Archive for July 11, 2008

Bilingualism & Elitism, or, What Not to Say About Europe

Being a Barack Obama fan is a bit of a roller coaster.  The man does almost everything right.  Everything.  He compromises where necessary, he’s open and honest about religion, and he periodically knocks one out of the park with a grand, populist gesture… sometimes, perhaps, too often.

But oh, the pain.  I submit to you two ironclad rules of American politics, both drawn from the anti-elitist, anti-intellectual meme that has run silently throughout American politics since the Founding, and now resurfaced with a vengeance:

• Americans do not like being talked down to by our politicians, even if the politicians doing the lecturing are sympathizing with our inadequacies. The Romans hated Cato the Elder (no matter what Plutarch said), and, sadly, we too hate the self-improvement centered politicians, wherever they may crop up.  We want an avatar, not a lecturer, regardless of how badly we may need the latter.
• Americans do not like being compared negatively to Europe. The Europeans are like America’s older siblings, and a politician who measures us by Europe strikes a decidedly parental and patronizing tone.  Avoid.  But it’s worse: comparisons with Europe cut against our foundation myth, which centers upon us being the perfection of Europe, the city-upon-a-hill that rose above religious and ideological differences to welcome all to the land of the free.  Stacking America against Europe sells the story out.  If you need an example of the disaster that can spring from avoiding this rule, anyone with a memory longer than three years ought to recall how Kerry’s French connection immediately set him at odds with the people.  A smart politician would steer clear of that third rail.

And, while Obama’s a smart politician… I guess we all make mistakes.  Criticizing Americans for only being mono-lingual?  And using French, of all languages, as the example?  Really?  Ugh.  Let’s not have a repeat of the Great Windsurfing Disaster of Aught-Four.

Also, a very good comment on elitism by Collin, here.

In re PZ Myers v. The World, and Why Atheists Should Play it Cool

A.K.A., Atheism: You’re Doin’ it Wrong.

PZ Myers has decided to take on Catholicism, by calling for atheists to take communion wafers and either deface them, or send them to him for the same. While I agree abstractly with the sentiment animating this quest – in his own words, “IT’S A FRACKIN CRACKER!” – and applaud the (misspelled) Battlestar Galactica reference, I question the means of getting his message across.

Background: upon consecration by a duly authorized Catholic priest, per the doctrine of transubstantiation, the communion wafer actually becomes the body of Christ. In the eyes of a believing Catholic, PZ Myers is sanctioning nothing less than the abduction and grim mutilation of the body of Christ.

Fun is Fun

I do not doubt the potential for private hilarity here. While I deeply respect the Catholic faith, and its beliefs, I laughed myself silly when hearing about a friend’s Catholic school classmate who for three years palmed his consecrated wafers, turned them into snack food, and then conspicuously sold the “products” in the school cafeteria. “Nacho Jesus” and “Shake ‘n Bake Jesus” were some of the funnier ones. Footnote – the kid was expelled & excommunicated. But, I emphasize the private aspect this type of humor must take.

But Advocacy is Serious Business

PZ wants to encourage the world to laugh at itself, and through laughter, eventually urge theists to question their dearly held beliefs and commit themselves to what he sees as a more rational belief system. Satire is obviously a powerful motivator for social change. But by opting for offense over reasoned debate, and deliberately choosing an off-putting means of advocacy, PZ compromises his own commitment to rationalism, and endangers the entire agnostic/atheist movement. This latest internet offensive betrays a saddening lack of political flair which, like it or not, every intellectual movement must have.

Atheists stand at the outside of society. This should be no surprise. Accordingly, the first goal of any self-respecting atheist group must be, in my girlfriend’s words, to convince the world “that atheists don’t eat babies.” Mutual understanding and respectability is the way. I know that most of PZ Myers’ readers – and some of my own – will think that there’s no reasoning with theists. But that, in fact, is empirically disproven. While some of the true loonies will never be converted (holy dino-riding Jesus, Batman!), there are legitimate and achievable means of promoting an interfaith/nonfaith dialogue. The Secular Students of Rice University, of which I was a member in college, held an “Ask an Atheist Forum” every year, encouraging students to ask atheists about their beliefs, and realize that, hey, atheists aren’t so bad after all – sure, they’ve got beards, but who doesn’t! They held moderate Darwin Day celebrations of science every February 22nd. They hosted weekly meetings, encouraging open debate, and often had more than one theist in attendance, and always maintained a respectful tone. I’m not sure if any minds were won over to the cause, but none left convinced of atheism’s evil, and none were lost from it.

Spreading the Message: You’re Doin’ it Wrong

My point is that an atheist advocate’s goal should not be the creation of bloggable instances of theistic outrage, any more than a Christian apologist’s goal should be to piss off as much of the world as possible. Neither contribute to a meaningful dialogue by which a movement can progress from thesis and antithesis, to new thesis.

I don’t dispute the value of incidents like this, to have a little fun while preaching to the choir. But to leverage “a little fun” into a PR stunt is bad advocacy. The Cracker Incident was a bad move. I say this as an agnostic – not a full blown atheist – so take my words with a grain of salt. Or, perhaps, with a little red wine.

Raining on Bobby Jindal’s Parade

I’m no fan of Bobby Jindal.  But I am a fan of The Economist, especially when they trash Bobby Jindal.  If Jindal is out of the running as McCain’s running mate, though, it may not be for the reasons that we would like.  Quite apart from his bizarre anti-science worldviews, Jindal has gone back on some campaign promises regarding legislative pay-raises, rendering him dead in the water… at least until he replenishes his political capital, and credibility with both the legislature and the voters.

A very astute commenter – forgive me, I forgot who, and can’t find it now – pointed out that McCain has to hit a “home run” with his VP pick.  Quite so.  While McCain stands head and shoulders above the other Republican candidates the party could have put forward (President Huckabee?!?), he has noticeable gaps in his appeal to key Republican demographics.  And – not to be morbid – but McCain is getting on in years.  In a very real way, his vice president will have to be ready to step into the Oval Office itself, and the electorate will scrutinize his pick accordingly.

Nominating Jindal would have gone a long way to supplementing the McCain ticket.  McCain does not have much credibility with the religious right – especially since he accurately portrays its leaders as “agents of intolerance” – and adding Jindal to the ticket would’ve mitigated that weakness.  But that ship has sailed, and none of the other names bandied about as McCain running mates (save Huckabee, but get real) are capable of bridging the evangelical divide.  We’re looking at a candidate who will have to go into the general election without the explicit and conspicuous support of America’s religious right.  And that is a comforting thought indeed.

Elitism in the Republican Ranks, and McCain’s Eligibility

I’ve always found it amazing that the Republican party, whose platform stipulates a top-down personal morality and consists largely of pushing through tax breaks for the wealthy, has managed to label the Democrats as elitist. I suppose we have the Reagan realignment to blame, whereby lower-class voters were suckered from the Democrats (who promised them a better economic future) to the Republicans (who promised them a chance to talk about religion), but the co-option of the “elitist” label goes even farther. Liberal politicians are viewed as the privileged few, while Yale-educated Republican politicians powered by old Connecticut money waltz into the White House just because they spend a few days a year in Texas. If we were to have an “elitism-off,” and set all the hybrid cars, iPhones, Starbucks double-shot mocha frappucinos (no foam, please), and Barnes & Noble memberships of Democratic politicians against the Martha’s Vineyard vacations of Republican politicians, I believe we Democrats would lose hands down.

Luckily, every now and again, a crack emerges in the spin-coated veneer of the Republican image, and we get a view of what they’re really thinking. Ah, there it is. For worrying about the economy, we’re “a nation of whiners.” Just lovely. If Barack Obama – or one of his staffers – had said that, I’d be able to look out my office window and see it plastered on the sides of buildings already: “OBAMA THINKS YOU’RE A WHINER,” or some such. In fact, Obama has made some comparable slip ups – though they’ve blissfully since faded – and that was pretty close to the reaction. I seriously doubt Phill Gramm’s comment will get the same play on the Fox News ticker. But time will tell.

And, on a side note, I’m surprised to see that people are still looking into the issue of whether McCain is even eligible for the presidency, owing to the peculiarities of his birthplace. He’ll run, regardless of the issue, and it would be a political suicide to try to derail the McCain campaign on a legal technicality. The fact is, sometimes the law just doesn’t matter.

What Are You Doing With Your iBrick?

I don’t normally cover electronics.  But this is special.

Apple released their new iPhones today, along with new iPhone software.  However, since their registration servers are down, not only can new purchasers not use their expensive new phones yet, but if you, like me, tried to update your (now obsolete) iPhone early this morning, you were most likely rewarded with a brick, an iPhone rendered useless by an activation error.  As I sit here, my iPhone can do nothing but sit there, look cute, and make one emergency call.

So, if you’re one of this site’s readers, and happen to have an iPhone, what’re you doing with your brick?  While I’m considering scurrilously using my “emergency” call, in the meantime, I’m making an elaborate house-of-cards style contraption out of my bricked iPhone, a few law books, and other desk supplies on hand.  I’d take a picture with my iPhone, but… well…