Updates from August, 2012 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Eric P. Metze 11:12 on August 2, 2012 Permalink | Comment

    I’m tired of talking about Chick-fil-A. 

    If you look at my Facebook posts over the past few weeks it might seem like I feel otherwise, but I really do want the Chick-fil-A conversation to come to a conclusion. I’m just as tired of it as everyone else. But for some reason we just can’t stop talking about it. We even have people who are complaining about people who are talking about it, and those people are just adding fuel to the fire. This is such a controversial topic that these discussions tend to be more emotional than intellectual. I mean, people are genuinely getting upset. People are fighting, enemies are being made, friends are getting unfriended, our pet’s heads are falling off, etc.

    So why can’t we let this go? Well, we are just now learning why memes go viral so I can only speculate, but clearly it has a lot to do with the presence of social networks like Facebook and Twitter. If you just look at the visceral nature of these discussions you might think that Dan Cathy held a press conference to state that his company was going to engage in armed combat with homosexuals, but even his critics should recognize he was only answering questions that were put forth to him. Many people view the criticism as a breech of first amendment rights, while others base their criticism on a breech of basic human rights. But really, this conversation has proven that it’s not so much what people think as much as how they feel about it. That’s why the conversations get so heated. The mind of humanity is busy trying to decide where it actually stands, and that leaves the soul of humanity embroiled in this internal moral struggle.

    Even though the discussions are extremely vitriolic, I do think it’s a good thing we’re finally having them in public. I mean, many of the people I’ve spoken to on this issue are relatively unknown to me. That sets up a situation where people are either very civil or outright assholes, and since we’re evolving socially, you see fewer and fewer people needlessly insulting each other. People are being forced to stop and think about this stuff, and it’s driving some people crazy.

    Even those that don’t give a damn about it are having to deal with it. And honestly, I hope it does annoy people. This “meh…politics” attitude is how we ended up in the mess we’re in today. It got us into the Iraq war, which cost trillions of dollars and over 130,000 human lives. It plunged us into massive debt by allowing people to gamble with the nation’s economy. It allowed jobs to be outsourced while cutting important programs at home. It neglected our education, our health, the health of our environment, and so on. We can blame the Republicans or the Democrats all we want, but we the people are ultimately to blame.

    You don’t have to be a Republican to see that people’s first amendment rights are being protected, and you don’t have to be a Democrat to see how people’s human rights are being denied. The left and the right will always be at odds, especially if we oversimplify every debate into two sides. Really, it’s the people in the middle (including those who try to stay out of the discussion) that make all the difference. Only about half of all voters turnout for presidential elections, and only about a third turnout for congressional elections. That means a minority of Americans usually decide the leadership for the nation, and the majority just lets them do it then complains about it later. One of the only things on which George Carlin and I disagree is his view that staying out of politics absolves you of any responsibility later on. Well, that’s just idiotic. You’re a part of this society whether you’re an active participant or not. Choosing not to take part in the discussion is still a choice, just like choosing not to vote is still a vote.

    If you’ve eaten at Chick-fil-A with the intention of supporting their stance on gay marriage, then I genuinely commend you for sticking to your principles and voting with your wallet. There is hardly anything more capitalistic or democratic. Having said that, I want you to know that I also condemn you in the strongest possible terms for supporting discrimination and misunderstanding the issue. This never was about chicken, religion, or the first amendment. You’re free to believe whatever you want and to donate to whatever causes you support, but your beliefs do not empower you to infringe upon the basic human rights of others.

    If you’re tired of talking about Chick-fil-A, then just stop doing it. Stop bringing it up, stop complaining about it, and stop bitching at the people who are talking about it. But if you think that avoiding the issue is going to make the whole issue of gay marriage go away, then you’re just fooling yourself. There are generations of discrimination to account for, and claiming that you don’t care and/or hiding behind your religion isn’t going to resolve the issue. The next time something like this happens (and it will…very soon) we should all remember this debate. You can’t sweep these things under the rug anymore. The Internet has given new life to these discussions, and people like us will continue to have them. It’s your choice whether you want to join in the discussion or let us do the thinking for you.

