The Bruiseless Society

     I talked earlier about generational conflicts, especially how Baby Boomers don't exactly have our best interests at heart. Mike reviewed a book called Generations at Work that dealt with the differences between generations and interaction between generations. He commented that the Millenials (born after 1980) will have a tough time with rejection, since their Late Boomer/Early Gen-X parents spoil the crap out of them and protect them from every real or perceived harm.
     On Friday, CNN.com had an article on Public schools trying to woo back homeschoolers. Basically, budget cuts and decreasing population in some rural areas have public schools short of cash so they're trying to reach out to home-schooled kids. It's tastefully done, even if it smacks of desperation. Some are offering to teach creation and read the bible in English class to get the religious homeschoolers. Others go the intelligent route and offer unique classes like forestry or music. Now, I'm not against home-schooling. If you feel you're capable of doing a better job of teaching your kids then by all means go ahead. Unfortunately, some also use homeschooling to isolate their children. One parent said, "There would be the moral issues that our children would have to face with all the others who aren't taught the way they are." Is she planning on keeping her kids locked up in her house the rest of their lives? Parents have roughly 18 years of direct influence over their children to steer them in the right direction. Once they move out, it's up to them how much they interact with their parents. If you don't let your kids learn right from wrong in real situations while you can still interact with them every day, they're going to be in for some rude surprises when they enter the real world.
     Speaking of college, more and more schools are taking over fraternities and sororities. Colgate University is buying all of the Greek houses and is disallowing any student organization that meets in a non-University owned property. The college will ban alcohol, enforce behavior, etc etc. I know a lot of fraternities have a bad reputation, but they're not the Delta house from Animal House (even though most would like to be). I did a lot of growing up in my fraternity. I learned to take responsibility for myself and for an organization. I was off the campus meal plan, I was out of campus housing. I paid rent, I called BellSouth to get my own phone line hooked up, and I learned that if you make a mess, you'd better clean it up yourself. My brothers and I ran budgets, made repairs to the house, managed a cook, and ran a full-time organization of 40-60 men.
     Across town, at Emory University, the school already owned the Gerek system. Sororities were not allowed to have houses - they had lodges which were glorified meeting houses with maybe 5 bedrooms. Fraternities were spotless and ornate buildings. One fraternity was suspended for having a food fight. You think these students learned the kind of responsibility we did? When they graduated, most moved back to Mommy and Daddy and left Atlanta (it didn't help that they had $120,000 of education to get a $30,000/year teaching job). Not all Emory students were irresponsible, but if they had control of their lives after college, it was because they were independent before college.
     Are we raising a generation of spoiled brats? I don't want my kids to get hurt, either, but I'm certainly going to make sure they learn the lessons of life. Am I just thinking this because I don't have children yet? Are we just too rich to retain the ability to let our children become grown-ups?

Smoke This, Republicans

     For the first time in I don't know how long, I read an article today describing how some Democrats made a politically smart move. For years, Republicans have been experts at dividing Democrats along their fault lines, separating the social liberals from the economic liberals, tugging at the Blacks, the Jews, the Hispanics. Democrats have been silent. Worse than silent - they have become petulant whiners complaining how Republicans don't play fair and acting incredibly nerdy, pushing up their wire-rimmed glasses and saying how sure, GW Bush is cool, but he doesn't really understand budget deficits like they do.
     Finally, Democrats in one of the reddest of red states, Georgia, found an issue that would divide the Republicans along their fault lines. Democrats and pundits have for years prattled on about how fragile the Grand Old Party was, a mix and muddle of various special interests masterfully glued together by political genius. Some of the biggest questions were asked after the 2004 election, like Why do the lower middle class vote against their own economic interests? The answer is, of course, that the Democrats were divided and never provided a compelling alternative. "Sure you want to protect Social Security, money that I won't see for 20 years, but I don't even save for my kids' college or pay down my credit card debt. What makes you think I'm going to start giving a rat's ass about my future now? Besides, GW says he'll keep them gays from marrying and that's a good thing."
     Anyway, the news here is the new Georgia Anti-Smoking Bill (free, but login required). Text of bill For those of you wondering (Ben, I'm sure you've hazarded a guess), I'm for the bill. But that's not the focus of this post. The focus here is the fact that for the first time, the moral wing and the libertarian/business wings of the Republican party are clashing. See, businesses don't care if you ban gay marriage. Hey, it actually would save them money, seeing as they wouldn't have to provide spousal benefits and all. Businesses love the idea of banning drugs, for obvious productivity reasons, and abortion isn't even on their radar. But smoking? For years, the hospitality industry has hung its hat on smoking and drinking - the two largest profit centers.
     The moralists, of course, don't love smoking, although many don't really mind it. However, they've opened the door to government intervention with their bans on sex toys (for novelty only), alcohol on Sunday, sodomy and premarital sex, and other such intrusions. The sponsor of this bill is Republican State Senator Don Thomas of Dalton. He's a doctor - a family practitioner and a smoking ban has become somewhat of a crusade for him.
     I'm pretty sure the ban will pass. If not now, soon. If not in its current form, in some similar fashion. And Democrats, which have been slow to learn anything, should learn something from this. Maybe it's not as important as universal health care or the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, but you have to choose your battles wisely. And take one step at a time.

