Cruel to Be Kind

Nobody wants to be called "cruel". It is just about the harshest adjective you can use to describe someone. There are bullies, mean-spirited people, jerks, and yet all of these ne'er-do-wells manage to avoid being called "cruel". In fact, it is such a harsh term, that in the right contexts, it's actually a crime: cruelty to animals, cruel and unusual punishment etc.

In recent years the term "badass" has become a compliment. We've always loved badasses, even before it was the term. Brando in "The Wild One", James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause", etc. But there is an unseen line, where we stop the badassery just short of cruelty. And to be certain, it's a slippery slope. For example, if you own a pit bull, you're a badass. If you enter your pit-bull in a dog fight, you're cruel. If you wear leather, you're a badass. If you wear fur, you're cruel. Steak is badass, veal is cruel. Beat up a guy, you're a badass. Beat up a woman, and you're going to jail, and so on.

I have friends who aspire to be "cruelty-free" recently. Going shopping with them is a predictable nightmare, though a well-intentioned one. No meat, no dairy, no products tested on animals, only cage-free eggs (if they eat eggs), no leather or suede, and so on ad nauseum. That's noble and all, but how far do we take this? For that matter, how do we define cruelty? Is anyone truly "cruelty free", regardless of their shopping lists?

In the quest to gain the "cruelty-free status", it's easy to get started. We can avoid beating people up, especially small children, the elderly and the handicapped. That's a good start. Allow people the right of way in traffic. Quit taking perverse pleasure in Simon Cowell's belittling remarks on "American Idol". After that it gets a little less obvious.

What about hunting? Is hunting cruel, if the animal suffers very little, and you eat what you kill? Is it less cruel to pay a corporate farm to raise, then kill, then cut up animals so that we can buy cellophane-packaged steaks? Deer hunters make the argument that *not* killing the deer is actually the crueler option, as they will overpopulate and starve to death. That said, I still think mounting the deer's head and hanging it on the wall to impress the guys is cruel.

Is wearing leather or fur cruel? If a cow is slaughtered for the meat, and the skin could be used but isn't, that seems if not cruel, then at least wasteful. Of course this whole argument hinges on the idea that slaughtering cows for any reason could be justified.

Is eating meat cruel? If so, why? Because it's a living thing, and life is sacred etc? Well then what about plants? People who decline eating meat for reasons of cruelty, but aren't the plants alive too? Do they not grow and reproduce, just like any other life form? And if we snuff out that plants life to eat parts of it, isn't that cruel? Maybe if plants had the ability to make sounds, like if a stalk of corn screamed whenever an ear of corn got ripped away, we might have to re-think the whole "vegetarians are cruelty free" thing.

Under what circumstances is cruelty forgivable, even arguably necessary? Some people think water boarding terror suspects to get them to confess to their evil plans is cruel, but it's an acceptable cruelty, insofar as it could yield information that ultimately allow law enforcement to prevent a larger cruelty (a terrorist attack). Personally, I don't buy this argument; the odds that a water boarding victim will tell the truth are unlikely. More likely they'll tell their captors whatever they want to hear so as to stop the water boarding. I know I would.

The ability to sustain life, whether human, cow, or Venus Fly Trap is predicated on the taking of life. There is a certain level of cruelty which is inherent in all civilizations, indeed in any one thing's survival. We kill things to survive. It may be an animal for the meat, an enemy in self-defense, a colony of ants that invades our kitchen. Someone once said "a developer is someone who wants to build a house in the woods. An environmentalist is someone who already has a house in the woods." It makes you wonder if perhaps cruelty is a matter of perspective.

My point is that it's easy for us to talk about being cruelty-free, when much of the dirty work is done. If you're reading this in America, your home was built on land stolen from massacred people. If you eat, whether you eat plants or animals, your sustenance is a death sentence to other living things. Every bit of uneaten food you throw away is an act of cruelty too, when you consider how many people go without a decent meal. Your freedom is an act of cruelty, when you consider the blood that was spilled in gaining it. I could go on, but you get the idea.

We must each of us understand our own potential for cruelty, and the futility of trying to avoid it altogether. Beyond that, we can make little choices to stake our claim somewhere on the spectrum between karmic altruism and Michael Vick.

