Sarah Palin is a major gambit. The ubiquitous sports metaphor among pundits has it that she is a Hail Mary pass, a last-ditch effort to bolster a desperate Republican campaign. The Alaska governor was a dark horse when Sen. John McCain announced her as his running mate Aug. 29. Her nomination seems carefully tailored to appeal to the electoral blocs in which Sen. Barack Obama is perceived as weak. Palin should play very well with the voters supposedly alienated by Obama's infamous gaffe two weeks before the Pennsylvania primary in April. Obama was speaking at a private fundraiser in San Francisco when he said that, in reaction to the indifference of the Powers That Be, rural voters in Pennsylvania "cling" to the Second Amendment, religion, and xenophobia. Apparently dwelling on Obama's five-month-old comment, McCain and his people chose the evangelical governor of a state with an even stronger gun culture than we have in Pennsylvania.
During her acceptance speech, Palin brought up Obama's comment, saying that Obama addresses working class voters with respect when he speaks in Scranton, Penn., but mocks them behind their backs in San Francisco. The problem with Obama's comment in April was not that it betrayed a lack of understanding of the working class; indeed, there is a great deal of bitterness among the working class in this state. Gun ownership and church attendance are high in rural areas of Pennsylvania. These are cultural pillars which remain constant in the lives of blue-collar voters buffeted by the sort of things Obama and Biden talk about in stump speeches. Obama was obnoxious in his delivery, but his observation was sound. In the days since the Republican Convention, he and his running mate have pointed out that Republicans said much about God and guns but nothing about the issues which face the working class. This response is smart. Palin can field-dress a moose. Fine, but what are she and McCain going to do to lower gas prices, expand access to health care, create jobs for the middle class?
We have heard from the Republicans for months that Obama is naught but a carefully contrived spectacle, devoid of substance. He has been derided as a celebrity and accused of relying on identity politics. All of these memes have been irrevocably undermined by McCain's choice of running mate. The only requirement imposed on the vice president by the Constitution is that he or she must be fit to assume the Presidency; it is for this duty that Republicans have endorsed Palin. It's laughable for them to continue to disparage Obama's thin resume.
So many of the issues raised by McCain and his surrogates regarding Obama's fitness to take up the staggering responsibility of the presidency apply equally to Palin. How can it be said that he is too green to serve as commander-in-chief, but she is not? The pinnacle of Palin's executive experience is the governorship of a state no larger than the Harrisburg metropolitan area. Has her short time in that post prepared her to manage the vast executive departments of the federal government? If Democrats are wrong to treat their candidate like a celebrity, should Republicans refer to Palin as a "rock star"?
On the day that McCain introduced her to the nation, Palin parroted Sen. Hillary Clinton's remark about the 18 million cracks the senator's supporters had made in the glass ceiling that is the American presidency. Attaching a female to the bottom of the ticket in hopes that women will vote their gender is as sexist as any remark made by Democrats about Palin neglecting her children to run for office. It is obvious that the Republicans think women voters are stupid and that they condone identity voting when it is to their benefit.
The forfeiture of so many prominent talking points is the price McCain has paid to energize the Republican base. The Religious Right and social conservatives adore the governor and don't care much about the contradictions her presence forces on the campaign.
Monday, September 1, 2008
Friday, August 29, 2008
McCain neuters major talking point with VP pick
Awash in media coverage of the Democratic Convention, Sen. John McCain announced today that his running mate will be Republican Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska. Palin was a dark horse, and the fact that her selection remained a secret for so long might have been an impressive media coup had the announcement not been overwhelmed by Sen. Barack Obama's historic acceptance speech a mere 12 hours earlier.
The McCain campaign has not been exceedingly deft in its interaction with the media, though reporters have taken dives for McCain on one or two important occasions. If the timeline surrounding the selection had been different, this might have signaled a reversal for the campaign.
