Eric P. Metze

Look closer.

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.

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.

For 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.

Immediately 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.

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.

If we’ve ever had a discussion about email in the past year, chances are that I’ve tried to sell Gmail to you. I’m not just doing that because I’m geeky, or just because I think all the cool kids are using Gmail this year. The reason I do it is because I’m trying to make life easier for you, for me, and everyone else. I’m sure you like your current email service, but look at this way…

You may be driving a mid-90’s Ford Escort with manual transmission, no air conditioner, no airbag, and an old engine. Sure, it may be clean, has a nice new paint job, and has lots of new buttons, but then you drive into a Ferrari dealership. Now imagine a brand new (as in, just rolled off the factory floor) Ferrari with automatic transmission, air-conditioning, a hidden trailer hitch (for towing anything a dozen 18-wheelers can tow), shields (yeah, the kind they use on Star Trek), and a team of engineers who constantly fix or upgrade every broken or worn-out part on the entire car (all while you sleep)!

Yes, that’s probably an overly-complex analogy, but Gmail really does rock that much. And here are just a few reasons why…

#1. Archiving – You need to get used to archiving everything rather than deleting. In fact, you may need to change your whole outlook (no pun intended) on this behavior because it means something entirely different now. Before, if you had an email that you didn’t actively save somewhere, it’d eventually get deleted off the server. Well, with Gmail, unless you specifically delete it or it gets left in the Spam folder, it will remain in your account forever. This is important for two main reasons: security and “searchability.” The good thing is that you’ll never lose another email again…period. However, you also need to be aware that you have to delete anything you absolutely want deleted. So, get in the habit of archiving unless it’s absolute junk and you’re certain you’ll never ever need that email again.

#2. Re-inventing the inbox – Your inbox is like your desktop. It’s your staging area for things you need to deal with or don’t want to forget. The rest of the emails in there should be archived or deleted. It all depends on your own behavior, of course, but you shouldn’t have more than twenty-or-so emails in your inbox at any given time. Sure, you can have a thousand if you want, but you’d be neglecting the whole point of the Gmail inbox and the archive button. Don’t be afraid to archive something immediately after you’ve read it, or if you already know what it’s going to say. Archiving doesn’t hide it away in some locked vault, never to be seen again. It simply removes it from your inbox. Your inbox should just contain emails from people who are actively waiting on a response, or if there’s a bill notification or some other reminder you don’t want to forget.

#3. Filters! – Yay, filters! They rock, rock, rock! And, here’s why. Let’s say you keep getting email from Old Navy, and you just can’t get them to stop sending you stuff. Well, just create a filter that automatically archives (or deletes) all email from them. That way, it skips your inbox entirely and you never see it. There are a ton of great uses for filters. If you have a friend who is always forwarding you junk and you can’t tell them to stop (but you also don’t want to simply block them because they are a friend of yours), then just create a filter that automatically archives everything from “unclejoe@email.com” that has “FWD” in the subject line. That way, if he ever sends you a personal email that isn’t a forward, it’ll come straight to your inbox and you won’t miss a thing. And besides, if you set it to automatically archive, you won’t be getting rid of anyway…just hiding it. Finally, filters can be used to “unsubscribe” from any email service, no matter how hard they make it to do so. If you’re tired of receiving email from Victoria’s Secret, set up a filter that automatically deletes all email from them and you’ll never be bothered again.

#4. Labels – Another paradigm shift that Gmail will (happily) force you to make is getting rid of the “everything needs a folder” mentality. Outlook-based email, AOL, Hotmail, and the rest have always forced us to create all these folders for our email, arrange them just so, and otherwise add steps that we don’t really need. There are no folders, really, in Gmail. I mean, they call them the inbox folder and the spam folder just so people know what they’re referring to, but there is not actual folder. So, how do you keep everything straight? Labels! Add a label called “business” that is blue and one called “financial” that is green, or whatever you can come up with. They’re flexible and you can rename them, so you’re bound to come up with plenty of uses for them. But be careful that you don’t overuse them. After all, Gmail is about simplicity, and part of the simplicity is being able to search for an email rather than search through folders, labels, etc. And speaking of search…

#5. Google it! – Never forget that you’re using a Google-based program, not just a service provided by the company. Want to find something easily? Google it! It’s in your email somewhere. This is one of the best things about Gmail. Let’s say I sent you a password to my website about muffins, but you can’t remember when I sent it so the thought of scanning through alllllll of your emails is daunting (especially since you don’t delete them anymore). Well, try searching in your email for “password” and “muffins” and hit enter. Chances are, the exact email you are looking for will be sitting there waiting for you. If not, add/remove keywords until it does. I can’t stress to you enough how great this feature is until you experience it yourself. In fact, this is the reason why folders are irrelevant now. Why search through folders if you’re going to search all of them at once every time?

#6. Importing – Have you been using that Hotmail, MSN, or AOL account for years? Have it forwarded to your Gmail account. Have you been using Outlook or Thunderbird to check your email? You have no reason to even have those programs on your computer anymore. Gmail is a web-based version of Outlook that requires no installation and is constantly being automatically upgraded. Any POP or IMAP email address can be directly attached to your Gmail account. So, you could have your Gmail account, your Hotmail account, your AOL account, and your school email (for example) all checked in one place. Then, you just create a filter that adds a label to each email with the name of the email address it was sent to, and you’ll easily be able to tell where it was sent. Because of my web business and all the domains I manage, I have dozens of email addresses…dozens. But I check them all in one place with no effort (once it’s set up, of course). Which leads me to the last thing I’ll mention…

#7. Spam? No, thanks. – Gmail’s server automatically detects spam over the whole network. So, if Joe in Montana gets an email from a scammer in Liberia, and he marks it as spam, the system recognizes that and every email just like it gets automatically moved to everyone’s spam folder. Like I said before, I have dozens of publicly-available email addresses, but I rarely get more than one spam in my inbox each day. In fact, if you factor in Gmail’s filters, labels, and awesome spam controls, you should never be afraid of giving your email out to ANYONE…even spammers! I have been posting my personal email address (eric@metze.us) on the internet, in emails, and using it to sign up for every service for the past few years, and I have no problems with spam. Sure, I have 4,000+ messages in my spam folder right now, but I haven’t looked at a single one of them, and they’ll die after 30 days anyway.

If this hasn’t convinced you to at least give Gmail a shot, then please turn off your computer and go back to your newspaper. ;o) I’m kidding! I love ya. Hope this helps…

In 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?

Getting 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.

And 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?

But 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.