Meanwhile, We're Still at War

Oooh did you hear about Tiger Woods and his bevy of mistresses?

How is this news? Are they actually teaching journalism students in school today that this passes as actual journalism? The mantra used to be "if it bleeds, it leads". No more, apparently.

As a nation we have allowed ourselves to become obsessed with the trivial, the inconsequential, and the meaningless. Celebrity has become the new religion, and the faithful masses partake in the weekly sacraments of Us and People magazines, while blinding themselves to issues that actually affect them.

Healthcare legislation that will potentially affect most Americans (should it actually pass) is currently being bandied about by pompous Senators and Representatives who seem more concerned with representing the interests of Big Insurance than they are in representing us. Our President, just a few short years after taking President Bush to task for his Iraq "surge", has opted to commit 30,000 of our brothers and sisters into the meat grinder of Afghanistan, collectively known as the "graveyard of empires".

And that's what we've become - an empire. Long gone are the days of the American Republic, if in fact it ever existed at all. Our history as a nation is marked by wars and the usurpation of land by indigenous tribes. "I've got the pistols, so I get the pesos", sing the Refreshments in their song "Banditos", and we may as well replace In God We Trust with that little bit of truth. It represents us as a nation better than any religious platitude ever could.

And as is the case with all empires, we become so concerned with the borders of our empire, with "national security" as it is referred to these days, that we are content to ignore the goings-on within the borders. That is, unless is involves awards shows, reality TV, or celebrity shenanigans. It has been argued that we have more people willing to vote for the next American Idol than for the next American President. It is telling that we elevate Sarah Palin to the echelon of Influential Political Voices in America: she is as clueless and seemingly proud of it as her constituency. We are a nation that traded our library cards for Blockbuster cards. We are content to be stupefied by the latest Blu-Ray bread and circus, and less inclined to leave the house to broaden our horizons.

In the times of the Romans, we can mark off the beginning of the end with the advent of "Bread and Circuses". The government supplied free bread to the starving citizenry, and promoted bloody gladiatorial displays. Chariot races and foreign conquests (along with that free carb-heavy diet) kept the mouth-breathers in line while the Caesars and senators partied away around the vomitoriums. And in the end, the barbarians who were long-dismissed as no real threats sacked Rome and slaughtered its inhabitants.

I say it is time for us as Americans to try rousing ourselves from our own carb-heavy stupors, turn off the UFC pay per views, put down the celebrity magazines and look at the empire we live in. I mean, REALLY look at it. How is our healthcare system, compared to other countries'? How is our educational system? Can you name your local representative? When you receive a jury duty summons, are you more concerned with how to get out of it than you are with how to serve your community?

I fear the end is near, gentle pilgrims, and I say that because if there is to be a solution, it will come not from Washington but from us. And that does not fill me with hope.

War on Christmas!

It's started already.

Defensive Christians all over America have once again begun to pick the rallying cry over the "War on Christmas". For those of you who have blissfully missed this silliness over the last few years, it started in Kentucky this year. Why am I not surprised? But I digress...

The governor there, Steve Beshear, insisted on calling the Christmas tree... a "Christmas tree". Apparently some of the state legislators were caught referring to it as a "holiday tree", which got the loonies in a lather. Last week, the Mississippi-based American Family Association announced a boycott against the Gap because supposedly it aired a "holiday" commercial and failed to mention "Christmas". They actually did, but far be it from the AFA to let facts and reason get in the way of a good tantrum.

And so it goes. Conservative Christians for years now have lamented the secularization of their holiday. "Jesus is the reason for the season", they would remind us, and pray mercy on those who forget. They've managed to recruit Bill O'Reilly to be their mouthpiece, spewing propaganda from his pulpit at Fox News regarding this atrocity.

Any time a nativity is represented in a town square, you can hear the veritable pin drop as these warriors for Christ wait for some ACLU no-goodnik to start whining about the separation of church and state, and how displaying religious holiday paraphernalia on government land, on the government's dime, is a constitutional violation, blah blah blah. I'd love to see how these same Christian Soldiers would feel, should the government wish to dedicate some tax dollars to sponsoring pilgrimages to Mecca for its Muslim citizenry, or festering Main Street with signs wishing passers-by a happy Ramadan.

