An International Failure.

The artillery bombing of South Korea by its belligerent neighbour to the north is just the latest in a long line of North Korea's blatant disregard for international law. It has been referred to as “one of the worst clashes since the Korean War ended”. It appears as though, in any practical sense, the war did not end. North Korea, still under the charge of Chairman Kim Jong-il, has acted like a petulant child in the face of the international community and particularly in the face of South Korea.

One question that needs to be asked by the democracies of the world is this: how long will this be allowed to continue? How many more sanctions will the United States or the United Nations place on North Korea without actually being firm? Are the sanctions working? Clearly not. The North Korean people are still being horribly oppressed on a regular basis and yet the international community does nothing of any substance.

Is the shelling of a constitutional democracy not enough for action to be taken? The White House said that the United States was “firmly committed” to defending South Korea, yet continues to do nothing.

Kim Jong-il cannot be reasoned with, despite how inconvenient that is to policy makers. There is never much elapsed time before his government or military acts in a foolish and dangerous manner. The fact that an absolute dictatorship still stands is a disgrace. The world will not even have the chance to breathe a sigh of relief when Kim Jong-il dies, as his son is poised to take up the mantle of power.

The North Korean people are in a situation in which everything that is not forbidden is compulsory. It may be a cliché to draw a parallel between North Korea in 2010 and Airstrip One of 1984 but it is unavoidable. Orwell's classic novel is referenced so often by people in the West as a shorthand for their perception of government intrusion, which has only served to diminish the impact of its comparison when such a comparison is appropriate. That is exactly the case with North Korea. What we have is as close as it is possible to get to a living, breathing embodiment of what Orwell depicted, yet comparisons are rendered meaningless.

North Korea should not be allowed to remain as it is. People are still lamenting the fact that nothing was done in the cases of Rwanda and Dafur. Will North Korea make it onto the list of examples of when action was only taken when it was too late? From current evidence it appears to be a safe bet.

A Total Loss of Perspective.

Former United States President George W. Bush is back in the public eye. He is doing the media rounds to promote his memoir Decision Points (an uninspiring title to say the least) in which he discusses his Presidency. While I have not read this memoir I think I am on safe ground when I say that if Mr. Bush has had a hand in writing this memoir (as opposed to going through a ghost writer) it probably will not be the most engaging read. Whereas the current President is an accomplished writer (if you have not yet read Dreams from My Father, I would highly recommend it for its candidness and eloquence), Bush has never been known for his command of English. So, on a purely literary basis at least, the memoir does not really generate much interest for me.

Having said that, however, a first hand account of one of the most formative and influential presidencies of the last several decades could prove a worthwhile read until you take into account the self promoting, self aggrandizing nature of a political memoir. Obviously, he will try to spin each major event of his presidency in order to present himself in the best light. That is to be expected of any politician, regardless of ideology.One very small aspect of this memoir and Bush's subsequent media appearances has really resonated with me recently. He has gone on the record saying that the worst moment of his presidency was when rapper Kanye West accused him of being racist in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

Seriously, Mr. President? The worst moment of your presidency? This is a presidency which oversaw 9/11. The single biggest terrorist attack in American history. Nearly 3,000 dead. The New York skyline amputated. There are still Americans alive today who are suffering the effects of that attack. That was not as bad as being called a racist? This is a presidency in which you were loudly and roundly accused from a huge swath of people of being a liar, an election thief, a genocidal war criminal and an advocate of torture. How can being accused of such atrocious things be preferable to one self important rapper calling you a racist?

I do not want to come off sounding like I am unfairly attacking President Bush. In the interest of honesty I have to admit that a vast majority of what Bush did in office (the unnecessary tax cut for the rich, turning a national surplus into the biggest deficit in U.S. history, the faith based initiatives, the poor response to Hurricane Katrina, Guantanamo Bay, waterboarding, the politicization of the justice department, outing Valerie Plame etc.) I disagree with. I also disagree with his rationalizations for regime change in Iraq when there were far better reasons available to him. His support of the secular forces in the Middle East is to be commended. Iraq is, slowly, moving towards becoming a functioning democracy. Whether it gets there or not remains to be seen but this outcome would not be possible were Saddam Hussein still in power.

On balance, I would say that President Bush was not a good president. A lot of the damage his administration has done is still being felt and will continue to be for years to come. With all of this responsibility laying at his feet, the fact that he honestly regards the accusation of racism by Kanye West to be his presidency's worst moment is, frankly, astounding.

The 21st Century Condition.

It seems like we are constantly bombarded with health related news telling us that modern people are, in general, far more depressed than they were in years gone by. We have made such advances in the fields of science (be it astronomy, medicine, technology or others), yet we seem to be regressing in terms of our mood. Logic would dictate that that the more we understood, the better we would be able to achieve this magic ideal of happiness. It seems as though the opposite is true.

However, one must not be quick to see cause and effect when, in reality, the explanations probably lie elsewhere. The increase of our understanding does not necessarily result in diminished happiness. I see other things at work here.

One factor of modern life that I believe needs to accept some of the responsibility is the entertainment industry: mostly movies and TV. While I completely appreciate the role these media outlets play in escapism or pushing boundaries they have had a massive impact on 21st century culture. Think about it. The current generation (myself, I hate to admit, included) have become so accustomed to the narratives of TV shows and the movies that we have subconsciously come to expect the outcomes of those narratives. While, of course, on a conscious level we are aware that the movie we are sitting in front of is not reality, and that it's all just a bit of fun, we are actually becoming conditioned. In the vast majority of movies (and most character based TV shows), the main character ends up with the person of his/her dreams. They get the dream job they've been chasing. They finally have that baby they've been trying for. They have a touching reunion with an estranged family member. It all works out because it just does.

Subconsciously, the current generation (and most likely all subsequent generations) have become conditioned by the idea that things will just work out for them. Everyone is the lead role in their own life. No one thinks of themselves as the supporting cast, so everyone believes that things should work out for them. Just because.

This is what makes 21st century life as difficult and as depressing as it is to some people. No, we don't have to worry about smallpox or try to appease a deity because some crops are not doing well. We are not burning suspected witches. We have advanced so much, but our perception of our own lives has become so distorted that we are becoming more depressed. If life doesn't turn out exactly as we hope, we feel cheated. We are owed our happy ending. So when the person of our dreams falls in love with someone else, it hurts us. Not only because we have lost someone we so deeply want, but because the happy ending that is rightfully ours has been taken away. What makes it worse is that the person of our dreams is probably thinking that their new interest was the romantic lead in their movie, whereas you are (at best) a supporting cast member.

Our perception of life has become so warped by the narratives that surround us that we are probably the most depressed generation of humans to have existed. I would love to say that being aware of this can help fight against it, but sadly our conditioning is now so deep that it cannot be helped with rational thought. Life is hard and some people are going to be miserable and alone. No wonder we take such comfort from movie narratives when being a good person is enough to make things work out. The cruel irony is that this escapism is making our sense of disappointment and despair all the more poignant.

The Importance of Skepticism.

There are a number of subjects that come up in everyday conversation that seem to boil down to familiar arguments. One of the most common that I have come across is the fatuous argument that something is to be believed because it cannot be disproved. No, I am not going to go explicitly into the subject of religion again this time but it is the main offender with regard to this argument. Other offenders are things like 'alternative' medicine, astrology, faith healers, alien visitors to Earth, psychics, ghosts, auras and the power of prayer. There are more examples I am sure. The problem with the "well you can't disprove it!" argument that is so often used in defense of these propositions is the idea that the burden of proof is on those who claim not to believe in such nonsense. That is entirely backwards.

The burden of proof does not lie with the skeptic. Skepticism is vital to human progression and our understanding of the life, the world, and the universe. Skepticism is questioning ideas and propositions that have to be taken on faith. The idea that you should believe something because it cannot be disproved is ludicrous and frankly childish. If I were to claim that I have an invisible pet unicorn, what would be your reaction? Would it be "well I cannot disprove his claim so I'll believe it" or would it be "that is ridiculous, please give me a reason why I should believe such a claim"? Any thinking person with any intellectual integrity would take the latter option. It is people taking that latter option that has led to the development of the human species. Skepticism has led to breakthroughs in medicine, evolutionary biology, physics, technology, and mathematics to name a few.