Your Homework for Today

     I'm just not pissed about something today. Well, that's not completely true, but the unsettling news has just blended together in a black noise. It's much more comfortable sitting here now than it was in 2000 when the bad things were a shock to the system. It's like I just got the ol' electric chair padded so my back won't hurt.
     Anyway, I found this letter in Slate's Fray called "Kill a Judge!". It has a very well-stated rant about the current anti-judicial jihad. (I stole that term from Fat In Spanish)

I Support Our Troops (do you?)

     I saw that bumper sticker today. Actually a few times. You know the one - it's a yellow ribbon with the words, "Support Our Troops" on it. There are other variations. They all piss me off. What exactly does it mean when you put this sticker or magnet on your car? Are you supporting the troops financially? Are you sending care packages and letters to Iraq and Afghanistan? (Remember Afghanistan? The place where there really are terrorists?) Are you volunteering to rehabilitate a veteran amputee or assist a military widow or orphan? Or does it just mean you sent $3.00 to MagnetAmerica.Com to prove to everyone you pass that .... what? To prove what, exactly? (Check out that website. It's a great business idea, but fairly sickening - they took the template for the troops ribbon and you can now get a "Tsunami Aid" ribbon, "In God We Trust" ribbon, "UNC Tarheels National Champs" ribbon... can you possibly cheapen the idea more?)
     Anyway, with Passover coming up, it finally came to me. The ribbon is the blood of the paschal lamb, which marked the houses of the Hebrews so that the Angel of Death would not slay their first born. (I can link these - bear with me)
     Remember after 9/11/01 when everyone was flying flags? Flag makers couldn't keep up with demand and every other car on the road had a flag magnet. It was a patriotic time. But some people weren't content. They went out looking for cars and houses not displaying flags and accused them of being anti-American, of being unpatriotic, or of being terrorists. The flag became a mark for the right-wing extremists. But it wasn't good enough. Any American could have a flag (if they could find one). It wasn't until the 2004 election when things really got out of control. The black "W" stickers (which, as much as I hate them, are really very clever and well done) started showing up on cars and now you knew who was an American and who was a stinkin' commie liberal. But once the election ended, how do you maintain this mark without looking like the sore winner you are? You shift gears and make it about the war. Cafe Press has a "Pro Bush and Pro GOP" bumper sticker page. They sell the Support Our Troops ribbon. Right next to the "Liberals Make Me Sick" stickers, the "Kerry for President of France" stickers, the "Give Em Zell" stickers, and my favorite, the classy "Foreigners" sticker, portraying the states that elected Bush as real Americans and the rest as belonging to a foreign land.
     Sure, some of those teenagers driving daddy's Lexus SUV might have given their allowance to help buy a soldier a candy bar. But most likely the sticker is there to let other right-wingers know that they are loyal to the emperor, and most importantly, that they dislike Democrats. The sticker means, "When you are coming to cut someone off or throw eggs at their car, pass me over, because I'm a Republican." The sad thing is that in this sorry sophomoric political atmosphere, the troops aren't really being supported. They're only now getting the body armor and HumVee armor they need to protect themselves from sniper attacks. They're still losing their jobs when they get back to the states. It's just too bad they have to be on the receiving end of a great political bullying tactic.

I'm a Slacker

If you want to see what I've been doing instead of posting today (no, it wasn't work), check out http://www.zeustx.com/. Caution: don't let it get you fired or divorced. See you on Monday!