They would remind us that America is a Christian nation (it’s not), and that all the founding fathers were Christians (they weren’t), and that our laws are based on the Bible (they aren’t). It is true that Christians far outnumber any other religion’s members in this country. No debating there. It’s true that Christmas, celebrated on December 25th, is generally and traditionally recognized as the birth of Jesus. Again, no contradictions here.

But I thought, as we enter the holiday season (too damned early, if you ask me), we remind ourselves of a few facts:

First off, the reason the early church leaders chose December 25th as the date for Christmas was to coincide with the winter solstice, traditionally revered by Druids and other various pagan groups. They figured out that this was when the days started getting longer, and the sun “returned” to the earth. Druids would decorate trees with candles to celebrate the returning of the light. Feasts were enjoyed. Gifts were given. Thousands of years before there was such a thing as Christianity, these pagan traditions were firmly embedded in the culture. In an effort to capitalize on this festive time, early church leaders started weaving in the story of Jesus’ birth to coincide with this date, and many of the existing traditions were simply re-written to give them a Nativity spin. Now we give gifts like the three Wise Men gave them, etc.

Secondly, there’s no way Jesus could have been born in late December, if the Nativity account in the Bible is to be believed. “Shepherds were watching over their flocks by night” in a field when a bunch of angels showed up, scared the crap out of them, and announced the birth of Jesus. In Bethlehem in Israel, late December is a very cold time of year. Shepherds were not likely to be out in a field at night. More likely in December, they’d have the sheep in a barn somewhere so they didn’t freeze to death. Jesus was born (again, if we are to accept the biblical account as fact) in warmer months, like late spring or summer.

Finally, late December, and the solstice in general, host many different holidays, sponsored by many faiths. We have Hanukkah. We have Kwanzaa (which while not a religious celebration per se, is still separate from Christianity). We have Yule, the modern version of the pagan solstice celebration.

So to assume that “Happy Holidays” is somehow a refusal to acknowledge Christianity is just plain silly. All it assumes is that there are several holidays being celebrated around that time, and person “A” is simply wishing person “B” a nice one, whichever they’re celebrating.

This whole “war on Christmas” is pure bunk. It really isn’t a Christmas tree, when you get right down to it. It’s a Yule tree, and the Christians outright stole it from the Druids. But you don’t hear them complaining. Not because they don’t exist anymore (they do), but because unlike Christians, they’re not that defensive. They accept the existence of other religions, and they are willing to share the season’s goodwill with anyone, regardless of their theology. Would that Christians were so gracious.

These Christian zealots see challenges to the dominance of their religion in every harmless little statement. They pick fights where none exist. No one is seriously trying to eradicate Christianity. But it must be acknowledged that not everyone celebrates Jesus' birthday, and there's no crime there. They are simply embracing our right to not have to be included in it. So they say "Happy Holidays". Where's the harm? There is no underlying sinister footnote. Have yourself a Merry Little Christmas, and pardon the hell out of me for not joining in. Why must clerks say "Merry Christmas"? What, their low-paying jobs are stressful enough without taking time out to appease the fundamentalist right wing under threat of boycotts as well? Why do stores like Target and KMart have to deal with the threat of boycotts just because they acknowledge that not everyone is a Christian? "How dare they wish those jews and pagans a happy holiday? Don't they know that Christmas is the only thing worth mentioning?" Or did I get it wrong, Mr. O'Reilly?

I’m reminded of the Christians’ Bible, Paul’s first letter to the church of Corinth, thirteenth chapter:

“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs.”

I humbly submit that this notion of a war on Christmas is borne of pride, of self-seeking, of an unwillingness to share, of a desire to keep a record of alleged transgressions. Insisting that people say “Merry Christmas”, insisting that store clerks say “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays” reflects selfishness and insecurity. If your god is the one true god and every other religion is an exercise in futility, then it shouldn't ruffle your feathers when you encounter others who believe differently. It’s no threat to you it does not negate your truth, and you do your god a disservice by not being gracious and demonstrating his supposed grace and forgiveness.

