Like some sort of mysterious, occulted creature, there were signs and reports of a strange beast in the race for the White House. From far flung corners of the country came snippets of evidence. Eye-witness accounts. Critics dismissed the claims, of course, as critics often do, so discussion of this strange treasure of cryptozoology remained confined to a muted conversation along the fringes of the electorate.
Until today.
Like some incarnation of Teddy Roosevelt - the Great Hunter come again - Geraldine Ferraro has bagged the beast and officially dragged her trophy into the light of day. Scientists have gathered and given it a name.
Sexism.
Ms. Ferraro’s sad odyssey began after she was quoted as chalking up Obama’s success to his sex and his race. If he were white or a woman, she claimed, he would not have gotten as far as he had. Understandably, this caused a strong backlash against Ms. Ferraro, who was forced to step down from her role in the Clinton campaign.
To Ms. Ferraro’s credit, being thrown to the wolves did not dampen her zeal. On the contrary, she took advantage of her new found freedom to really speak her mind. In effect, the disconnection from the campaign loosened her tongue so that the point that she had couched in nuance and political innuendo she was now able to make with a directness and a sarcasm afforded only those politicians who are on the back end of their elected life.
In an editorial to the Boston Globe, Ms. Ferraro justifies her original comments and solidifies her role as the victim. More, she solidifies Clinton’s role as the victim, this time of sexism.
Couching her attack in the launch pad of “tens of thousands of women” who have watched how Clinton was treated and are not happy, Ms. Ferraro begins with a simple assumption: that all of these women are unhappy and perceive a thing to be so, it must have been there. It must have been important; it must have made a difference. That she never even attempts to justify this assumption likely owes more to her steadfast belief that it has been the background of the election than in some attempt to gloss over the assumption (by stating it as fact and moving on), but the end of either road is the same. The reader is left to wonder (1) did the sexism take place, and (2) did it affect the campaign?
Because really, for all that Ms. Ferraro now colors her position more softly - “That sexism impacted Clinton’s campaign, I have no doubt. Did she lose a close election because of sexism? I don’t know.” - the truth of her earlier statements and of this editorial is that she is claiming that very thing: it has made a difference. Obama would not be in the position he finds himself if he were a woman, she says. In other words, sexism is so prevalent that it isn’t only the knuckle-dragging pundit or inbred misogynist uncle who are spiking their conversation or analysis with sexist barbs. No, that Obama made it as far as he did speaks to a widespread culture of sexism.
Surely Some Revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at Hand
Surely this is the reason that Clinton has performed so poorly! Surely this is the cause of her struggles, this culture of sexism! She is a woman.
The insult of Ferraro’s argument is that in never questioning her basic assumption (that sexism ruined Clinton’s chances at the polls), she automatically discounts all of the other problems, mistakes, blunders, errors, and cornball decisions that marked Clinton’s “inevitable” coronation.
Was sexism at work when she made the decision to not compete hard in Iowa? Was it sexism that prevented her from having a post Super Tuesday strategy? Was it sexism that failed to have a ground game in the 11 contests immediately after Super Tuesday? Or maybe the decision to run as the incumbent in a country so desperately hungry for change?
Was sexism at work in any of the self-destructive decisions the Clinton campaign has made?
And yet, Ms. Ferraro would have us believe, it’s out there, just waiting to snatch what would have been Clinton’s thin victory away from her. It is the constant background noise, the latent undertone. It is the filter through which the rest of the campaign must be viewed.
Was there sexism? Sure. There will always be the person short on intelligence and long on wind - always a dangerous combination. But did those people impact the race? Did they rise to the Ferraro level of omnipresent white noise, or were they the tree falling in the forest with no one there to hear? Did they have the ear of the electorate, or only of those few who, for reasons of their own phallic fixations, never would have considered Clinton in the first place?