Much like Obama's pick, Palin sketches out a number of contrasts to the top of her ticket. She is 28 years McCain's junior, and has not held any office in Washington. Palin came into office as a reformer in a state teeming with corruption less than two years ago, so her rhetoric about Washington will probably approach that favored by Obama. She gave birth to a son with Down Syndrome in April; she and her husband decided not to abort the pregnancy when they learned of their unborn son's disability. Her vociferous opposition to abortion makes her a pleasing choice for the religious right. If she becomes the first female vice president, she will break the old-Protestant-white-guy mold on as many counts as Barack Obama.
The obvious problem with choosing a neophyte as nominee is that it undermines the McCain campaign's primary attack meme against Barack Obama. A vice president must be qualified for the presidency, and not merely because of the dictates of the Constitution. The Republican National Convention next week will endorse a woman with 21 months of experience in state government to be commander-in-chief. If Obama's resume is thin, Palin's is transparent.
The strategy behind Palin relies partially on her reputation as a reformer in her own party, which McCain hopes will reinforce his erstwhile claim to maverick-dom, and partially on the hopes that she will attract disaffected Clinton voters. But her primary advantage may be her appeal to the hard right. Palin is extremely Protestant, speaking out loudly against abortion rights and advocating Creationism in her state's school curricula. One consolation that came with McCain's primary victory was the elimination of three of his rivals who indicated in a debate that they do not believe in evolution. The choice of Palin may give unfortunate credence to the anti-reality crowd.
The McCain campaign has not been exceedingly deft in its interaction with the media, though reporters have taken dives for McCain on one or two important occasions. If the timeline surrounding the selection had been different, this might have signaled a reversal for the campaign.
Much like Obama's pick, Palin sketches out a number of contrasts to the top of her ticket. She is 28 years McCain's junior, and has not held any office in Washington. Palin came into office as a reformer in a state teeming with corruption less than two years ago, so her rhetoric about Washington will probably approach that favored by Obama. She gave birth to a son with Down Syndrome in April; she and her husband decided not to abort the pregnancy when they learned of their unborn son's disability. Her vociferous opposition to abortion makes her a pleasing choice for the religious right. If she becomes the first female vice president, she will break the old-Protestant-white-guy mold on as many counts as Barack Obama.
The obvious problem with choosing a neophyte as nominee is that it undermines the McCain campaign's primary attack meme against Barack Obama. A vice president must be qualified for the presidency, and not merely because of the dictates of the Constitution. The Republican National Convention next week will endorse a woman with 21 months of experience in state government to be commander-in-chief. If Obama's resume is thin, Palin's is transparent.
The strategy behind Palin relies partially on her reputation as a reformer in her own party, which McCain hopes will reinforce his erstwhile claim to maverick-dom, and partially on the hopes that she will attract disaffected Clinton voters. But her primary advantage may be her appeal to the hard right. Palin is extremely Protestant, speaking out loudly against abortion rights and advocating Creationism in her state's school curricula. One consolation that came with McCain's primary victory was the elimination of three of his rivals who indicated in a debate that they do not believe in evolution. The choice of Palin may give unfortunate credence to the anti-reality crowd.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Fair and Balanced
As The Onion has observed, a huge amount of print space has lately been devoted to the fact that newspapers are quickly becoming obsolete as a news medium. Circulation at most major newspapers has dropped continuously over the last decade as Internet news sources have drawn readers away. Most online news outlets do not require paid subscriptions; they provide articles in a torrent throughout the 24-hour news cycle; for what it's worth, they save all the resources used in printing and distributing newspapers, which is environmentally friendly and gives them a significant financial advantage.
One trend which others have considered troubling is the prominence of ideologically slanted news sources on the Internet. Personally, I rely on The Nation and alternet.org, and the only columnists I read regularly are the liberals at the New York Times. Reputable newspapers have stringent standards of fairness; journalists are expected to present both (or all) sides of any story with equal emphasis. Online news purveyors such as WorldNet Daily, alternet, and the entire blogosphere often have explicit biases. Consumers taking the path of least resistance to their information gravitate towards sources which tell them what they want to hear.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. Alternet carries articles on topics which few other sources (and likely no conservative sources) touch upon. All of their authors write from a leftward perspective, but only sometimes only liberals are concerned with certain political and economic issues. There aren't always two perspectives on issues like water shortages or human rights; conservative writers just make those things less of a priority.
