Quote of the Month:April

[Fox News'] goal is to cast doubt on all other sources of information, making one’s followers wholly dependent on you by isolating them from — and punishing them for — any contact with any other voices, relationships or arbiters.

Fox does this by systematically slandering every respected and reliable source of information, truth and fact. This is a necessary part of their project. You can’t present a convincing alternative to reality for people who have access to other, more credible arbiters of reality. So Fox attacks all such arbiters of reality: journalists, the media, NASA, the CBO, the CDC, the NIH, think tanks, foundations, academia, universities, science as a whole, logic, reason, conscience, sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch.

The tactic is identical to that practiced for centuries by abusive husbands. Isolate to create enforced dependence and control.

Fred, author of the blog Slacktivist; http://www.patheos.com/community/slacktivist/2011/04/01/some-reach-out-some-lash-out/

What I can’t seem to convince my family is how dangerous Fox really is. Don’t get me wrong, they’re not complete fans of the channel, but they like to ignore the violations of journalistic integrity Fox is guilty of day in, day out. I recognize the value of so-called “conservative” ideals; fiscal responsibility, caution in adopting unproven ideas, and certain life issues all make sense. At the same time, I look at the modern conservative movements, and I shake my head that people so devoted to “Christian” lifestyles, almost do everything they can to ensure that the rich are pushed farther and farther above the crowd, while the poor and the vox populi continues to be quashed.

Unfortunately, my family and those who follow Fox with fanaticism keep bringing up that while Fox may have some journalistic integrity issues, they’re just as bad as MSNBC. I’d be inclined to agree with that, if it wasn’t for the fact that MSNBC doesn’t champion fighting against higher education. Any politician or public figure who is highly educated is put under suspicion for being “elitist” and therefore is not really one of the truly good people.

Sarah Palin reflects this quite well, when she told a group of Tea Partiers while referring to the President, “We need a Commander-in-Chief, not a Professor of Law”

Fox does provide information, but all of that should be viewed within the prism of the evangelical xenophobic subculture. I don’t know how to yet reach my friends and family who are addicted to the disingenuous nature of Fox News.

Quote of the Month

Mika,

you need to buck up! Now I know you think that this story has no purpose other than keeping Sarah Palin’s name in the headlines for another news cycle. I know you think that she has nothing to offer the national dialogue, and that her speeches are just coded talking points mixed in with words picked up at random from a thesaurus. I know you think Sarah Palin is at best a self-promoting ignoramus, and at worst, a shameless media troll who’ll abuse any platform to deliver dog-whistle encouragement to a far right base that may include possible insurrectionists. I know you think that her reality show was pathetically unstatesmanlike, and at the same time, i know you believe it also represents the pinnacle of her potential. That her transparent desperation to be a celebrity so completely eclipsed her interest in public service so long ago, that there would be more journalistic integrity in reporting on one of the lesser Kardashian’s ass implants. Now I know, I know when you arrive at the office each day you say a silent prayer that maybe, just maybe, Sarah Palin will at long last shut up for ten fucking minutes. I know, I can see it in your eyes.

-Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report

The Colbert Report	Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Mika Brzezinski Experiences Palin Fatigue
www.colbertnation.com
http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:371413
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog Video Archive

Numb.

That’s the best word I can describe my feelings after a US House of Representatives member gets shot and several innocent bystanders die by the same gunman.

I don’t know the man’s rationale, or even if he had one, but when I see the cyclonic propaganda machines that is cable news already up and running, telling their publics that of course, real Americans like them would never do anything like this, despite the hours upon hours upon hours of violence-inspiring rhetoric that is broadcasted every day of the year, for every hour.

I don’t know what to feel.

I feel grief for the families.

I feel anger against those whose negligence or direct action caused this.

I feel like walking up to those with smug looks on their faces, those who accept partisan politics of their chosen party without question or hesitation, and shaking them, asking them “Is this the world you want?”

And then I go numb.

For now kids, here’s a piece of classical music that somehow invokes my sense of outrage and justice more than I can put into words right now.

Charity and Renown, v.1

Yes, I’m sorry I forgot about this.