All moot questions at this point. Having painted any flaw in the Clinton campaign, any resistance to Clinton herself, and any criticism of the candidate or her campaign as all rooting in sexism, Ms. Ferraro has planted, in the mind of the country, the metaphorical suggestion of the pink elephant. You can’t help but think of it. More importantly, you cannot be a male and be against Clinton without being an integral cog in this sexist movement. Never mind that one of the consequences of equality, perhaps the toughest to accept, is that the level of competition is just as heavy, the punches just as hard, as for any opponent. Never mind that equality means that just as much is expected of you in losing as would be any of your opponents - no whining, no scape-goating. No, after Ms. Ferraro’s reckless blame-casting and blind projection, there is no question that there is a great deal of sexism in this primary campaign.
It just happens to be aimed at the other sex. You see, Ms. Ferraro has introduced it herself.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Friday, March 7, 2008
Why Michigan Should Not Hold Democratic Party Do-Overs
One Michigander’s view of the political crisis and potential fallout
Living in west Michigan, I read the national press and watch the cable news networks with a mixture of gratitude and disapprobation. They shine a national spotlight on the problems of this state and on the potential disenfranchisement of millions of Michigan voters, but they do not expect those voters to be fluent or thoughtful regarding the nuances of the problem we face. Far be it from me to claim that these champions of my political voice should listen to what I have to say before speaking on my behalf, but the situation is more complex than just giving a voice to the voiceless. There are consequences to be considered.
As Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has recently reminded the nation, there were consequences to the early state primaries. He may have been speaking directly of the punishment given our two states, the stripping of our convention delegates, but the consequences range farther than that. One can make the convincing case that the very crisis with which we are struggling, that has party leaders are meeting and holding conversations to resolve, is a consequence of the states’ decision to move their primaries ahead of the schedule they originally voted to support. The gentle beat of the butterfly’s wings in Lansing and Tallahassee has, months and miles distant, stirred up a national tempest.
There is a great deal yet to be written and said about those state leaders who moved up the dates of the state primaries and brought us to this position, but that is ultimately a question that must be left to the voters of Michigan and Florida. Eventually, those officials will have to face the ire of their constituents as expressed through the ballot. For now, we need to know where we go from here.
There are three options for dealing with the delegations from our two states.
First, the delegates chosen as a result of the early primary voting could be seated at the National Convention. This is highly unlikely, as Dean has already indicated the Rules Committee is unlikely to look favorably on delegations from states that broke the rules. He rightly points out that changing the rules would damage the integrity of the whole system.
Alternatively, there is the possibility that the delegations could appeal to the Credentials Committee, elected and formed from the delegates to the Democratic National Convention. If this committee wishes to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, Dean says, the national party would have nothing to say: such things are permitted under the rules. Now that we know that it is possible for the delegates to be seated, the question is, should they?
The answer, for many reasons, is no. Just as the rules were well known by the states, the consequences were well known by the voters. Michigan and Florida voters were well aware that their states had been stripped of all democratic delegates. One cannot judge the effect this had on voter apathy in a primary election cycle that has seen record numbers of voters turning out. How many voters, myself and many others I know included, stayed at home specifically because we knew our votes would not count? This problem is exacerbated in Michigan by the fact that Barack Obama’s name did not even appear on the ballot. How many of his supporters did not turn out because they knew they wouldn’t see his name there as an option? Those who speak of the disenfranchised voters in these two states are not seeing this side of the coin. Seating the early-primary delegates will disenfranchise untold numbers of voters--voters who chose not to vote because the process was meaningless, and voters who would have voted differently had they known the democratic primary would count for something.
Let me give you a different perspective on this by way of analogy. We’ve just finished a very historic NFL season. Imagine a football game where on a certain play the ball carrier fumbles the ball, but the referees immediately whistle the play dead. Though most players on the field stop upon hearing the whistle, it seems inevitable that a defender picks up the ball and runs it to the opposite end zone. The points from this ‘score’ don’t count, of course. The play was whistled dead, and those are the rules. Now, imagine that after the game the team who was defending on that play lost by four points (six points are awarded for a touchdown). In the post-game press conference, the losing coach contends, “Well, we did score that touchdown there on that fumble that was ruled down. We are going to lobby hard for those points to be scored. I think they should be scored, and when they are scored, everyone will see we really won the game.”
That coach would be laughed out of the press room, if not out of the league. Unfortunately, that is exactly the argument that Clinton’s camp would be making. Sure, she ‘won’ the state, in the same way that the defense ‘scored’ a touchdown on a dead play. Those are the rules, and everybody has to play by them.