Hate, Inc.

This weekend in Phoenix, Arizona there was an anti-immigration protest held, organized by "American Citizens United". I checked their web site, and behind the patriotic lip service is a clear message: we hate Mexicans. One wonders, as the organization is based in Arizona, if you hate Mexicans so much, why are you living in a state that borders Mexico? I mean, it's just unrealistic of you to not expect to see Mexicans, here legally or not, all around you. By my count, there are 34 states that do not border other countries. You can't move to one of them?

That aside, some neo-Nazis showed up at this rally, and a scuffle ensued. Tea-bagging Mexican haters apparently don't wish to include the Nazis in their protests. I mean, hating Mexicans is one thing, but when someone shows up at your rally waving a picture of Hitler, it takes away from their credibility.

It occurred to me watching that, that there's no shortage of anger today in America. Most of it is from white folks, red state patriots who are convinced that our country is circling the drain, and that their opinions aren't being taken into consideration, and they want their country back. Okay, but back from whom? Who "stole" your country? Back when Bush was (failing at) running things, liberals like myself had the same mantra: "what happened to MY America?" In the case of the anti-Bush crowd, we felt our economic and foreign policies had been usurped by small minority, bent on world domination, both militarily and economically, at the expense of the poor and the overall majority. Despite massive disapproval of the war in Iraq, they would not consider changing course. Why should they? They were getting rich off the back and blood of brown people and their oil, much like the settlers in the Old West and plantations owners of the South. And even though we thought we'd evolved beyond such imperialistic domination fixations, our leaders were intent on reverting from being a Republic to an Empire. Thus, Rome fell.

Ever since the 2008 elections, the losers (Republicans and the Right Wing in general) have been scrambling to define themselves. The unspoken understanding was that Republicans were the party of the white Christians in America, the gun owners, the religious, and usually the more affluent. Democrats were the ones who always suggested increasing the federal minimum wage, and Republicans were the ones fighting for the poor business owners who would be forced out of business when they could no longer exploit their workforces for such slave wages. Democrats (synonymous with liberals and progressives for the sake of this piece) are typically the ones to champion the rights of minorities - blacks, women, gays, you name it. Democrats introduce hate crime legislation, Republicans argue that it's unnecessary. (No shit, fellas, no one is lynching white christian straight men, of course you think it's unnecessary.) Democrats argue for gay marriage, Republicans argue that civil unions are the same thing. Of course they're not, but the message is clear - don't rock the boat.

White Christian men have run America from the beginning. All the signers of the Declaration of Independence were white men, most were Christian. Same for the Constitution. And with the exception of Barack Obama, all U.S. Presidents have been white men. Only one was never married. We were a nation for 140 years before we had a woman in Congress. We were a nation for nearly a century before non-whites were allowed to vote, and over a century before women were allowed. So there is a strong tradition in this country of white male leadership, and legislation that primarily benefited white straight Christian men.

It stands to reason that when women and minorities got the right to vote, and started showing up in Congress and the Supreme court, that our rules and laws would undergo a change as well. No longer do our laws only allow for the rights of white straight men to win. Now women have rights, minorities have rights, and the white straight Christian men have to get used to a nation in flux; a nation that isn't all about them anymore.

With the election of a black president, we've put the final piece in place. America is no longer White Man Land, officially. Now, granted, Obama is mixed race - his mother was white, but such distinctions are lost on those afraid of change. He's not white if he's not 100% white.

Which brings me to hate. Let me say first that hate is simply the fear of the unknown. We fear what we don't understand, and we instinctively feel separate from things and people that are different. We are encouraged to fear, which leads to distrust, which evolves into hate. And that hate gets perpetuated through the generations. When I see men calling Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton a bitch, I know what they're really saying is that they resent having a woman in a position of authority over them, or indeed any man. When I hear people saying "I want my country back", I know it's not that they want it back to Republican or conservative rule, they just want a white man in charge. Case in point: when Bill Clinton was president, no one was going around talking about wanting their country back. That's because he was white, he was a man, he was straight, and he was a Christian. The right wing disagreed with his politics, but they didn't claim to have had their country stolen out from under them.