Mostly, I started this blog as a place to put my thoughts anonymously without connecting my facebook or other public personas to it. But I said to myself, “Self, maybe you should put your thoughts on your facebook profile. What do you have to hide?”

Well, given how politicized modern employers are, I’d say enough.

So, here we go again.

—-

Now, I probably haven’t said it here before, but I’m no fan of Glenn Beck. There are various reasons for this, but mostly it’s not his corporate-lap dog politics, it’s not his insufferable mannerisms and ego;

It’s his theology.

Now, let me start and say, I’m not knocking Mormonism. I am the first person to say if someone wants to believe in a galactic space overlord named Xenu who brainwashed alien souls to cause all human misery on the planet today, then have fun with that, homeslice. As long as their theology does not go against basic human compassion, put innocent lives at risk, or demand that the entire world covert or die, I’m pretty much cool with it.

But to call oneself Christian is to declare that you are willing to believe a very specific set of beliefs, and moral codes to live by. The entirety of Christian law is summed up in two short rules: Love God, and Love Thy Neighbor. Nothing else matters – our duty to look after the poor and downtrod is only secondary to our love for God. And what baffles me today is how that most simplistic of message, simplistic of an ethos, simplistic of a worldview has been twisted by those with a microphone to somehow justify their own greed.

Human avarice is something that we all struggle with. How much do we really need to live comfortable lives and fulfill our duties as Christians? Depends on who you ask. But while there may be no inherent sin in being wealthy, it’s what you do with those resources that define you as a Christian or not.

In Beck’s television show earlier today, he reminisced with the audience that while on the Christmas vacation, he and his wife made a commitment to donate more to charity. He made a commitment to “invest in people. Not having pity on someone less fortunate and giving them a couple of bucks. That doesn’t change anything! How does that person turn around and make a difference. My wife and I are going to invest in people!”

Okay, I’ll admit that merely the dispersal of wealth is not a perfect system for aiding the poor. Merely giving someone money on the street is no guarantee that money will be spent wisely, or for the best things that person needs at the moment. People may need job training, new clothes, or other items in order to help them out of the abyss of poverty.

Beck goes on to crow, wishing that someone would print a T-shirt that says to those liberals, “I’ve upped my charity, now up yours,” and then he revealed that he has such a t-shirt for sale on his website.

And every good intention and actual good work that would have come that effort that Beck was about to make just went out the window. Getting people behind an admirable slogan is certainly not a bad thing via T-shirts. When it comes to charity and helping the poor, telling people to donate more time, effort or financial resources is a good thing. All of it is undone when you turn right around and encourage them to buy a T-shirt that not only celebrates on how much of a better person they now are, but effectively gives a giant middle finger to everyone else who isn’t a good as a person as they are.

All while padding Beck’s pockets with profits made from the T-shirt.

I could forgive all of this if the proceeds went to charity. But a search of Beck’s website reveals a deafening silence on where those profits are going to go to, and since Beck is very much a for-profit kind of guy, the only assumption I can make is that he and his company are getting the profits.

I am also suddenly reminded of a certain Matthew 6:3 as well; “But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing”

Christianity, as with many other religions, preaches humility when doing charity. It’s not enough to do charity work for the praise of others; we should be wholeheartedly rejecting that praise. Instead, we should let the acts stand for what they are, and be more concerned about helping people then the renown that comes with them.

But that would mean Beck is a humble man, and humble men do not have Cable punditry shows.

Sources:

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201101040031

http://glennbeck.shop.musictoday.com/Product.aspx?cp=29940&pc=BXCT045

Captain America and the US Psyche

Wow…almost forgot I had this. To all the new people coming from Slacktivist, welcome.

—–

I noticed something regarding the United States citizens’ psyche, and it’s not a new phenomenon; other cultures and ancient cultures have done this as well.

I think there’s almost a psychological need for the people of this country to want to be heroes. Be it through just simple comic-book daydreams, (to which I am fully guilty of), military prowess, or even political upheaval, there’s something ingrained in our common psyche that demands heroism.