The second option for dealing with the states’ delegations is to have some sort of new primary or caucus, a do-over of delegate selection that falls within the window allowed by rule. This would seem to be a middle ground option, but upon closer examination there is no way to ensure the fairness of the process. Under normal conditions in Michigan, the individual voter has a choice to make as to which primary she wishes to vote in, Republican or Democrat. We have seen large numbers of cross-over voters, independents and independent-minded Republicans voting in the Democratic primaries. Certainly, among this number, there are a few mischief makers who thought their vote better spent in shaping the outcome of their rival party’s race, but that is entirely their own choice and absolutely their right.
Things are different now. The GOP primaries have come and gone, and John McCain has clinched his party’s nomination. This completely removes the drive for Republican voters to make their voice heard in the Republican primary. It simply doesn’t matter anymore. There is no way to preclude those who previously voted in the Republican primary from voting in this primary. Even if there were, there is no way to tell in which party’s primary an individual voter would have voted had they been presented with two primaries that mattered. How many people who voted in the Republican primary would have voted in the Democratic primary (for whatever reason) had the Democratic contest been meaningful?
That brings up a problem. With the GOP race settled, the Republican party has a huge and unfair advantage. Knowing who their nominee is, they are able to tailor their vote for the democratic contender they believe more easily defeated in the national election come November. Some might argue that this is no different than any late, open primary where one party’s race is settled before the other. Republican voters are, from Junior Tuesday forward, able to vote in open primary states yet to come. However, in Michigan the Republican primary has already come and gone. Are we going to allow those people to vote twice?
More than that, these Republican transplant voters have other information valuable to them. Normally, a cross-over voter takes two risks. First, they risk that the candidate they support in their own party will win that primary even without the voter’s support. In essence, they have to decide whether the own party’s race is too competitive to spend their vote crossing party lines in some sort of strategic move. Second, they risk that their cross-over vote will not get lost among the various candidates to choose from. If there are eight or more candidates on the Democratic ballot (as there would have been at that early primary date), the individual cross-over voter takes a strong risk that their vote will wash out among all of the choices such cross-over mischief makers could choose from.
Now stop and think about what the Republican cross-over voter risks in a make-up primary in Michigan. Their nominee is already locked in, so there is no risk that the Republican primary will be affected by crossing party lines and casting their vote in the Democratic primary. Similarly, the Democratic field has been narrowed down to two choices, considerably reducing the risk that a cross-over vote will get lost in the mix. It is very easy to determine between two options which would be the candidate the Republicans would rather face, and therefore which candidate the Republican cross-overs will vote for en masse.
Hazarding another analogy drawn from the world of sports, this is very much like a boxing champion hand-picking his number one contender. He knows his own strengths and weaknesses better than anybody. If he has a weakness against left-handers, for instance, and he has a choice between a southpaw and a standard boxer, of course he is going to pick the latter.
So, if both of these first two options for dealing with the state delegations are unfair, what is left to do? The answer, the third option, is: nothing. Don’t do anything. It might seem painful, but there is no way to fairly administer a re-vote, or to accurately represent the will of the democratic voters from our state. Any decision the party makes--even taking no action--will disenfranchise some voters. But for the moment, at least, the process still has the appearance of being trustworthy.
The best the party can hope for, the only way out of the hole they have dug for themselves, is that the super-delegates (those much-derided party insiders most often pictures, rightly or wrongly, as brokering deals in smoky rooms) coalesce behind one candidate or the other. In effect, the super-delegates could relegate the entire question moot. Both candidates are within range of the nomination given enough support from the super-delegates. If you’re an Obama supporter, you argue that the supers should back the candidate leading in the pledged delegate count. If you're a Clinton supporter, you argue that the supers should back the person who won the larger states. Whatever your argument to get the super-delegates moving, getting them to move is the only way to diffuse this situation without corrupting the process any more than it already is.
Living in west Michigan, I read the national press and watch the cable news networks with a mixture of gratitude and disapprobation. They shine a national spotlight on the problems of this state and on the potential disenfranchisement of millions of Michigan voters, but they do not expect those voters to be fluent or thoughtful regarding the nuances of the problem we face. Far be it from me to claim that these champions of my political voice should listen to what I have to say before speaking on my behalf, but the situation is more complex than just giving a voice to the voiceless. There are consequences to be considered.
As Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has recently reminded the nation, there were consequences to the early state primaries. He may have been speaking directly of the punishment given our two states, the stripping of our convention delegates, but the consequences range farther than that. One can make the convincing case that the very crisis with which we are struggling, that has party leaders are meeting and holding conversations to resolve, is a consequence of the states’ decision to move their primaries ahead of the schedule they originally voted to support. The gentle beat of the butterfly’s wings in Lansing and Tallahassee has, months and miles distant, stirred up a national tempest.
There is a great deal yet to be written and said about those state leaders who moved up the dates of the state primaries and brought us to this position, but that is ultimately a question that must be left to the voters of Michigan and Florida. Eventually, those officials will have to face the ire of their constituents as expressed through the ballot. For now, we need to know where we go from here.
There are three options for dealing with the delegations from our two states.
First, the delegates chosen as a result of the early primary voting could be seated at the National Convention. This is highly unlikely, as Dean has already indicated the Rules Committee is unlikely to look favorably on delegations from states that broke the rules. He rightly points out that changing the rules would damage the integrity of the whole system.
Alternatively, there is the possibility that the delegations could appeal to the Credentials Committee, elected and formed from the delegates to the Democratic National Convention. If this committee wishes to seat the Michigan and Florida delegates, Dean says, the national party would have nothing to say: such things are permitted under the rules. Now that we know that it is possible for the delegates to be seated, the question is, should they?
The answer, for many reasons, is no. Just as the rules were well known by the states, the consequences were well known by the voters. Michigan and Florida voters were well aware that their states had been stripped of all democratic delegates. One cannot judge the effect this had on voter apathy in a primary election cycle that has seen record numbers of voters turning out. How many voters, myself and many others I know included, stayed at home specifically because we knew our votes would not count? This problem is exacerbated in Michigan by the fact that Barack Obama’s name did not even appear on the ballot. How many of his supporters did not turn out because they knew they wouldn’t see his name there as an option? Those who speak of the disenfranchised voters in these two states are not seeing this side of the coin. Seating the early-primary delegates will disenfranchise untold numbers of voters--voters who chose not to vote because the process was meaningless, and voters who would have voted differently had they known the democratic primary would count for something.
Let me give you a different perspective on this by way of analogy. We’ve just finished a very historic NFL season. Imagine a football game where on a certain play the ball carrier fumbles the ball, but the referees immediately whistle the play dead. Though most players on the field stop upon hearing the whistle, it seems inevitable that a defender picks up the ball and runs it to the opposite end zone. The points from this ‘score’ don’t count, of course. The play was whistled dead, and those are the rules. Now, imagine that after the game the team who was defending on that play lost by four points (six points are awarded for a touchdown). In the post-game press conference, the losing coach contends, “Well, we did score that touchdown there on that fumble that was ruled down. We are going to lobby hard for those points to be scored. I think they should be scored, and when they are scored, everyone will see we really won the game.”
That coach would be laughed out of the press room, if not out of the league. Unfortunately, that is exactly the argument that Clinton’s camp would be making. Sure, she ‘won’ the state, in the same way that the defense ‘scored’ a touchdown on a dead play. Those are the rules, and everybody has to play by them.
The second option for dealing with the states’ delegations is to have some sort of new primary or caucus, a do-over of delegate selection that falls within the window allowed by rule. This would seem to be a middle ground option, but upon closer examination there is no way to ensure the fairness of the process. Under normal conditions in Michigan, the individual voter has a choice to make as to which primary she wishes to vote in, Republican or Democrat. We have seen large numbers of cross-over voters, independents and independent-minded Republicans voting in the Democratic primaries. Certainly, among this number, there are a few mischief makers who thought their vote better spent in shaping the outcome of their rival party’s race, but that is entirely their own choice and absolutely their right.