With Obama in the Oval Office, Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, Nancy Pelosi in charge in the House, it's apparent to all straight white men that their reign of power has come to an end. And this has a lot of the Old Guard uneasy: does this mean the end of an era, referred to in hindsight as the Caucasian Men's Period of American Power? Or is this simply a reaction to the anti-Bush sentiment borne of eight years of failed leadership? When will we have another black president? When can we expect a female president? How about a First Couple of mixed race? For that matter, when can we expect a gay or lesbian president? The first overtly non-Christian president? Surely the election of Barack Obama has many of us on the left and right wondering if the mold has truly been shattered, or what's next.

Rules of Engagement - War in the 21st Century

I've heard the Obama Administration accused recently of being soft of national defense. "National Defense" is a euphamism commonly used by the Right to mean American Exceptionalism - the idea that we're better than everyone else and that the rules that apply to other nations (like, not invading each other) do not apply to us.

I'm no fan of suffering, but this idea that we as a nation need to right every wrong on earth is just dumb. First off, who decides which wrongs get righted? When Iraq invading Kuwait, we were the first to step in and say no. When the ethnic cleansing episodes in eastern Europe threatened to wipe out millions, we stepped in, and good thing. But all around the world, people are oppressed while we sit idly by. Is it a question of severity? Is it a question of money? Is it a question of manpower? The point is, we cherry pick the causes we're willing to commit troops to while situations like Darfur fester in the open with little more than lip service from Washington.

The truth is, our insistence on using our military will ultimately be our undoing. We may not have the best education system in the world, but we have some smart people. They're smart enough to know that words can have a more profound and lasting impact than bombs. And yes, this is a plea to consider exhausting all possible diplomatic channels before resorting to war.

Therefore, I am laying out my suggestions for how to conduct ourselves as a nation in the future, in the unfortunate case we need to rattle our sabers:

• Don't even go to war in the first place. What does war really resolve? Who's better? Who's morally superior? Who's got the right to all that gooey oil? We talk about our troops "over there defending our freedoms", but with all due respect to our brave fighting men and women in uniform, that is a crock. Nothing that would ever happen in Iraq or Afghanistan will ever affect my freedoms. It might affect their freedoms, but let's not get me involved here. Regardless of how it plays out over there, this will always be America, and my rights aren't going anywhere.
• Exhaust all possible diplomatic and economic options first. Even the most gung-ho military will tell you, war is hell. And before marching into some meat grinder, it should be noted that we have a lot of diplomats in this country who can attempt to reason out solutions with countries before the bullets start flying. Believe me, they don't want us there, no matter how willing they say they are to die for their glorious cause. As for economics, I'm no economist but it seems to me that the United States can still wield a little influence in the form of trade embargoes, humanitarian effort, etc. If we can make it worth their while for a few million dollars to reconsider their positions, it would save billions in war expenses.
• Define our objectives before we get started. I think that if we're going to go to the trouble and the expense of committing to war, we damn well ought to be able to say why we're doing it. If it's to depose a regime and replace it with a democratically elected government, then fine. We go, overthrow the evil dictator, set up the new boss, stick around long enough to see the new leader take their oaths of office, and get the hell out. None of this nebulous "bring peace and stability to the region" crap. Let's have a checklist.
• Finally, declare War. When was the last time Congress passed a resolution declaring war? I know we did it in World War II. Korea was called a "police action" and was a United Nations effort. Vietnam, who knows. I mean, we call it "the Vietnam War", but did we ever declare war on Vietnam? And in my lifetime, I can't recall a single military campaign where we had the balls to actually declare war with an act of Congress. It seems to me that if we are going to send our soldiers, our aircraft carriers, or bombers and tanks to some country with the intention of blowing stuff up, then we ought to just make it official and have Congress pass a resolution, have the President sign off, and then go kick some ass.

National Healthcare, My Two Cents

I'm not a doctor. I don't work in the insurance industry. I have not read the bill. I need to get that established right away, lest you go mistaking me for some expert and try quoting me at the water cooler.