These propositions persist through the ages, so that must give them some credibility, right? Wrong. As long as humans have existed, stupid humans have existed, and as long as stupid humans have existed, people willing to exploit their stupidity have existed. This is why junk pseudo-science sticks around. Nobody seems to point out that alternative medicine that has been scientifically tested and proved to be effective has become medicine. It gets prescribed by doctors who have a rich knowledge and education. Homeopathy, on the other hand, has never been proved to be any more effective than a placebo. Who in their right mind would choose unproved superstition over proven medicine as their first choice to deal with their health? Only those whose faculty for skepticism is severely impaired.

It is the same with astrology. While this is admittedly harmless and, for most people, just a bit of fun it has roots in the same problem. It only survives through the suspension of the critical faculties of the brain and taking things on faith. No one who believes in it has any problem with the fact that the zodiac was completed before some of the planets in our solar system had been discovered. For something that is dependent on the position of planets I would say that the fact that it has not changed since the discovery of new planets is a serious problem.

My point is that the burden of proof does not lie with the skeptic. I feel no need to try to disprove any of these propositions. There is simply not enough evidence to support them. It baffles me that so many people do not take this attitude. Operating in certainty is something I cannot comprehend. Skepticism and asking questions are therefore, in my opinion, vital to human existence and progress. It is why I have a question mark tattooed on my skin. Without this capacity we, as a species, could very easily have joined the 99.8% of species who have ever populated this planet in extinction.

Atheism vs. Deism vs. Theism

So in my last post, I mentioned that while I consider myself an atheist (or anti-theist), I do not hold any contempt for the principles of deism. This is simply because the idea behind deism is that there was a first cause, or creator, of the universe but that such an entity does not intervene with human affairs. Some deists could argue that such an entity does not even know, and probably does not care, about the existence of the human species on a tiny rock of a planet in a relatively tiny galaxy. The position of deism can be taken as a means of explaining the origins of the universe while disregarding the dogmas of theism (or more specifically: the three biggest monotheisms of Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Deists argue that humans cannot know how the universe began, and that as a result there must be something (or someone) behind its creation. One of my deist friends says that science cannot explain the origins of the universe because it is impossible for something to come from nothing.

While this may seem like a compelling argument I would like to point why I take the position of atheism over that of deism. To me, the idea of a creator that set everything in motion before disappearing, moving on, or whatever else, is far too convenient an explanation for the origins of the universe. It is, personally, too close to the religious mindset. The idea that things we as a species do not yet understand can be explained by saying "a god did it" seems, at some level, childish. It also poses another problem. Those who argue that it is impossible for something to come from nothing (using science as their basis) bring upon themselves the question of an infinite regression. If it is not possible for something to come from nothing, then where did this creator come from? You then end up having to make a creator for the creator, and for that creator, and so on. This does not seem like a scientific way of approaching such an enormous question.

I would like to also point out, at this juncture, that atheism (as I understand it) is not the belief that there is no god, but the lack of a belief in god. It is an important distinction to make I feel. I do not claim to know or be able to explain the origins of the universe. Even if it is scientifically proven one way or another in my lifetime I still doubt I could adequately explain it (that is what scientists are for!). I do not believe in a creating or intervening entity simply because such a being comes into a direct contradiction of my understanding of science. I have said before that if I am proved wrong on this point I will happily admit to my mistake but for the time being I see no convincing evidence that such an entity exists.

Which brings me to theism: the belief in a god who not only created the universe, but did so with the expressed intention of nurturing mankind as his favorite species. A god who observes and intervenes in our lives and is a moral judge for our actions here on Earth. I apologize now to any well meaning theists reading this but I have to be blunt: this concept is blindingly stupid, unbelievably ridiculous and dangerously retarding to the human condition.

Our understanding of science has put serious dents in the capacity for theistic faith of any critically thinking person. It is now estimated that 99.99% of all the species that have ever lived on Earth are now extinct. The planet is in the middle of a solar system in which all of the other planets are either far too hot or far too cold to support anything recognizable as life. Huge areas of our own planet are not able to sustain human life because they are also too hot or too cold. Some design. Evolution has unlocked many of the mysteries of our origin, and explains the biological traits that any loving creator would be, frankly, stupid to give us. We still get goosebumps despite not having enough body hair for that to be of any help, we grow wisdom teeth that no longer fit our jaws and as such cause us pain, the appendix is well past its usefulness now that we no longer feed exclusively on plant matter (and has the added bonus of having the potential to kill us when something goes wrong), our pre-frontal lobes are too small, and our adrenaline glands are far too big. We really do bear all the hallmarks of a still evolving primate species.

Theists who believe in evolution have also got to contend with the arrogant assumption in that position that it was a process designed with humans as the intended result. What total piffle. They must also think that evolution (as far as humans are concerned) has stopped, because we are obviously the perfect model of an animal. I believe I have already given examples of why that belief is flawed.

I will finish with a little note on the three biggest monotheisms. If you believe in the dogmas of one of these faiths you have to face an awful truth. Biologists now say that humans (in pretty much their current biological form) have been on the Earth for between 100,000 years and 250,000 years. Francis Collins, who was in charge of the team that sequenced the human genome puts the number at 100,000 whereas Richard Dawkins puts the number at 250,000. To make this point, I shall take the lower number. If you believe in one of the three monotheisms you must also, in light of this fact, believe that for (at least) 96,000 years God watched his 'favorite' species die in childbirth, giving birth, from diseases they didn't know existed, or from territorial turf wars (to name a few). He watched as they cowered in abject terror at natural phenomena like earthquakes, volcanoes and tsunamis. He watched this, and did nothing for 96,000 years. It was only after this time that he finally said "Right! Now it's time to intervene". But he did not intervene in China, where they could already read and write, but in bronze age Palestine. That is what you have to believe if you claim that one of the three major monotheisms is true. Not exactly the best way to show your favor, is it?

Disposing of the Unnecessary.

I am currently working on my final project in my Masters degree. Its focus is how students of the media regard the news coverage of religion. I thought it was an important subject considering how much division there currently is in the media with regard to religion. I am sure I do not need to give you any examples of religious news items as they really cannot have escaped your notice. During this project, I am trying to be as objective as possible and try not to let my personal opinions on the matter show too obviously in my writing. Whether I achieve that or not is yet to be seen. In the meantime I would like to, for purposes of providing full disclosure, explain my position on the idea of religion.

Quite simply, I am an atheist. However, I would probably appropriate the term 'anti-theist' as being more accurate. An atheist could well say that while they do not believe in any higher power, they wish that it was true. I do not. I find it comforting that there is no convincing evidence for such a proposition. I do not, however, claim to know that this is the case. That would make me no better than those who say they know a god does exist. It is for this reason that I harbor no ill-will or contempt for the ideas inherent in deism (of which many of the Founding Fathers of the United States believed in). If someone wishes to call the start of the universe by the name 'god' then by all means. It is only theism that I have an issue with because it has no reasonable defense. I see no evidence for a higher intelligence with an active interest in human affairs, or the idea that the entire universe was created with humans in mind (such an arrogant claim, wouldn't you agree?).

These arguments have been refined a lot in my head over the past few years, but admittedly my desertion of religion occurred much earlier. When I was very small, I was sent to a Church of England primary school. In such an institution, prayers were said daily; hymns were sung on a regular basis; we would be paraded off to Church for all of the Christian holidays (Harvest Festival is the one that sticks in my mind for some odd reason); and a lot of our assemblies would be based on moral lessons from the Bible. I was surrounded by Christian theology five days a week for four years (during which time I never missed a day of school and was rewarded a clock for the achievement). I do not remember any specific occasion when the proverbial light bulb went on over my head and I realized it was all hogwash, but I do remember that even as a child I was unconvinced at the stories I was being told.

This might have something to do with three of my biggest interests at the time: dinosaurs, outer space, and mythology (Egyptian, Greek and Norse were my favorites). All three of these interests must have put holes in my capacity for religious faith. The fact that I was aware that dinosaurs roamed the earth millions of years before the first man had drawn his first breath made the idea of Adam and Eve being created in the planet's first week seem ridiculous (even then I was putting my trust in scientists over clergy. Something I am retrospectively proud of myself for). My fascination with the Solar System and outer space undermined the idea of Heaven being somewhere up. With all that knowledge about outer space (I did not yet, however, appreciate that the more we find out about the universe the less we realize we actually know) that mankind had accumulated, the idea of a man sitting on a cloud seemed childish even to me. Then there was mythology. How I loved learning about the mythologies of past civilizations. It was always my favorite part of the history courses. I did start to notice, with the more myths I read, how remarkably similar some of these concepts and stories were to what I was being taught as religious truth. The first time I saw pictures of Zeus and Odin I can remember thinking both times that they looked awfully similar to how the Christian god is imagined. I appreciate that these are not bold, convincing arguments on their own but to myself as a child they were enough to cast serious doubt into the whole idea of religion and god.

