Sunday, May 4, 2008
Sunday, December 2, 2007
Of Stars and Stripes
This is the story about a famous flag; one that has flown, in one form or another, for something like 200 years. Its instantly recognizable wherever its raised- on every continent, in every region, in every city in the whole world.
And to every one who sees it, it means something. That’s not to say that it has a clear or a fixed message, but that when you see it your eyes don’t resolve it as a mere collection of colored stripes and white stars: it carries a message as effectively as any word written on this page. It doesn't mean one thing, it means something.
And for a growing number that something is hatred.
But there was a time some years ago when that meaning was very different and more clear. In simple terms it stood for liberty, virtue, and peace, but more than that, it was a complicated expression of an ideal of what things good government and good people do.
It was welcomed because the people who flew it had done many great things: they helped push the nazis out of europe, established organizations like the peace corps, and brought the ideals of democracy and liberty to the modern world.
And they welcomed, with open arms, “the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
That flag represented a constitution which guaranteed certain rights to its citizens, and proclaimed those same rights as the property of all men no matter their nation. It represented an ideal of respect for all men and women and cultures.
Today the people of that same country are inheriting a much different legacy. They are becoming known as tyrants, imperialists and enemies of liberty.
They fear and turn away those who come seeking the same opportunity and freedom that enticed their forefathers to risk life and limb to come to this land.
That flag is being carried into battle, not over the forces of so-called virtue and freedom, but above the heads of the invading army.
It is being flown above prisons where “enemy combatants” are tortured, held without trial, and denied basic human rights. And it is being touted as a justification for countless acts of evil.
That country has forgotten something.
That flag was not beautiful because of some sort of self-evident virtue of its design. The reverence paid to it wasn’t woven of cloth, but of an uncompromising commitment to good. It is, or was, beautiful because it represented certain unwavering ideals and because those who raised it practiced those ideals. But that has been lost.
Today, it is affixed to things which run contrary to the ideas for which it once stood. It is no longer a symbol, but an ever-cheaper commodity. It is a lapel pin. It is an accessory for a car. It is a colorful backdrop for a cable news broadcast.
It is being held up by men who do not commit themselves to the things for which it once stood, but who are of the opinion that the flag is in-and-of-itself important.
But a flag never does the things for which a nation’s people are proud, and by which other nations, for better or worse, judge them: A flag does not spread democracy or freedom; It does not help those in need; It does not convene a legislative body and make laws.
In other words, a flag is not something to defend. But its principles, or rather those that it stand for, are.
The principles of the American flag can be found in such things as liberty, equality, fraternity, and peace. They are found in the mindset that there are rights which belong to all men by virtue of their humanity, and which cannot be stolen in the name of safety.
Those who raise the flag in justification of torture, encroachment upon privacy, and the destruction of freedom in the name of defense betray the meaning that lies hidden behind the stars and stripes, and for which this country exists to protect.
They do not deserve to wave that flag.
And to every one who sees it, it means something. That’s not to say that it has a clear or a fixed message, but that when you see it your eyes don’t resolve it as a mere collection of colored stripes and white stars: it carries a message as effectively as any word written on this page. It doesn't mean one thing, it means something.
And for a growing number that something is hatred.
But there was a time some years ago when that meaning was very different and more clear. In simple terms it stood for liberty, virtue, and peace, but more than that, it was a complicated expression of an ideal of what things good government and good people do.
It was welcomed because the people who flew it had done many great things: they helped push the nazis out of europe, established organizations like the peace corps, and brought the ideals of democracy and liberty to the modern world.
And they welcomed, with open arms, “the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”
That flag represented a constitution which guaranteed certain rights to its citizens, and proclaimed those same rights as the property of all men no matter their nation. It represented an ideal of respect for all men and women and cultures.
Today the people of that same country are inheriting a much different legacy. They are becoming known as tyrants, imperialists and enemies of liberty.
They fear and turn away those who come seeking the same opportunity and freedom that enticed their forefathers to risk life and limb to come to this land.
That flag is being carried into battle, not over the forces of so-called virtue and freedom, but above the heads of the invading army.
It is being flown above prisons where “enemy combatants” are tortured, held without trial, and denied basic human rights. And it is being touted as a justification for countless acts of evil.