What I do know is that 40-50 million of my fellow citizens are currently without any type of health insurance. What I do know is that without insurance, your chances of adequate medical treatment for injuries or disease is somewhere between slim and none. What I do know is, even when this recession (depression) is long gone, there will be unemployed and part-time employees who do not qualify for their employer's insurance plans.

Much has been made of the recent attempts to get a national health care plan pushed through. Wrangling on both sides has made for good theater, but in the end the only thing that matters is whether something gets done that actually addresses the problem.

In this, I am a pragmatist. I do not expect any bill, should one get signed into law, to be perfect. I do not expect it to address every little problem. I do think that there will always be people without insurance, and this will be their choice. Maybe they don't trust the government, maybe they simply can't afford it, and maybe their religious dogma sees modern medicine as rebelling against God. Who know, and who cares. Remember that the ink on our Constitution wasn't even dry before they concocted ten amendments to it. And it's a good thing for us that they did. We've added dozens of amendments to what was already a pretty good document, and we were right to do so.

Whatever the final version of the healthcare bill includes, you can expect to see amendments proposed to it forever after. As our understanding of the issue broadens, as industries adapt to this new legislation, as the needs of our uninsured shift and morph, so to must our laws.

What I have found interesting during the theater of debate is the people insisting on perpetuating lies in the interest of sinking the legislation. Here's a safe bet: these people (A) already have health insurance and (B) have no trouble affording it. I also suspect the ones protesting the loudest are the least likely to have actually read the damn thing. There's nothing like ignorance to get the blood boiling. Just ask the Klan.

And speaking of Klan, what's with the people carrying swastikas and racist protest signs to the town hall meetings? Do they really think this is furthering the cause? Is this attracting people who would otherwise have been undecided? Look: if you have a problem with something your government is doing, the First Amendment guarantees you two very important freedoms, the freedom of peaceable assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of your grievances. But these boondoggles at town hall meetings are not "peaceable assembly". And shouting down your elected officials just because you chose to believe whatever lies Fox News is telling does not constitute a petition for the redress of grievances. If you already have insurance, and have no plans to avail yourself of the government option, then you have no grievance. None. Anyone who tells you differently is lying to you, and trying to heat up your blood.

Stay tuned, faithful readers...

There's Something About Sarah

Man, I don't know whether to be flipping cartwheels or the middle finger. Sarah Palin is officially a non-entity in the current American political landscape. She holds no office. She is a private citizen. She has no more authority than you or I do.

Where to go from here? I adore this woman. Not because I agreed with anything she said, mind you. But because everything about her typified the current status of the Republican party. She was a train wreck of nearly biblical proportions, a constant source of embarrassment, a living example of the right's attempt to put lipstick on a pig. Or in this case, an elephant.

The truth is, no one in America would have any idea who she is (outside of Alaska) if Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic nomination last fall. When Obama got the nod, women throughout America who were poised to vote Hillary into office were primed for some backlash. The Republicans attempted to cash in on this bloc of disaffected voters by propping a woman, ANY woman, into the spotlight. Enter Sarah Palin.

She was governor of Alaska. Whoop de friggin doo. Look, I get that Alaska is the largest state, at least in terms of square miles. But Alaska is also a frozen wasteland, for the most part. The entire state is home to less than a million people. Los Angeles County has ten times that.

For all her attempts to sounds folksy and straight-shooting, she only succeeded in looking like a rube. I wouldn't want that woman teaching my children how to fingerpaint. She is uneducated (five years at how many colleges to get a four year degree in some irrelevant major), uninformed, and as politicians go, she hasn't got a leg to stand on. The town she mayored, Wasilla, has more meth labs in a ten mile radius than any other place in Alaska. Her "abstinence-only" platform left her a granny before 50, thanks to her daughter's inability to understand how to effectively use a condom. He grasp on fiscal matters shows that she left the town she mayored and the state she governed deeper in debt than it had been before she got there.

This woman is the Rosetta Stone of modern progressive talking points. Between her and the boys on C street, the Republicans seemed doomed. I truly hope they don't mothball Palin. I hope she gets a job as a commentator on Fox News. I just can't get enough of Sarah, and I hope to see her further embarrass herself and her party soon.