Pietistic Republicanism, a Short History

     Why does the right wing seem to "own" religion and religious issues? People who said that their #1 issue was "moral values" voted overwhelmingly for Bush. So did evangelicals, people who went to church weekly, and protestants. This is no surprise to anyone who's been living on earth for the past few years. But why? In Judaism, when we talk about "moral issues", we usually talk about tzedakah (charity), human rights, treatment of animals, the golden rule (Lev. 19:18), lashon hara (the evil tongue, or speaking negative things about people), and ethics. I'm no expert on Christianity, but I'm pretty sure Jesus's teachings were about love, tolerance, community, the treatment of the poor, and the pitfalls of wealth. (I did find one website, though, where the author called God a 'father' and then modeled God after his own parenting skills. He didn't go quite so far as to say he was God, but I'm sure the message comes across loud and clear.)
     The point is, Republicans have owned the evangelicals long before gay marriage, Terri Schiavo, or even abortion. This history stretches back to before the official start of the GOP in 1854. The slavery issue was being pushed by churches, specifically pietistic ones like the Methodists, Baptists, or Quakers (as opposed to the liturgical churches, like the Catholics or Lutherans or Jews). These were the early Republicans. And these are the current Republicans. The "official" GOP history doesn't include Republican support for Temperance and Prohibition, but because the pietistic churches supported it, do did the party platform. Now the pietistic churches are railing against abortion, gays, euthanasia, Black people voting (jk?). Attend a Baptist church and you've pretty much gotten the GOP party platform.
     But here's why we don't hear from the other religious people who oppose these views: it's the fundamental difference between a pietistic church and a liturgical one. See, liturgical churches rely on the written word. They usually have sets of rules and laws and stay the same over hundreds (or thousands) of years, changing very slowly. There's not a lot of passion in these churches. Discussion over issues tends to be slow and deliberate and thoughtful. You might say that the US Congress was liturgical (until Terri Schiavo) if you wanted to draw an analogy. The law is the law is the law, but we interpret it differently over time.
     Pietistic churches, on the other hand, rely on the spoken word. They are the outspoken ones, the ones with passion. They rely on getting people riled up - if they're not listening, they're not supporting the church. (Heck, if they're not actually in the church, they're not supporting it financially.) In these churches, the law is the law is what the preacher tells you from the pulpit. And if the preacher wants his congregation to stick around, he'd better have some good issues to rile them up with. This isn't about rules - it's about passion! It's easy to see why members of these churches stick out - you know they're religious. It's harder to tell with a Catholic or Jew.
     This is why, when John Kerry said he was religious, the Republicans scoffed (he wasn't their kind of religious) and the Democrats yawned.
Sources: Democracy, Republicanism and Efficiency: The Values of American Politics, 1885-1930; From Temperance to Prohibition; The Politics of Prohibition: The 1920s

Why Engineers Should Rule the World (or at least the kitchen)

     I'm not a neat freak or an organizational nazi. I've never invented little household gadgets or gone nuts because I found some socks in the underwear drawer. I'm pretty much a chaotic, disorganized mess at home, and that's the way I like it. The thing is, I *really* like to be efficient. Maybe it's because I'm lazy in an odd sort of way. I'll climb over a brick wall to avoid using the door, if it means that I won't have to do either tomorrow or the next day. That's why so many things in my house drive me nuts.
     For example, I have these closet doors that slide back and forth. You can have the entire closet closed or you can have it half open. How worthless is that? If I'm looking at shirts in the middle, I have to keep moving the stupid doors back and forth to be able to see what I'm looking at!
     And how about buffets, especially at people's houses. Why do people always put the napkins and utensils at the beginning of the line? Do I look like I have a third hand to hold onto them while I'm serving myself some food? Put them at the end of the line where they'll do some good. Besides, you never know whether you'll need a spoon or a knife until the end when you know what you're eating anyway. How many times have you had to go back in line or cut in front of someone to grab a knife or an extra napkin after you already had your food?
     Today, I "borrowed" a co-worker's copy of IIE Magazine, the periodical of the Institute of Industrial Engineers. (Hey, I'm bored at work sometimes. I think we went over that already.) They pointed to a neat blog called Cooking for Engineers. Now, this site is actually not so great. It's really just one guy's way of recording the food that he's made for dinner, and he never meant for it to become public. The recipe selection is mediocre and the navigation is weak, but this guy, Michael Chu, has invented a new way to show recipes. He's even patenting the design.

     This is a recipe for Chicken Marsala. How easy is this to follow? This is 100x better than having to read out a paragraph of directions to try to figure out when you should cut or saute or mix. Bravo to him for actually doing something to make home life more efficient!

Terri ad Nauseum

     I don't want to talk about all the Terri Schiavo issues here. If you want to post about it and tell me what an asshole/idiot/insensitive jerk/hypocrite I am, do it in one of my previous posts where I talk about Terri. (I mean it - i'll delete comments on this post that are irrelevant {unless you're complimenting me. I like that})
     I just want to ask: why have there been more collective tears shed over this one woman who for all intents and purposes died 17 years ago (even if you believe Michael Schiavo and activist judges murdered her last week, at least admit she hasn't been part of society for 17 years) than over the 1500+ men and women who have died in Iraq? Don't they at the very LEAST each deserve the same amount of grief and attention Terri did/does?
     I mean holy shit, this guy murdered two teenage girls and injured 6 others and he gets a freakin' speeding ticket?? Michael Schiavo sits by his wife's bedside for years before making what has got to be the most difficult decision hopefully none of us will ever have to face, and he will receive death threats for the rest of his life. Where's the perspective?? Just answer me that!