In some cases, the existence of two "sides" on an issue is entirely fictitious. There are empirical matters in science and history which are not debatable. Evidence weighs insurmountably toward one conclusion. Anyone who claims that a thousand innocent people were rounded up in the Salem Witch Trials, for instance, is just wrong. He or she would not deserve equal time with those who correctly report that eighteen were hanged and one pressed to death with stones during that incident. An important example of a debate in which one "side" is given undue credence by the standards of balance in news reporting is the Creationism movement.
In reality, there is no question as to whether humans and other animals evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Evolutionary theory is the basis of modern biology; it is based on a massive body of archaeological, genetic, and anatomic evidence. There is little or no evidence to support the Creationist position, by contrast. That Creationism is so often given equal time with science is due partially to the extraordinary deference our culture gives to religious beliefs, but it is also a result of a misplaced priority on balance.
I hope there will be a revision of the current standard in journalistic ethics to account for this problem, but I do not know what, precisely, I would propose. I can predict that the methods which will prevail will be determined by the financial realities of the Internet. News sources which can generate more advertising revenue will survive in the competitive marketplace. If news consumers desire certain standards of accuracy and ethical behavior in their reporting, sources which meet those standards will thrive. If consumers prefer sensationalism and biased reporting to sobriety and objectivity (whatever that means), that is what they will get. The structure of news organizations in coming years may be derived from old newspaper practices, or it may be radically different. The outcome will not be determined by the preferences of ethical thinkers but by those of consumers.
One trend which others have considered troubling is the prominence of ideologically slanted news sources on the Internet. Personally, I rely on The Nation and alternet.org, and the only columnists I read regularly are the liberals at the New York Times. Reputable newspapers have stringent standards of fairness; journalists are expected to present both (or all) sides of any story with equal emphasis. Online news purveyors such as WorldNet Daily, alternet, and the entire blogosphere often have explicit biases. Consumers taking the path of least resistance to their information gravitate towards sources which tell them what they want to hear.
That is not necessarily a bad thing. Alternet carries articles on topics which few other sources (and likely no conservative sources) touch upon. All of their authors write from a leftward perspective, but only sometimes only liberals are concerned with certain political and economic issues. There aren't always two perspectives on issues like water shortages or human rights; conservative writers just make those things less of a priority.
In some cases, the existence of two "sides" on an issue is entirely fictitious. There are empirical matters in science and history which are not debatable. Evidence weighs insurmountably toward one conclusion. Anyone who claims that a thousand innocent people were rounded up in the Salem Witch Trials, for instance, is just wrong. He or she would not deserve equal time with those who correctly report that eighteen were hanged and one pressed to death with stones during that incident. An important example of a debate in which one "side" is given undue credence by the standards of balance in news reporting is the Creationism movement.
In reality, there is no question as to whether humans and other animals evolved from a common ancestor over millions of years. Evolutionary theory is the basis of modern biology; it is based on a massive body of archaeological, genetic, and anatomic evidence. There is little or no evidence to support the Creationist position, by contrast. That Creationism is so often given equal time with science is due partially to the extraordinary deference our culture gives to religious beliefs, but it is also a result of a misplaced priority on balance.
I hope there will be a revision of the current standard in journalistic ethics to account for this problem, but I do not know what, precisely, I would propose. I can predict that the methods which will prevail will be determined by the financial realities of the Internet. News sources which can generate more advertising revenue will survive in the competitive marketplace. If news consumers desire certain standards of accuracy and ethical behavior in their reporting, sources which meet those standards will thrive. If consumers prefer sensationalism and biased reporting to sobriety and objectivity (whatever that means), that is what they will get. The structure of news organizations in coming years may be derived from old newspaper practices, or it may be radically different. The outcome will not be determined by the preferences of ethical thinkers but by those of consumers.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Association, Implication, Accusation
Yesterday, alternet.org published an article by Rory O'Connor discussing the culpability of right-wing talk radio in the July 28 shooting at a Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tenn. Rory is co-author of Shock Jocks: Hate Speech and Talk Radio, in which he and Aaron Cutler attack right-wing hatemongers like Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage. I haven't read the book, but I am always wary of attempts by well-meaning liberals to deal with "hate speech." Hate should be rejected, rebutted, and remonstrated, but never censored. Acting as an agent of tolerance is incompatible with acting as a thoughtpoliceman. I will reserve judgment on the efforts and arguments of O'Connor and Cutler until such time as I have read them in context.