     

  • Eric P. Metze 13:52 on April 13, 2012 Permalink | Comment

    Interaction vs. Communication 

    Interaction is a superficial form of communication. We (humanity) have known how to communicate for tens of thousands of generations, and we have been interacting with each other for even longer. For the most part, this hasn’t changed. We still just interact with people. We don’t communicate. A few of us had to learn to communicate, and many of them became politicians, diplomats, teachers, counselors, etc. But the vast majority of us are rarely expected to communicate much. What we have learned to do is interact. We interact with our co-workers, we interact with our family members at holidays, we interact with people randomly in public, but we don’t really have to do much communication. When we do, it’s usually boiled down to something as simple as we can make it. “What time is?” “Is that the 6 train?” “Pardon me.”

    We interact with our co-workers, we interact with our family members at holidays, we interact with people randomly in public, but we don’t really have to do much communication.

    The internet, oddly enough, is forcing us to communicate. Everyone interacts with text, not people, so our interactions are all basically the same. For example, the wonderful thing about forums is that every line that is typed in a conversation is there for anyone to read. So people quickly learn that misrepresenting other people is a bad idea, especially when the proof that you’re misrepresenting someone is just a few lines up.

    The media is in the business of communication, not interaction. The only interaction they care about is the one in which you consume their product. And since journalism/marketing has historically been about communicating ideas to large audiences, they are well-positioned to take advantage of our tendency to interact instead of communicate. They inflame our passions and focus our beliefs, then they dumb everything down to a yes/no viewpoint. Why? Because it makes for passionate interactions with poor communication, which leads to even more passionate interactions with even worse communication. And as long as the public is arguing about something, people are opening newspapers, buying magazines, turning on televisions, and logging on to websites.

    Politics is a particularly heated problem because (historically) people only interacted during controversial debates or in an already inflamed environment. An argument that has turned into a yelling match is just an interaction. The only thing they are communicating to one another is their emotions. It isn’t until the reasonable part of the mind takes over that the yelling subsides and the conversation actually progresses.

    And then there’s the Internet, that massive repository of human knowledge and suppository of human interaction. If humanity seems so infantile online, it’s because we are. When they first introduced the telephone, the telephone companies had to invent the greeting “Hello” to stop people from simply hanging up at the silence on the other end. When they first introduced the car, people were driving so recklessly that they make modern teenagers look like AARP members.

    The Internet didn’t even exist a generation ago, and we’re still learning to use it. We’re still experiencing things that humanity has never dealt with before. How do you turn the Internet off when your government is trying to manipulate an election? How do you hide illegal weapon caches when there are images that anyone online can google? How do you convince millions of people they are being lied to when everything they see/hear/read tells them otherwise? These are just a few of the seemingly limitless problems that we face.

    The irony of the information age is that we are learning more about everything than we are taking the time to understand. We need to hold on to our humanity during this unprecedented transitional period in our development. We have to remember that communication, even on the most basic levels, is more important now than ever.


    Tags: communication, interaction, , speaking, talking  
     

  • Eric P. Metze 07:15 on April 29, 2010 Permalink | Comment

    Obama’s Peace Prize: The Olive Branch 

    If you’re shocked or confused by the Nobel committee’s decision to give Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize, don’t be. It makes perfect sense. They selected him because of his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” In this sense, he has definitely accomplished something and shows promise that he will continue to do so for the next few years.

    If you believe that Obama hasn’t done anything to deserve this honor, you’re completely missing the point of the prize. Saying that Obama hasn’t done anything to achieve peace is like saying Bush never did anything to combat terrorism. Sure, Bush ultimately wasn’t able to stop terrorism, but that’s because it can never be stopped. Peace, similarly, can never be fully attained. It’s the efforts towards attaining peace that really matter.

    And in that sense, Obama is a champion.

    He has accomplished a lot towards peace, no matter what people say.

    What do you think the point of an olive branch is? It doesn’t actually do anything. It’s the symbolism that’s important.