Unfortunately, this is not always explored constructively.

Be it through innocent misunderstandings or malicious action, the US collective psyche needs a villain. Examples include Nazis in World War II, the Russians during the Cold War, or Islamic Terrorists in the modern day, I honestly think that we as a country are always looking for an external threat to respond to. Now, some of these threats are very legitimate, (no one will argue that the Axis powers weren’t dangerous,) but I would venture to say that most in the modern day are blown out of proportion.

When we can’t find external threats to turn into villains, we turn inwards. This is evidenced at one time or another, various groups of people untied by a demographic feature become the all-out villain to fight against.

Examples of this include the anti-Catholic riots of the 1840s; the racial hatred leading up to and past the Civil Rights movement, and dare I say it, the Manifest Destiny mindset that allowed abuses of the Native Americans for generations.

In more modern terms, looking inward has been spurred into a frenzy by the media pundits, who’s sole function seems to be the advocation of a complete “us or them” mentality. To borrow from John Stewart of The Daily Show, people like Glenn Beck have irresponsibly turned legitimate concerns about the Obama administration into an impending apocalypse.

Now, I will be fair here, Keith Olberman seems to be just as equally guilty on the other side of his own dangerous rhetoric. However, within the last several years, the conservatives have become much more vitriolic.

The obvious result of all of this is the recent Tea Party movement. The Tea Party sees itself as the “true” United States, and any one who disagrees in the slightest is a treasonous fool. They have become the “hero” in their own minds, fighting against the “villain” of anyone who is not them. Whether their enemies are actual socialists, or merely people who happen to take a lesser stance on the so-called values that the Tea Party says that they extol is irrelevant. They are the villain, and must be stopped, no matter what.

Before I get any farther let me say the obvious disclaimer. No, not all of the Tea Partiers are the type who throw bricks through windows, spit on Congressmen, hurl racial or homophobic slurs, or mail unidentified white powders to the offices of elected officials. There is probably a bloc of the Tea Partiers who are far saner than that. But like the GOP politicians they often support, I have yet to hear widespread condemnation of these acts, and instead mere excuses from those who would also identity with the group.

My point is, that these people are so desperate for a villain, rather than engage in a civil version of the political process, they’ve resorted to the absolute worst versions of behavior they can employ, all in their pursuit of being the hero. I have no doubt that some, if not most, of these people honestly think that what they’re doing is the right thing to save the country.

But as long as they continue to wave “Don’t tread on me” and treat their more left-leaning brethren as inhuman dogs, I doubt that any of their arguments will sway their more common sense neighbors.

What concerns me is that as long as media pundits continue to push groups like this farther and farther away from sanity and compromise, and more and more towards exclusivity, eventually said groups will hit critical mass and we will see bloodshed. I just hope that the usually silent voice of the Moderate Majority can keep that from happening.

Anger for Anger’s sake.

For some time now, I’ve been plagued by a number of e-mail chain letters coming from a social group I’ve flirted with in the past. The sole person e-mailing me has been passing urban legends, among other things, from what could be called a “religious right” point of view.

This has ranged over anger at modified statues, panicked rhetoric that claims we are on the road to communism, to so-called news stories that the “liberal mainstream media” won’t print, to even actual belief in the “birther” movement.

The latest one is a desperate attmept to invoke the “Christian” nation element, because he and those who have passed the e-mail along are angry at the United States postal service. Apparently, the USPS has invooked their anger for having the audacity to produce a stamp with Islamic symbols to celebrate the holiday Eid ul-Fitr or Eid al-Adha.

I really don’t see a problem.

The same class of stamps also includes religious imagery ranging from menorahs, to Kwanza, to the Madonna and Child, to a generic Happy Holidays. What’s the harm of making a Muslim holiday stamp?

The chain letter goes on to point out all of the Muslim based terrorist attacks and thus they are EVILLL. Never mind the whole problem of homegrown terrorists like, oh, I-don’t-know, Timothy McVeigh?

Terrorism knows no creed. It knows no nationality. It can happen in any civilized or lack thereof society. People go crazy, it happens.

