Sorry, everyone. I've been floored with really bad back spasms since we returned from Maryland...I'll try and get back on the blasphemy track soon...pray for my back, heh.
Monthly Archive for July, 2008Page 2 of 4
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever read:
I wonder what kind of stupid you'd need to say that. I'm guessing a pretty severe case.
I'll let Wikipedia explain the various failings of the Bush administration leading to 911. It's absolutely insane that just about no one knows about this.
"I believe 9/11 could have been prevented if we'd had a Republican president at the time," Meehan said Wednesday on CNN's "American Morning."
I wonder what kind of stupid you'd need to say that. I'm guessing a pretty severe case.
I'll let Wikipedia explain the various failings of the Bush administration leading to 911. It's absolutely insane that just about no one knows about this.
Jonah Lehrer has a cool article on the irrationality of voters. It's actually kind of scary, but definitely interesting.
I especially love the statement about how misguided the talking heads on the TV news channels are, as though we needed any more proof of that.
I especially love the statement about how misguided the talking heads on the TV news channels are, as though we needed any more proof of that.
Dave Weigel of Reason the reason that the anti-gay marriage amendment is going to fail in November. This is great news, especially the survey showing humanity up 51-42.
As my old readers know, I'm a big proponent of equality in all its forms, and cannot stand any argument saying gay marriage shouldn't exist. I'm so proud that California has become the second state in the nation to allow it, and will be devastated if the amendment passes this November. It looks like it will, but this far off nothing is certain.
Except this one truth: history is progressive. Eventually, whether it's 10, 20, or 100 years from now, people will look at gay marriage like any other civil rights issue, and they will ask, "How could those people deny them their right?" I'm proud to be on the right side of this issue, and I hope you can say the same.
As my old readers know, I'm a big proponent of equality in all its forms, and cannot stand any argument saying gay marriage shouldn't exist. I'm so proud that California has become the second state in the nation to allow it, and will be devastated if the amendment passes this November. It looks like it will, but this far off nothing is certain.
Except this one truth: history is progressive. Eventually, whether it's 10, 20, or 100 years from now, people will look at gay marriage like any other civil rights issue, and they will ask, "How could those people deny them their right?" I'm proud to be on the right side of this issue, and I hope you can say the same.
Via Zapper Z comes the news that the DOE wants to rename SLAC! The DOE wants the names of the national labs to be trademarked, but Stanford won't let them trademark anything with "Stanford" in it (which is why, I believe, SRI International stopped being an acronym for "Stanford Research Institute").
I mentioned this to my Post Doc, whose husband works at SLAC, and apparently they're having some kind of naming contest (whether real or fake is unknown to me), and NLC, short for National Light Center (or something like that), because SLAC is starting to be used primarily as a light source, is leading the pack (NLC was the name for one of the precursors of the ILC, so it's supposed to be a joke).
Anyway, this is just silly, I think. Lots of bureaucratic silliness, which I find incredibly annoying. I hope this rename doesn't happen, but if it does the new name had better be good.
I mentioned this to my Post Doc, whose husband works at SLAC, and apparently they're having some kind of naming contest (whether real or fake is unknown to me), and NLC, short for National Light Center (or something like that), because SLAC is starting to be used primarily as a light source, is leading the pack (NLC was the name for one of the precursors of the ILC, so it's supposed to be a joke).
Anyway, this is just silly, I think. Lots of bureaucratic silliness, which I find incredibly annoying. I hope this rename doesn't happen, but if it does the new name had better be good.
I'm incredibly dubious about this: People Found Who Don't Use Numbers, in part because you hear these claims made about remote tribes all the time and they usually end up being wrong, and also because I've read about Piraha before. Their language is really odd and (supposedly) simple, but unless things have changed dramatically since the papers I read, it's quite controversial. Literally one anthropologist was saying one thing and another was directly contradicting him. I think it's largely a problem of learning these languages that have no bilingual speakers, it's difficult to do. Granted, but that's not my only rationale.
Wikipedia backs up the story, but I'm still suspicious. Anthropological claims like this one are just of the type where I think they should be heavily scrutinized. For one they smack of cultural hubris, a kind of "they're so primitive" attitude. I don't actually think anyone believes that, but it's the kind of thing that's very ingrained into Western culture, and that kind of bias (like racism) is damn near impossibly to overcome at a subconscious level. Secondly, it's just so easy to get them wrong.
In Steven Pinker's The Stuff of Thought he describes a group descended from the Mayans called the Tzeltal, who live on the side of a mountain and generally refer to things as being "up the slope" or "down the slope". A linguist performed an experiment on them to see if this affected how they think (for the details see around p. 140 in the book, I don't think the details are important) and concluded that it did. In short, they "thought" in a geocentric frame, whereas most Westerners use an egocentric (axes centered on your body) or an object-centered frame (axes relative to objects near you). Anyway, another set of anthropologists (or perhaps linguists) performed a second, more careful experiment, and found that they, in fact, can use another frame of reference.
Actually, in this same chapter Pinker deals with the Piraha (they're quite famous), and thoroughly skewers the Sapir-Worf hypothesis (which is tangential to this anyway). For the full discussion see his book (I'm far too tired to transcribe it, and it's a fantastic book anyway).