While I think I was a good student for the majority of my time in primary school, I always got the impression that the teachers hated taking me to church, or being around me during the hymns and the prayers. Church bored me. I had no interest in anything that the priest was saying and would often daydream or mess around with friends. I cannot count the number of times a teacher would chastise me while in church for not paying attention and for acting up. I had a similar attitude to the prayers and hymns that were a compulsory part of the schedule: because I regarded these things as meaningless and ultimately pointless I used to entertain myself by changing the words to make them more fun. Of course, being a child, making them more fun meant making them crude. Still, it was clear to me that religion - or more specifically Christianity - was not for me.

I then made something of a tactical error. As religion was not something that was ever really discussed in my house, I had no idea about how to approach it. I did not then realize that for some people religion is a very important part of their lives and would therefore not be too receptive to criticism. This is one of my most vivid childhood memories. My Christian grandmother was visiting us (possibly for Christmas) for a few days. For some reason the family was in the car waiting for someone (probably my mum) to quickly run an errand before going somewhere else. My grandmother mentioned the idea of god and I, unthinkingly, replied "I don't believe in god". I was told that I was far too young to be able to have an opinion of that sort and that I did not know what I was talking about. That incident, I am told, did not endear me to my grandmother and she did not fully forgive me for it for a long time.

It was this experience that helped me realize the significance that religion had in people's lives. From then I questioned whether I had jumped to conclusions on the matter. I stopped thinking about it as a real issue in my life and was essentially an agnostic. I thought that there was no way of knowing either way so I should just leave it at that. I also liked the idea of karma, and that by doing good things and being nice, your life would ultimately get better (I have since discovered that karma is just as big a crock as organized religion, but I digress).That seemed to work out pretty well until I was in university, when two things happened which made me aware of religion once again.

The first, was in late 2005-early 2006, when some cartoons had been printed in an obscure Danish newspaper of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. In response to this, there had been rioting; the burning of the Danish flag (and rather amusingly, the Swiss flag because some Muslim rioters did not know the difference); the torching of Danish embassies; the burning of effigies; and calls for the deaths of those responsible for the cartoons. This was a wake up call for me, as it had demonstrated that there was a cultural war going on between religious fanaticism and the secular world. I was disgusted to find that most 'moderate' religious leaders had not condemned the violence and threats but the cartoons. This just seemed wrong on every possible level to me. I had been increasingly drawn into the news over the past few years with 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq but had not really appreciated the significance or driving forces of these conflicts. The significance was, however, beginning to resonate with me.

The second incident that pushed me towards anti-theism was reading Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion for the first time. He said in his introduction that he hoped that agnostic readers who picked up the book would be atheist by the time they put it down. I certainly was. I realized that there was no real moral, logical or empirical reason to support the thesis of an intervening deity and that the religious doctrines of the three main monotheisms were not at all moral, but positively wicked. The recommendations of slavery, genocide, rape, incest and pedophilia over the three holy books should be enough to sicken any morally serious person.

Since then I have been reading the books of Christopher Hitchens (a man who I know I have talked about a lot lately so apologies for that) and Sam Harris with regard to religion. I have also gained a greater appreciation for the anti-religious comedy of Bill Maher, George Carlin and Lewis Black (to name three). I harbor no ill-will towards people of faith, providing that they keep it to themselves. I would be happy to debate religion with anyone (one can improve one's own argument more by arguing with someone who disagrees than talking with someone who agrees) as long as they do not try to convert me. I will not be converted. I am, in this respect, a lost cause. For this, I am grateful.

Considering the Implications of the Mortal Coil.

Since learning the sad news that Christopher Hitchens, one of my favorite writers, is suffering from cancer, reading his articles, watching interviews with him on the subject (the latest of which is here), and even coming across the subject during my research project, I have been thinking a lot about mortality. This may seem like a macabre idea to dwell on but the news of Hitchens' condition only illuminates the idea that were are all, essentially, on borrowed time (if you will forgive the cliché). Now I do not wish to simply rehash some of the theological points that I made in a similar post last year, but to take a more personal approach to the concept of mortality.

I have been very fortunate in my life so far in one respect: that I have not yet experienced the death of someone very close and very dear to me. I have, to further this point, never actually attended a funeral. I honestly do not know how I would react or behave at such an event. There have been instances of death in my life but I have been either mentally or physically distant from such encounters. My paternal grandmother, I am told, died while I was alive but because I was so young I did not attend the funeral and do not have any recollection of her. My cousin's first husband very sadly died during my first year of university. Although I was very fond of him, my physical distance from the event and subsequent inability to attend the funeral still managed to play a role in my isolation from the issue. When my now step-dad's father died I was, again, at a physical distance so all I could do was observe the effects the loss had on his family and try to provide some sort of emotional support whenever it was needed. It is because of this lack of experience that really cannot anticipate how I would react to losing someone really close to me.

The prospect of Christopher Hitchens dying will be a real first for me, considering that I have not even experienced the death of a famous person that I genuinely admire. But I do not wish to ring a knell for Hitchens just yet. Obviously I still hope that advances in medicine will prolong his life while eliminating the most of his pain. The way he is dealing with such an objective mind is very admirable, and it makes me consider how I would face the subject of my own mortality.

Death itself holds no fear from me at all. I feel quite comfortable in saying that. Having said it, however, I would like to point out that the prospect of dying does scare me. The process of dying is never something that is pleasant, it holds no real dignity, and it will probably constitute unimaginable pain. There is, I believe, a distinction to be made between the two concepts. Death is the idea of being dead, dying is the process by which one arrives. It is the process that is the scary part for me. I do not, for instance, give any credence to the idea that there is a life after this one. I could well be wrong about that proposition (I am, after all in the lucky minority of people who have lived on this planet who has not yet died), but I have yet to hear a convincing argument in support of such a concept.

The parts about death that do worry me concern its aftermath here on Earth. To paraphrase Hitchens, the idea that I will someday leave the party which will continue in my absence is frustrating to say the least (although being told, regardless of how good the party was, that I could never leave would instantly make it less enjoyable). I wonder about the scientific advances that will be made after I am no longer around to appreciate them. I wonder about the novels that will be written, the films that will be shot, and the Presidents that will be elected. The frustrating thing is that I know there is nothing I can do which will allow me that knowledge, but at the same time I accept that the same rule is true of everyone.

On a more selfish level, I wonder if I will be remembered. If so, by how many people and for how long? Some people live forever through their work, writing or achievements (and I imagine that upon reading this you already have brought several examples to mind so I will not insult you by listing any), but how long can I expect to be remembered before I am just another statistic?

While I appreciate that death is rarely a good thing, I would like to think that mine would produce some help. I am too young to think of making a will, but in the spirit of the limited span that a mortal coil offers I would like to think that after I expire, anything and everything from my body that could benefit the living be stripped out immediately. I have no problems with any part of my future corpse being harvested for the benefit of others, whatever part of it that it may be. Once my body been as useful for parts as it possibly can be, then whatever is left can be cremated or disposed of in whichever way seems appropriate. I have no wish for a headstone or memorial, and have no desire for my remains to be scattered anywhere in particular (to me it just seems like littering). I realize this may be starting to sound morbid but I am trying to approach the inevitable (and it is the only thing in life that really is an inevitability) with as objective a mind as possible.

Mortality is a fascinating subject. It inspires people to perform acts of great good and great evil. It can also inspire (if that is the correct word) total apathy and atrophy. Talking about it is something that I actually find comforting, in an odd way. I continue to hope that I am fortunate enough to delay the first hand experience of dealing with mortality for a long, long time. That said, I know that one day I will have to. It is the ultimate irony of life that no one gets out alive.