Things are different now. The GOP primaries have come and gone, and John McCain has clinched his party’s nomination. This completely removes the drive for Republican voters to make their voice heard in the Republican primary. It simply doesn’t matter anymore. There is no way to preclude those who previously voted in the Republican primary from voting in this primary. Even if there were, there is no way to tell in which party’s primary an individual voter would have voted had they been presented with two primaries that mattered. How many people who voted in the Republican primary would have voted in the Democratic primary (for whatever reason) had the Democratic contest been meaningful?
That brings up a problem. With the GOP race settled, the Republican party has a huge and unfair advantage. Knowing who their nominee is, they are able to tailor their vote for the democratic contender they believe more easily defeated in the national election come November. Some might argue that this is no different than any late, open primary where one party’s race is settled before the other. Republican voters are, from Junior Tuesday forward, able to vote in open primary states yet to come. However, in Michigan the Republican primary has already come and gone. Are we going to allow those people to vote twice?
More than that, these Republican transplant voters have other information valuable to them. Normally, a cross-over voter takes two risks. First, they risk that the candidate they support in their own party will win that primary even without the voter’s support. In essence, they have to decide whether the own party’s race is too competitive to spend their vote crossing party lines in some sort of strategic move. Second, they risk that their cross-over vote will not get lost among the various candidates to choose from. If there are eight or more candidates on the Democratic ballot (as there would have been at that early primary date), the individual cross-over voter takes a strong risk that their vote will wash out among all of the choices such cross-over mischief makers could choose from.
Now stop and think about what the Republican cross-over voter risks in a make-up primary in Michigan. Their nominee is already locked in, so there is no risk that the Republican primary will be affected by crossing party lines and casting their vote in the Democratic primary. Similarly, the Democratic field has been narrowed down to two choices, considerably reducing the risk that a cross-over vote will get lost in the mix. It is very easy to determine between two options which would be the candidate the Republicans would rather face, and therefore which candidate the Republican cross-overs will vote for en masse.
Hazarding another analogy drawn from the world of sports, this is very much like a boxing champion hand-picking his number one contender. He knows his own strengths and weaknesses better than anybody. If he has a weakness against left-handers, for instance, and he has a choice between a southpaw and a standard boxer, of course he is going to pick the latter.
So, if both of these first two options for dealing with the state delegations are unfair, what is left to do? The answer, the third option, is: nothing. Don’t do anything. It might seem painful, but there is no way to fairly administer a re-vote, or to accurately represent the will of the democratic voters from our state. Any decision the party makes--even taking no action--will disenfranchise some voters. But for the moment, at least, the process still has the appearance of being trustworthy.
The best the party can hope for, the only way out of the hole they have dug for themselves, is that the super-delegates (those much-derided party insiders most often pictures, rightly or wrongly, as brokering deals in smoky rooms) coalesce behind one candidate or the other. In effect, the super-delegates could relegate the entire question moot. Both candidates are within range of the nomination given enough support from the super-delegates. If you’re an Obama supporter, you argue that the supers should back the candidate leading in the pledged delegate count. If you're a Clinton supporter, you argue that the supers should back the person who won the larger states. Whatever your argument to get the super-delegates moving, getting them to move is the only way to diffuse this situation without corrupting the process any more than it already is.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
What is BCQ listening to lately? - March 5, 2008
This will probably be a recurring theme here: what I am listening to lately. My tastes are wide and varied, and even music that I do not like I tend to appreciate more when I hear it live.
Lately, I've been listening to a lot of Dream Theater, a group I am sure that will appear on this list again. This time, however, I am including three different groups. These groups are very different from one another in their musical stylings, and should give you an idea of the range of music that I like. Check these videos out and give the groups a chance. You may find something you like!