    Well, Bush spent eight years as the leader of the “greatest free nation” on the planet. What did he do with it? He beat the shit out of the rest of the world with the olive tree.

    What has Obama done in the past eight months? He has *tried* to bring about peace, something that will never be truly accomplished. It’s like saying he hasn’t accomplished anything with universal heath care because the law hasn’t been passed.

    I think it’s far more important that the international community start recognizing America as one of the leading voices for peace than waiting for Obama to, for example, solve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

    They gave it to him for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

    He has, in fact, done this.

    Bush’s speeches in front of the UN were too often contentious, provincial, and self-concerned. Every time he spoke he undid years of progress between our nation and the rest of the world. And that is how the world began to view America.

    Obama may not have saved us from ourselves, but no one should expect him to do that. He has, however, thrust America back into its rightful place as one of the leading promoters of peace, which is far more than the war-mongering members of our society will ever achieve. The Nobel committee’s decision does not state that we have achieved peace. What it says is: yes we can.

     

  • Eric P. Metze 13:57 on February 28, 2010 Permalink | Comment

    In Support of Obama’s Worldview 

    I often get accused of being an Obama worshiper, usually by people that don’t know me. They base that belief purely on me supporting anything he says. Somehow, the fact that I’ve always had a soft spot for the environment means that I can’t agree with the president without appearing to be bowing down at the man’s feet. They think that the president should represent their views, and if he doesn’t represent them perfectly then he isn’t doing a good job.

    The reality is that America is a nation of the world and it is our duty to consider the entire planet when we make certain decisions. We have most of the world’s wealth, an over-abundance of resources, many of the most intelligent and powerful people on the planet, and a military complex unlike any in history. Our behavior affects almost every corner of the world. As the self-proclaimed greatest nation on Earth, it’s our duty to act like it. Our local officials will take care of local issues, our state officials will take care of state issues, our federal officials will take care of federal issues, but our president represents us in the world stage. In order to succeed in the 21st century we have to recognize that we are part of a larger effort. No matter how much we try to isolate ourselves or alienate others, we are inextricably linked to the entire web of life.

    We may not (as individuals) like everything that Barack Obama does. There are many things that he has promised that he has yet to deliver. But that’s not entirely his fault. Change comes slowly, especially when there are so many people resistant to it. The fact that he’s doing things I don’t agree with just shows that he’s not simply catering to his base. That’s because he recognizes he is the leader the entire United States, which is a diverse and complex collection of individuals. If all you do is please your political base, then you become as effective a world leader as George W. Bush was.

    The Americans that aren’t comfortable with Obama’s inclusive behavior (e.g., speaking in Arabic to Muslims, pronouncing country names in a native dialect, offering to sit down to speak with our rivals) are an increasing minority in our nation. Their xenophobia consistently proves unwarranted and unproductive. Regardless of their protestations, our world continues to progress, our technology reaches almost everyone on the planet, our wars (and peace) spread to other nations, our behavior directly affects the environment, and we are beginning to recognize the interconnectedness of all life on Earth. Like it or not, this nation represents the world.

    Obama clearly understands all of these things and has consistently worked towards making these ideals into reality. Though people will fight him every step of the way (and though he may not be able to achieve all of his goals), the important thing is that he continues to aggressively work toward world coherence. As the president of the United States, Obama represents the people of our nation. But as a citizen of the world, Obama represents every person on the planet. One doesn’t have to support the man, but I don’t see how one could not support the message. After all, the message is: peace through cooperation leads to progress. No sane individual could disagree with that.

     

  • Eric P. Metze 11:00 on January 20, 2010 Permalink | Comment

    The Climate Is Changing 

    I don’t believe what the media tells me about science because they are not experts in it. I believe what the scientists tell me because they have a long-standing history of knowing what they’re talking about. And the only scientists that doubt climate change are those who are simply taking a responsible approach to the data…as any good scientist would. They are hesitant to state with 100% certainty they know *anything* about *anything* because that’s just how science works. Even gravity is “just a theory” because we know how it works but don’t fully understand why (yet). But the numbers of scientists that outright deny humanity’s effect on climate change are a vast minority.