The Problem with Herding Cats.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs recently gave an interview during which he complained that the "professional left" was not being supportive enough of the Obama administration; that the administration's accomplishments were not being praised or recognized enough. Apparently, the left (as the Democratic party's base) should just fall in line behind the administration. Wrong, Mr. Gibbs.

Barack Obama was swept into office by a margin of 10 million votes. On top of that he was also handed unprecedented majorities in both Houses of Congress. The American public emphatically decided that they wanted a change in the political direction of their country. The message was clear: the American people strongly preferred the Democratic agenda to that of their Republican counterparts. It was an open invitation to really make some improvements.

Sadly, this invitation was not accepted. Not by the new White House and not by the vast majority of Congressional Democrats. They have been an embodiment of the stereotype: weak Democrats. There was no reason to be weak, the mandate was clear. George W. Bush claimed a mandate when he barely defeated Gore and Kerry in 2000 and 2004, respectively. Despite the much smaller margin of victory, Bush ran the country. He did not sit around and seek bipartisanship on every issue. If he believed something was the right thing to do, he did it. Damn the consequences (admittedly, his ideas were mostly terrible and the consequences have left the country in a much worse condition than when he was inaugurated in 2001). During that time, the right fell in line. They supported the President and would not have a word said against him or his policies.

Mr Gibbs, you cannot have one without the other. You just cannot. You cannot have a weak, pandering President who has caved to the right wing on just about every issue he has been presented with since taking office and still expect the left to simply tow the party line. It is rather admirable of Obama to wish to govern for everyone, really it is. The sad fact is that the right wing is not letting him do that. They are giving him nothing. The Republicans have filibustered just about every single piece of legislation that has passed through Congress since Obama took office. They have sought, and got, concession after concession. Did it help garner any support? Absolutely not. Has Obama changed his tactics? Not enough to notice a difference.

As a result of this meek, tepid strategy of constantly caving to the smallest demands of the right wing (often preemptively), the Stimulus Bill was nowhere near as big as most economists said that it should be (and included the cornerstone of the Republican agenda: tax cuts); the health care system has not been reformed in any meaningful way (instead of starting from single payer and compromising from there, the administration started with a rather pathetic 'public option' and caved in from there); Van Jones and Shirley Sherrod have been forced out of their jobs; Wall Street is still unregulated and the CEOs still have their ridiculously high-paying jobs without so much as a slap on the wrist (without putting in place some real reform the economy is almost certain to crash again. When it does, conservatives will be able to blame Obama); off-shore drilling has been increased (despite the Gulf Coast disaster being an indication of how dangerous it can be); cap and trade seems all but abandoned; those who advocated the use of torture in the previous administration have been left unpunished; and warrant-less wiretapping has continued with no admission that it breaks the rule of law. Other members of "the professional left" would draw also attention to the escalation of the war in Afghanistan as a point of weakness on Obama's part.

This is why the left is complaining. The left is complaining because it is in their right to do so. Obama was elected on a platform of change and yet has provided very little. Yes, the Stimulus bill helped the economy and probably prevented a major depression and yes, there was some progress made in the health care reform struggle but neither were as effective as they should have been. With Obama's constant pandering to those who oppose progress, he is looking very ineffective, which is something that Republicans could punish him for by pointing out (although, for some reason, they seem to be much more fond of scaring white voters into thinking he is a foreign, Muslim, fascist, Marxist, communist, socialist slowly seeking to take over the country and subvert the Constitution).

Mr. Gibbs, you can complain about the "professional left" all you want. The simple fact is that the Obama administration is just not doing enough. I will be one of the first to point out the economic disaster you were handed by your predecessors, but that should be the justification needed to really drive home the importance of doing things differently, rather than an excuse for why nothing significant has yet been achieved. If the Obama administration actually did what it set out to do without folding to the whims of the right at every turn, there would not be nearly as many complaints from the left, despite your contention that "[t]hey wouldn't be satisfied if Dennis Kucinich was president".

Proposing Limited Rights.

I wrote a while back that I consider myself to be a First Amendment absolutist. This is obviously in reference to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution (the first of the ten amendments that are collectively called The Bill of Rights). It was in defense of the cartoon South Park for their depiction of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. I saw this as a freedom of speech issue; something that is unequivocally protected by the First Amendment and as such should be defended as a pillar of American (and to a certain degree Western) principle.

The First Amendment is not limited to freedom of speech and the press though. It also clearly forbids any law that favors one religion over another. The United States government cannot establish a national religion, nor can it interfere with the individual practice of religion. This part of the First Amendment is just as important as the freedom of speech and the press. In fact, it is the combination of all of these factors that makes it such an important amendment and worthy of being the very first.

It is with the idea of being a First Amendment absolutist that I turn my attention to a story that has got American conservatives fuming: the revelation that there are plans to build a Muslim mosque/community center in lower Manhattan, a few blocks away from Ground Zero. One of the most vocal critics of these plans is Sarah Palin, who on Sean Hannity's program said:

I just think this is just one of the worst decisions that ever has been made that will adversely effect New York City. And those innocent victims, those families of those who were killed in the 9-11 tragedy, it saddens me to think that people don't understand what building this mosque at such hallowed ground really represents. The mosque, fine, we are all about religious tolerance, that's what makes America beautiful and free. We're all about religious freedom, but to provoke even more heartache and more division in our country, especially there in New York City, by choosing that specific location, to kind of mark territory with this mosque. I think that it's a knife in the collective heart of Americans who say, "Yeah, build the mosque, but down the road."

Palin tries to conceal her own religiously clouded bigotry by blowing this rather uninteresting and unimportant story out of all reasonable proportion. She claims that she is "all about" religious freedom while advocating the restriction of said freedom for a group that believes differently from her. She either fails to realize or deliberately omits the fact that religion in America is essentially a free enterprise (I suspect she fails to realize considering her laughably poor knowledge of the Constitution as demonstrated throughout the 2008 Presidential campaign and in her new career as professional 'Facebooker'). Building a community center a few blocks from Ground Zero (not actually on Ground Zero as she and other pundits have implied) is not the "knife in the collective heart of Americans". Why is it being built? Could be because there are Muslims who live in the area and a community center seemed like something that would benefit that specific community? According to Palin, no.

I would certainly understand outrage if some fundamentalist, bin Ladenist sect of Islam sought to set up a place to make a shrine out of Ground Zero for their absurd jihad, but that is not what is being proposed here. It is just a community center and mosque for the local Muslim community whose branch of Islam is different from the jihadists and fundamentalists of America's enemy. There should be no controversy here.

Getting back to my original point though, is the idea of religious freedom. It is guaranteed by the United States Constitution. As a result, nothing can be done legally to ban this center from being built. Palin needs to realize that she can say she supports religious freedom all she wants but if she is advocating the restriction on American Muslims to build a place of worship and community she is, by definition, not for religious freedom.

This is the same woman who feels that the laws of the United States are founded on Christian morality (which is, quite frankly, wrong) and that the Bible should be a bigger influence in the U.S. government. I cannot conceal my contempt for how remarkably moronic this woman is. She is a hypocrite who wants special protection for her chosen faith and at the same time limits on another equally ridiculous faith. She clearly has no understanding of the founding of America, and continues to be celebrated for this lack of knowledge by the conservative media. It depresses me that she is considered an influential and worthwhile spokesperson for anything related to U.S. politics. I wonder if her implication that there can be some restrictions to a Constitutionally protected right would hold up when a discussion of the Second Amendment comes up. I think we all know the answer to that.

There is no consistency in the positions this vapid, anti-science, creationist, fundamentalist bigot holds on this issue. Personally, I think all religions are equally wrong and equally stupid (they are not, however, equally violent but that is drifting too far from the point) yet under the American constitution they should all be protected to the same degree. No special treatment and no persecution or restriction should be afforded to any religious group operating within the United States who are not committing any crimes as a group. This mosque/community center should be allowed to be built and used by the people of that community. The reactionary talking points of those on the right (some of whom probably still harbor suspicions that the President is a secret Muslim himself) are, quite honestly, ridiculous.

Missing The Obvious.