O'Connor's article first deals with accusations made against him by conservatives, comparing him the Nazis. These are fairly standard, not particularly adroit, and largely unworthy of attention. O'Connor dismisses them as such and derides the supposed 'conspiracy to kill talk radio' in which Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and all liberals are complicit, according to the angry, grandiose delusions of right-wing radio hosts. O'Connor mentions this conspiracy theory as a means to transition onto the topic of the 'actual conspiracy to kill,' in which he links the right-wing radio stalwarts Savage, Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and Mark Levin to last week's church shooting. Jim Adkisson, the church gunman, had bought and read several of their books, it turns out. He also listened to them on the radio.
This thesis is guilt by association, and I don't see much to warrant the connection. How can O'Connor establish that listening to Limbaugh or Savage abetted or even inspired Adkisson's act of violence? Limbaugh is more insipid than violent, though as O'Connor points out, some weeks ago he expressed his hope the agents provocateurs would stage riots and the Democratic Convention in Denver. I don't see any impetus in Limbaugh's words or ideas for random acts of violence on people merely because their church affiliation identifies them as liberal.
Savage, by contrast, seems dangerously deranged. He is erudite but bipolar, shifting in seconds from dulcet Brooklyn-tinged rumination to bellicose paroxysms. Savage frequently describes his opponents as 'vermin' and warns against the dangerous erosion of white culture in the United States. I don't necessarily think that Savage is an improbable instigator of violence, but I do think O'Connor's association here is facile. His case is not assiduously made. Accessory to murder is not a trivial charge, and the burden is on O'Connor to support it.
Both of the above talkers foster the conceit that large conservative blocs act according to their daily commands over the airwaves. Limbaugh takes credit for 'Operation: Chaos,' in which conservatives purportedly registered to vote in Democratic primaries so as to keep Hillary Clinton's candidacy alive. His hopeful speculation about riots in Denver played into the same pretension. Savage actually considers himself a national hero, taking credit for the horrendously jingoistic diversion of the dreaded Dubai Ports deal and the disgusting intrusion of the government into the case of Terri Schiavo. O'Connor is reinforcing the suggestion that Americans act on the exhortations of these hate-peddlers. So far as I understand, that's the thesis of his book,
It is likely that there is some non-causative correlation between violent hatred for liberal people and institutions and interest in the works of the conservative shock jocks. In an open marketplace of ideas, if there are dollars available to support this kind of hate speech, the niches occupied by Savage et al. will inexorably be filled. People in America already espouse the antipathies exhibited by Adkisson, and they will inevitably be articulated in some corners of the intellectual discourse. The pundits in question are a symptom of a social phenomenon antecedent to their prominence as radio hosts. Assigning them culpability won't kill their ideas. Even banning them from the radio wouldn't keep them off the Internet. Linking them to criminal activity in an attempt to silene them is a losing battle.
Moreover, guilt by association is a vile, right-wing tactic. These very same shock jocks spout constant accusations that Barack Obama is untrustworthy because he associates with terrorists such as William Ayers and his racist (Christian) ex-pastor, Jeremiah Wright. We liberals (well, some of us) object when Marilyn Manson and the Grand Theft Auto games are blamed for violence by teenagers. I don't see any reasonable distinction between those and the question O'Connor is trying ask.
And O'Connor is, at base, asking a question about culpability. He flirts with standing up and pointing the finger at his adversaries, but always retreats into comfortable dubity. If he's going to make a case against Savage and Limbaugh, he should do so emphatically rather than by mere suggestion. Is there some passage in which Savage (for instance) demonized Unitarians in particular? Is there a connection somewhere in the voluminous screeds of Hannity or Limbaugh that touched particularly on a personal experience of Adkisson's life? While my presumption is against the association O'Connor is trying to make, I am not averse to evidence. O'Connor declines to provide any.
O'Connor's article first deals with accusations made against him by conservatives, comparing him the Nazis. These are fairly standard, not particularly adroit, and largely unworthy of attention. O'Connor dismisses them as such and derides the supposed 'conspiracy to kill talk radio' in which Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and all liberals are complicit, according to the angry, grandiose delusions of right-wing radio hosts. O'Connor mentions this conspiracy theory as a means to transition onto the topic of the 'actual conspiracy to kill,' in which he links the right-wing radio stalwarts Savage, Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Neal Boortz and Mark Levin to last week's church shooting. Jim Adkisson, the church gunman, had bought and read several of their books, it turns out. He also listened to them on the radio.
This thesis is guilt by association, and I don't see much to warrant the connection. How can O'Connor establish that listening to Limbaugh or Savage abetted or even inspired Adkisson's act of violence? Limbaugh is more insipid than violent, though as O'Connor points out, some weeks ago he expressed his hope the agents provocateurs would stage riots and the Democratic Convention in Denver. I don't see any impetus in Limbaugh's words or ideas for random acts of violence on people merely because their church affiliation identifies them as liberal.
Savage, by contrast, seems dangerously deranged. He is erudite but bipolar, shifting in seconds from dulcet Brooklyn-tinged rumination to bellicose paroxysms. Savage frequently describes his opponents as 'vermin' and warns against the dangerous erosion of white culture in the United States. I don't necessarily think that Savage is an improbable instigator of violence, but I do think O'Connor's association here is facile. His case is not assiduously made. Accessory to murder is not a trivial charge, and the burden is on O'Connor to support it.
Both of the above talkers foster the conceit that large conservative blocs act according to their daily commands over the airwaves. Limbaugh takes credit for 'Operation: Chaos,' in which conservatives purportedly registered to vote in Democratic primaries so as to keep Hillary Clinton's candidacy alive. His hopeful speculation about riots in Denver played into the same pretension. Savage actually considers himself a national hero, taking credit for the horrendously jingoistic diversion of the dreaded Dubai Ports deal and the disgusting intrusion of the government into the case of Terri Schiavo. O'Connor is reinforcing the suggestion that Americans act on the exhortations of these hate-peddlers. So far as I understand, that's the thesis of his book,
It is likely that there is some non-causative correlation between violent hatred for liberal people and institutions and interest in the works of the conservative shock jocks. In an open marketplace of ideas, if there are dollars available to support this kind of hate speech, the niches occupied by Savage et al. will inexorably be filled. People in America already espouse the antipathies exhibited by Adkisson, and they will inevitably be articulated in some corners of the intellectual discourse. The pundits in question are a symptom of a social phenomenon antecedent to their prominence as radio hosts. Assigning them culpability won't kill their ideas. Even banning them from the radio wouldn't keep them off the Internet. Linking them to criminal activity in an attempt to silene them is a losing battle.
Moreover, guilt by association is a vile, right-wing tactic. These very same shock jocks spout constant accusations that Barack Obama is untrustworthy because he associates with terrorists such as William Ayers and his racist (Christian) ex-pastor, Jeremiah Wright. We liberals (well, some of us) object when Marilyn Manson and the Grand Theft Auto games are blamed for violence by teenagers. I don't see any reasonable distinction between those and the question O'Connor is trying ask.
And O'Connor is, at base, asking a question about culpability. He flirts with standing up and pointing the finger at his adversaries, but always retreats into comfortable dubity. If he's going to make a case against Savage and Limbaugh, he should do so emphatically rather than by mere suggestion. Is there some passage in which Savage (for instance) demonized Unitarians in particular? Is there a connection somewhere in the voluminous screeds of Hannity or Limbaugh that touched particularly on a personal experience of Adkisson's life? While my presumption is against the association O'Connor is trying to make, I am not averse to evidence. O'Connor declines to provide any.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Freedom of Choice (of Breakfast Meats)
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.
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.
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)