    Long before this turned into the idiotic debate it has become, scientists were giving us plenty of warnings. The nuclear arms race came to a halt once they made it clear that nuclear winter could be a reality. Countless calculations show that an all-out nuclear war would destabilize the environment in very real and dramatic ways. It’s not too much of a stretch to imagine what billions of people, hundreds of millions of vehicles, and thousands of industries working in concert over several decades could do to a planet as delicate as ours.

    If you need an example of what atmospheric destabilization can do, just take a look at Venus and Mars. Venus is closer to the sun and suffers from a runaway greenhouse effect. Mars is farther away and has lost most of its atmosphere. A little warmer and you get the insane environment of Venus; a little cooler and you get the inhospitable environment of Mars. We can literally point to our sister planets and say, “See that? That could happen to us!”

    The reason they changed the name from “global warming” to “climate change” is due to simple logistics and the fact that it’s far more accurate. After all, there are people that still don’t understand what the word “theory” means, so imagine if they called it “global atmospheric and climate destabilization theory.” People misuse terms all the time, and it was quickly becoming clear that the term “global warming” was misleading people to think that it was simply getting hotter. The reality is far more complex than that.

    Accept it or not, humanity is playing a serious role in the continued degradation of the environment. There are *three times* as many people alive as there were just half a century ago, and that growth shows no sign of slowing. All of those people consume and produce waste, and their lifestyles require certain levels of consumption and waste production. Without regulation, everyone’s self-concerned and short-sighted behavior is eventually going to catch up with us. We can either sit on our hands and debate it endlessly or we can be responsible humans and do something about it before it’s too late to fix.

    Think about this. What if the people who are claiming that climate change is real are wrong? What harm could come about from following their advice about reducing greenhouse gases, responsible fuel consumption, and alternate forms of energy? How is improving efficiency and protecting the environment even kind of a bad thing? Now think about this. What if the people who doubt climate change are wrong? What good would come about from unregulated greenhouse gas production, wanton fuel consumption, and a single (limited) form of energy? How is running out of fuel and exploiting the environment even kind of a good thing?

    Politics and the virulent nature of memes are the only reason there is even a debate on climate change. The vast majority of people talking about it aren’t even qualified to do so. Our opinions about scientific facts have zero bearing on the truth. Regardless of whether it’s true or not, we are wrong to cast it aside as the rantings of financially- and politically-motivated people just trying to impose their will upon the rest of us. We may have become cynical over the past few decades, but that is no reason to justify irresponsibility just to prove a point.

     

  • Eric P. Metze 13:42 on December 10, 2009 Permalink | Comment

    Agnostic Atheism 

    Agnosticism is often thought of as scientific because it appears open to new ideas. It implies that there is a possibility that evidence might exist that would prove that deities are real; we just haven’t found that information yet and we may never find it. Well, atheists aren’t that different. They haven’t seen evidence for deities and therefore they do not believe in them. But every true atheist is philosophically scientific, and new evidence will lead to new conclusions. So, if ample (and credible) evidence was uncovered that proved that deities do exist, then all true atheists would become theists. That’s no different than people claiming agnosticism.

    There is, of course, that old argument that the difference is over belief and knowledge. Well, if you believe there are no gods, that makes you an atheist. If you believe the answer can’t be discerned, that makes you an agnostic. Though one claim refers to belief, the other claim refers to a belief about knowledge. And if you truly believe that there is even a possibility that deities might exist, then you are not an atheist. One cannot claim “I know X” and “I can’t know X” at the same time without being logically inconsistent.

    Having personally gone through theism and agnosticism, I fully understand why people would want to call themselves agnostic atheists. It has a (slightly) better connotation to it than atheism, it sounds more open-minded, and it appears to be more scientific. But the truth is that claiming agnosticism gives credence to the idea of theism, and that is the polar opposite of what a true atheist believes.