But the point described in the SciAm podcast (and in the thousand articles I've seen on this today) seems to be a bit absurd to me. If these peoples don't, in the course of their daily lives, need to count anything, then why would they develop a precise language for counting?
And the claim that they "don't use numbers" is probably misleading, since there are other ways to keep track of reasonable numbers of objects. If you're a teacher on a field trip, you could either repeatedly count your kids and notice you have 23 instead of 24, or you could just notice that Billy is missing (that's how Pinker described it, keeping track of individuals one by one rather than keeping track of the number of individuals). There's no particular reason one of these systems is better than the other, until you start to deal with large numbers or complex operations. To expect an individual who doesn't (whether a Piraha or an American) to be able to just spontaneously start to do it is simply absurd, like testing the average American on calculus. They probably never learned it, they don't ever need to do it, so why on earth would we expect them to be able to?
The entire situation just strikes me as cultural elitism, like a kind of freak show, "Oh my god, how could they not have numbers!" Maybe that's not how people are actually seeing it, but that's how it seems, and I think it's absurd (that last line is SciAm just seems so incredibly condescending).
But these newspaper-level articles about indigenous peoples always infuriate me. Although, newspaper-level articles about any science do that, since they always screw it up somehow.
So I'm dubious about whether this experiment proved what they claim it did, even if it did it's hardly useful or meaningful, and I'm depressed by the coverage. All in all, a great story.
Wikipedia backs up the story, but I'm still suspicious. Anthropological claims like this one are just of the type where I think they should be heavily scrutinized. For one they smack of cultural hubris, a kind of "they're so primitive" attitude. I don't actually think anyone believes that, but it's the kind of thing that's very ingrained into Western culture, and that kind of bias (like racism) is damn near impossibly to overcome at a subconscious level. Secondly, it's just so easy to get them wrong.
In Steven Pinker's The Stuff of Thought he describes a group descended from the Mayans called the Tzeltal, who live on the side of a mountain and generally refer to things as being "up the slope" or "down the slope". A linguist performed an experiment on them to see if this affected how they think (for the details see around p. 140 in the book, I don't think the details are important) and concluded that it did. In short, they "thought" in a geocentric frame, whereas most Westerners use an egocentric (axes centered on your body) or an object-centered frame (axes relative to objects near you). Anyway, another set of anthropologists (or perhaps linguists) performed a second, more careful experiment, and found that they, in fact, can use another frame of reference.
Actually, in this same chapter Pinker deals with the Piraha (they're quite famous), and thoroughly skewers the Sapir-Worf hypothesis (which is tangential to this anyway). For the full discussion see his book (I'm far too tired to transcribe it, and it's a fantastic book anyway).
But the point described in the SciAm podcast (and in the thousand articles I've seen on this today) seems to be a bit absurd to me. If these peoples don't, in the course of their daily lives, need to count anything, then why would they develop a precise language for counting?
And the claim that they "don't use numbers" is probably misleading, since there are other ways to keep track of reasonable numbers of objects. If you're a teacher on a field trip, you could either repeatedly count your kids and notice you have 23 instead of 24, or you could just notice that Billy is missing (that's how Pinker described it, keeping track of individuals one by one rather than keeping track of the number of individuals). There's no particular reason one of these systems is better than the other, until you start to deal with large numbers or complex operations. To expect an individual who doesn't (whether a Piraha or an American) to be able to just spontaneously start to do it is simply absurd, like testing the average American on calculus. They probably never learned it, they don't ever need to do it, so why on earth would we expect them to be able to?
The entire situation just strikes me as cultural elitism, like a kind of freak show, "Oh my god, how could they not have numbers!" Maybe that's not how people are actually seeing it, but that's how it seems, and I think it's absurd (that last line is SciAm just seems so incredibly condescending).
But these newspaper-level articles about indigenous peoples always infuriate me. Although, newspaper-level articles about any science do that, since they always screw it up somehow.
So I'm dubious about whether this experiment proved what they claim it did, even if it did it's hardly useful or meaningful, and I'm depressed by the coverage. All in all, a great story.
If you happen to think Obama has shifted position on Iraq, read this. It also does a good job skewering the right's attacks on his nonexistent repositioning as yet another attempt to paint the democrat as a flip-flopper, simply because they've got nothing else. I guess it's a Rovian tactic of attacking someone's strongest point.
Alissa writes: Hey. Okay, so I recently found your website and was reading around and I really want to talk to you. I’m 13 years old and I’m in the 9th grade. I know, some may think thats really young but I know that I don’t believe in god and I think I may be [...]
I assume the road to apostasy is nearly opposite as it is for the convert who might have had abrupt, life-changing epiphanies. For the somewhat-soon-to-be unbeliever, “Ah-ha” moments leading to deconversion are more like “Ah-ha” weeks or months starting off with a queasy unease that maybe all is not as it really should be.
I had an unsettling experience 23 summers ago at Music In The Rockies. Contemporary Christian Music was just starting to spread its wings. Amy Grant was unknown outside Christian circles. Jesus Bands like Petra and the Rez band showed that Christians could rock. Phil Keaggy showed that Christians could jam with some talent, and Steve Taylor showed that one could mimic Thomas Dolby and Devo and get played on MTV while speaking out against the Christian establishment demonstrating through such rebel music a deeper, true meaning of the Gospels.