Riverside
I only just stumbled across this band from Poland. They are a progressive rock band that sounds like Peter Gabriel with a bit of Stabbing Westward in this song. This video, for Panic Room, has a laid back drive and a reserved melody that makes me want to listen to it again and again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMqd7zYkQaw
Symphony X
This progressive metal band is a bit heavier than most people I know would like, but I love a good driving tune with complex chord changes that resolve into full-on, powerful riffs. Give this video a chance, let it get into the chorus and second verse. Much like Dream Theater, this band displays virtuostic talent with their instruments, especially the guitarist, Michael Romeo. And their singer is one of the strongest rock vocals I have heard in some time. The guy has got to be 6'3" or 6'4"... and big. Not the sort of guy you would expect to have this sort of voice. Anyway, this video is from their album "Paradise Lost." This is "Set the World on Fire."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUn4jXZko5E
Death Cab for Cutie
I haven't gotten into these guys very much except for this one song. This song is very touching, and a definite change from the power and drive of Symphony X song above. If you aren't moved by the this song, get your pulse checked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfBw0IWwO5U
So those are my choices this time around. Three very different songs from three very different groups. Let me know what you think. Did you like them? Did you not like them? Did seeing these videos lead you to look up other music by the same groups? Do you have a suggestion for a song or band for me to take a look at for the next time? Add a comment!
Lately, I've been listening to a lot of Dream Theater, a group I am sure that will appear on this list again. This time, however, I am including three different groups. These groups are very different from one another in their musical stylings, and should give you an idea of the range of music that I like. Check these videos out and give the groups a chance. You may find something you like!
Riverside
I only just stumbled across this band from Poland. They are a progressive rock band that sounds like Peter Gabriel with a bit of Stabbing Westward in this song. This video, for Panic Room, has a laid back drive and a reserved melody that makes me want to listen to it again and again.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMqd7zYkQaw
Symphony X
This progressive metal band is a bit heavier than most people I know would like, but I love a good driving tune with complex chord changes that resolve into full-on, powerful riffs. Give this video a chance, let it get into the chorus and second verse. Much like Dream Theater, this band displays virtuostic talent with their instruments, especially the guitarist, Michael Romeo. And their singer is one of the strongest rock vocals I have heard in some time. The guy has got to be 6'3" or 6'4"... and big. Not the sort of guy you would expect to have this sort of voice. Anyway, this video is from their album "Paradise Lost." This is "Set the World on Fire."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUn4jXZko5E
Death Cab for Cutie
I haven't gotten into these guys very much except for this one song. This song is very touching, and a definite change from the power and drive of Symphony X song above. If you aren't moved by the this song, get your pulse checked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfBw0IWwO5U
So those are my choices this time around. Three very different songs from three very different groups. Let me know what you think. Did you like them? Did you not like them? Did seeing these videos lead you to look up other music by the same groups? Do you have a suggestion for a song or band for me to take a look at for the next time? Add a comment!
Sunday, February 24, 2008
A Plan for Dealing with the Westboro Baptist Church
They have been called the most hated family in America. In fact, with an inflated sense of self-martyrdom, they have described themselves that way. I am speaking of the Phelps family of the Westboro Baptist Church.
Upon reflection, that last sentence could have been written in reverse. I could just as easily be speaking of the Westboro Baptist Church of the Phelps family, as the extended family makes up most of the small population of the church.
Led by patriarch Fred Phelps, the church has become famous (and earned the most-hated handle) for preaching that "god hates fags," protesting movies and plays that focus on gay or lesbian themes, and protesting the funerals of soldiers. It is this last obsession of theirs that I want to deal with.
The church has been sued for their funeral protests. They have been arrested for stomping on the flag. They have been recently met at their various protests by members of the Patriot Guard Riders, a group of volunteer motorcycle riding military retirees who assemble wherever the Westboro Baptist Church is to protest. Standing in an unbroken line, they to try to shield, for instance, the bereaved attendees of a military funeral from the protesters. I applaud the Riders for their work, but I think there might be a more direct way to counter the church, one that they cannot help but notice.
It helps that it is also humorously ironic.
Here's how it works. The mechanic is well known... have you ever had a co-worker announce to you that they were going to go on a charity walk of some sort, and ask you to sponsor them 'x' amount for each mile? Imagine a similar system for the church's protests. Counter protesters, even the Riders, gather donations based on how long the church protesters remain on site in their protest. The money is donated to organizations the church demonizes.
GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders)
Various Veterans Associations
GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation)
AIDS Researchers
Veterans Associations
The day of the counter-protest, make sure that the church knows that they are earning money for the very people they are protesting against. The longer the church protesters stay, the more money is raised.
In the end, they can almost be thanked for their help raising the money. Almost.