     

  • Eric P. Metze 13:52 on May 28, 2009 Permalink | Comment

    Indict Dick Cheney 

    There has been a lot of “debate” over what to do with all of the human beings and monsters locked away in Guantanamo Bay. There are apparently only two sides to this discussion: free them all and send them letters of apology or kill them all and let God sort them out. I’m obviously oversimplifying things, but you wouldn’t know it if you watched the 24-hour news channels. Like so many public discussions, the truth is often obscured by the rhetoric.

    Gitmo TortureFor every terror suspect we convict fairly, there are hundreds we detain unfairly. For every innocent person we keep incarcerated, we create dozens of potential enemies. And for every person (regardless of innocence or guilt) we treat unfairly or inhumanely, we create untold numbers of people who no longer see America as the shining beacon of freedom we so desperately claim to be. What other reasons do terrorists need to demonize us if we actively and regularly give them reasons? How can we dispute their claim that we are the Great Evil when our actions are so greatly evil?

    Aside from keeping the worst of the worst locked safely away, the only thing that can change the anti-American sentiment that has been broiling over the past decade is a fresh and decent approach to our fellow citizens of the world. I do not include terrorists in this group, however. A terrorist loses their worldwide citizenship once they conspire to commit crimes against their fellow humans. But how, exactly, is that different than when we commit crimes against our fellow humans? An innocent person locked away in a dank cell is a crime of the highest order, and every person in the society that supports it shares the blame for it.

    It used to be that the ends justified the means. Airplanes were used to murder 3,000 Americans? Let’s tighten airport security to the point where even children and the elderly are searched and detained. The Viet Cong are hiding amongst women and children in the jungle? Let’s firebomb the whole place to ensure we kill enough of the enemy. Japan attacks a military installation in the United States? Let’s put all people of Japanese descent into concentration camps. The South wants to secede from the union? Let’s go to war with them and kill hundreds of thousands of our fellow Americans. The native Americans won’t move out of the land we want? Let’s force them off or just slaughter them outright.

    Throughout American history, we have justified our atrocities in the name of our ideals. But even when those ideals are righteous, it does not change the fact that we have committed atrocities. Deep down, every intelligent or thoughtful person knows this. That’s why we justify executing people who have committed murder. We know that we are killing someone to make the point that killing is wrong. And while most of us recognize how glaringly hypocritical it is, as a nation we continue to do it anyway. If there was no hypocrisy to our actions, it would need no justification.

    Which leads me to former Vice President Dick Cheney.

    Dick CheneyImmediately after President Obama’s speech that re-defined America’s stance on national security, not five minutes had passed before Cheney took his own stage in an attempt to give a rebuttal. His speech was a pre-emptive attack on his enemies, a tactic he is clearly comfortable with. In it’s own Karlrovian way, it displayed obvious hypocrisy wrapped in a package of carefully-worded propaganda. For example, after he mentioned 9/11 over a dozen times, he clearly stated that we should not focus on the past. Then he attempted to deflect criticism away from his administration and place the blame onto the current one, oblivious to the points Obama made just moments earlier about the numbers of political prisoners the Bush administration freed. He focused on innane and irrelevant details such as the term “abducted” and incorrectly characterized it as the Obama administration’s wording, all while using terms like “sadistic” to describe American iterrogators who were acting under full authorization from the Bush administration. He continued to fuel the quasi-debate about how safe America would be if we allowed detainees to be held on American soil, completely ignoring the fact that we have held thousands of people in Federal maxiumum security prisons and no one has ever escaped from one. Perhaps worst of all, he took credit for the fact that we were not attacked while under his watch, while failing to recognize that hundreds of attacks have occured on American soldiers every year since we entered Iraq.

    All of this got me thinking about why Cheney (who I do not believe cares about America as much as he would like us to think) is suddenly so vocal on this issue. He has been on a media blitz, employing his loyal servants, family members, and his own personal media outlet to repeat the same talking points as opposed to actual experts who understand the issue. Why, Dick? Well, his daughter accidentally let the truth slip: Cheney fears prosecution. And he should. One grand jury has already indicted him, and more people are calling for his indictment every day.