Recently, Fox News host Sean Hannity said on his show that he "can't find any" examples of "any Tea Party members [saying] anything racist... [or holding] any racist signs" in a conversation regarding the passing of a resolution by the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) condemning the inherent racism of the Tea Party movement. Really, Mr. Hannity? You have the resources of one of the biggest news organizations in the world at your disposal, and you can't find any? Allow me to help. After a very quick Google search I found some! Here they are:

Is anyone really going to tell me, with a straight face, that there is nothing remotely racist about these signs? Could it be possible that Hannity's inability to find these easily locatable images is politically motivated? Of course it is. Fox News is an advocacy organization. They are currently in the business of unseating President Obama, and the Tea Party they clearly see as the best way to achieve this end. That is why they cannot say a word against it, even in the face of easily refutable claims like the one made by Hannity.
The Tea Party is bizarre in itself. It is an expression of anger. It claims to be against big government, federal spending and the deficit. Which is odd because there was none of this anger during the Bush administration; which took a surplus and turned it into a debt with massive tax cuts for the rich, deregulation and two wars. Where were all these people during the Bush years? In fact, I remember that these 'fiscally responsible' Tea Party members were the same people defending Bush from the liberal protests. Why is that? It seems odd that the national debt has suddenly become such an important issue for people. What has changed? The only thing I can identify is that there is now a black president. A coincidence, surely?

Although the more one looks at the Tea Party, the more this seems like a very suspicious coincidence. Go to any Tea Party rally and you will hear denouncements of high taxes that the Obama administration has levied on the working class. The only problem with that is that, on the federal level, taxes have either stayed the same or gone down for the majority of the US. So if their taxes are not being raised astronomically, maybe they have other policy objections to Obama. But when you look at what the Tea Party is proposing you will find a total vacuum outside of the very vague and not at all helpful slogans like "Tax cuts!", "No big government!" and "We want to take our country back!". They have no policy goals at all. This cartoon sums up the lack of policy behind the Tea Party in a brilliantly succinct way:

So they have no specific policy goals, they are protesting non-existent tax increases and the things they are most angry about they were silent on during the last administration. Suddenly it ceases to look like a coincidence that this anger has surfaced during the first African-American presidency. No examples of racism in the Tea Party, Mr. Hannity? The entire movement is soaked in it.

The Birth of a Nation.

With today being 4th July it seems appropriate that I briefly touch upon what this day commemorates. On 4th July 1776 the United States of America officially declared itself independent from the British Empire. Its independence and founding as an official nation unto itself have a lot to do with my enthusiastic interest in the United States.

The thirteen colonies of the New World were unwilling to serve under the British crown and obey the laws of the British parliament. One of the points of contention was the fact that the colonies were being taxed by parliament despite no representation within the House of Commons. This led to James Otis defiantly stating that "taxation without representation is tyranny"; a phrase which has become famous in American history and culture. This, interesting though it is, is not the reason for my interest.

The men who made the case for, and fought for, American independence were presented with a unique opportunity. They could found a brand new nation completely from scratch. What they did with that opportunity is, in my opinion, one of the greatest social and political achievements of mankind. That may sound hyperbolic but I assure you that I am genuine in that view.

While General George Washington (who would later become the first President of an independent United States) is rightly credited with much of the success of the revolution, the founding of the nation as it stands should have its proper dues elsewhere. One man in particular Thomas Jefferson. A deist, scholar, musician, architect and inventor (among other things) who was a fervent supporter of the revolutionary efforts was one of the principal architects of America's founding. He was the lead author of the Declaration of Independence, which stated in no uncertain terms that the new nation would be founded on certain "inalienable rights", namely "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". It is this ideal that would later inspire one of the greatest leaders the nation would ever see - Abraham Lincoln. The Declaration of Independence still retains its power to inspire generations of people centuries after it was written.
That was not the full extent of Jefferson's contribution to the United States. Far from it. When it came to the writing of the Constitution he had a great deal of influence. In fact, the First Amendment to the Constitution was greatly influenced and shaped by Jefferson's own Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom, which essentially guaranteed the free practice of religion for anyone in the United States (including the freedom not to practice any religion). Jefferson's ideas established a firm wall of separation between the church and the state: something which a lot of religious apologists today wrongly contend is not true when making their fatuous arguments that the United States is a Christian nation by virtue of its founding documents. This amendment was a huge departure from the laws of Britain, which firmly establish the Church of England as the official religion with a hereditary monarch at its head.

It is in the Bill of Rights that also guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of the press, the right to a trail by jury and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. The founding of the United States is a secular one, but more importantly it is the first nation conceived with human rights at its core. Obviously other nations have incorporated human rights into their laws but it was the United States which made it the bedrock of their republic. These were the wonderful ideas that gave rise to what would become the most powerful country in the world. I will be the first to admit that the United States is not perfect, but its potential for greatness will always exist because of its core. It is my fond hope that I will be able to contribute to that potential from within before long. I would be happy to do so.

Happy Independence Day, America!

Some Unfortunate News.

Today I learned that a man I greatly admire, journalist and author Christopher Hitchens, has been diagnosed with oesophageal cancer (I imagine years of being a heavy smoker was probably a contributing factor) and will undergo chemotherapy in order to treat it. Apparently the five year survival rate for this particular disease is less than 5 percent, so it is with great displeasure that I write this entry. I have been an admirer of Hitchens for a while now as a writer, an orator and a debater. While I do not agree with everything he says, he often makes compelling arguments for his positions, which is definitely admirable. I sincerely hope that I will not soon have to write an entry wherein I refer to Hitchens in the past tense. All I can do in the meantime is to read as much of his writing as I can get my hands on (something I have already started with great enthusiasm). I am currently in the middle of reading his book Why Orwell Matters, and I hope to soon get a copy of his memoir Hitch-22. Not that this message in a scarcely read blog will find its way to him but I will close by saying: Get well soon, Hitch.

In the Summertime.

Ah, summer. The time of year where the sun is shining, it is warm outside and everything is good. A time for vacations in the sun, barbeques, relaxing and looking at the positive side of life.

Sadly, I do not think I can share this view this year. While the summer is anticipated by millions almost as much as Christmas (or in some cases, more so), I cannot share in the joy as much as I would like to. Certain things are chipping away at my summer spirit. There are positive things about the summer too though, so I would like to think that I have a balanced attitude to how it will go.

My Masters degree is still ongoing, with the final deadline being in September, so my summer will have a large amount of it dedicated to research, interviewing people and lots of academic writing. On top of that I am still in search of employment, having no success at all. With that in mind, another chunk of my summer will be (and already is) dedicated to finding a means to actually earn some money, of which I currently have very little.

That leads me to my car. I love my car. It is an old Fiat but it is mine. I get immense joy out of driving (See? Positives!). The one disadvantage of being a driver is that cars are (as one of my friends so wonderfully put it) black holes for money. Very true. Over the summer I have my annual MOT inspection and service (and considering the hole that some kind motorist put in my bumper over new year will probably be expensive) in addition to my insurance renewal. So there are those big bills to look forward to as well!

Also, I have hayfever. Which rather takes away a full enjoyment of the summer. Still, the less said about that the better (it is a depressing subject).

Now while this may all sound like the proverbial doom and gloom there some positives which are helping my outlook avoid getting too morose. I do really enjoy the warm weather. I like being able to walk around in shorts outside and feel the warmth of the sun on my face. It really does help the mood when you can walk around in the sunshine (oddly enough, the rain has a similar effect on me, but that is beside the point).

I also really like following, as best I can, the World Cup taking place in South Africa. While this may come as a surprise to some I have always maintained that international football tournaments (soccer for my American readers, if they exist) are the only times that my interest in the sport is piqued. Club football does nothing for me, but the international tournaments are always enjoyable. Except watching England. That is always difficult for a number of reasons. Firstly, they do not play exciting football like the Brazilians or the Argentinians, it is always dull and unimpressive. Secondly, as I alluded to in a previous entry, the frenzy that English people work themselves into at these tournaments always leaves me resenting the England team and hoping they get knocked out just so all the jingoistic, nationalist stuff will peter out. The World Cup as a whole, however, gives me a chance to watch some top quality football without the foul taint of money that club football reeks of.

So there you have it. What my summer will consist of. Not brilliant, but ultimately not horrible. It will hopefully be a vast improvement on last year. I also realize that a lot of my recent entries have been more personal rather than focusing on more important issues. I will try to address that when I can dive more fully into the news.