And there I was. I was into all the records. I even read Kerry Livgren’s autobiography of his conversion to Christianity (and tried to convince myself that Kansas was still a decent band without their original singer, Steve Walsh, who left because he couldn’t take the religion that was seeping into the tunes). I built a couple electric guitars and played in a couple high school bands, jamming for Jesus. I interned at the local Christian radio station, KLTT (aka “K-Light. The Light of the Rockies”). I helped out at a bit at Jerry Nelson’s recording studio, Clarion, which makes accompaniment tracks for all those Sunday karaokers. It was my goal to perform, record, and produce Christian music, so at 18, as part of all this foot-wetting, I ensconced myself in the beautiful rockies amidst some thousand or so other would be musical proselytizers for a week of seminars. (Here is my picture with Phil Keaggy and Steve Taylor taken at the seminar).
And therein lies the problem: Music and Proselytizing. Christian rock 'n roll serves one of two purposes: 1) It provides a clean rock 'n roll venue for Christians, and 2) it serves as a device for proselytizing by hooking unsuspecting heathens with a “good beat” and then preaching to them.
Regarding #1, my Christian upbringing taught me that rock 'n roll was evil from several fronts. The rhythms were from African voodoo rituals. The screeching is rebellion against good (i.e. classical) music. The lyrics implore Devil worship, sex, and drugs and the mesmerizing jamming will make you succumb. Of course, it was not enough that the lyrics should explicitly say these things, but should you listen to a record backward, then you could hear the subliminal (or as George Bush would say, “subliminable”) messages being presented. Rock 'n roll was bad shit.
(And hence the attraction. We love to flirt with fire, don’t we?)
However, let’s just write off #1 as nonsense. Regarding voodoo: There is no evidence that Bo Diddley was about doing crazy things with leftovers of chicken bones. Regarding screeching: Yes, it was rebellion against classical music. Is that evil? Regarding the lyrics: Is there any terrible theme not already covered in opera? Regarding the beat: Yes, you may want to dance, but are these dances any more seductive than other dance forms? If so, is it the music or the person gyrating a belly button to blame? Regarding drugs and the Devil: Aren’t these just marketing ploys ironically promulgated by conservative parents enabling a simple avenue for youngster rebellion? Regarding playing albums backward: I can’t even understand half of these lyrics when played forward! How is my subconscious going to get them backward?
So, for all intents and purposes, we can write off the evils of rock 'n roll. Well sorta. Should Christians enjoy such worldly pleasures?
Regarding #2, there was something quite pure about meeting these heathens on their level and speaking to them in their language. How else might they hear the Good News?
This was my naivete going into the seminar. I heard sessions on how to structure a song after such and such a secular performer. I heard how to write lyrics about love without using the pronouns “he/she/his/hers” so that the song could be interpreted at one level as between you and a spouse or at another level as being between you and God. (The "agape" love). I was told to disguise explicit declarations of belief and conviction and employ poetic, generic feelings to obtain a broader market.
And that’s my problem. I loathe marketing. If my kids want to rebel against me. They’ll become marketers.
In my week at the seminar, I did not hear anyone talk about becoming a better musician. It was not about the music at all, and that is what was so uninspiring. Music, at it’s peak, is a very personal communication with the performer and the audience.
To be sure, the secular realm is big on hype and marketing. It’s filled with lies, too. Did Johnny Cash really shoot a man just to watch him die? Puh-lease! And why were those middle-class white boys in Seattle in the early 90s so angry about the American dream? C'mon! The secular world now has American Idols and mega mania. Lots of scripted show.
The thing is/was, I expected more honesty from the Christian world. Heck, it worked for Bach! But hit that seek button on your radio and within 2 seconds of scanning a station, you can tell if you’ve landed on a Christian station, even if there is no singing. It’s in the mix. It’s in the timbre. It’s that fakeness that comes blaring through -- the dishonesty of trying to sell something so naively and pretentiously. It’s no wonder that this year two finalists of American Idol will host the competition for best Christian Idol at the Music Seminar in the Rockies.
Not that I went on to become a much better musician, but after my week there, I began to outgrow Flintstones chewables.
I had an unsettling experience 23 summers ago at Music In The Rockies. Contemporary Christian Music was just starting to spread its wings. Amy Grant was unknown outside Christian circles. Jesus Bands like Petra and the Rez band showed that Christians could rock. Phil Keaggy showed that Christians could jam with some talent, and Steve Taylor showed that one could mimic Thomas Dolby and Devo and get played on MTV while speaking out against the Christian establishment demonstrating through such rebel music a deeper, true meaning of the Gospels.
And there I was. I was into all the records. I even read Kerry Livgren’s autobiography of his conversion to Christianity (and tried to convince myself that Kansas was still a decent band without their original singer, Steve Walsh, who left because he couldn’t take the religion that was seeping into the tunes). I built a couple electric guitars and played in a couple high school bands, jamming for Jesus. I interned at the local Christian radio station, KLTT (aka “K-Light. The Light of the Rockies”). I helped out at a bit at Jerry Nelson’s recording studio, Clarion, which makes accompaniment tracks for all those Sunday karaokers. It was my goal to perform, record, and produce Christian music, so at 18, as part of all this foot-wetting, I ensconced myself in the beautiful rockies amidst some thousand or so other would be musical proselytizers for a week of seminars. (Here is my picture with Phil Keaggy and Steve Taylor taken at the seminar).