    I am pleased with the new direction this nation appears to be heading in terms of how we deal with terror suspects. If things go as planned, we will move these prisoners to our own soil where they can be safely and legally monitored. President Obama’s speech in front of the Constitution was more of a poignant reminder of where we come from than an arrogant assumption about missions not-quite-accomplished. That speech is destined for the history books, but hopefully it will be remembered as one of the great turning points in the American psyche. I hope it is the beginning of an era when we actually hold our leaders responsible for their actions, not excuse them because of their motives. Cheney is such a slippery weasel that I have no illusions about justice ever being served, but I would like to at least see us try. After all, when Bill Clinton shot someone in the face, it wasn’t with a shotgun, and we impeached him.

    That is why I fully support the indictment and prosecution of former Vice President Dick Cheney.


    Tags: Dick Cheney, Guantanamo Bay, , prisoners,  
     

  • Eric P. Metze 01:37 on March 4, 2009 Permalink | Comment

    Opinions and Beliefs 

    I was in a chat room recently with a group of people defending that pompous windbag Rush Limbaugh. One of them even claimed that he was “a great American.” I couldn’t stand by while this mind-numbing crap was going on, so I felt compelled to respond. The conversation (not surprisingly) devolved into a discussion about college degrees and expertise, and at one point one of the more enlightened people in the room pointed out that Rush doesn’t even have a college degree. Taking it as a slight against “uneducated” people, we had to defend our position against this perceived class warfare. The problem isn’t that he doesn’t have a college degree (I don’t even have one yet), but rather that he is an uneducated person who speaks with authority on subjects he clearly doesn’t fully grasp. Somehow during all of this, Oprah Winfrey, Dr. Phil, and Sylvia Brown were used as examples of non-experts pretending to be experts. The following is my response.

    Dr. Phil talks about relationships and personal interactions, which I’m pretty sure is his area of expertise. So, I’m not sure he’s exactly pretending. Oprah doesn’t pretend to be an expert as much as allow experts to come onto her show and share their knowledge. So, I’m not sure what she’s pretending, either. And that psychic lady…well, you’re right about her pretending. Psychics are in the business of pretending to be experts. But, Rush’s area of expertise is what? Opinions? Well, if being full of opinions is all it takes to be an expert, we could each have our own show.

    The problem here is that we (as a society) tend to confuse opinions and beliefs. Everyone has the right to their opinions and no one can have a wrong opinion. But anyone can have beliefs that are simply wrong. If (for example) you believe that red is better than blue, then it shouldn’t be a problem if I prefer blue over red. There’s no arguing taste, right? However, if you think that blue is a sign of wanting to destroy America, then that’s not an opinion…it’s a belief. And people can be dead wrong about their beliefs.

    Rush is one of those people who blends opinions and beliefs together in order to further his political agenda. That’s fine. We all do that from time to time. The truly unfortunate thing is that he is heard by millions of people (few of whom think critically about what he’s saying and just nod in agreement), and it just further confuses the actual issues at hand. This conversation is a perfect example of that. Does anyone remember what we were even talking about in the first place? No. We just know that the other side is wrong, we are right, and blah blah blah…

    But really, who is right? If it’s an opinion we’re discussing, everyone is right. If it’s a belief we’re discussing, everyone has the potential to be completely wrong.

    One person’s opinion is that Rush Limbaugh is a great American. I can’t argue that. However, it is my belief that Rush is a hypocrite, a liar, an idiot, a rabble rouser, a tool, and an evil bastard. Those are all points we can argue.

     

  • Eric P. Metze 14:50 on March 4, 2008 Permalink | Comment

    The Hypocrisy of Hope 

    steiger-poitier-heat.jpgIn the 1967 version of In the Heat of the Night, there is a scene where the white police chief Bill Gillespie (played by Rod Steiger) turns to the black detective Virgil Tibbs (played by Sidney Poitier) and says, “Well, you’re pretty sure of yourself, ain’t you, Virgil. Virgil, that’s a funny name for a nigger boy to come from Philadelphia! What do they call you up there?”

    Virgil replies, “They call me Mister Tibbs!”