Truth vs Rhetoric

     Probably the most painful thing for liberals suffering through the current administration is the feeling of a loss of reality. I read "Catch-22" in high school. Life feels like that today. The truth - the hard facts and objective reality - are no match for right-wing propagandizing. I wanted to bring attention to this column about Terri Schiavo's autopsy. It asks the question: what happens if the autopsy reveals beyond a shadow of a doubt that Terri had no higher brain function left? Does anyone really think that the legions of Terri fans out there will stop believing that they "know" Terri was conscious and aware?
     Not as political, but just as delusional: What will it take for the Michael Jackson fans to stop believing that their idol is not a saint? Do they have to physically be in the room to watch him fondle a little boy? Will even that suffice? Dayeinu?

To the Victor goes the Spoils

     In the shower this morning, I was thinking of writing an April Fool's post where I made up some junk about how common sense took over in Washington DC and in the nation's collective psyche. But once I got to work, I stopped really caring enough to put out that kind of effort. I don't feel like being creative. Being pissed off and introspective is so much easier.
     So to my delight, I came across a completely apolitical article on Slate about the juxtaposition of economics and dictatorship in Zimbabwe. I, of course, found a great political lesson in the story. Now, Zimbabwe is one of those countries that is so far outside of the average American's conscious that it may as well be on Mars. (Actually, Mars has been stirring up a lot of imagination lately - a lot more than Sub-Saharan Africa has since Henry Stanley asked, "Dr. Livingston, I presume?".)
     Zimbabwe is a virtual dictatorship, having an evil ruler-for-life, Robert Mugabe. Mugabe was the first leader in the country since the end of apartheid there in 1980, but his regime has been marked by violence and intimidation. Anyway, the point is he's a sucky leader and his people are starving. Why? Well, Zimbabwe isn't what you would call "developed". They can't seem to grow enough food to feed themselves and have in the past relied on food aid from other countries. Due to the shortages, the government has taken control of food distribution and has actually outlawed private sales of food. In theory this makes sense - there's not enough food to go around and since food happens to be essential to life, which most Americans agree everyone is entitled to (plus liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but that's another story). The government's role is to make sure that food does not enter the open market where it can potentially outprice the poorest people (of which there are many) thus causing great starvation and death.
     Preventing starvation and death of its citizens is a primary function of government, one that even the most hardened Libertarians might agree with (although the most hardened Objectivists probably won't). Unfortunately, Mugabe has royally screwed this ideal up. You see, in order to remain in power despite the fact that the country is a democracy, he rewards loyalty and punishes dissent. (Starting to sound familiar?) Citizens of Zimbabwe are scared to vote against him. The vote is anonymous, but Mugabe's party looks at the results from each district. The districts that give Mugabe an overwhelming landslide tend to get more food and more attention from the party. The districts that vote for the opposition, even a little bit, have a tendency to starve to death because of "bureaucratic errors" and maybe the schools or clinics run out of money.
     This is where the Slate story ends, and it's a sad story. Of course it's wrong for the government to withhold food from people simply for voting the way they want. One of the most wonderfully amazing things about the United States government is the orderly transfer of power. Losing incumbents might bitch and groan, but when inauguration day rolls around, the lights are turned off and the key is left in the lock for the next person. And we don't ask you to swear your allegiance to the flag, the president, or the city councilmember before you vote or get water service or pick up your Medicare check.
     Maybe you see where this is going. Bush's main doctrine is "Loyalty". You may recall in 2004, Bush refused to speak at the NAACP convention - the first President in 75 years not to do so. The NAACP is not exactly a Republic stronghold. Its leaders regularly criticize Bush's policies and appointments. And 80%+ of Black voters in the US vote Democrat. Bush supporters countered, "Why should Bush pay attention to them, if they didn't even vote for him?" Conservative pundits fueled the fire. Bill O'Reilly said in an interview, "...the blacks hate Bush, NAACP hates Bush. And I wouldn't take the chance if I'm the chief executive of this country." Trying to appear "fair and balanced", he later said, "I do think the Republicans should reach out to the African-American community, because now they have something to offer. The Republican Party has a lot to offer blacks, I believe, and they should try to sell it. They should try to come on in and, as you said, siphon off some votes..." In other words, the only legitimate reason to address an organization that represents up to 13% of the population is because you might be able to get votes??? You may not realize it, or you may be in denial, but this is a major shift in US policy. We are not Zimbabwe, but maybe you can see faint shadows of Mugabe's regime in our current political climate...