That country has forgotten something.
That flag was not beautiful because of some sort of self-evident virtue of its design. The reverence paid to it wasn’t woven of cloth, but of an uncompromising commitment to good. It is, or was, beautiful because it represented certain unwavering ideals and because those who raised it practiced those ideals. But that has been lost.
Today, it is affixed to things which run contrary to the ideas for which it once stood. It is no longer a symbol, but an ever-cheaper commodity. It is a lapel pin. It is an accessory for a car. It is a colorful backdrop for a cable news broadcast.
It is being held up by men who do not commit themselves to the things for which it once stood, but who are of the opinion that the flag is in-and-of-itself important.
But a flag never does the things for which a nation’s people are proud, and by which other nations, for better or worse, judge them: A flag does not spread democracy or freedom; It does not help those in need; It does not convene a legislative body and make laws.
In other words, a flag is not something to defend. But its principles, or rather those that it stand for, are.
The principles of the American flag can be found in such things as liberty, equality, fraternity, and peace. They are found in the mindset that there are rights which belong to all men by virtue of their humanity, and which cannot be stolen in the name of safety.
Those who raise the flag in justification of torture, encroachment upon privacy, and the destruction of freedom in the name of defense betray the meaning that lies hidden behind the stars and stripes, and for which this country exists to protect.
They do not deserve to wave that flag.
Immigration Policy Circa 1883 or Something's Terribly Wrong These Days
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Out of Balance
The United States census of 1790, taken 3 years after the ratification of the constitution, revealed that there were just under 4 million people living in the entire country.
Today, the population of Massachusetts alone is estimated at about six and a half million. The entire population of New York State at the time is one twenty-third that of modern-day New York City alone. The country’s population as a whole has surpassed 300 million strong; a nearly 100 fold increase.
Yet we have continued to operate with a scheme of representation that allocates only two Senators per state.
And though our representation in the House of Representatives is allocated proportionally, the numbers of constituents per representative ranges from around 500,000 to nearly a million: in 1790 with this type of representation would have meant only 4-8 members of the house representing the views of the entire nation.
No wonder politicians these days seem so out of touch with their constituency.
How can we expect a diverse range of interests to be adequately represented when populations of districts are huge enough, in many cases, to be countries unto themselves? How can we expect a senator representing millions of voters to resonate with and understand the concerns of their constituency? How can a person make their voice heard over the competition of countless others?
So although public participation in the process has come to be thought of as a most vital facet of our government, we have continually seen the value of the individual’s contribution diminished. More and more we struggle to see the value in voting, voicing our opinions, or even thinking about politics: there’s just nothing that can be done by that individual voter.
As a result, more and more our representatives seem unconnected with the sentiments of America. When Larry Craig was caught soliciting sex in a bathroom, it was his fellow Senators, more than the constituency whose interests he represents, that were seen calling for his resignation.
Nobody stopped to ask whether it was appropriate for members of congress living far beyond the borders of a representative’s state to so-demand his removal. Should this not be the province of voters? Or have we resigned ourselves to the reality that the voting base of the country is increasingly irrelevant?
It seems so.
The approval rating for congress is around 11 percent and the president’s has hit a historical low of 24 percent, yet very little is being done to change the way of things.
The voices of reform that “we the people” seem to need are relegated to the fringes, and the idea of sweeping, reformist legislation taking effect is nothing more than a pipe dream.
Without better representation we cannot have a functional democracy.
Where’s our new deal?
Today, the population of Massachusetts alone is estimated at about six and a half million. The entire population of New York State at the time is one twenty-third that of modern-day New York City alone. The country’s population as a whole has surpassed 300 million strong; a nearly 100 fold increase.
Yet we have continued to operate with a scheme of representation that allocates only two Senators per state.
And though our representation in the House of Representatives is allocated proportionally, the numbers of constituents per representative ranges from around 500,000 to nearly a million: in 1790 with this type of representation would have meant only 4-8 members of the house representing the views of the entire nation.
No wonder politicians these days seem so out of touch with their constituency.
How can we expect a diverse range of interests to be adequately represented when populations of districts are huge enough, in many cases, to be countries unto themselves? How can we expect a senator representing millions of voters to resonate with and understand the concerns of their constituency? How can a person make their voice heard over the competition of countless others?