Walking Through My Head

It has been a relatively slow day today. The latest in a pretty slow week. It feels as though I have had a lot of time to think, to reflect or to contemplate. I have been told by a few people that I think too much as it is. Given my current situation I have come to agree somewhat. The problem is that I cannot switch off my brain. My thoughts are constant and it is difficult to just turn them down and relax. It is possible, but never for an extended period of time. My imagination concocts things out of nothing and then its productions get stuck in a loop within my mind. Until, of course, the next and latest image or scenario dreamed up with no real sense or purpose.

I do think that I have become better at explaining myself and explaining ideas in a logical way. Some have even told me that I can now be a little too intricate in identifying the logical steps in my head aloud. I guess that must mean I am successful. I never used to be. The connections would be made in my head and I would explain the conclusion with the expectation that everyone around me would understand how I got there. These became known as my tangents to a certain group of friends, who I greatly appreciate for their patience. I can often get distracted while telling a story but, to me, the distractions always make sense. Maybe that should be a worry. Maybe not.

Sometimes it is more fun to keep the connections internal, but having gotten so accustomed to explaining my thought pattern retroactively it has become a new standard for me to explain the process as I am going through it. I can imagine that this gets irritating at times, so I apologize to all those I have annoyed. Apparently it can sometimes sound like I am explaining things to people like I would to an idiot. This is really not my intention. As a result of having to explain the steps that used to go on within my own mind I am still struggling to figure out at which point the explanations become redundant. The problem I have is that the answer differs with every topic of conversation and with every person I converse with.

It is sometimes a shame that I do not really get a chance to talk passionately as much as I would like, but I am always concerned that the subjects that arouse such interest for me are dull and unimportant to others. Topics like the history or politics of the United States, my thoughts on religious matters, certain types of music and others all provoke a real enthusiasm in me but I feel restrained by not wanting to bore those around me. This blog gives me some release but it does not quite have the same effect as a person to person conversation would. Given the right topic and the right audience, I really think that I could talk for hours.

Sometimes I cherish the way my mind works and other times I curse it. I assume that I am not alone in my habit of thinking the most inappropriate thing possible in certain situations. It can also get frustrating when I instinctively commit to memory the most inane and useless of trivia and yet important issues often escape me. Sometimes it would be nice to quieten the avalanche of voices and images that are running through my brain constantly. Even when I sleep it feels like I am still always thinking

A Brief Thought on an Annoyance

I do like to think that I dedicate the entries on here to substantive matters that will be of interest to people, but over the last few days I have just become increasingly irritated by something very minor. As a result, I will use this forum to vent.

To all the people on Facebook who have joined groups that have titles along the lines of "I am wearing my England shirt with pride!" or "Against the England shirt ban" I have a very simple request: Grow up.

There is not a ban on wearing England shirts anywhere for the World Cup, and if you believe that nonsense then quite frankly you are a fool. I really am not too enamored with football (soccer for my American readers), especially at the club level. Money has become more important than competition. It is for this reason that I like international football infinitely more. I must admit that I am always reluctant to get excited about this as well when England are involved because it always produces the same sort of idiocy.

Seriously people, English football fans make up a huge proportion of the country. No one is realistically going to outright ban the wearing of England shirts of the displays of the St. George Flag. Relax, you just come off sounding like ignorant, xenophobic morons.

That is all.

Total Freedom of Speech (except THAT)

Alright, I admit it: I love South Park. Yes it is crude and immature at times and no, not all of its episodes are pure comedy gold. It is, in my opinion, one of the best comedy shows that has been produced in recent years. It is funny but can also carry with it some very astute social commentary (seen through the lens of satire, of course). One thing that South Park and its creators (Trey Parker and Matt Stone) should be admired for is their fairness. For them, no one is off limits for ridicule, be they fictional or factual. They have mocked celebrities, politicians (of all political stripes) and religious icons and leaders. Parker and Stone appear to be First Amendment absolutists. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution decrees that Congress may pass no law that limits the freedom of speech or the press. An absolutist (by my definition) would argue that no speech can be censored, regardless of the level of offense caused. This applies to satire, to political activists, to religious zealots. While the things they say may be offensive and degrading, their right to say it must not be compromised. I would argue that I am also a First Amendment absolutist, and would continue to be if/when I am a permanent resident of the United States. With that in mind I applaud Parker and Stone for their willingness to mock anyone or anything. Even when they have gone after people or ideas that I feel strongly about (the episodes mocking atheism being the first that spring to mind) I did not take offense at because it does me no harm to see ideas being mocked and they were very funny.

So it is with disappointment (although sadly not surprise) that I read that Parker and Stone have been threatened by Muslim extremists. Their crime? Depicting the Muslim prophet Muhammad. It came from a website called RevolutionMuslim.com, which has apparently posted messages in the past in support of Osama bin Laden and a holy war against the west. Now it has posted a message (which it has since taken down) saying that Parker and Stone may meet the same fate as Theo Van Gogh, "[t]he Dutch film-maker [who] was shot and stabbed to death in 2004 by an Islamist angered by his film about Muslim women". The author of this post, Abu Talhah Al-Amrikee, claimed that the two insulted the prophet and that they should not be surprised at retaliation. He claimed that the post was not in fact a threat, but it is hard to believe considering it listed the address of one of the South Park production offices and a link to an article describing a home the creators own. No, not a threat at all, just a warning that violence and death could happen and links to where they live and work.

The episodes in question were episodes 200 and 201 respectively. Considering the milestone of 200 episodes, a number of old characters, themes and issues from previous episodes were reintroduced. One of which being the depiction of Muhammad. In the first of the two episodes Muhammad is mentioned by name but is never directly shown (his muffled voice is heard from the back of a U-Haul truck), and in the second all mentions of his name are censored as well as the character being covered by a big "censored" sign. Despite the fact that Muhammad was expressly not depicted, the threat still came.

Has South Park been criticized before for its depictions of people or religion? Absolutely. Have its creators ever been threatened with death because of their comedy cartoon prior to this? To my knowledge, never. In fact, before the 2005 Danish Cartoon controversy that sparked the initial Muhammad based episode, South Park had depicted him in an episode, as part of the League of Super Best Friends. Want proof? Here it is:

How much controversy was stirred by this episode? None. This was before the Muslim fanatics and fundamentalists decided that their religion was more important than freedom of speech, and would use violence in order to make the point. They are the only religion doing this at the moment. Christians have not threatened Parker and Stone with death for featuring Jesus surfing the internet for pornography and Buddhists have not made any threats of violence for the depiction of Buddha snorting lines of cocaine in front of children.

I will say again that freedom of speech and expression is vital for a healthy society. If we do not have objectionable ideas to argue against then we lose the ability to argue our own points well. The threat of violence should never be used to suppress creativity and speech. Just as I did with the Danish cartoonists in 2005, I fully support Parker and Stone for what they have done and for bringing up this important issue once again. Religion (as with everything else) should not be immune from criticism or ridicule.

Bigotry and Deception.

I do not know how many of you will be aware of a story from Mississippi that has made the news recently. A high school girl wanted to attend her senior prom with a date. Her date just so happened to be a girl. Yes, it was a lesbian date (one of the girls wanted to wear a tuxedo for the event as well). Does any sane person see anything wrong with two girls going to a school dance together? Frankly, if you answered "yes" to that admittedly hypothetical question I no longer value your opinion.

The people who did answer in the affirmative were the people running her school. They banned Constance McMillen and her girlfriend from the prom. A teenage rite of passage denied because she had the strength to be herself. McMillen then, with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), brought a lawsuit against the school for discriminatory practices. The school's response was to cancel the prom altogether. Seriously.

This is the point of the story that really infuriates me. After a lot of pressure, they decided to allow the prom to go ahead, and told McMillen she could bring her date and wear a tuxedo. When she turned up to this event there was a grand total of seven people attending. Seven. Two of whom were said to be students with learning disabilities. Seems odd doesn't it? It gets worse. She later discovered that the majority of her senior class had attended a separate, private party (acting as a prom) on the same night, to which she was not invited. This party was organized by the parents. There are several levels on which I am disgusted regarding this story.

Firstly, the initial ban. What was so wrong with the idea of a same sex couple at the prom? I will tell you: nothing. Having a problem with homosexuality is one thing, as long as it is kept private. No public institution should be allowed to discriminate against sexuality at all. Bottom line. Secondly, the pig-headed vindictiveness with which the school responded to the complaint. As I mentioned earlier they chose to ruin the prom for everyone in their senior class before they would allow one same sex couple be treated as an equal. While these factors did irritate me it was the next part of the story that really infuriated me.