Note: I cannot take credit for this idea. It was originally suggested by Hammer over at the Religion, Ethics, Spirituality & More Discussion Board. It is such a good idea, though, that I thought it needed to be shared and spread around the net.
Upon reflection, that last sentence could have been written in reverse. I could just as easily be speaking of the Westboro Baptist Church of the Phelps family, as the extended family makes up most of the small population of the church.
Led by patriarch Fred Phelps, the church has become famous (and earned the most-hated handle) for preaching that "god hates fags," protesting movies and plays that focus on gay or lesbian themes, and protesting the funerals of soldiers. It is this last obsession of theirs that I want to deal with.
The church has been sued for their funeral protests. They have been arrested for stomping on the flag. They have been recently met at their various protests by members of the Patriot Guard Riders, a group of volunteer motorcycle riding military retirees who assemble wherever the Westboro Baptist Church is to protest. Standing in an unbroken line, they to try to shield, for instance, the bereaved attendees of a military funeral from the protesters. I applaud the Riders for their work, but I think there might be a more direct way to counter the church, one that they cannot help but notice.
It helps that it is also humorously ironic.
Here's how it works. The mechanic is well known... have you ever had a co-worker announce to you that they were going to go on a charity walk of some sort, and ask you to sponsor them 'x' amount for each mile? Imagine a similar system for the church's protests. Counter protesters, even the Riders, gather donations based on how long the church protesters remain on site in their protest. The money is donated to organizations the church demonizes.
GLAD (Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders)
Various Veterans Associations
GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation)
AIDS Researchers
Veterans Associations
The day of the counter-protest, make sure that the church knows that they are earning money for the very people they are protesting against. The longer the church protesters stay, the more money is raised.
In the end, they can almost be thanked for their help raising the money. Almost.
Note: I cannot take credit for this idea. It was originally suggested by Hammer over at the Religion, Ethics, Spirituality & More Discussion Board. It is such a good idea, though, that I thought it needed to be shared and spread around the net.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
A Worthy First Post
There is some burden in beginning a blog, some sense that this is such a self-serving outlet that there must be some onerous need for me to put my words into the public view. No matter that I intend that those words will deal in the mundane as well as the massive, there is something about opening a space like this that taunts the writer will an arrogant expectation. My views, my opinions, have served me well enough, sure. But what makes me think that they are good enough for others, or that I am the person to tell others what they should think?
Only that is not the purpose of a space such as this. This space is simply a repository, a place to share my thoughts. If you think I am improperly trying to sell you a valueless product, you only have to move along to your next distraction.
There is, of course, another side to opening a blog - for me at least. There is a fundamental truth that one believes what one believes, according to the information available to them (and their presuppositions). I am sure that this will come through in my entries to this blog, but the basic point that matters now is something that I was told by my World Religions professor, Professor Wilson, years ago: no one goes to a false church to worship a false god. No one holds a false belief on purpose, or for the sake of holding a false belief... or to spite some other person or some diety. Each person believes what they believe. They may espouse a belief that they do not truly follow, some behavior that they do not truly believe, in order to get along in their lives, but the structure of description there should give away that this is a belief they do not truly believe. They are engaging in a behavior contrary to their beliefs. One thing that we can say about this person, one thing we know about their beliefs is that they believe it is better to get along in their life than to endure the consequences of either 1) following through on their beliefs or 2) spending the time to delve their beliefs to understand them and put them in perspective. They may not acknowledge it, but their actions make it clear enough.
In my opinion, most people do not take the time to parse their own beliefs. They are unwilling to take their belief structure (most likely inherited and heavily borrowed from their parents) apart and test each component. They are unwilling to think critically about their own beliefs, at least those that are faith based. They believe what they believe, but they have not challenged those beliefs. They have not examined them from some outside perspective (to the extent that such is possible).
This is an epiphany of sorts, one that is not automatic for everyone. Everyone above the mental age of 2 or 3 has an epiphany where they realize that they are separate and distinct from their parents - they come to realize that they are an individual. But not everyone goes on to have this epiphany. Not all come to realize that when viewed from the outside, your beliefs look very much how another person’s beliefs appear to you. Just as flawed. Just as incomplete. Just as artificial. The person who has had this epiphany cannot help but become more tolerant and accepting. Others become as much a potential source of knowledge, truth, or insight as one’s own beliefs. The problem is that this epiphany is also threatening. It is a scary proposition to realize that what you believe might be wrong, or at least not as demonstrably-right as you once thought it to be.
