Am I Evil?

My friend John posted an article from Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/200908/atheists-are-the-most-mistrusted-group-they-are-evil-and-immoral) that sorta leaves me with a peculiar mix of emotions: I’m sad because I’m reminded how I feel as an Atheist in a community that throws a tremendous amount of credence to Judeo/Christian myths, and although I would never deign to cheapen the term most commonly associated with homosexual fear and self doubt, I feel sort of locked in a closet.

I’m glad, in a twisted way perhaps, that I can see the awareness being raised about folks like me, and that I can count myself (perhaps with some deeply unearned pride) among some of the greatest intellectual personalities of the last several hundred years. Me! Yes, I’m proof that even the beer-drinking, guitar-slinging, Mayor-of-Simpleton types can count themselves among some of the greatest humans in history, an elite group of courageous thinkers and brainiacs. I say, “good show.” Kickass.

I’m also, unfortunately not surprised. After all, the vast majority of Americans believe that there is a higher moral power, a being who created us all and will be there to judge us. In nearly every case (mine included, if I had chosen to keep my faith) these are beliefs that were instilled in us from birth. How, therefore, should I be able to expect anything less? The idea of someone not believing in an all-knowing power, invisible though it is, one that gives these people a sense of hope, purpose and morality, one they sincerely believe will make their after-death an experience far beyond the dreams of their living experience, is completely foreign. One may as well (especially in the case of the Catholics) profess a disbelief in food. “Give us this day our daily bread.”

Yea, verily, the ranks of the faithful doth live on bread alone, and cannot understand how anyone could go without. Which begs the question (fodder for a future entry, perhaps, or for John to take and run with): If the religious take their daily bread for nourishment, what food best suits the nonbeliever? As for me, I think that bread is best served in its higher, noble, and liquid form, beer. It doesn’t spoil or mold as easily, acts as a thirst quencher as well, and in my case at least, leaves the imbiber with a happy state of open-mindedness, goodwill and love for whomever else is around.

But I digress.

I can understand the fear of the unknown. Truly. I remember feeling a certain disgust and mistrust of homosexuals growing up. The day I found out that a man I knew well as a jovial, decent and giving person was gay I realized my fears were completely unfounded and unfair. He, like me, was human. Different from me, but human. And for some I think the local atheist might be less of a boogeyman if they understood that atheists are people like me, and human. I don’t much care if you have a faith in some unseen being; that’s your choice to make. All I ask is that you treat me with the same respect.

As someone who chooses not to subscribe to Judeo/Christian morality, am I evil? A bad guy? If you saw me on the street, or at the local food bank, or helping my neighbors, would you think so? Would you even know? Do I LOOK evil? What does evil LOOK like?

Of course, things are a lot more complicated than that, and in some future post I will bare my feelings about the faithful demanding special treatment from society and government, their disdain for scientific fact and their desire to rewrite the Constitution as some pro-deity framework for some Christian nation.

Thanks for reading.

Cheers!
Chris

Obama = Hitler?

One of the things that’s been bugging me for the last 9 or so months is the lows to which a certain fringe in America will stoop to cast our President in an unflattering light. Since shortly prior to Election Day 2008 I’ve been witness to character attacks that are simply mind-boggling. I saw the linking of Obama to William Ayers (an extremely tenuous relationship at best), the endless calls for his Birth Certificate (“Not that, one Obami! THAT one!”), the insistence that he is a closet Muslim who is in league with Al-Quaeda. But by far, the ones that get me most riled are the ones that claim that Obama’s hero is Karl Marx and that his “rise to power” is somehow paralleled to Hitler and that therefore he will be a Nazi leader in America by the end of his term in office.

OK, first let me get this off my chest. I grew up with a guy (I’ll call him Keith to protect the innocent) whom I consider one of my closest friends. He and I had a lot in common; music, sense of humor, the same quaint pastoral life that kids have in rural New Hampshire. We disagreed, sure, but there was a bond there that, as we grew up together, only strengthened through understanding, love and respect. Now Keith never finished High School; he did eventually get his GED and he went on to be a knowledgeable and hard working mechanic. We stayed close, even grew closer actually, as we became adults and lived our lives. I did a stint in college (until full-time school, full-time work and a newspaper internship did me in) and decided my life’s ambition to be a newspaper journalist was not to be. I wo0rked hard in warehouses until my wife and I had children, at which point I became a full-time house husband and caregiver.

Recently, Keith and I had a falling out from which I doubt we can recover. After two previous awful personal attacks upon me, which were discussed and forgiven, this most recent attack became “3 strikes; you’re out.” Without getting into too much detail, suffice it to say that he knew I was an Obama supporter, and he had cast his lot with the aforementioned fringe. We had agreed previously to disagree and not talk about politics, but one day I received an email from him, asking about how, now that “Obami” was President, he could possibly see any good that could come out of it. I responded with a short note, reminding him politely that we had agreed not to discuss it, and would he like to rethink asking me about “Obami” again. He replied that he wanted my opinion. I gave it to him, politely, and with footnotes and resources where he could see a great many of his worries and claims refuted honestly and without bias.