The Gold Standard

One of the things I find beautifully ironic, is that the over obsesses type of patriot who only wear red, white and blue, or love to shout that the United States is the best country in the world, etc, etc, are often the first ones who rally against upholding that those standards when it becomes inconvenient.

Let me explain.

(For the record, I try and avoid using the moniker “America” any more, because that really shows arrogance against the rest of the North and South American nations.)

There has been much brouhaha over the current administration’s attempt to bring suspected 9/11 masterminds from Gitmo and try them in American civilian courts. The arguments against bringing them include an irrational fear that it’ll make wherever they try the accused a target for a terrorist attack and/or jailbreak.

Need I remind the people of the United States that this is the same jail system that held the likes of Charles Manson, Timothy McVeigh and other types like them for a number of years without incident?

The other main argument consists of an outright statement that these people do not deserve the same provided rights that United States citizens enjoy under the court system.

Bullshit. They do, regardless of any crime they may have or have not committed..

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) has been in play for over sixty years, ladies and gentlemen. More than a half-century.

Article Seven of the UDHR states,“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.”

In short, regardless of citizenship, birthplace, or any other demographic feature; each and every human being is equal under the law. So holding prisoners in Gitmo without any recourse to a writ of Habeas Corpus, much less any of the other standard legal procedures is a violation of basic human rights.

Whether the naysayers like it or not, those men down at Gitmo have just as much human dignity as any United States Citizen, and deserve to be treated far better than the U.S. Government has treated them.

So I really don’t understand this “Enemy Combatant” shit. They’re human beings, and that’s all that should matter, and our government holding them is a further violation of the UDHR.

Article Eleven states “Everyone charged with a penal offense has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilt according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense.”

Instead, the United States government has been content, until Obama took office, to instead deny these men any sort of public trial, and who knows how much legal aid they really give them for their defense. Because when you’re in front of a military tribunal, innocent until proven guilty does not apply. It’s the reverse.

So I challenge those who are campaigning to keep Gitmo open as it is, and hold these men indefinitely, without any of the expected recourses of law; tell me again, if we’re supposed to be this beacon of hope and human rights to the rest of the world, how can we treat other people this way?

Doesn’t sound very much like the United States we should be.

Theology Musings: “Liberal” vs. “Conservative”

You know, there’s a lot of baggage with the terms of “Conservative” and “Liberal.”
Ultimately, they are political terms, but they some how fall out on the rest of society as well, and this includes the realm of theology.

I’ve heard some interesting things from both within the academic sphere as well as outside of it with regards to the concepts of “Liberal” and “Conservative” theology. I’ve also been asked where I fall on this Liberal-Moderate-Conservative scale. Within the last year or so, I’ve been telling people “Moderate.”

I hate to say it, but I’m just dodging the question whenever some asks me that; I really don’t think these ultimately political terms should apply to the theological realm, and contrary to most theological topics, I’d rather not get dragged into a discussion or a debate on it. I’ve also heard some people feel the same way, but they would rather see the identifiers Orthodox or Heretical be applied. Likewise with very loaded term “Progressive.”

I’m not really sure what identifiers should be applied to the theological realm, if at all. I’d rather see individual theologies be judged on their own merits than have such blanket terms applied.

But that’s not why I really started this essay.
Why I started it was a heated conversation I had with a member of my old parish, while discussing the value of Catholic colleges. This person saw value in what she called Conservative colleges, but the second I brought up the good academic reputation of Jesuit run colleges (like both my College and High School), the first words out of this person’s mouth was “No, they’re too Liberal!” And they said Liberal like a derogatory slur; the kind of slur that everybody knows but people do not say in polite public conversation.

I was incensed, almost immediately. I could not THINK straight; this person had just suggested that the Theological studies I had devoted my college career to; the studies that had opened up my mind a hundred times over from the start of college to something more, to an intellectual assent to faith, dismissed as nothing more than the ramblings of madmen.

Had my mother not been listening to the conversation and physically blocked my path, I probably would have taken off the polite gloves and asked this person what their theological credentials were, And when they couldn’t provide a college level education in theology, I probably would have dismissed their knowledge as nothing to their face, just as cruelly as they had done mine.