So although public participation in the process has come to be thought of as a most vital facet of our government, we have continually seen the value of the individual’s contribution diminished. More and more we struggle to see the value in voting, voicing our opinions, or even thinking about politics: there’s just nothing that can be done by that individual voter.
As a result, more and more our representatives seem unconnected with the sentiments of America. When Larry Craig was caught soliciting sex in a bathroom, it was his fellow Senators, more than the constituency whose interests he represents, that were seen calling for his resignation.
Nobody stopped to ask whether it was appropriate for members of congress living far beyond the borders of a representative’s state to so-demand his removal. Should this not be the province of voters? Or have we resigned ourselves to the reality that the voting base of the country is increasingly irrelevant?
It seems so.
The approval rating for congress is around 11 percent and the president’s has hit a historical low of 24 percent, yet very little is being done to change the way of things.
The voices of reform that “we the people” seem to need are relegated to the fringes, and the idea of sweeping, reformist legislation taking effect is nothing more than a pipe dream.
Without better representation we cannot have a functional democracy.
Where’s our new deal?
Friday, October 19, 2007
How to Be a Radical
If TV has taught me anything (and it has), it's that moderate or balanced political and social beliefs are SO last century. Anybody of any worth, a criteria to be judged by whether or not one has their own show, knows that in order to be intelligent and worth listening to, you must choose a side of the political spectrum and stick with it, no matter what the outcome. So here are a few simple, easy-to-use steps to becoming a radical.
First, choose a party. This part is easy; you're either a Republican or a Democrat. All you need to know about Republicans is that they are God-fearing, gay-fearing, pro-war Southerners, and all Democrats are godless, latte-loving, hippie northerners. If you're having trouble choosing, or just want to have a little fun, try flipping a coin.
Remember, it doesn't really matter which side you choose, so long as you always loudly and angrily defend your party while defiantly rejecting the platforms of the other.
Second, find someone on TV who agrees with your party, and do every single thing they say. TV is great. It's filled with smart people, with smart ideas, telling you how to be smart yourself. You can even find whole smart networks of people who think just like you!
Try Fox News or CNN to start with, but don't feel like you have to keep watching if there's something boring on - like yet another speech, by yet another guy, in yet another suit.
I find that MTV, E!, and even the Game Show Network can all be just as entertaining and informative as cable news networks, and channel surfing is fun!
Third, never mix and match. You wouldn't throw your dark laundry in with your whites, would you? Neither should you mix political views. There are no shades of grey allowed in politics.
Like guns? Then you should be arguing for your constitutional guarantee to carry around that rocket-launcher you cobbled together in your basement, or better yet, bring it into hospitals and amusement parks!
Just like old Dubya said, "You're either with us or against us."
Finally, always remember that there is only one side to every issue: your side. Everybody who thinks differently than you (it could be 90 percent of the population) is wrong and foolish; so wrong in fact, that you don't even need to consider their arguments. So don't.
I find my best arguing strategy consists simply in yelling my opinions at the top of my lungs. Not only does that get my point across really well, but it tends to drown out my opponent to boot!
Keep these few simple steps in mind, and you too can become the edgy, status-quo bucking radical that you've always aspired to be. It's what all the cool kids are doing, right?
First, choose a party. This part is easy; you're either a Republican or a Democrat. All you need to know about Republicans is that they are God-fearing, gay-fearing, pro-war Southerners, and all Democrats are godless, latte-loving, hippie northerners. If you're having trouble choosing, or just want to have a little fun, try flipping a coin.
Remember, it doesn't really matter which side you choose, so long as you always loudly and angrily defend your party while defiantly rejecting the platforms of the other.
Second, find someone on TV who agrees with your party, and do every single thing they say. TV is great. It's filled with smart people, with smart ideas, telling you how to be smart yourself. You can even find whole smart networks of people who think just like you!
Try Fox News or CNN to start with, but don't feel like you have to keep watching if there's something boring on - like yet another speech, by yet another guy, in yet another suit.
I find that MTV, E!, and even the Game Show Network can all be just as entertaining and informative as cable news networks, and channel surfing is fun!
Third, never mix and match. You wouldn't throw your dark laundry in with your whites, would you? Neither should you mix political views. There are no shades of grey allowed in politics.