    That moment isn’t significant simply because a black man is defending himself. A line like that is more important in a larger perspective because it was a sign that things were beginning to change. Tibbs didn’t attack Gillespie, he didn’t play the race card, and he didn’t play into any stereotypes. He just defended himself as any human being would.

    I don’t think our current presidential race is really about the candidates. I honestly believe that no matter who gets elected, they’re still a puppet controlled by the hand of the government. Sometimes that hand is controlled by the people, sometimes by Congress, and sometimes by the natural forces of society. But the candidate is still a puppet. No matter what their stances are or their personal beliefs, they’re still the leader of ALL of America. They have to make decisions as a leader that they would never make as an individual, and that’s okay because that’s part of being a servant of the people. But they are not the supreme leader that rules this land (like a dictatorship), they are the representative of the people and their needs and desires.

    This is important because bullshit “stances” (like where they fit on abortion, gay marriage, the war, etc.) are just that: bullshit. Who cares what the president’s personal beliefs are? If he says red is the best color, all the blue lovers out there would immediately dislike him. I know that’s an oversimplified way to look at it, but not by much. It is absolutely impossible for people to agree on any issue, much less important or controversial ones. The president is here to represent us all, not just my beliefs or your beliefs. As long as they attempt to bridge the gap between the millions of differing opinions, they’re doing their job. And (not to give the pro-war fans any fodder) who knows what information the president has access to that the people will never be given access to? This privileged position dictates that once the president is sworn in, they stop being an individual and start being the head of the entire political body…which is just fine by me. After all, this is still a democracy, right?

    confused BushGetting to my point, the elections this year are important to me for a specific reason: it’s a barometer for the nation’s mental health. When Bush was elected in 2000, it really didn’t bother me much because the choices were so unclear. I was annoyed, sure, because it seemed like we elected a guy mostly based on the fact that his last name was the same as another (incredibly unsuccessful) president. I mean, really, people mostly voted for Bush because they didn’t like Gore, not because they actually liked or believed in Bush. Most people who voted against Gore did it because he was tied to Clinton, and there were a lot of Clinton-haters on that side of the fence. So our nation was petty? Big deal.

    However, when 2004 came around, the world was completely different. We’d gone through the greatest series of crises since the Vietnam War and begun an obviously controversial war that was perpetuated by pure fear. He was clearly incompetent, too stubborn to be a decent leader, and ruled over possibly the most corrupt administration ever. (I know what you’re thinking, and before you jump on me, let’s just wait until history reveals the truth.) More people apparently liked Bush than disliked him, even though the streets were filled with people protesting the war for months. I mean, if over half of the voting population elected him and his approval rating is so consistently low, it means that there was a huge portion of people in our nation that voted for the wrong person. It didn’t bother me that We the People chose the incompetent incumbent over the charmless challenger, it bothered me that we were making that choice based on the wrong things: fear and paranoia.

    Stephen Colbert Presidential SealAnd so, these days it doesn’t bother me at all when people tell me that Obama has received contributions from special interest groups. You know why? All politicians do it. Yes, even Ron Paul. (His base is the very essence of special interest.) People complain about the apparent lack of substance in this election, but how does that distinguish this election from any other? Everyone talks about idealistic and abstract things while on the campaign trail. That’s how it works.

    The truth is, I really don’t care about the individual candidates. Voting is about the voters and will of the people, not the individual candidates and speculation about what they might do once in office. I mean, if everyone would’ve known how huge of a mess the war was going to be, do you really think Bush would’ve been elected? What really matters in an election is what the voters think, not the candidates themselves. Voting is a barometer for our hopes, fears, wants, needs, dreams, and nightmares. And in 2004 we forgot our about our hopes, wants, and dreams and cowered to our fears, needs, and nightmares. After this several-year-long downhill slide, I almost lost faith in America, and I became a genuine advocate for Stephen Colbert for president. I figured that if the electoral system was a joke, why not elect a comedian?