And therein lies the problem: Music and Proselytizing. Christian rock 'n roll serves one of two purposes: 1) It provides a clean rock 'n roll venue for Christians, and 2) it serves as a device for proselytizing by hooking unsuspecting heathens with a “good beat” and then preaching to them.
Regarding #1, my Christian upbringing taught me that rock 'n roll was evil from several fronts. The rhythms were from African voodoo rituals. The screeching is rebellion against good (i.e. classical) music. The lyrics implore Devil worship, sex, and drugs and the mesmerizing jamming will make you succumb. Of course, it was not enough that the lyrics should explicitly say these things, but should you listen to a record backward, then you could hear the subliminal (or as George Bush would say, “subliminable”) messages being presented. Rock 'n roll was bad shit.
(And hence the attraction. We love to flirt with fire, don’t we?)
However, let’s just write off #1 as nonsense. Regarding voodoo: There is no evidence that Bo Diddley was about doing crazy things with leftovers of chicken bones. Regarding screeching: Yes, it was rebellion against classical music. Is that evil? Regarding the lyrics: Is there any terrible theme not already covered in opera? Regarding the beat: Yes, you may want to dance, but are these dances any more seductive than other dance forms? If so, is it the music or the person gyrating a belly button to blame? Regarding drugs and the Devil: Aren’t these just marketing ploys ironically promulgated by conservative parents enabling a simple avenue for youngster rebellion? Regarding playing albums backward: I can’t even understand half of these lyrics when played forward! How is my subconscious going to get them backward?
So, for all intents and purposes, we can write off the evils of rock 'n roll. Well sorta. Should Christians enjoy such worldly pleasures?
Regarding #2, there was something quite pure about meeting these heathens on their level and speaking to them in their language. How else might they hear the Good News?
This was my naivete going into the seminar. I heard sessions on how to structure a song after such and such a secular performer. I heard how to write lyrics about love without using the pronouns “he/she/his/hers” so that the song could be interpreted at one level as between you and a spouse or at another level as being between you and God. (The "agape" love). I was told to disguise explicit declarations of belief and conviction and employ poetic, generic feelings to obtain a broader market.
And that’s my problem. I loathe marketing. If my kids want to rebel against me. They’ll become marketers.
In my week at the seminar, I did not hear anyone talk about becoming a better musician. It was not about the music at all, and that is what was so uninspiring. Music, at it’s peak, is a very personal communication with the performer and the audience.
To be sure, the secular realm is big on hype and marketing. It’s filled with lies, too. Did Johnny Cash really shoot a man just to watch him die? Puh-lease! And why were those middle-class white boys in Seattle in the early 90s so angry about the American dream? C'mon! The secular world now has American Idols and mega mania. Lots of scripted show.
The thing is/was, I expected more honesty from the Christian world. Heck, it worked for Bach! But hit that seek button on your radio and within 2 seconds of scanning a station, you can tell if you’ve landed on a Christian station, even if there is no singing. It’s in the mix. It’s in the timbre. It’s that fakeness that comes blaring through -- the dishonesty of trying to sell something so naively and pretentiously. It’s no wonder that this year two finalists of American Idol will host the competition for best Christian Idol at the Music Seminar in the Rockies.
Not that I went on to become a much better musician, but after my week there, I began to outgrow Flintstones chewables.
Dinesh D'Souza is worried about his modesty:
Modesty is one of my great virtues, and that is why I am always worried when people praise me too much.I wouldn't worry- he can take care of that himself.
This past weekend I debated atheist Christopher Hitchens... America's leading atheist and... unbelief's best debater....and the surface of the sun is in danger of getting too hot to handle.
...when the debate was finished the moderator called for a vote on "who won the debate." By a show of hands, I did! ...Hitchens burst in to say that he would have lost anyway! Later several atheists came up to me and said that although they were rooting for Hitchens, they had voted for me because they felt I had prevailed decisively.
...Michael Shermer... commented that with the passing of William F. Buckley, I am one of the leading defenders of conservatism and freedom in America. He also added, "Whatever your beliefs, you should read Dinesh's book What's So Great About Christianity. It is the best defense of Christianity that has ever been published."
In addition to dealing with atheist accolades, I also have to contend with the same from fellow conservatives and Christians.
...a review of my book [titled] "C.S. Lewis, Move Over," [says] ..."Dinesh D'Souza stakes his claim as one of the great Christian apologists." The review ends thus: "In any case, D'Souza has written a book that both G.K. Chesterton and C.S. Lewis would have appreciated and that perhaps even Billy Graham and Pope Benedict XVI could agree is a masterpiece of modern apologetical writing destined to set the standard for years to come."
With comments like this, I am in serious danger of getting a big head and losing my reputation for self-effacing modesty.
In case you've spent the last 24 hours under a rock, below you will find "The Politics of Fear," the upcoming New Yorker cover by Barry Blitt.
In a display of monumental disingenuity, some members of the national news media are pretending not to recognize this image for what it is: a tongue-in-cheek depiction of certain idiotic beliefs currently bouncing around the right-wing echo chamber. Specifically: that Barack Obama is a Muslim (Mr. Obama shown sporting a dishdasha and taqiyah); that Michelle Obama is a Black radical who rails against "whitey" (Ms. Obama depicted with Afro); that the Obamas' celebratory fist-bump on June 3rd in St. Paul was a "terrorist fist-jab" (fist-bump featured at center of image / Ms. Obama wearing camouflage pants, combat boots, Kalashnikov, copious ammunition); that Obama sympathizes with al Qaeda (portrait of Osama bin Laden); and that the Obamas are unpatriotic (Stars and Stripes burning in fireplace). The blindingly obvious--and profoundly sad--message of this cartoon is as follows: some Americans are so mind-bogglingly bigoted and uninformed that they believe this idiocy.
Who knew that quatorze juillet was also We Can't Take a Joke Day in America? Reading news, blogs, and comment threads throughout the day, I have become increasingly despondent at the the vigor with which my fellow citizens insist on demonstrating their collective lack of any sense of humor. To rescue myself from this despondency, I have attempted to distill their commentary to four key objections, which I will now endeavor to answer as self-appointed defender of Mr. Blitt and the magazine.
1. How could The New Yorker make such libellous implications about the Obamas?
As stated above, where this objection comes from members of the national news media, it is surely disingenuous. I find it inconceivable that one could work for a media organization of national scope and be unaware of The New Yorker's editorial orientation. If you are a left-wing journalist, you probably read The New Yorker. If you are a right wing journalist, The New Yorker is well-known enemy territory. Is it remotely possible that this fiercely intellectual, resolutely pro-Obama publication would not only tack 180 degrees but also embrace the lunatic slurs of the Right's imbecile caucus? The image is satire, and anyone from Rush Limbaugh to Amy Goodman pretending not to understand that is insulting our intelligence.
Where this objection comes from someone else, that person is clearly unfamiliar with The New Yorker--not in itself a crime--but also rather dense: if we cannot hear the screams of "satire" as Old Glory burns in the Oval Office fireplace beneath a portrait of bin Laden, we are a nation struck deaf indeed with literality.
2. Okay, I get it, but lots of people won't, and so it will just fan the very rumors it is mocking.
I don't buy this. If there is still someone out there who a) has never heard that the Obamas are America-hating Black separatist Muslim terrorists, but b) would believe as much if he heard it--is it really very likely that the cover of The New Yorker will provide his first exposure to those ideas? I'm guessing that such fellows do not figure heavily in The New Yorker's subscriber base. Of course, the image has been disseminated widely in both mainstream media and the blogosphere, but anyone frequenting these outlets already has access to either the rumors, the truth, or both.
3. This is so racist.
No, it's not racist, and it's not even ironic-making-fun-of-racism-racism-that's-actually-still-racist. Given that Muslims can be of any race, the only racially specific elements of this image are Michelle Obama's Afro and, arguably, the fist-bump. But those elements are not included to say "ha ha, look at Black people's funny hair and greeting rituals." They're not even included to say "ha ha, look at the stereotypes White people have about Black people's hair and greeting rituals." Rather, those elements allude to specific accusations leveled at the Obamas--the Afro evoking a particular "radical Black activist" image cultivated by, e.g., Black Panther Angela Davis, and the fist-bump of course referring to the pair's much-discussed Minnesota greeting. The right's coöption of each concept is fair game for satire, and it's not clear how Blitt could have depicted them in a non-racially specific way.
4. I get it, but the fact that people are bigoted idiots is not funny; it's pathetic.
It is pathetic, and the most pathetic part of it is that we live in a society where almost no one, including Barack Obama, has the guts to stand up and say "shame on you, America, for making 'Muslim' into a slur" instead of "no, I swear to God I'm a Christian." But what makes life livable and humans interesting is our capacity to weep at the Holocaust Museum one day and scream with laughter at The Producers the next. If you don't believe that something can be both pathetic and funny, I will direct you to a syllabus beginning with Aristophanes, and continuing through Shakespeare, Chaplin, Brecht, Emmet Kelly, and The Sopranos. If you've completed my assignments and still object to this magazine cover, I will present you with the complete Family Circus and we will just have to agree to disagree about the nature of humor.
In a display of monumental disingenuity, some members of the national news media are pretending not to recognize this image for what it is: a tongue-in-cheek depiction of certain idiotic beliefs currently bouncing around the right-wing echo chamber. Specifically: that Barack Obama is a Muslim (Mr. Obama shown sporting a dishdasha and taqiyah); that Michelle Obama is a Black radical who rails against "whitey" (Ms. Obama depicted with Afro); that the Obamas' celebratory fist-bump on June 3rd in St. Paul was a "terrorist fist-jab" (fist-bump featured at center of image / Ms. Obama wearing camouflage pants, combat boots, Kalashnikov, copious ammunition); that Obama sympathizes with al Qaeda (portrait of Osama bin Laden); and that the Obamas are unpatriotic (Stars and Stripes burning in fireplace). The blindingly obvious--and profoundly sad--message of this cartoon is as follows: some Americans are so mind-bogglingly bigoted and uninformed that they believe this idiocy.
Who knew that quatorze juillet was also We Can't Take a Joke Day in America? Reading news, blogs, and comment threads throughout the day, I have become increasingly despondent at the the vigor with which my fellow citizens insist on demonstrating their collective lack of any sense of humor. To rescue myself from this despondency, I have attempted to distill their commentary to four key objections, which I will now endeavor to answer as self-appointed defender of Mr. Blitt and the magazine.
1. How could The New Yorker make such libellous implications about the Obamas?
As stated above, where this objection comes from members of the national news media, it is surely disingenuous. I find it inconceivable that one could work for a media organization of national scope and be unaware of The New Yorker's editorial orientation. If you are a left-wing journalist, you probably read The New Yorker. If you are a right wing journalist, The New Yorker is well-known enemy territory. Is it remotely possible that this fiercely intellectual, resolutely pro-Obama publication would not only tack 180 degrees but also embrace the lunatic slurs of the Right's imbecile caucus? The image is satire, and anyone from Rush Limbaugh to Amy Goodman pretending not to understand that is insulting our intelligence.
Where this objection comes from someone else, that person is clearly unfamiliar with The New Yorker--not in itself a crime--but also rather dense: if we cannot hear the screams of "satire" as Old Glory burns in the Oval Office fireplace beneath a portrait of bin Laden, we are a nation struck deaf indeed with literality.
2. Okay, I get it, but lots of people won't, and so it will just fan the very rumors it is mocking.
I don't buy this. If there is still someone out there who a) has never heard that the Obamas are America-hating Black separatist Muslim terrorists, but b) would believe as much if he heard it--is it really very likely that the cover of The New Yorker will provide his first exposure to those ideas? I'm guessing that such fellows do not figure heavily in The New Yorker's subscriber base. Of course, the image has been disseminated widely in both mainstream media and the blogosphere, but anyone frequenting these outlets already has access to either the rumors, the truth, or both.
3. This is so racist.
No, it's not racist, and it's not even ironic-making-fun-of-racism-racism-that's-actually-still-racist. Given that Muslims can be of any race, the only racially specific elements of this image are Michelle Obama's Afro and, arguably, the fist-bump. But those elements are not included to say "ha ha, look at Black people's funny hair and greeting rituals." They're not even included to say "ha ha, look at the stereotypes White people have about Black people's hair and greeting rituals." Rather, those elements allude to specific accusations leveled at the Obamas--the Afro evoking a particular "radical Black activist" image cultivated by, e.g., Black Panther Angela Davis, and the fist-bump of course referring to the pair's much-discussed Minnesota greeting. The right's coöption of each concept is fair game for satire, and it's not clear how Blitt could have depicted them in a non-racially specific way.
4. I get it, but the fact that people are bigoted idiots is not funny; it's pathetic.
It is pathetic, and the most pathetic part of it is that we live in a society where almost no one, including Barack Obama, has the guts to stand up and say "shame on you, America, for making 'Muslim' into a slur" instead of "no, I swear to God I'm a Christian." But what makes life livable and humans interesting is our capacity to weep at the Holocaust Museum one day and scream with laughter at The Producers the next. If you don't believe that something can be both pathetic and funny, I will direct you to a syllabus beginning with Aristophanes, and continuing through Shakespeare, Chaplin, Brecht, Emmet Kelly, and The Sopranos. If you've completed my assignments and still object to this magazine cover, I will present you with the complete Family Circus and we will just have to agree to disagree about the nature of humor.
© 2010. Visit Holy Prepuce! to read and post comments, to search archived posts by topic (e.g. Culture, Smut), and for "fair use" disclaimer regarding use of copyrighted works.
Stuck on lapel pins, what should Obama wear on his lapel?
I know it's from the NYT, but it's easily the funniest thing I've read today.
I know it's from the NYT, but it's easily the funniest thing I've read today.
I don't particularly think that being computer-savvy should be high on the list of qualifications for becoming President, but it is something to think about. And the parody of the 3 AM ad is priceless.
Here's a mindless post for you...enjoy...Pearls Before Swine (It's wicked relevant.):
Here I am, typing from my parents' brand new, beautiful laptop. I am just a little jealous. Except it's loaded with Vista, so it's not that great.
I am in Maryland, The Old Line State. I love Maryland. It's a beautiful state, lush and green and full of natural diversity. Not to mention the home of the worst battle in the history of our country.
Enough about that, I just wanted to write a quick note to my small group of loyal, for some reason, readers to let you know that I will most likely be away from computers and stuff for the next few days. We are going to a Phillies game tomorrow, crab feast (MD Blue Claw...King of Crabs) on Sunday, Jersey Shore on Monday, drive home on Tuesday. So...If anything important or interesting happens in the world of me hating religion in the next few days, I will try and post.
While we are in Philadelphia tomorrow I may try to head up and see that sign that all the fundies are whining about.
And just because it is Friday and I said I would be bringing back the Ray-Bashing...Hey Comfort! ... The middle finger I'm holding up to the screen right now is for you, buddy...and your mustache makes you look less like Einstein and more like a Village Person...douche.
Have a good weekend!
I am in Maryland, The Old Line State. I love Maryland. It's a beautiful state, lush and green and full of natural diversity. Not to mention the home of the worst battle in the history of our country.
Enough about that, I just wanted to write a quick note to my small group of loyal, for some reason, readers to let you know that I will most likely be away from computers and stuff for the next few days. We are going to a Phillies game tomorrow, crab feast (MD Blue Claw...King of Crabs) on Sunday, Jersey Shore on Monday, drive home on Tuesday. So...If anything important or interesting happens in the world of me hating religion in the next few days, I will try and post.
While we are in Philadelphia tomorrow I may try to head up and see that sign that all the fundies are whining about.
And just because it is Friday and I said I would be bringing back the Ray-Bashing...Hey Comfort! ... The middle finger I'm holding up to the screen right now is for you, buddy...and your mustache makes you look less like Einstein and more like a Village Person...douche.
Have a good weekend!
Google is kinda my new religion, in a Church of Google sort of way.
Anything they do, I'm all over. The recently unrolled Lively, which is sort of a mashup of Instant Messenger and Second Life.
If you want to make a chatroom, you literally create a room which avatars can then populate. They perform animations, and do all your 'talking' for you in the form of cartoonish speech bubbles.
This post is little more* than a test to see if I can embed my room into a webpage.
* - because it's kind of also to tell you guys about it.
Anything they do, I'm all over. The recently unrolled Lively, which is sort of a mashup of Instant Messenger and Second Life.
If you want to make a chatroom, you literally create a room which avatars can then populate. They perform animations, and do all your 'talking' for you in the form of cartoonish speech bubbles.
This post is little more* than a test to see if I can embed my room into a webpage.
* - because it's kind of also to tell you guys about it.
This is the smartest Op-Ed I've read in a while. The main point:
This does seem to be true, and it's a decent way of rationalizing his FISA vote, (which which I still disagree, but it's a lemon at this point since the damn thing would have passed no matter what. We we're failed by Obama, we were failed by the Democratic House and Senate leadership). I think this is worth remembering, since some people seem to think that Obama should hold perfect positions (which is insane, because that will differ drastically among the people who support him), and some of the time you're going to disagree with him. But Collins's last point is worth remembering:
I think that, setting aside all of the other things we disagree with, accomplishing those three things would make an Obama presidency wildly successful. That's what we need to remember when we dislike his positions on FISA, or whatever the next controversy is.
But if you look at the political fights he’s picked throughout his political career, the main theme is not any ideology. It’s that he hates stupidity. “I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war,” he said in 2002 in his big speech against the invasion of Iraq. He did not, you will notice, say he was against unilateral military action or pre-emptive attacks or nation-building. He was antidumb.
Most of the things Obama’s taken heat for saying this summer fall into these two familiar patterns — attempts to find a rational common ground on controversial issues and dumb-avoidance.
This does seem to be true, and it's a decent way of rationalizing his FISA vote, (which which I still disagree, but it's a lemon at this point since the damn thing would have passed no matter what. We we're failed by Obama, we were failed by the Democratic House and Senate leadership). I think this is worth remembering, since some people seem to think that Obama should hold perfect positions (which is insane, because that will differ drastically among the people who support him), and some of the time you're going to disagree with him. But Collins's last point is worth remembering:
Meanwhile, Obama has made it clear what issues he thinks all this cleverness and compromising are supposed to serve: national health care, a smart energy policy and getting American troops out of Iraq. He has tons of other concerns, but those seem to be the top three.
I think that, setting aside all of the other things we disagree with, accomplishing those three things would make an Obama presidency wildly successful. That's what we need to remember when we dislike his positions on FISA, or whatever the next controversy is.
The dogs have started to bark. Someone (or some thing) has approached the front door. I, as usual for this time of day, am sitting at the computer, catching up on the day's news and listening to all manner of "evil" music. Startled, I leave the desk and hurry to the door thinking that perhaps the FedEx man is here with an early wedding present. How wrong I am...
I open the door to reveal one of the most hideous sites I have ever seen. Standing before me in all their "Sunday's Best" glory are two women. They smell of cheap Wal-Mart perfume. I glance down at their hands to see bibles draped with copies of, brace yourself, The Watchtower. (da da dah-eh-ah-ah-ah-ah) "Oh, it's gonna be like dis," I thought to myself.
The dogs are going nuts, barking and yelping. Usually, I would try to stop them so I could hear what the person at the door was about to say...right. Above the din one of them says, "Oh my, what pretty dogs." It is this offensive affront that enrages me.
(A word to my newer readers: I dislike religious people publicly proselytizing in general, and bringing it in to my neighborhood is infuriating...usually the Heretincess catches it at the door before I get the chance to voice my opinions. When they open their mouths and let some letters and sounds fall out, I absolve myself of any responsibility for what I may say next. That being said, the following may be considered "rude" if taken out of context. So, please keep in mind that they are Jehovah's Witnesses trespassing on my property and trespassing in my neighborhood (there is a pretty wooden sign at the entrance to this neighborhood that plainly says, "NO SOLICITING.")
I look at the one dressed in a white dress with pretty little generic annoying flowers and smile. It's a big smile, one that can be interpreted as, "How lovely it is to see you," or, "Oh, you gonna gettit now!" (psst...guess which one I am going for.) I say, "The Watchtower?"
"Yes, yes it is," is the confused response. They both smile politely and approach the door a few more inches. I open the door, still smiling, and step out.
"Get the fuck off of my porch and out of my driveway and out of my neighborhood, now" I calmly say, "You picked the absolute wrong house to witness to today. Now take your propaganda, bibles, lies, and bullshit out of this neighborhood. There is a sign at the top of the hill that says, 'No Soliciting,' that includes soliciting people with your religious magazines and filth. Where is your car, where are you parked?"
"Right up the road," they reply in a fashion that is hard to determine...it's somewhere between afraid and defiant, polite and bemused.
I follow them, briskly, out of the driveway and on to the sidewalk. I ask, "Is that your car, the white one?"
"Yes, we're leaving."
Aggravated by how long it is taking them to get away from my house I say, "Go now! Don't stop at any of my neighbor's houses, they don't need your bullshit. If you don't leave right now I will call the police." I would never call the police in a small town like this, most likely, I would be the one who ends up in cuffs.
I call the Heretincess to let her know what has happened, give her a laugh and to make them wonder who I would be talking to while standing in the middle of the road watching them in their car. They sit in their car and, magically, there are now four of them and I feel a little less guilty about yelling at two women because the two in the front seats are men. It takes them about five full minutes of sitting in the car before they actually drive off. I suppose they were praying for me, or whatever.
I make sure to watch them the entire way up the hill. They are gone now and the dogs have calmed down.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is probably the wrong way to deal with door-knockers but, it is the best way to make yourself feel good. I feel pretty happy right now. Not in that "I'm a big man for yelling at chicks" way but in that "I made a stand here, on my property, for my right not to be assaulted with religious garbage in my home" way. I feel good that no more of my neighbors will have to deal with these people and I feel good that I have good, loud watchdogs rather than flimsy, not-even-worth-kindling Watchtowers.
I open the door to reveal one of the most hideous sites I have ever seen. Standing before me in all their "Sunday's Best" glory are two women. They smell of cheap Wal-Mart perfume. I glance down at their hands to see bibles draped with copies of, brace yourself, The Watchtower. (da da dah-eh-ah-ah-ah-ah) "Oh, it's gonna be like dis," I thought to myself.
The dogs are going nuts, barking and yelping. Usually, I would try to stop them so I could hear what the person at the door was about to say...right. Above the din one of them says, "Oh my, what pretty dogs." It is this offensive affront that enrages me.
(A word to my newer readers: I dislike religious people publicly proselytizing in general, and bringing it in to my neighborhood is infuriating...usually the Heretincess catches it at the door before I get the chance to voice my opinions. When they open their mouths and let some letters and sounds fall out, I absolve myself of any responsibility for what I may say next. That being said, the following may be considered "rude" if taken out of context. So, please keep in mind that they are Jehovah's Witnesses trespassing on my property and trespassing in my neighborhood (there is a pretty wooden sign at the entrance to this neighborhood that plainly says, "NO SOLICITING.")
I look at the one dressed in a white dress with pretty little generic annoying flowers and smile. It's a big smile, one that can be interpreted as, "How lovely it is to see you," or, "Oh, you gonna gettit now!" (psst...guess which one I am going for.) I say, "The Watchtower?"
"Yes, yes it is," is the confused response. They both smile politely and approach the door a few more inches. I open the door, still smiling, and step out.
"Get the fuck off of my porch and out of my driveway and out of my neighborhood, now" I calmly say, "You picked the absolute wrong house to witness to today. Now take your propaganda, bibles, lies, and bullshit out of this neighborhood. There is a sign at the top of the hill that says, 'No Soliciting,' that includes soliciting people with your religious magazines and filth. Where is your car, where are you parked?"
"Right up the road," they reply in a fashion that is hard to determine...it's somewhere between afraid and defiant, polite and bemused.
I follow them, briskly, out of the driveway and on to the sidewalk. I ask, "Is that your car, the white one?"
"Yes, we're leaving."
Aggravated by how long it is taking them to get away from my house I say, "Go now! Don't stop at any of my neighbor's houses, they don't need your bullshit. If you don't leave right now I will call the police." I would never call the police in a small town like this, most likely, I would be the one who ends up in cuffs.
I call the Heretincess to let her know what has happened, give her a laugh and to make them wonder who I would be talking to while standing in the middle of the road watching them in their car. They sit in their car and, magically, there are now four of them and I feel a little less guilty about yelling at two women because the two in the front seats are men. It takes them about five full minutes of sitting in the car before they actually drive off. I suppose they were praying for me, or whatever.
I make sure to watch them the entire way up the hill. They are gone now and the dogs have calmed down.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is probably the wrong way to deal with door-knockers but, it is the best way to make yourself feel good. I feel pretty happy right now. Not in that "I'm a big man for yelling at chicks" way but in that "I made a stand here, on my property, for my right not to be assaulted with religious garbage in my home" way. I feel good that no more of my neighbors will have to deal with these people and I feel good that I have good, loud watchdogs rather than flimsy, not-even-worth-kindling Watchtowers.
Planet Atheism buttons
FAQ (includes joining info)
RSS feed
Email subscription