There is a fear to be faced in the not knowing, and not everyone is prepared for it. It is much easier to deny other beliefs and other truths, believing that you have the single True Source. Unfortunately, this path leads to stagnation, irrationality, and intolerance. For these people, I can only hope that they find some comfort in their beliefs, and that they would undergo the second epiphany I described above sometime in the future.
This, then, is the larger reason for beginning a blog such as this. Putting my beliefs into the public view is a strong motivator for the examination of those beliefs, testing them in my own mind and taking them to their outer limits. Putting them in a blog also allows for feedback on those beliefs. Only in answering challenges or facing alternate interpretations will my beliefs continue to grow.
So, there is much to say on these pages, and much to learn. Some of it will be ponderous, some will be playful. Some will be irreverent, and some irreducible. You can always join the discussion by offering comment on my blog entries.
Thanks for stopping by, and check back soon.
Only that is not the purpose of a space such as this. This space is simply a repository, a place to share my thoughts. If you think I am improperly trying to sell you a valueless product, you only have to move along to your next distraction.
There is, of course, another side to opening a blog - for me at least. There is a fundamental truth that one believes what one believes, according to the information available to them (and their presuppositions). I am sure that this will come through in my entries to this blog, but the basic point that matters now is something that I was told by my World Religions professor, Professor Wilson, years ago: no one goes to a false church to worship a false god. No one holds a false belief on purpose, or for the sake of holding a false belief... or to spite some other person or some diety. Each person believes what they believe. They may espouse a belief that they do not truly follow, some behavior that they do not truly believe, in order to get along in their lives, but the structure of description there should give away that this is a belief they do not truly believe. They are engaging in a behavior contrary to their beliefs. One thing that we can say about this person, one thing we know about their beliefs is that they believe it is better to get along in their life than to endure the consequences of either 1) following through on their beliefs or 2) spending the time to delve their beliefs to understand them and put them in perspective. They may not acknowledge it, but their actions make it clear enough.
In my opinion, most people do not take the time to parse their own beliefs. They are unwilling to take their belief structure (most likely inherited and heavily borrowed from their parents) apart and test each component. They are unwilling to think critically about their own beliefs, at least those that are faith based. They believe what they believe, but they have not challenged those beliefs. They have not examined them from some outside perspective (to the extent that such is possible).
This is an epiphany of sorts, one that is not automatic for everyone. Everyone above the mental age of 2 or 3 has an epiphany where they realize that they are separate and distinct from their parents - they come to realize that they are an individual. But not everyone goes on to have this epiphany. Not all come to realize that when viewed from the outside, your beliefs look very much how another person’s beliefs appear to you. Just as flawed. Just as incomplete. Just as artificial. The person who has had this epiphany cannot help but become more tolerant and accepting. Others become as much a potential source of knowledge, truth, or insight as one’s own beliefs. The problem is that this epiphany is also threatening. It is a scary proposition to realize that what you believe might be wrong, or at least not as demonstrably-right as you once thought it to be.
There is a fear to be faced in the not knowing, and not everyone is prepared for it. It is much easier to deny other beliefs and other truths, believing that you have the single True Source. Unfortunately, this path leads to stagnation, irrationality, and intolerance. For these people, I can only hope that they find some comfort in their beliefs, and that they would undergo the second epiphany I described above sometime in the future.
This, then, is the larger reason for beginning a blog such as this. Putting my beliefs into the public view is a strong motivator for the examination of those beliefs, testing them in my own mind and taking them to their outer limits. Putting them in a blog also allows for feedback on those beliefs. Only in answering challenges or facing alternate interpretations will my beliefs continue to grow.
So, there is much to say on these pages, and much to learn. Some of it will be ponderous, some will be playful. Some will be irreverent, and some irreducible. You can always join the discussion by offering comment on my blog entries.
Thanks for stopping by, and check back soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)