His response stung. I had “drunk the Kool-Aid,” he said. I had been “indoctrinated.” “Obami” is a student of Karl Marx and a man who will prove to be as bad as Hitler.

OK.

So this is for all the Keiths out there who take Glenn Beck as gospel and get their news from Faux News and internet blogs like “Little Green Footballs.”

Go back to High School and retake history you fucking morons. When you get to the chapters concerning Communism and Fascism, take notes. Sort the ideologies into two columns. Find the similarities.

Oh? No similarities? Hmm. OK.

You see, Communism is an extreme ideology (actually its more of an economic system that a form of government, but let’s not get crazy here) on the LEFT side of the political spectrum. Fascism is a hideous ideology that is on the RIGHT side of the spectrum. Simply put, Obama can’t possibly be both a Fascist and a Communist, you idiots.

Now. The point I take most exception to by these uneducated boobs is that which claims Obama is a Fascist, a Hitler-in-training. This offends me not because I voted for the man and believe it to be completely false, but because it is a painful reminder of how quickly people will either 1. forget the terrible atrocities of Hitler and his political ambitions/party, or 2. use cheap comparisons to that monster to score political points and attempt to undermine the President and his job. Disgusting and vile on the basest level… Do these people really believe that Obama and his flaws (trumped up and otherwise) compare in ANY way to the man/thing that exterminated more than 6 million people on his whim? Really?

Anyway, here’s an academically accepted summary of fascism. Does this sound like Obama and his Administration to YOU?

14 POINTS OF FASCISM



1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism
Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media
Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security
Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected
Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment
Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections
Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

NOTE: The above 14 Points was written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt, a political scientist. Dr. Britt studied the fascist regimes of: Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile).

Earworm Revisited

It’s been a long time since I posted anything here. Here’s a list of my favorite excuses:
1. I haven’t heard anything good lately
2. I’ve been too busy
3. I have kids
4. I have a life
5. I have a lack of interest
6. I have no clue.
7. The devil made me do it.
8. I’ve recently found that there is, in fact, no devil. Therefore, I am ashamed to say that I have no-one but myself to blame.
9. I took time off.
10. I had nothing reasonable to say.
11. Nobody reads this thing anyway.


So as it turns out, I’ve got a lot on my mind. I’ve succeeded in alienating a lot of people on Facebook with my opinions, which have in the last year graduated to the lofty status of Well-Informed Passions. I have no inherent desire to be confrontational or to piss people off. But I’ve come to some staggeringly powerful conclusions about myself and my community, both local and national, and I realize that I need to write. A LOT.

My dear friend John has helped me get my writing boots on recently, and although my projects with him have stalled due to my inconsistencies, I think this might prove to be a springboard for further, more detailed and less constrained creative prose as we go on.

A great deal of what goes on this page will be observations and musings political, philosophical, and otherwise. They may be ugly. I hope that will be the exception, not the rule. I hope to include pretty much anything that pops into my mind, including the happier end of my spectrum, music. I’ll post links and videos, pictures and lots of opinions and ramblings. I’m doing this for me, not you, although it’s a bonus if you like it.

For today, Columbus Day, I’ll leave you with these thoughts:

The term "pre-Columbian" is usually used to refer to the peoples and cultures of the Americas before the arrival of Columbus and his European successors. Columbus himself was responsible for the deaths of millions of Native Americans (estimates range between 1 and 3 million) in first 15 years of his colonization of the Caribbean[2][3], including entire peoples' such as the Taino[4] and the Arawak[5], and was the founder of the practice of slavery in the Americas.[6]

2. Zinn, Howard (2003). "1" (in English). A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present (Fifth Printing ed.). New York: Harper Perennial. pp. 7. ISBN 0060838655.
3. Churchill, Ward (December 1993) (in English). Indians Are Us?: Culture and Genocide in Native North America. Common Courage Press. http://www.mit.edu/~thistle/v9/9.11/1columbus.html. Retrieved 10-12-2009.
4. Rouse, Irving (July 28, 1993) (in English). The Tainos: Rise and Decline of the People Who Greeted Columbus (Paperback). Yale University Press. ISBN 0300056966.
5. Zinn, Howard (2003). "1" (in English). A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present (Fifth Printing ed.). Harper Perennial. pp. 5. ISBN 0060838655.
6. Zinn, Howard (2003). "1" (in English). A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present (Fifth Printing ed.). New York: Harper Perennial. pp. 4.

"Columbus' claim to fame isn't that he got there first, it's that he stayed."
-Historian Martin Dugard