of courage and integrity. No personal opinion or taste is grounds for ostracism, the ad continues. (Let us ignore the fact that you can't even see the truth from where you have to stand to be able to say that.)
What should we do with this precious freedom of expression? The radio told me that the proper course is to start eating chicken for breakfast, which was somehow not the first thing that came to my mind. I never had any inclination to include poultry on my breakfast menu, but then again, my tastes are so distant from where the ad industry would have them that I may qualify as a bad American on that count alone.
Isn't this appropriation of patriotic concepts and imagery in the name of selling a breakfast sandwich a form of sacrilege, to be decried and deplored by Americans from sea to shining sea? No. No, it isn't. What I find distressing about this ad is that there really isn't anything unusual about it. It's perfectly acceptable to use patriotism and America's purported ideals to implore consumers to buy your product. No one sees that as a debasement of what we stand for. This is a tacit acknowledgment of the fact that consumption is really what we're all about. What's the point getting upset about it? People who supposedly hold America dear to their hearts don't really want to impede commerce, so they never raise their voices in objection to this kind of thing.
This state of affairs reinforces my conclusion that most or all of the patriotic talk we put up with in American is entirely for show. Somehow, our politicians are excoriated for the mere omission of conspicuously patriotic (and Christian) rituals. Every lapel is adorned with a flag pin, every speech closed with "God bless America." Politicians never venture anywhere near vocally diluting or devaluing our shibboleths (which says nothing about what they do with their actions rather than their words). When a corporation suggests that the happy providence of the First Amendment should be utilized to eat chicken before 11:30am, that's business as usual.
Once again I find myself devoid of any obligation to participate in any of this- the patriotic pageantry, the consumerism, the greasy breakfast. I must be in the minority, though, or no one would pay to make those ads.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
My dogma is bigger than yours
In a footnote to chapter nine of Breaking the Spell, Dan Dennett alerts his readers to a piece written by Cristoph Cardinal Schörnborn in which he clarifies the views of the Catholic Church toward evolution. In 1996, Pope John Paul II gave an address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences entitled "Truth Cannot Contradict Truth," in which he spoke about evolution. His main point was that the emergence of the human spirit (for my money, "spirit" is the Fergie of meaningless buzz-words, being both the most despicable and the most ubiquitous) could not be located on an evolutionary timeline and therefore weighed toward divine intervention. Let's just elide over the fact that the soul has never been scientifically demonstrated in the first place. John Paul and Schörnborn don't worry much about that, so neither will we.
In "Finding Design in Nature," Schörnborn attempted to remedy false notions about Church doctrine which had cropped in the nine years since the papal address. John Paul mentioned evolution but did not condemn it as false, so it's perfectly reasonable for any reader to assume that he accepted the fact that evolution is a real process. The important distinction, for Schörnborn, is that Christian teachings are fundamentally incompatible with "Neo-Darwinian doctrine," which he criticized as ideological rather than scientific. Neo-Darwinism denies the supposedly abundant evidence of design in the universe.
With formidable indignation, he quoted a1985 writing by John Paul in which he touted the "finality" of life on earth. So far as I know, finality is not a scientific concept. How would one test an organism to determine whether it is "final"? Does it have something to do with cell structure, anatomy, observed mutations? Is there a finality gene? Presumably John Paul's address was given in Italian; the Italian finalità may have some connotation or scientific application of which I am unaware. More likely, though, it's just jargon made up by JPII to make a case for something that just isn't so.
The late Pople continued: "To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us." This is a baffling role reversal. The merest thought reveals that divine intervention is the bankrupt explanation in this discussion- what Dennett would call a "skyhook," a device which purports to do the work of a crane absent any actual superstructure to support it. Claiming that God is responsible for any observed phenomenon is intellectually lazy. Scientists have studied processes of differential replication for 149 years and have learned much about how random, stepwise processes can carry a system from simplicity to complexity. Positing divine intervention does not require any tests or observations, or even any thought. Pointing your finger at someone else and saying, "No, you're the one who refuses to use your brain," is worth 0 points. Sorry.
Schörnborn goes on to defend the new pope, Benedict XVI, from the scurrilous neo-Darwinists who would warp and corrupt his pronouncements for their own wicked ends. He doesn't cite any of these nefarious materialist rogues, so I have to doubt their existence. Who would make such a claim? I wouldn't go out of my way to get Benny on my side of the Beatles vs. Stones controversy, much less something meaningful like the origin of life. Furthermore, who believes that the pope doesn't think God had anything to do with the development of life on Earth? XVI is just as wrong as I expect him to be.
The Cardinal concludes by reiterating that design is plainly visible in all of nature. Again, no scientific work is cited to support this claim. It is a bare assertion. It's not that I expect Schörnborn to publish articles in a biology journal. He has better things to do; if he's anything like American bishops, that includes protecting child molestors. In any event, there is a sizable catalogue of supposed scientific work in support of the design theory. That body of work is rejected in toto by respectable scientists, but if the Cardinal is going to try to use science to support his Stone Age ideas, the least he could do is bring some science into it.
In "Finding Design in Nature," Schörnborn attempted to remedy false notions about Church doctrine which had cropped in the nine years since the papal address. John Paul mentioned evolution but did not condemn it as false, so it's perfectly reasonable for any reader to assume that he accepted the fact that evolution is a real process. The important distinction, for Schörnborn, is that Christian teachings are fundamentally incompatible with "Neo-Darwinian doctrine," which he criticized as ideological rather than scientific. Neo-Darwinism denies the supposedly abundant evidence of design in the universe.
With formidable indignation, he quoted a1985 writing by John Paul in which he touted the "finality" of life on earth. So far as I know, finality is not a scientific concept. How would one test an organism to determine whether it is "final"? Does it have something to do with cell structure, anatomy, observed mutations? Is there a finality gene? Presumably John Paul's address was given in Italian; the Italian finalità may have some connotation or scientific application of which I am unaware. More likely, though, it's just jargon made up by JPII to make a case for something that just isn't so.
The late Pople continued: "To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us." This is a baffling role reversal. The merest thought reveals that divine intervention is the bankrupt explanation in this discussion- what Dennett would call a "skyhook," a device which purports to do the work of a crane absent any actual superstructure to support it. Claiming that God is responsible for any observed phenomenon is intellectually lazy. Scientists have studied processes of differential replication for 149 years and have learned much about how random, stepwise processes can carry a system from simplicity to complexity. Positing divine intervention does not require any tests or observations, or even any thought. Pointing your finger at someone else and saying, "No, you're the one who refuses to use your brain," is worth 0 points. Sorry.
Schörnborn goes on to defend the new pope, Benedict XVI, from the scurrilous neo-Darwinists who would warp and corrupt his pronouncements for their own wicked ends. He doesn't cite any of these nefarious materialist rogues, so I have to doubt their existence. Who would make such a claim? I wouldn't go out of my way to get Benny on my side of the Beatles vs. Stones controversy, much less something meaningful like the origin of life. Furthermore, who believes that the pope doesn't think God had anything to do with the development of life on Earth? XVI is just as wrong as I expect him to be.
The Cardinal concludes by reiterating that design is plainly visible in all of nature. Again, no scientific work is cited to support this claim. It is a bare assertion. It's not that I expect Schörnborn to publish articles in a biology journal. He has better things to do; if he's anything like American bishops, that includes protecting child molestors. In any event, there is a sizable catalogue of supposed scientific work in support of the design theory. That body of work is rejected in toto by respectable scientists, but if the Cardinal is going to try to use science to support his Stone Age ideas, the least he could do is bring some science into it.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Imperialist and Reagan ally dies on the Fourth of July
The National Review has decided to host a circle-jerk in memory of the late Sen. Jesse Helms, a staunch conservative from North Carolina who died Friday (The Nation speculated, I hope facetiously, that he planned to die on Independence Day). This kind of hero worship bothers me no matter the alignment of the idol; I was far from pleased when The Nation and MoveOn.org uncritically extolled the virtues of Sen. Barack Obama a few months ago, notwithstanding the fact that he somehow became the standard-bearer for the progressive movement in this country. I won't be happy when The Nation holds a sad symposium reflecting on the death of Sen. Ted Kennedy, either. I know they're not going to be honest about it.
Does anyone really need talking heads from their own little ideological buddy list telling them how great some politician is (or was)? Can't said politician just put an ad on TV talking about how great they are? Why waste energy and print space on that kind of redundant applause? We rather need to know what's wrong with our politicians. Remember, these folks are trying to screw us.
Once you get past the fact that the entire post-mortem exercise is worth about the same as tailpipe exhaust, you have to start thinking about who Jesse Helms actually was. For one thing, he was a friend and political associate of Ronald Reagan, possibly my least favorite person in all of history. Helms was a stalwart opponent of civil rights, a virulent homophobe, and a prominent defender of the Reagan administration when it was caught funding Nicaraguan death squads. Helms is praised in NR for standing up to various presidents when he disagreed with them. But when it was discovered that a friend's cronies had armed terrorists in the Middle East and used the proceeds to fund terrorism in South America, he stood by his man. So what the hell good was he?
The folks at NR pour accolades on the late senator for his incessant crusade against the liberal elites of Washington. He filibustered to block their unqualified judicial appointments (!?!). He wanted to reform the United Nations (really glad he pushed that one through, huh?) and the somehow inherently anti-American State Department. He fought to reform anti-AIDS programs so that they would actually prevent the spread of the disease. It's not clear where the NR yackos got that last one. Helms was opposed to any funding for those programs, and he made no bones about why: homosexuals deserved to die for having ebil, ebil buttsekcs.
Helms also hated modern art and was a nemesis of the National Endowment for the Arts. Some egghead wants to give Keith Haring a grant so he can do his doodles on the walls of subway tunnels? That guy should be out on his ass. Caspar Weinberger sold M-16s to the Ayatollah? Well, that's so important, I can't see why it's illegal. He needs a pardon. See where Helms was coming from?
There is only one underwhelming mention of Helms's racial prejudice in the crop of eulogies, and it is phrased as follows: "I don’t know that he was completely innocent on race." The crowning element of this exuberant echo chamber is good, old exceptionalist nationalism. Helms knew what America was all about, so his support for our brutal and anti-democratic foreign policy was justified. After repeating that suggestion, David Rouzer closes the symposium with a masterful amalgamation of insipid supersition and saccharine patriotism: "It is only fitting that he joins two other great patriots, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, in exiting this world on the Fourth of July — and not by coincidence."
Does anyone really need talking heads from their own little ideological buddy list telling them how great some politician is (or was)? Can't said politician just put an ad on TV talking about how great they are? Why waste energy and print space on that kind of redundant applause? We rather need to know what's wrong with our politicians. Remember, these folks are trying to screw us.
Once you get past the fact that the entire post-mortem exercise is worth about the same as tailpipe exhaust, you have to start thinking about who Jesse Helms actually was. For one thing, he was a friend and political associate of Ronald Reagan, possibly my least favorite person in all of history. Helms was a stalwart opponent of civil rights, a virulent homophobe, and a prominent defender of the Reagan administration when it was caught funding Nicaraguan death squads. Helms is praised in NR for standing up to various presidents when he disagreed with them. But when it was discovered that a friend's cronies had armed terrorists in the Middle East and used the proceeds to fund terrorism in South America, he stood by his man. So what the hell good was he?
The folks at NR pour accolades on the late senator for his incessant crusade against the liberal elites of Washington. He filibustered to block their unqualified judicial appointments (!?!). He wanted to reform the United Nations (really glad he pushed that one through, huh?) and the somehow inherently anti-American State Department. He fought to reform anti-AIDS programs so that they would actually prevent the spread of the disease. It's not clear where the NR yackos got that last one. Helms was opposed to any funding for those programs, and he made no bones about why: homosexuals deserved to die for having ebil, ebil buttsekcs.
Helms also hated modern art and was a nemesis of the National Endowment for the Arts. Some egghead wants to give Keith Haring a grant so he can do his doodles on the walls of subway tunnels? That guy should be out on his ass. Caspar Weinberger sold M-16s to the Ayatollah? Well, that's so important, I can't see why it's illegal. He needs a pardon. See where Helms was coming from?
There is only one underwhelming mention of Helms's racial prejudice in the crop of eulogies, and it is phrased as follows: "I don’t know that he was completely innocent on race." The crowning element of this exuberant echo chamber is good, old exceptionalist nationalism. Helms knew what America was all about, so his support for our brutal and anti-democratic foreign policy was justified. After repeating that suggestion, David Rouzer closes the symposium with a masterful amalgamation of insipid supersition and saccharine patriotism: "It is only fitting that he joins two other great patriots, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, in exiting this world on the Fourth of July — and not by coincidence."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