Like guns? Then you should be arguing for your constitutional guarantee to carry around that rocket-launcher you cobbled together in your basement, or better yet, bring it into hospitals and amusement parks!
Just like old Dubya said, "You're either with us or against us."
Finally, always remember that there is only one side to every issue: your side. Everybody who thinks differently than you (it could be 90 percent of the population) is wrong and foolish; so wrong in fact, that you don't even need to consider their arguments. So don't.
I find my best arguing strategy consists simply in yelling my opinions at the top of my lungs. Not only does that get my point across really well, but it tends to drown out my opponent to boot!
Keep these few simple steps in mind, and you too can become the edgy, status-quo bucking radical that you've always aspired to be. It's what all the cool kids are doing, right?
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Monday, October 15, 2007
Devout Atheism
I find belief in God exceedingly difficult to accept.
To me, there is nothing characteristically different in faith in a greater power more than any other superstition. They are equally untestable, unreasonable, and downright unscientific.
We humans are greater, more impressive beings than any other on the planet solely because we have inherited the unparalleled ability to reason.
It is the unequaled capacity of our minds that has given us the ability to travel to the moon, split the atom and begin unraveling the secrets of our origin. Without it, you wouldn’t be able to read this article.
But when we choose to believe in something like a god, we throw that reason away; in a sense, compromising our humanity.
Our species should be above this.
Our focus should lie not in appeasing some imagined being in the sky, or attaining bliss after our bodies have perished, but in using our reason to create a more balanced, harmonious world here on Earth.
Some theists contend that, without religion, without a fear of the afterlife, we cannot do this, we cannot be moral beings. Without faith we would all be running around naked raping and killing one another at will.
Yet, in practice, the opposite seems to be true. I need not point out the countless numbers that have suffered, and continue to suffer, on behalf of organized religions of all sort.
But can you name a crusade or oppressive regime inspired by atheism?
This is not to say that all, or even most, religions will necessarily inspire acts of violence, but that people should not feel that they need it to do acts of good.
If we dispel this notion, we throw away countless justifications for evils like ideologically driven killings, oppression of homosexuals and other minorities and the condemnation of other beliefs which could not exist without faith in the supernatural.
If we cease needing religious belief to compel us to do good things we can find humanity more meaningfully united in peace and reason, and will find ourselves reliant not on the weaknesses of our spirit and superstition, but on the strength of our greatest intellect.
The human condition would be better suited by our taking support and comfort in each other, rather than in the dreamed-up love of dreamed-up gods.
To me, there is nothing characteristically different in faith in a greater power more than any other superstition. They are equally untestable, unreasonable, and downright unscientific.
We humans are greater, more impressive beings than any other on the planet solely because we have inherited the unparalleled ability to reason.
It is the unequaled capacity of our minds that has given us the ability to travel to the moon, split the atom and begin unraveling the secrets of our origin. Without it, you wouldn’t be able to read this article.
But when we choose to believe in something like a god, we throw that reason away; in a sense, compromising our humanity.
Our species should be above this.
Our focus should lie not in appeasing some imagined being in the sky, or attaining bliss after our bodies have perished, but in using our reason to create a more balanced, harmonious world here on Earth.
Some theists contend that, without religion, without a fear of the afterlife, we cannot do this, we cannot be moral beings. Without faith we would all be running around naked raping and killing one another at will.
Yet, in practice, the opposite seems to be true. I need not point out the countless numbers that have suffered, and continue to suffer, on behalf of organized religions of all sort.
But can you name a crusade or oppressive regime inspired by atheism?
This is not to say that all, or even most, religions will necessarily inspire acts of violence, but that people should not feel that they need it to do acts of good.
If we dispel this notion, we throw away countless justifications for evils like ideologically driven killings, oppression of homosexuals and other minorities and the condemnation of other beliefs which could not exist without faith in the supernatural.
If we cease needing religious belief to compel us to do good things we can find humanity more meaningfully united in peace and reason, and will find ourselves reliant not on the weaknesses of our spirit and superstition, but on the strength of our greatest intellect.
The human condition would be better suited by our taking support and comfort in each other, rather than in the dreamed-up love of dreamed-up gods.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
