Critical Left

Sure, I believe that Bill O'Reilly and other pop culture pundits like him are insensitive, antagonistic, and a general representation of where our nation has gone wrong. It is obvious that the culture wars of the Bush years have extended into the Obama years with a vengeance, and the rise of the TEA party is a shining example of the libertarian right's willingness to impose its will upon our nation. On the other hand, we have the lefties who, essentially, are unwilling or unable to fight back.

It seems that there are many reasons for this deficiency in the liberal camp, if it can be called a camp at all because there seems to be little cohesion on part of American liberals. Not only is this sad, it is also indicative of our nature. I don't mean this as a back-handed compliment, but when you look at a group of liberals and compare them to a group of conservatives, the visual differences are obvious, but it is the underlying differences that hurt us the most. Take, for example, work. The various earthen hues found across the liberal spectrum is generally busy at some sort of job for a large part of the day and/or they are attending school to improve their education. Of course, that's great but a bunch of liberal social workers and teachers talking to each other about the ills of the world does not directly engage the right in an all out match of wits, facts, and reason. In the public eye then, the left loses.

The right detests our ability to think and talk critically about what our problems are and how to solve them. They especially hate it when we try to get at the root of a problem becasue that requires too much analysis, which we are good at and they seldom care about. Plus, the right laughs at us because we are so busy trying to understand their position that we never go to battle about the issues. At some point we need to limit how much we take them into consideration and just accept the reality that the left and right are in an ideological war. The problem is that while the right is standing on the battle field, the left has its nose stuck in books. Hence, if we are not even in the same place, there can be no battle. The right has also become so adept at distorting language and ideas, and then presenting them publicly that the left doesn't even know where to begin when it is ready for a fight. Sometimes, we're just too damn nice, but the right regularly gets down and dirty and doesn't care whose toes it steps on, and they are quite good at using language to sway their masses whichever way they want. It openly promotes xenophobia and homophobia to the point that it has become a natural piece of American culture. It has turned uneducated people such as Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell into political heroes. It listens to and believes in Glenn Beck, Anne Coulter, and Bill O'Reilly as though they carry some divine providence in their words. It probably is even safe to say that they believe they are somehow the "Chosen Ones", and regardless of what they are chosen to do, they are absolutely on the right ideological side.

When it comes down to it, the right is a camp based in faith. They follow their leader regardless of how ridiculous their requests or their ideas might be. They believe in religion. They believe in a nostalgic perspective of an America that was true only for a select group, and they want a return to their version of the American Dream. Most importantly, they are so entitled that they are willing to blame everyone who does not fall into their strict definition of who is worthy of success. They even trivialize the struggles of their own forefathers so the Other America takes the fall for any missteps. Tea Partiers come from folks who easily acculturated to America by willingly learning English and teaching their children the greatness of the American Way above all other culture. Although the left knows that this is nothing more than a myth, it openly does little to nothing to present another perspective.

We love to teach, and think, and read, and work with those who need the most help. We are teachers and social workers, but we are also business people working to help the little guy become established, we are the bankers who did not get greedy and give out loans to people who could not afford them. We work and we toil, and at the end of the day we are tired, obviously too tired to pick up the tools of our wisdom and beat the right at its own game. When we are energized we work for charities and attend fundraisers for breast cancer. When we are energized we engage each other in meaningful debates that show our intellectual prowess. When we are energized we create a more meaningful world through art, meditation, reading, and thinking. All the while we are preaching to our own choir and the rest of America does not see that as strength. Instead, we are attacked for it. We don't become the school administrators that can affect change because we love to be in the classrooms. We don't run the Department of Social Services because we are too busy helping foster kids. We don't own the construction companies that can build environmentally responsible communities because we are busy being good carpenters so people have a reliable house to live in. But some of this needs to change.

I do not have the answers, but there is a need for those of us on the left to engage the right at their own game, and then turn the game into our own. Maybe it begins with responding to the ignorant people who reply to articles in the newspaper. Maybe it means creating more progressive blogs and websites. Maybe it means bringing intelligent speakers to high school and college campuses. Maybe the problem is so big that we, as a whole, just need to begin somewhere. Even this blog has only a few followers, so how are the ideas supposed to be passed along when you read this and say to yourself, "Huh, he's got a point," and then close the tab until next time?

We can be both an intellectual and a critical force. Zack de la Rocha said, "Its got to start some place. Its got to start somehow. What better place than here? What better time than now?" I think he's got a good point.

imagenes

estas sombras salvajes
salvadores
me chiflan desde lejos
desde alla
mas alla
por donde viven fantasmas
e ideas
y filosofia
y piel
y hueso colorado
sangre mezclada
descansando en charquitos
en el piso
donde pegan los tacones
y arrastran las plantas bailadores
al ritmo de la banda
amantes se abrazan debajo una luna llena
que brilla ojos danosos
labios mojados y hambrientos
almas arrimadas a una barra
un trago de tequila en mano
suspiran un brindis
caen lagrimas adentro
y gritan a los cuatro vientos
chiflan a los perdidos
como yo
parado en el horizonte
nada mas que un estranjero
pero me saludan
desde alla
mas alla
estas imagenes
estas sombras
estas memorias
frias como fiero
balanceadas como una navaja
me llaman
a mi

friends can do that

Last night I was chilling with my friend Ivan that I haven't seen in quite a while. After an hour or so of casual conversation we get into politics. Ivan's a smart guy and we can have meaningless conversation and meaningful conversations, and last night he helped put me in my place. That's what a real friend can do. After talking religion and politics and sharing how outraged I get at complete ignorance, and how I become even more outraged at people who willingly spread ignorance he said, "Hold on a minute. I agree with you. I've tried to fight it, too; but maybe you're doing yourself more harm than good." Then he makes the obvious connection between my insomnia and how often I become engaged in debates with the people I refer to a the fucking willing ignorants of the world. "See," he said, "I agree with you, but I can see how riled up you get." Connection. Bingo. Fuck.
I like politics and I like debating issues. I think it keeps me mentally sharp and forces me to look more deeply at contemporary problems of our time. It also makes me fucking crazy when I start connecting too many of the dots. Maybe he's right. Maybe I should relax a little bit. Maybe I just need some time preaching to the choir so I don't always feel like I'm going into battle. We'll see.
At least I have a friend who knows me well enough to tell me the truth. That's more important than politics.

Danger!

I've been reading things from the Skeptic, Richard Dawkins, and Noam Chomsky and all of a sudden something hits me. It so simple. So obvious. I've known it all along but it has finally come to a head like a zit on a 15 year old face. Kablam! And I said it aloud, "Trust Me are two of the most dangerous words known to mankind."
You see there's a big difference between trust and proof and a lot of people get sucked in by the whole "trust me" scheme. I'm not just talking teen pregnancy here, I'm talking everyday ordinary things that we base our lives upon.
Trust me, I know what I'm talking about.

Interesting

The interesting thing about intelligence is that you need to engage in intelligent activities like reading or visiting meaningful places. Even more important is that you need to go beyond the surface facts and you need to explore over in the corners. Sometimes you need to walk into a bookstore and pick the book that repulses you the most. We need to consider the ugly truths as well as the beautiful ones. Possibly the most important act on the road to intelligence is learning everything you possibly can from as many points of view as possible. You can learn a lot by listening to another side of an argument, and then another, and then another, and then another. Before you know it, you have gained invaluable insight while everyone else was busy talking. Eventually, that insight will transform into the tools necessary to make informed decisions. They might even make you a few friends; however, he sad reality is that it will probably make you more enemies.

Oh, Those Silly Conservatives

I've been engaged in an interesting debate through email with, who I believe are a group of conservatives. I was sent an unsolicited email about the proposed Islamic center in New York so I responded. Thankfully, that has led to an even wider debate. The problem is that a response I received the other day was so full of. No actually it was empty of anything that even resembled a logic or rational thought process that it is going to take a series of responses to address this person's interesting point of view.

Here is my response to the first part of the email. I removed the person's actual name as well as any of the other recipients.

Thank you for the response. We obviously have two very different points of view on the matter. I will need to respond to you with a series of emails if I have the time because there seems to be a lot that needs to be explained to you.

It is really too bad that you don't understand liberalism. Let me explain a few things. Liberals generally support the critical analysis of topics, whatever they might be. Not only do liberals enjoy the intellectual exploration of topics, we also like to explore them from a number of points of view. This whole issue with the Islamic center is a great example. You, and probably many of your peers, believe that building an Islamic center two blocks from the former World Trade Center site is wrong. You have your reasons, and apparently they are anti-Islamic reasons, otherwise you would also be supporting demonstrations against the porn shops and liquor stores nearby. You also have your reasons for being ant-Islamic, and I don't want to speculate on the basis for those beliefs but your comments about Sharia law might have something to do with it.

I am sure you are also well aware that the United States has been involved with conflicts in the Muslim world for decades based on our country's economic and political desires. Therefore, you are probably well aware that people in those countries have wanted the US out of their own soverign lands for as long as we have been meddling in their affairs. Our citizens and military have been attacked a number of times in the previous decades, so it should come as no surprise that we were finally attacked on US soil. I'm sure the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon enfuriated you like it did me, but we have had different responses.

I am interested in the root of the conflict, which usually begins and ends with who gained the most monetarily. Those people are probably still making money from our current wars. I am just as angry at them because their greed caused us to be attacked. The other people to look at are those who gained ideologically. Our government has taken great steps to throw the Middle East into chaos, so politically we already won. Now there are American friendly leaders in places that once resisted us, but who is benefitting? Not the average person. We have been living in a state of perpetual fear for nine years. We have even given up some of our individual rights. The average American gained nothing so far. Finally, we need to look at who really wants war with the world's Muslims. Those who want war, and have always wanted war with the Muslims are definitely to blame. Every single person who supported armed conflict in Islamic countries is part of the problem. Everyone who supports prejudicial acts against Muslims in America is part of the problem because they don't want to be part of the solution. I'm not so happy with those folk either.

So a liberal considers things like that before making blanket statements about a billion of the world's people. Radical Muslims would ask questions about their own society and look for ways to fix it because radicals are generally rather intellectual, so violence is a last resort. Radicals look for real answers regardless of their theological leanings. Liberation theology did the same thing during the Cold War.

Maybe you should start considering a few things, too. So, I have a few questions for you and others to explore. First, have you actually read the Quran enough to understand the context of Islam's beliefs? Second, how many Muslims do you know personally, and what have they taught you about their religion? Third, have you taken the time to compare Sharia law and Levitican law? If you are a Christian, do you live your life according to Levitican law as stated in the Bible? If not, then why do you believe that all Muslims want to enforce Sharia law here? Have you taken the time to look into some of the history of the conflict between the US and Muslims?

I'm not trying to change your mind, I'm just trying to help you understand the liberal-radical thought process. If you can't understand why I am proud to be an intelligent, thinking person then you need to ask yourself why you don't believe that thinking is something to be proud of. Ignorance is the real hogwash.




Cheno,

You say of yourself, "I am a RADICAL. I am a leftist." Your proud declaration is inexplicable to me. Also inexplicable is your statement that, "Radical Islam would be working for things like equity in education, women's rights, freedom of expression, communality, and critiacal and analytical understanding to support more intelligent communication between divergent groups." Pure hogwash! You said, "Muslims are not the enemy," but radical Islamic terrorists are. Their guiding document, the koran, offers the infidel two choices, convert or die. You have aligned yourself with throat cutters and haters. Yet the 1st amendment of the Constitution guarantees your right of free speech, whereby you are certainly entitled to your opinion, everyone has them.

Your patronizing sadness smacks of superiority, but exposes ignorance, not an informed opinion. I read the signs too! Anger is not hate. Most signs were expressions of informed opinions, not nonsensical hatred as you suppose. "Sensitivity goes both ways. If you really care, build it elsewhere." That's not hateful. Some signs were statements of fact, "Imam Feisal’s Cordoba House mosque will demand sharia law.” Facts are not hateful. Imam Feisal said, "The only law that the Muslim needs exists already in the Koran and the Hadith.” For the full story and other "beauties" of his beliefs go here: http://loganswarning.com/2010/09/14/imam-faisal-abdul-rauf-tells-jordanian-newspaper-he-is-for-sharia-law/. What law of the Constitution did these demonstrators violate?

You speak with contempt of Christian love and pervert its meaning. Loving someone does not mean lying down without a whimper as they cut your throat for their beliefs. Jesus voluntarily laid down His life as an atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world, but He didn't do it until His time had come. That is love! Laying down your life for another is Love. We will not lay down our lives simply to be butchered, as you seem to suggest. We will fight, as we should.

You are right you are a radical, you are a leftist, not terms of endearment I would want applied to me. I truly am sad for you because of your ignorance on the these vitally important issues of our time. If you truly want to be informed, please read the Constitution, please learn what sharia law really is, and most importantly please read the Holy Bible, which is the Word of God, which is truth, which contains the words of life, true spiritual life.

I will not lay down to sharia law, "But as for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." Joshua 24:15

Waving flags is as patriotic as doing jumping jacks. Each is an exersize, but neither one proves that you know anything about the Constitution, the Founding Fathers, American history, or even the American present. In order to know these things, one must become exposed to the complexities of the American Experience.

Next time someone wants to wave a flag with the intention of presenting some false sense of superiority over anyone, then please ask them a few things:

1. Who were the Puritans? And in a time of such conservatism in England, why were they considered such nutjobs that they were unwelcomed in their own home? Why did the Dutch, a quite liberal society, later ask them to leave, also? Why, after returning to England, did the Puritans leave again? What are ten core beliefs of the Puritans that made so many people weary of them?

2. Quick, name ten nations that already exsisted before any Europeans arrived in what is now the contemporary United States . What forms of government did they practice? How did they sustain themselves generation after generation? Who did they trade with?

3. How many indigenous people died before 1700 as a direct result of contact with Europeans? What was the primary killing agent? If Hitler and Stalin were so bad, why aren't we taught about this in school?

4. Most likely, many of our Founding Fathers read The Magna Carta, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Adam Smith. Those are just some of the basics. Have you read them? If not, be careful what you say about the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

5. In many ways, those who began the American Revolution and became leaders in it were essentially middle and upper-class white males who didn't want anyone in a position of power telling them what to do. They stirred the anger of those in lower positions in society to support a fight for independence without regard to anyone who was non-white, poor, or a non-English speaker. Compare and contrast some of today's political movements.

6. How long did it take to write the Constitution? How many drafts were written before it was finalized? Who were some of the most outspoken opponents of the Consitution and why? How did their views differ from the mainstream authors?

7. Name everyone who signed the consitution and tell at least five politically relevant facts about each one. Who are some of the most important Founding Fathers who never lived to see the Constitution written? What did they believe and how did they put those beliefs into practice?

Next time someone invokes the Founding Fathers or the somehow implies that he knows so much about the soul of America, ask him just one of these questions. Then you can inform him that he doesn't know as much as he thinks, and politely ask him to shut the fuck up.

Profe Cheno