The fake prom. This sounds like a cruel prank one would find in a high school movie. Instead of allowing this couple to attend the prom the school told them that's what they were doing and sent them to a separate prom (in case they infected the other kids with 'the gay' perhaps). They segregated these kids. I do not use that word lightly but it is precisely what they did. The other prom attended by the majority of the students would perhaps be less heinous if it was the work solely of cruel, immature teenagers, but it wasn't. It was organized by the school and the parents. Adults, who should know better actually assisted in this cruel piece of bigoted deception.

Finally the last aggravating point is that the fake prom that McMillen and her girlfriend were sent to was also the prom that students with learning difficulties were sent to. The school was not content to humiliate and segregate students for being gay, they thought that students with learning difficulties should be purged from the prom too. The one positive that came from that situation, McMillen said, was that those students "didn't have to worry about people making fun of them [at their prom]."

Constance McMillen appears to be dealing with this awful turn of events in the classiest way possible. I commend her for taking a stand and for staying strong in the face of such discrimination. The school and parents should be utterly ashamed of themselves for this. The amount of callousness displayed at every step of the way is deplorable and I for one think that they should be held accountable for it.

A Real Moral Evil.

The Catholic Church is currently the center of a global scandal. Why this is the case only now is quite honestly not relevant because the problem has been going on for decades and possibly centuries. This is the scandal involving the rape and torture of children. Some people euphemistically call this "child abuse", but to me it is quite simply rape.

The problem seems to be exacerbated by the fact that Joseph Ratzinger (or Benedict XVI, the current pope) was at one point in charge of protecting Catholic priests from secular prosecution. For the crime of raping children. He advised these pedophiles that their crime was not the rape, but talking to outside law enforcement about it. Not only that, he transferred offending priests to other parishes which gave them a fresh batch of innocent children to prey upon. His primary interest was in defense of the church! How can any morally adjusted person even conceive of such a thing?

What would you think of a CEO of a company that ran nurseries or daycare centers around the world who did not immediately fire and report employees committing crimes against children, but transferred them elsewhere without so much as a slap on the wrist? What would you think of such a person? Their company would collapse, the CEO and all offending employees would be locked in prison. So why is this not the case for religious institutions like the Catholic church?

Another point on the CEO comparison is that a CEO does not claim to be an infallible representative of the creator of the universe (and the only one at that). The Pope is Christ's Representative on Earth. He is supposed to be the moral leader of humanity. There are two conclusions that can be drawn from this: 1. God and Jesus Christ condone the rape and torture of children, or 2. The Pope's claim to be the last word on human morality is total B.S. Neither one reflects well on the Catholic Church.

One more point to consider is that Vatican City is a recognized state in its own right, which makes the pope the head of a church and a country. He uses this to further protect members of his church from secular prosecution. He protects rapists and sadists. This is no way for anyone to behave. The fact that the pope is considered a moral leader is frankly disgusting. I would go so far as to say that the way the church and pope have acted can appropriately be described as evil.

The Catholic church preaches moral absolutes with regard to homosexuality, divorce, abortion and condom use (all of which are labeled as abominations or moral evils) but, at the same time, wishes to protect those who commit the worst imaginable crime. For me this is clear evidence that no morally serious person should take anything it says seriously. While one could argue the superstitious and supernatural elements should not be taken literally but its moral teaching is good, this scandal completely destroys that feeble justification for its existence. The sooner people realize this the better.

Never Justified

So this weekend President Obama signed into law the Health Care reform bill that his administration and party have been working on for the past year. While the reconciliation package still (as of this writing) awaits passage in order to fix the flaws of the current bill it can be viewed as a Democratic success (to some extent: I would say that it is more a Health Insurance Reform bill than a Health Care Reform bill considering its lack of a single payer or even public option).

With this success, there has been a backlash against Democratic members of Congress. Protesters outside of the United States Capitol hurled racial epithets at African American Congressmen and homophobic slurs against openly gay Rep. Barney Frank as they tried to go to work. Some members of Congress were even spat on. This, however, is not the worst of it.

Since the bill's passage, many members of the Democratic party have been targeted by threats of violence and aggression. Several Democratic offices around the country have been vandalized by bricks being thrown through the windows. This, also, is not my focus.

My focus is on Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan. If you have been following the health care debate you will know that he is the Democratic congressman who threatened to derail the entire bill if the language on abortion was not made more restrictive. He claimed that the Senate version of the bill would allow federal funding of a legal procedure. It did not. He wanted to ban people who get any government subsidy for health insurance to be banned from getting abortion coverage in their plan even if they paid for that part with their own money. This would essentially make the legal procedure all but banned for anyone that wasn't rich enough to pay for separate abortion coverage. He was eventually convinced to vote in favor of the legislation by being assured that the Senate bill does not expand abortion rights and promised by the president that an Executive Order would be signed to reinforce the limits of the Senate bill on abortion.

The abortion debate is something that I do not wish to get into in too much detail. All I will say on the matter is that I feel I do not have the right to decide about abortion because I do not have a uterus. It is completely a matter for those it will effect: women. I disagree with Mr. Stupak's position on it and am disappointed that he tried to use the health care bill as a vehicle to gain restrictions on women's reproductive rights.

What I wanted to focus on was the backlash that Mr. Stupak has faced since his vote in favor of reform. He has received calls from outraged members of the public claiming that he betrayed their cause; calling him a "baby killer" (something that was also shouted at him by a fellow Congressman as he was speaking on the floor of the House). These people identified themselves as "pro-life" and then proceeded to give him death threats. One caller wished that Mr. Stupak would get cancer and die, another said that he was the devil.

While I strongly disagree with Mr. Stupak's political positions (and his involvement with a secretive religious organization called "The Family" who have been apparently subsidizing his living expenses in Washington) I would never have condoned anyone who disagreed with him to threaten him with violence or to wish death upon him. Even if he had voted against reform the worst I would have wished for is that he not be re-elected. That is it. It is never justified to speak to another person in such a way, be they an elected government official or not.

These "pro-life" bullies (who apparently do not see the irony in wishing death upon someone else, like Dr. George Tiller, and still call themselves pro-life) cannot defend their actions in any way that will make it alright. Even if the bill Mr. Stupak voted for expanded abortion rights (which it clearly and plainly does not) this would not be justified. The fact that such vile language has been directed at him despite the fact that he is still on their side politically is nothing short of stupid.

I could lecture Mr. Stupak about him looking carefully at the people he claims to support and ask him to reconsider but frankly that is not the issue. Whatever his political or religious allegiance it is never justified to react in such a vile and threatening manner. Never.

Spitting in the Face of History.

So apparently the Texas State Board of Education has approved some right wing alterations to their curriculum which will stay in effect for ten years. While this may on the surface not be much of a surprise but one of the changes has seriously annoyed me. The change in question being the removal of Thomas Jefferson as an influential person during American independence and the Enlightenment in favor of people like Thomas Aquinas. The textbooks will also

cover the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation's Founding Fathers, but not highlight the philosophical rationale for the separation of church and state.

This infuriates me. Texas is one of the biggest, most populous states in the Union and for the next decade their schoolchildren will be taught things about the founding of the USA that are flat out wrong, and will not be taught things that are vitally important.

Eliminating Thomas Jefferson is eliminating the chief author of The Declaration of Independence! That, to me, seems like an important thing to leave out of a history textbook. The problem that the ultraconservatives seem to have with Jefferson is that he was a deist who was very critical of Christianity (its super-naturalism and dogma at least) and even produced his own version of the New Testament which cut out all references to the divinity of Jesus Christ.

He was not alone in this. Benjamin Franklin, another of the Founding Fathers and a co-author of the Declaration, was almost certainly an atheist. Many of the founders were deists. George Washington refused to take communion. The Declaration and the Constitution both omit any mention of any theistic god, never mind mention of Jesus.

The separation of Church and State is something that Jefferson strongly advocated and, as a result, the United States of America was founded upon some of the best principles possible. Some religious apologists like to argue that it only works one way: that the State has no business in the Church. This is flat out wrong. The United States is founded on what Jefferson called a 'wall of separation'.

The founding of the United States is secular. To teach otherwise is quite frankly teaching a lie. I apologize if this entry has not been very well structured but this is an issue that is very close to my heart. The Texas State Board of Education should be ashamed that it has condemned a decade's worth of its schoolchildren to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what really makes their country great.

Sex. As Promised.

In yesterday's entry I said the following:

I was originally planning to talk about the third (and often most debated) choice of straight edge: the one regarding promiscuous sex. This, sadly, will have to wait for another entry as I fear I have gone on too long as it is.

I like to think of myself as a man of my word, so I shall address that point today while it is still fresh in my mind.

As part of straight edge I choose not to engage in promiscuous sex, but this often comes under scrutiny when trying to explain it because of the rather murky definition of "promiscuous". Most people ignore the word entirely and only hear "No sex". That thought alone is enough to shock them into thinking straight edge is some sort of religious cult. Not true.

Promiscuous sex, as I would define it (which is all that matters as straight edge is a personal choice, not a clear cut set of rules) is basically meaningless, emotionless sex with strangers or people with whom a personal connection is not shared. This includes one night stands (for obvious reasons). There is no provision in straight edge that says sex is not allowed, but the original Minor Threat song decried "fucking" (which I put into quotation marks for a reason in the last entry). Straight edge encourages a healthy lifestyle, both physically and mentally, so providing that sex is safe and meaningful then it is absolutely fine.

Some people would regard promiscuous sex as any sex had before marriage. With this I must contend. Marriage is essentially a legal document that makes a relationship recognized by the state (for now I will ignore that it originated as a property exchange between the bride's father and husband). It is not required for a loving, fulfilling and happy relationship. With that in mind it seems silly for someone to wait for something as arbitrary as a marriage license before engaging in sex.

With this in mind I would like to express a certain sadness for the way in which sex has been devalued in the modern world. Sex is very enjoyable and as a result, people want to experience it (a wonderful evolutionary imperative, in my opinion) and thus the attainment of sex has become a status symbol. This is especially true among young men. Throughout adolescence it seems as though in order to be accepted by one's peers, one must have sex. Because of this attitude, a lot of adolescent males and females are trying to have sex as early as possible.

Personally, I think this is a shame. With sex becoming an essential experience that one must have as quickly as possible the real beauty of it has become lost (or faded at the very least). Sex is, to me, a deep expression of intimacy between two people. Obviously, in the context of a loving committed relationship not all encounters have to be seen exclusively in this way (sometimes biological urges take over!) but it should at least be kept in mind. This is why I also have no moral issue with sexual experimentation between two consenting adults (regardless of sexual orientation. To paraphrase Christopher Hitchens: Homosexuality is not a form of sex, but a form of love).

I am not intending this entry to be preaching to anyone about how they approach the subject of sex. If someone is satisfied having a string of one night stands then that is completely their own business (provided they do so safely). On the same token, if someone wishes to wait until they have gotten married to have sex, that is equally their own business.

I do not wish to preach. I am simply using this entry as an expression of my attitude towards sex and how it fits in with me being straight edge. I sincerely hope that it has cleared up any confusion.

Poison Free.

It is interesting to note that while the overarching title of this space is "Thoughts from a Straight Edge Mind", I have not yet talked about it in any real detail (long-time readers, if they exist, may recall its brief mention when talking about my tattoos but one suspects that is hardly sufficient). With little to keep me occupied this evening (even in a city the size of Coventry, most activity seems to stop on a Sunday; Britain is the perennial creature of habit) it seems that now, if you will forgive the cliché, is as good a time as any.

For those of you who know anything about the history of Straight Edge this opening will not reveal anything new, however I feel it is important for context. The movement (if it can truly be called a movement, given its lack of eventual aims) started in the United States of America. A lot of punk rock shows were available to all ages, but due to alcohol laws only those over the age of 21 were permitted to drink. In order to differentiate between those who could and those who could not purchase alcoholic beverages an "X" was drawn on the backs of the underage hands (a practice I can tell you from experience still happens in some establishments).

At the same sort of time, a number of punk and hardcore bands were becoming disillusioned with the narcotic lifestyle of their underground music scene. One such band was Minor Threat, who penned a song decrying the use of alcohol, drugs and "fucking". The song was called "Straight Edge", and gave rise to a brand new subculture within the hardcore punk scene.

Ideas of sobriety caught on quickly and soon, those who attended the all age punk shows would mark their hands with an "X" themselves as a symbol of their unwillingness to partake in alcohol or drugs. This even applied to those who were old enough to drink alcohol legally. It became a symbol of the straight edge culture which remains to this day. Straight edge tattoos often feature an "X" (mine is one example) and some abbreviations include "sXe" and "xXx".

In some places within the United States, straight edge has been classified as a gang, due to the actions of narrow-minded morons who have turned it into their own violent crusade against anyone who drinks, smokes or takes drugs. This is a shame, but probably inevitable given that in any group of people there are bound to be idiots.

With all of that in mind, I have to confess that my reasons for choosing to be straight edge have very little to do with its origins.

Until I was 18 I had never heard of straight edge. In fact, up until that point I had been drinking alcohol for some time. I had been brought up in a household where it was not uncommon to be given a glass of wine with dinner, or a glass of champagne on Christmas morning. I had been going to house parties and nightclubs with friends from the age of 15. During this time, however, I did not drink so much that I became drunk. I never did see the appeal. Friends would tell me how much fun it was to be drunk but their lack of recollection the following mornings and their blisteringly painful hangovers led me to conclude that it was not a worthwhile trade off. I did still drink, though.

Other factors put me off the idea of drinking. In addition to my friends being hungover and unable to recall all the 'fun' they had the previous night, there was my experience of the nights themselves. Often I would see people (sometimes friends, sometimes complete strangers) sitting in a corner, leaning against a wall or curled up in the fetal position before the end of the night. They would be vomiting, crying and generally making themselves out to look rather foolish. That was not something I ever saw as being glamorous.

Another factor was a little closer to home. When my mother finally left my father (about fourteen years too late in my opinion but I am very happy with how things are for her now, so I shall not labor this point any further) the old fool was so depressed and self-pitying that he would get through multiple bottles of wine every night (that could be an exaggeration on my part but that is certainly how I remember it) and would more often than not finish it off with several sizable glasses of brandy. On multiple occasions, the smell of the brandy was so strong that it would reach my bedroom upstairs.

Anyone that knows me well will appreciate that I do not intend to become like my father. He was so pathetic during this time; slurring his words, crying to himself alone and making the entire house smell terrible. I promised myself during this time that I would not allow myself to become like that. I was also aware that alcoholism can be hereditary, so although this period only lasted a few months I was, and still am, unwilling to take such a chance.

Going off to university yielded pretty much the same results. People all around me were engaged in copious amounts of drinking, followed by sobbing, memory loss and sometimes regurgitation. Any trace of glamor had completely gone from the mystique of alcohol. It was during my first semester at university that I stumbled, quite by accident, on something called straight edge. Intrigued, I uncovered more information and realized that it boiled down to three simple choices:

• No Alcohol
• No Drugs
• No Promiscuous Sex

Considering that I had no real affection for alcohol, that I had never touched illegal drugs in my life (and had stopped taking pain medication for insignificant things like headaches a long time ago) and that I was not having sex (at all, never mind promiscuously. Ah, the joys of being long-haired and overweight) it seemed like a natural fit for me.

It was over the Christmas vacation of my first year of university that I decided that straight edge was for me. I had my last drink during that period and have never regretted it. A lot of people ask me about it, thinking of it in terms of rules that must be obeyed (like a religion). I often have to explain to them that they are choices, not rules. I am under no compulsion to stick to them at all. If I wanted to have a drink of alcohol I could do so at any time. I just choose not to.

Despite having knowledge of straight edge's origins and awareness of a straight edge subculture, I have never actively sought out such companionship. The vast majority of my friends drink alcohol, a few of them try drugs and some of them have promiscuous sex. Does that mean I cannot be friends with them? Of course not. I respect others' choices in the way I wish them to respect mine. We will often joke about the differences with each other but that is as far as it goes. I do not wish to impose straight edge on anyone, as I get irritated when someone tries to impose upon me the merits of drugs and alcohol.

I was originally planning to talk about the third (and often most debated) choice of straight edge: the one regarding promiscuous sex. This, sadly, will have to wait for another entry as I fear I have gone on too long as it is. If you have made it all the way to the end, then I can only apologize if you feel your time has been wasted.