But, as the saying goes, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Doing so would have ruined any credibility I had left in the conversation, and lessened the person’s opinion of not only myself, but the school I was attending and Jesuit schools in general.

Truth be told, if we’re going to use Liberal and Conservative to describe theology, both types are needed. Conservative theology gives us an understanding of where we are coming from, and an understanding of the theology and theologians past. However, practicing conservative theology alone leads to stagnation; and as new problems and concerns develop in the world, will keep us from developing a human approach to said problems and concerns. (Galileo, anyone?)
Liberal theology alone is likewise dangerous; it can spin out of control and lead us to shaky theology ground that has little backing in trusted and established norms and methods. (Catholics for a Free Choice, for example, a group that is not based in Catholic teachings)

However, without Liberal theology, people would still be using Christianity to justify slavery, and not to mention denying women any sort of power, and input in the theological process. It was Liberal Theology (Deism, practiced by most of the Founding Fathers in the 1700s) that proposed the radical idea that all people, regardless of belief or status in society have equal consideration under the law, and equal rights.

The Puritans of New England in this era didn’t like this ideal, thinking that only members of their society, and those who had encountered Christ (but with unclear standards of what that meant) deserved any civil and sometimes even human rights. And because they could not accept the terms of the fledgling United States, they either changed their view or died out.

The Folly of Limbaugh

[Reprinted from my Facebook account]

Earlier this week you may have noticed that I responded to Rush Limbaugh’s comments regarding the Haitian disaster.
My only regret about my statement is that in my emotional state, I wished for Rush Limbaugh’s death. I realize wishing for that blowhard to keel over is technically wrong by Catholic moral teaching; no matter how much he may deserve it.

Personally I would prefer if Rush Limbaugh lost his career, but even then I doubt that would happen.

In the days since his controversial comments, Limbaugh has since posted both him stating that he never discouraged donations and, if I’ve read his website correctly, he had a caller the other day who was filled with the same basic righteous anger I was at his asinine statements, how Limbaugh subsequently mocked not only in their argument, but also calling them a “blockhead” as well.

Classy. Nothing like a little Ad Homenim attacks to show what kind of a character Limbaugh can be, while he engages in revisionist history.

My issue with Limbaugh is that regardless of his intended statements or any sort of context, the fact of the matter is, his sort of commentator invokes a very distributing subset of audience. This sort of audience more or less holds Rush Limbaugh at his every word, suspending their common sense and intellect to accept whatever position he puts out almost without question.

As a result, I have no doubt that there are people out there who have no intention of donating to the relief effort, purely because Mr. Limbaugh said so, even if Limbaugh was attacking the Obama Administration. How big this group is is hard to say, but if we’re really talking about people who take Limbaugh at this every word, I’m betting it’s the type of “Sovereign Citizen” that the Southern Poverty Law Center has been tracking the last several years or so.

I digress. My point is that because of Limbaugh’s irresponsibility, there will be some quotient of aid funding that does not come for the Haitian people; and that is why the man has no compassion.

“The right to bear arms”

My own feelings about gun ownership vary, but that’s not my point today.

Goldman Sachs, one of the richest and in my mind, the most despicable, of the mega-banks in our economy these days has recently taken to arming their executives with handguns. When questioned about it, they did not return calls.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=ahD2WoDAL9h0

I find it interesting that a financial firm which is at least partially responsible for the current financial crisis might actually be afraid of the angry masses of this country. It would take quite a bit of pushing to cause the proletariat to rise up against them, but Sachs is preparing for that possiblity. I wouldn’t say eventuallity, but even if the people of this country were that angry, I suspsect that Sachs would spend a fair amount of money to either go on a massive P.R. Campagin to  stop it, or resort to tactics using their infulences to threaten the employment of those who made up the mob. At the very least, they would hire a veritable army of private security or cry foul to the government for protection, in the hopes that the U.S. Army would guard them.

But the chances of a violent rise-up is slim, at best.