    Barack the VoteBut now that Obama is in the race and the people are starting to rally behind him, I’ve started to feel that hope in humanity I’ve been missing for so long. Of course, there are a lot of people who are voting for him simply because he’s black, a Democrat, not a Republican, from Illinois, good-looking, charismatic, or some other arbitrary reason. But many people are rallying behind the “Yes, we can!” mentality, and that’s what really matters to me. There will always be those jaded people who feel compelled to disparage hope and idealism. I pity these people. Anyone who mocks idealism is too jaded for their own good. What is the point of hope if not to inspire?

    Clinton would be an excellent choice, but I fear the pseudo-support that comes from the meaningless legacy vote (just like Bush in 2000). McCain would also be a great choice because he’s honest and reliable, but even a sturdy train is dangerous when it’s riding on uneven tracks. But I have been watching Obama since I first saw him campaigning for the House of Representatives in 2000. I remember thinking, “That guy should run for president.” And when he gave the keynote address to the Democratic National Convention in 2004 I thought, “Obama is going to run for president.” Now, every time I listen to him speak, read about him, or see how my brothers and sisters of America react to him, all I can think is, “Barack is going to be president!” If voting is the barometer of the people, then it looks like the clouds of fear and paranoia might be starting to break. The candidates could all be four-armed axe-wielding Gorläg demons for all I care, as long it means that America is finally doing something about its problems rather than simply complaining about them, or worse, pretending that everything is just fine.

    Are there things about Obama I don’t like? Oh, sure. Are there things he believes in that I don’t agree with? Absolutely. Will he be the best choice for president? Possibly. Will he only make decisions that I agree with? No way. But, will I encourage people to vote for him? With every tool I have at my disposal. Why? Because I have faith in humanity, and I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t vote for hope.

     

  • Eric P. Metze 14:11 on October 25, 2007 Permalink | Comment

    A “Cool Heads” Global Warming Discussion 

    It’s a simple question: What causes global warming?

    Here’s a relatively simple answer: Global warming is caused by the greenhouse effect and the increase of anthropogenic (man-made) greenhouse gas concentrations.

    Look at Mars. It has lost most of its greenhouse gases, and now it’s oceans are gone and its surface is freezing. Now, look at Venus. It has a runaway greenhouse effect, and now it’s atmosphere is so dense that it rains diamonds and it is hot enough to melt metal. All three planets (ours included) formed in the same way at the same time, and their present atmospheres are the result of their pasts.

    Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think we’ll end up like either of those planets. For one thing, Venus is closer to the sun, so it’s bound to have higher temperatures. But Venus is so hot because of the greenhouse effect, not just because it’s closer. As for Mars, it’s farther away and colder, but there is strong evidence that it had complete oceans that once covered its surface. Where did the oceans go? Do you think the atmosphere had anything to do with it? Both of these planets are strong warning signs (from the heavens, I might add) about what our planet’s atmosphere is capable of becoming.

    And, something is happening. Take a peek at this: http://eric.metze.us/global-temperatures/

    I understand taking statistics out of context can be a bad idea (because that graph only goes back a few decades rather than millions of years), but look at the years on the graph and then think about when the Industrial Revolution happened. Is it a coincidence or a correlation?

    Or, lets say that we are NOT the cause of global warming. Then that frees us of the burden of having to correct it, right? Wrong. Even if we’re not the cause of it, it’s happening anyway. So, doesn’t it seem like a good idea to plan for the future? You know, get those millions (billions?) of people away from the coming tide changes, or strengthening our homes and buildings so they can survive the increasingly powerful storms, or learning how to deal with all the political unrest (like Darfur) caused by millions of migrating people who are in search of green fields, or, or, or…

    The reason this whole discussion bothers me, and the reason I felt the need to talk about it, is because of the politically-motivated distractions caused by the leadership of the Democrats and the Republicans and the inexorably-corrupt media. So when someone wins an award that is supposed to raise global awareness for a cause everyone supports (i.e., a healthy environment to live in), it’s just terribly frustrating that we have to stagnate in a sea of emotion-driven, counter-productive, intentionally-divisive conversations.

     

← Older posts

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel