The Semi-True Adventures of Lar!

Let’s Celebrate “Offend Yourself Day!”

2010-07-08T15:32:48Z

As an author of fiction, I often hear there are only a handful of stories in the whole wide world and all tales are based on those few. I like to assess that concept with, "Duh" before raising the stakes and noting there is really only ONE story and all stories are a variation of it.

That one story is this: Stuff happens.

I award myself points for smart-assery, but demerits for inaccuracy because I use over-simplification myself. You can really buzz through the news that way. Scanning today's headlines, I've got "Political Sex Scandal" here, "Natural World Dying" here, and "Right-Wing Media Personality Promotes New Book By Scapegoating the Powerless." Nope, nothing new today, but, what's this?

Oh, never mind. It's just the classic: "Religious People Offended Again."

That's the mental bin into which I tossed the news that some Muslims were offended by cartoons of Muhammad. Most items in the RPOA category provide light entertainment (as in the allegedly gay Teletubby) but this time, some Muslims were so offended they rioted, burning and killing. We in the western world are appalled at such barbarity. Everyone knows a civilized culture only riots, burns and kills when their sports team wins a championship.

So because of the violence, this story popped free of my mental "yawn and ignore" file and begged further analysis. A stand needed to be… um, stood. Unfortunately, I was vaguely unimpressed with the knee-jerky reactions exemplified by the sort-of movement, "Draw Muhammad Day."

Some background: after receiving a threat, Comedy Central partially censored a South Park episode because it featured parodies of Muhammad. Those who care about freedom of expression were offended, first at those who made the threats and second at those who seemed to cave into them. In protest, lots of people agreed to republish toons of Muhammad and/or draw their own. "Draw Muhammad Day" was one result.

So, while I agree it's silly to get offended at a cartoon, especially when doing so on behalf of a being you believe is all-powerful (I've written about that before) I must say I'm unimpressed with "Draw Muhammad Day" and the other efforts to reproduce the Danish cartoons that began this anti-cartoon jihad and the anti-anti-cartoon crusade.

Why so jaded? Because offending extreme Muslims proves nothing. It's just too easy. In the excellent documentary Afghan Star (about Afghanistan's answer to American Idol) one female finalist removed her headscarf and took two steps. This was called a "dance" and it sent the men into a murderous rage. They talked (seriously) of wanting this woman executed. For as close as those few simple moves were to a dance, Afghan women better be careful not to trip on any pebbles lest they be branded bootylicious. (Would that be burqalicious?)

All this talk of new generals and new strategies for Afghanistan. Who needs them? Project a music video of any modern female pop star on an Afghan mountain in the night and the Talibanis will spontaneously combust. The Graveyard of Empires has endured countless bombs but is no match for the merciless vibrations of a female's jiggly buttocks.

So now that I've solved the Afghan war, what I want to see next, from the people determined to prove their support for freedom of expression, who think they are so much better than extremist Muslims, is this: I want them to draw and/or publish something that offends THEM. If you're so pro-free-expression, let's see you express something that offends YOU. No more offending someone thousands of miles away, who surely won't riot and burn your home or kill you. You want to really promote free expression? Offend yourself.

Can anyone really do it? I have my doubts. I'm pretty sure I can't. I tried (see above) but it just seems lame. I'm offended by the mentality, but somehow not upset by it in cartoon form. Plus, I couldn't help making the sarcasm obvious. I don't want to go further, because well, I'd be offended. Can one offend oneself?

An effort was attempted in a June 2006 Harper's article (Drawing Blood by Art Spiegelman.) Responding to the Muhammad-cartoon issue, some Jewish artists drew cartoons that allegedly offended themselves. I'm still skeptical. Seemed to me they were simply mocking concepts that they had no respect for, like I did above.

Regardless, the Harper's article was a noble effort and yes, there is a difference between being offended and calling for the execution of the offender. Even so, before getting righteous, I think we all need to pass this test. If nothing else, it will be a lesson in humility. So have at it, my fellow freedom fighters. Nice job getting in the face of oppressive jerks, but can you take the heat as well? Are you really pro-freedom? Can you offend yourself?

===
Larry Nocella writes The Semi-True Adventures of Lar blog at LarryNocella.com. He's the author of the novel Where Did This Come From? The world's first CarbonFree(R) novel according to Carbonfund.org. The book is available on Amazon.com as a paperback and Kindle eBook. It is also available for other eBook readers.

You’re Welcome, Iraq!

2010-06-10T15:16:47Z

I hate to use a cliché, but something is really stuck in my craw. I didn't even know I had a craw, but something is definitely jammed up in there. The feeling reminds me of... maybe I better not say.

What's my problem? It's Thomas Friedman's New York Times article "It's Up to Iraqis Now. Good Luck." (Link.) The article was published months ago as I write this. Let that illustrate the severity of my craw constipation.

The piece articulates Friedman's belief that democracy in Iraq is starting to bloom and his hope that the lives lost in the still-ongoing fighting were worth the sacrifice. Tangent: If it's really up to the Iraqis, why hasn't the USA left yet? The article is the written equivalent of President G. W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" photo, which has passed its seven year anniversary. Still no WMD. That was the mission, wasn't it? At this point, who can remember? Those goalposts are more well-traveled than Tiger Woods' penis.

BTW, did you know that "a concise mild sophism" is an anagram for "Mission Accomplished"? Hidden meanings, indeed! Thanks, Anagram Maker!

Anyway, I don't want to pick on Friedman. He's spot-on when he writes about the need for renewable energy. This particular article, though, is a perfect example of the long-range bravado that accompanies a lot of American thought, a phenom I sometimes call faux badassery.

Let's consider a faux badass favorite, the motto of New Hampshire: "Live free or die!"

Sounds brave, but what about in reality? If someone held a gun to a person's head and ordered them to pay taxes, they'd say, no thanks, I'd rather die. If someone took away their right to choose between Pepsi and Coke, they'd rather die? If a surreal terrorist threatened to clog their throat with gumballs unless they declared pink your favorite color, and pink wasn't their favorite, they'd rather die? The faux badass says, "Hell yes! Freedom or death!"

I'm skeptical.

Faux badasses claim to accept this mythical binary trade-off of life for freedom. Notice however, someone else is always doing the trading. Do you think an Iraqi who lost a loved one due to seven plus years of violence thinks, "Well, I miss my children, but at least now I can vote for animal catcher"? Would you?

Don't get me wrong. Democracy is good for managing large groups of humans and maximizing their societal pleasure. It's a cornerstone of civilization, important and even beautiful. Whose breast doesn't swell with pride at the five minutes or so spent in the local VFW voting for people who you don't know for offices you never heard of?

But would you trade that ritual for one of the people you love? Someone who is with you every day? Who gives your life meaning? Or would you be okay with an unelected douche bag monarch ruling your nation, or higher taxes, if it meant you and your loved ones could live?

I feel like I'm blaspheming. Am I really an American challenging the idea of democracy being worth death? I'm just not convinced an abstract idea is worth dying for. If I was an Iraqi at this point, I wouldn't give a crap about who was ruling, just as long as the bombs stopped. No spin by Thomas Friedman could convince me otherwise.

You might even be a faux badass if right now you're getting the urge to paraphrase Ben Franklin: "Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither." Sounds great! So profound! So very brave! But words come easy, that doesn't mean they're worthwhile when exposed to experience.

For example, that guy from Nantucket? He isn't really that well endowed, but suppose he was. In the abstract, it sounds awesome. In concrete reality? Buying pants must be a total bitch.

If You Hate Gays, You Are Gay

2010-06-03T16:21:33Z

Our mind is our greatest tool, but used improperly it's our worst enemy, especially when assessing our fellow humans. To paraphrase Dr. King, the world would be a better place if we judged people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin or any other single trait, especially one as uncontrollable as appearance, gender or sexual orientation. We should let another's actions guide our opinion of them.

But unless you're constantly vigilant, stereotypes of people can creep into your thinking. It's our nature working against us. The human mind so lusts for patterns, we sometimes see them where they aren't. Stars or cloud formations always look like something else, instead of nothing. We observe one person we don't like and if we're not careful, we'll conclude that everyone who matches that person in a single way (even a superficial way) we also won't like.

So we're rightly trained to believe that thinking in stereotypes is unfair. It doesn't give an accurate picture, and yet still we do it, but this is a fast-moving world and whoever finds shortcuts can get ahead.

So I admit what I'm about to propose is risky, but I'm willing to chance it. Enough people who make a huge show of hating gays have been revealed to be gay that I am personally comfortable with allowing this stereotype in my mind: if you hate gays, that's because you are gay.

Refer to recent news for the latest example, the comedy-monologue-ready scandal of George Rekkers, an anti-gay activist who is gay enough to hire an "escort" on Rentboy.com, supposedly to carry his luggage. Sorry, no obvious jokes about heavy packages here. Or handling loads. Or helping get fully packed. Or puns about bags or sacks. None about putting hands on straps. Or leather and zippers. Enough!

Hilarious situations like the Rekkers scandal have happened enough that in my mind, they've crossed from exception to rule. If you hate gays, you are gay. It might not be entirely accurate, but guess what? I don't care and I don't care to do more research. People who are full of hate don't deserve the effort.

The phenomenon of anti-gay gay people is widespread enough to fill a compelling and sad documentary, Outrage. The movie focuses on powerfully-connected politicians who have built careers combating gay rights, while at the same time leaving suspicious clues, witnesses, and hard evidence that they themselves are gay. Outrage should be required viewing for Americans who think we live in a free and tolerant society. We're better than many but we can do much better.

If you hate gays, you are gay. If my suggestion for this new stereotype takes hold, maybe powerful people will no longer be so stridently anti-gay in an attempt to prove they are not gay.

After all, not all stereotypes have negative effects. The stereotype that African-American men are especially well-endowed works for them. Chicks dig it! (As do the lads of Rentboy.com, no doubt.) They say that once you go black, you never go back. To which I say, once you go white you're feeling all right.

See that? Two can play the stereotype game. It's time we started using them to accomplish something other than making us look stupid.

But wait! If we do that, are we any better than any old bigot? I think we are. We'll be anti-bigots. Instead of using stereotypes to perpetuate hate, we're using them to combat hate. It's only in the mind of the hater that "you're gay" ends up being an insult.

Years from now, imagine people saying, "He hates gays, if you know what I mean." Wink!

The Hand That Feeds You Is Also Free Food

2010-05-13T19:04:26Z

(Images from CBS TV show "Undercover Boss" and the movie, "They Live." Photoshopped to symbolic perfection.)

There's an annoying show that's been on recently called Undercover Boss.

The premise is this: a disguised CEO spends a little time working as a grunt in his huge company. He learns all the horrible things his workers endure daily. At the end of the show, the CEO vows to make changes to the company. He reveals his true identity to the grunts and gives them something wonderful like a vacation, a bonus or a promotion. Everyone cries with joy.

What's wrong with that?

I'm not sure, but something about it leaves me feeling icky. Why? Do I expect an overworked employee to spit in the face of a boss who just gave them a week's paid vacation? Of course not.

Are my feelings a manifestation of my obvious anti-social tendencies? Could be, because I get equally irritated at a similar (but smaller scale) tradition at my day job. When the bigwigs have their meetings, they order out for food. Once they're done, the leftovers are put out in the break room for us associates to enjoy. Greasy potato chip crumbs and drying tuna sandwiches, all for free!

Why the attitude? It's a gift! That's true, but what sounds like "Here's some free food," can just as easily be heard as "Put what remains out for the peasants." My gut reaction is split. I want to say "Thank you," and "I'm not eating your damn scraps," all at once.

So when it comes to feeling queasy about Undercover Boss, I admit I may be part of the problem. Now let's consider how the show might be the problem.

What makes the dynamic of Undercover Boss jerk tears is the deus ex machina ending. The CEO descends from on high to bestow wondrous gifts upon a lucky worker. The worker cries because he knows, we all know, how miraculous this is. That worker would never have been able to afford the gift on their own, being paid the wages that the CEO pays them. So once again, ambivalence: the Undercover Boss is the problem, even while part of a temporary solution.

This conflict reminds me of the same arguments I heard at a different day job, prior to us voting in a union. Those on the anti-union side said things like "Can't you just be thankful you have a job?"

The answers are the same for Undercover Boss. I am thankful. The issue is that if I want something I have to ask for it from those in power. I can't petition for it. I can't work for it. Well I can, but that would require more time than anyone has. I maintain that's key to the plight of the poor: having nothing they can only trade time for money. It's an uneven trade because time is utterly irreplaceable. Money, hard as it is to get, can be gathered. You can make money, you can't make time.

I don't want workers always looking to the rooftop suite, hoping that someday the light shines down on them. I want them able to afford their own vacation. If the CEO got to know all his employees, he'd learn that every single one of them is struggling in the same way as the few he got to know personally. He'd be inspired (or required by the script of "Reality TV") to give them gifts too.

Undercover Boss is saying little new except maybe that all CEOs aren't evil people. Okay, maybe they're not on a personal level. But the system of vast inequality remains in place. That inequality makes the show's emotional scenes possible. So it's not just my instinctive pride that makes this show hurl-worthy, it's the fact that in 2001, only 1% of the population controlled 38% of the wealth (link) and since then that statistic appears to have gotten worse.

So maybe I will cry, but not for the reasons the show intends.

How Hate Can Bring Us Together (or, Is The Path to Heaven Paved with Evil Intentions?)

2010-04-29T15:15:43Z

I've always distrusted pretty-sounding quotations. Too many people think that just because a statement is said concisely, or a famous person said it, or it has a poetic ring, that it's true. Context doesn't matter. It's "set it and forget it" for the mind. More like "just repeat and your thinking's complete."

This happens all the time when people quote America's "Founding Fathers," but just because the founding fathers said something doesn't mean the thought was codified into U.S. law.

Tangent: Notice there are no "Founding Mothers." Gay marriage may not be fully legal in America yet, but the USA had multiple daddies. Scandalous!

Anyway, one quotation I've found to be true as often as not is, "The path to Hell is paved with good intentions."

Tangent: So Jesus himself is in Hell?

What especially interested me about that quotation was flipping it around. Since it's often true, that would imply the precise opposite is also often true. But how can the path to heaven be paved with evil intentions? Hold that question, we'll come back to it.

You may have heard of this horrible news story (link.) Here's a summary: a man's son was killed in Iraq. At the funeral, the Westboro Baptist Church (link) showed up with their obnoxious signs, claiming that God was turning away from the USA because our nation tolerates homosexuals, and soldiers can expect to die due to God's wrath.

This is something the WBC does often. Sick, right? No matter what you think of America's endless war(s) anyone with a shred of decency can empathize with a grieving parent burying a child and searching for some measure of peace.

So as the story goes, the father sues the Westboro people, and wins. Awesome! But the Westboro jerks appeal the verdict, and then they win. So now, this poor man is required to pay their court costs, but he refuses, which I believe means he could go to jail.

Now here's a twist that supports the "truth is stranger than fiction" pretty-sounding quotation. Professional blowhard Bill O'Reilly offers to pay the court costs. That right there should be a warning to the Westboro cult: when Bill O'Reilly makes you look like a douche bag, your douche baggery is off the charts.

Yet even as I bust on Billo, I have to say I'm not entirely surprised at his kindness. No matter how much I disagree with him or anyone else, I am sure of one thing: most would never sink low enough to turn someone's funeral into a circus for an agenda unrelated to the deceased or their family. Most would never dream of turning someone's funeral into a circus, period.

To do so is disrespectful, foul and the lowest of the low. Just as free speech has some common sense limits (the "no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" clause) funerals should be off limits to demonstration. I say that as a lover and frequent user of the First Amendment. I promise you that small restriction on free speech will not cause the U.S. Constitution to spontaneously combust.

While I wouldn't know what goes on in the Westboro cult's theoretically existent minds, and they clearly have no hearts or souls to speculate about, it's obvious they want to divide. They want people to turn against gays, kick off an orientation-ocide, if you will.

However, Westboro's attempts at division have the reverse effect because they serve as a common ground. Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats, Straight, Gay, Black, White, I'm confident we ALL realize that the Westboro Baptist Church's habit of disrupting funerals make them the most vile creatures on earth.

Even Jesus Christ himself, the Original Hippie, would take a huge steaming dump on the Westboro Baptist Church people and kick their leader in the shriveled slug carcass that surely passes for his balls.

So in the most oblique way, the Westboro Baptist Church, by being so hateful, gives me hope. They bring Americans together under one big tent of disgust. Their hate brings us together, shows us that despite our differences we share a common bond, and maybe even paves the way to heaven with evil intentions.

What I Learned about Freedom from Hockey Fights

2010-05-14T18:25:39Z

I have this theory about freedom that goes like this: freedom is a pain in the ass.

Which is to say, if you're doing freedom right, you can count on being annoyed, because you won't always get your way. A lot of people have this concept of freedom that's the opposite, childish view. They think that being free means you always get what you want without fail. This results in hilariously righteous complaints, all of which are equivalent to, "I wanted that last Twinkie you took! You assaulted my freedom!"

If everyone has freedom, then sometimes your wishes are going to come behind someone else's. That doesn't mean everyone else is a dictator. In an ideal world, everyone would get their way, but since this world isn't ideal (after all, Dancing With the Stars is still on TV) then someone's desires are going to have to give when they conflict with another's.

For example, sometimes when I tell my dogs to come inside from the freezing wind and they just stare at me and go back to rolling around in the dirt (or eating worms) I find myself annoyed, but a small part of me likes their attitude. Stay wild, I say to them, stay rebellious, guys, stay free. Then I run out and chase them inside (only then realizing I'm not wearing pants.)

This ambivalent approach to having my will defied applies to anyone who lives in my home, whether canine, feline or human. After the annoyance comes the joy: No one around here listens to me! I'm supposed to be the king of this castle! Well, at least I'm not a dictator or one of those overbearing douche guys who demands (often violently) that his word be law.

Am I spinning the fact that I'm a lousy disciplinarian? Probably, but what does this have to do with hockey fights?

Because when it comes to hockey fights, I apply a similar attitude. I'm in a minority, and being in the minority is when you can see freedom more easily, at least in one respect: others are free from adhering to your commands or wishes.

I think fighting in hockey is utterly ridiculous. No other sport I know of allows for an occasional interruption by a second sport (in this case, boxing) to stop the game action. Imagine if in the middle of an American football game, without warning, either team could launch into a sudden outbreak of tennis. It would be illegal, and result in a minor penalty, but still coaches would devote time to it and use it strategically.

Absurd, right? That's about how much sense fighting in hockey makes to me. In most other sports, if you fight, you are thrown out of the game permanently and face fines or future suspension. Not in NHL hockey. In the NHL, you are more likely to face punishment for an illegal hit than literally punching someone bloody.

The thing is, when I mention this to most people I know, even my unwashed peace-loving hippie friends get angry. "How can you not like hockey fights?! They're awesome!"

Still, no one can shake me from my belief that hockey fights hurt hockey as a sport, slowing its fan growth and damaging its appeal. No one listens to me, and if it came to vote, I'd be out-voted. That doesn't mean people who love hockey fights are dictators, and it doesn't mean I'm being oppressed, and it doesn't mean hockey will be destroyed.

It just means we're all free to have our own opinion.

If the Greatest Generation was so Great, Why Did They Have to Kill Half Their Generation to Prove How Great They Are?

2010-03-19T20:17:41Z

I'm not quite sure why I've got this grudge against World War Two movies. I could just as easily write a manifesto against vampire or zombie films, since along with World War Two, those topics comprise about 99% of the ideas coming from Hollywood.

So I admit my annoyance is not rational. That's what makes it fun to analyze. We're heading into the wilds of my mind where nothing makes sense. No jokes, please.

For me, the last straw that led to this public plea for no more World War 2 movies was the hype permeating HBO for their new mini-series The Pacific. Like all last straws, there's nothing I have against The Pacific specifically, it's just I've had it with World War Two films in general. But why?

One thing I'm sure of: I'm tired of all this congratulation for the so-called "Greatest Generation." I just can't get down with the idea that anyone born after 1920 is a worthless, thankless brat.

I gather that the so-called Greatest Generation is "great" because they fought World War 2, but how great can they really be since they needed to kill half their generation to prove how great they were? You didn't see us 80's kids killing anybody. Heck, my generation had to tear down the Berlin Wall that the darn Greatest Generation set up! And we did it while break-dancing.

Seriously, Greatest Gen folk, I don't mean to sound ungrateful for you killing millions of people, I'm not. I'm just skeptical about anything that talks about war as a good thing. It's so ingrained in American culture that we need to be thankful for war, of complete strangers killing each other because some dude in a leadership role told them to, I feel like a jerk just saying this. Then again, I feel like a jerk most of the time, so maybe I'm onto something.

Yeah, the Nazis needed to be killed. Thank you for doing it, GGs. The cliche goes that if you hadn't, I'd be speaking German. Of course, history doesn't always work so well with the victor's narrative of atrocity aversion. For instance, I live in America, and I'm speaking English. If there had NOT been an atrocity, I would probably be speaking Native American. Of course, all that "you'd be speaking (whatever)" phrase is really just yet another ho-hum way to refer to people killing each other.

Oddly enough, one World War 2 movie I did enjoy was the often-trashed Valkyrie. Sure there were lots of Hitchcock-style opportunities for suspense that were missed, but the story actually presented something new. It showed that Germans weren't uniform unfeeling sadists that wanted to glorify Germany, murder everyone and take over the world. Some of them just wanted to take over the world.

Like the book All Quiet on the Western Front, the movie Valkyrie showed "the enemy" as human. Flawed, sure, but human. Dehumanizing is the process that makes war possible. Most WW2 films are just part of that dehumanizing process: portraying the enemy (Germans) as fearless killing machines, as opposed to mostly working class schlubs not entirely sure what they're killing and dying for, or certain about something that is either a lie or at best, a half-truth. Even Goering admitted that.

But maybe there's no agenda behind me crossing the tipping point and calling for a moratorium on WW2 films. Maybe I just haven't quite had my fill of vampires and zombies yet. Surely that's because I grew up in the decadent 80s.

Defeating Big Brother by Getting Him to Kill Himself (or, You wanna spy on me? Spy on THIS!)

2010-03-05T17:43:16Z

Too much speculation about the end of the world revolves around humanity's doom being involuntary. Common prophecies of the End Times predict a natural disaster, supernatural power, invading aliens, attacking armies or plague forcing destruction upon us.

I tend to side more with T.S. Eliot. The end comes not with a bang, but a whimper. (Link.) In fact, I'll see Eliot's timid Apocalypse and raise it. I say the end doesn't just come softly, but with a smile, and instead of catching us as we run, we all stroll toward it willingly.

I'm an optimist.

This vision of gleefully marching to our doom came to me when Reality TV first emerged. Though Reality TV initially seemed just a way for networks to suck power from writer's unions, I often wonder, in the paranoid fever that is my default mental state, if Reality TV was also designed as a way to make the presence of cameras so-called "cool." Allegedly unscripted, allegedly live filming of vacant idiots doing nothing seemed a clever plan to get kids used to the idea of being spied upon all the time.

"I can do nothing too! So why not cameras on me? OMG! I'm famous! So kewl!"

I remember a time when security cameras were a source of agitation. People were much more vocal with their annoyance about being watched. Many felt like Big Brother was just looking for an excuse to come down on them. Now you can't go anywhere urban without being spied on, probably anywhere period.

So as Reality TV has flourished, it seems Big Brother is winning. Rather than the nightmare vision of 1984 where every move was tracked against a person's will, we are all signing up for Facebook, MySpace, just begging for ways to send our private thoughts and feelings out there for anyone to see.

Big Brother didn't have to do a thing. But maybe he should have. It seems His Bigness didn't heed the warning: Be careful what you wish for.

There are several methods of conflict that revolve around information overload. Whether it's a filibuster, a denial-of-service attack, endless theories and/or lame jokes about the JFK assassination, or everyone claiming to be Spartacus, in the end, the truth is obscured under a mountain of data.

So what ended up happening was, as Big Brother moved in, humanity took up the challenge. "Oh yeah? You wanna spy on me? Spy on this! Check out these 600 identical pictures of my kid riding a tricycle! Read every detail of my thoughts on this particular TV show. Learn the status of my morning coffee, how my toes feel AND whether or not I like the snow! That enough data for ya?! 'Cause that's just for starters!"

I can see Big Brother, in his corporate telecom boardroom, reduced to tears. "I just want the info on how you're disobeying me. I don't want all this inane crap. Overload! Overload!"

Of course, BB will have his systems to comb through the data, but why not annoy the crap out of him with every minute detail of our lives?

Some people have worried that the internet would drain our humanity. I totally disagree. The internet is a humanity amplifier. We're each all of our personalities to the nth.

So the next time some TV show is showing vacant idiots doing nothing, don't just change the channel. Thank them for their efforts to clog up Big Brother's internet tubes, then change the channel.

Mother Nature versus Human Nature

2010-02-16T14:20:00Z

Following any huge snowstorm, two things are predictable. One, the media will remind you not to go anywhere (like you could under a couple feet of snow.) Two, many people will seriously claim to have found startling new evidence that global warming doesn't exist. This new discovery called "ice" apparently eluded scientists for several centuries, but now that it's been found, well, just forget all that climate change talk.

Okay, that's enough mocking of climate change deniers. We should show compassion. Deniers aren't just drones suddenly claiming to be scientific geniuses because they worship a talking head funded by the invisible hand of industry. They're people, too. And they're hurting.

Just like a denier bringing scientific consensus to a halt with a single ice cube, I can prove it. Ever since the world-wide discussion on the problem of climate change began, the denial movement has transitioned exactly through the five stages of grief:

1. Denial (There's no climate change happening!)
2. Anger (Climate change is a liberal myth!)
3. Bargaining (Okay, maybe it's real, but we can't address it now.)
4. Depression (A global consensus of scientists say it's real? Crap, I might have to get off the couch.)
5. Acceptance (Okay, fine! Wait! If there's nothing we can do about it, why get off the couch?)

Notice how the Acceptance phase transitions seamlessly into rationalization: I'll accept climate change exists IF YOU PROMISE to tell me the situation is hopeless. This is a primal response at the core of human nature and the source of a climate change denier's pain. We all instinctively know that acknowledging a problem means there will probably be some kind of work involved afterwards.

Being humans, all sides of the debate see the it's-hopeless-so-do-nothing angle as a tempting offer, so our minds move in quickly to close the sale: Is climate change really that bad? If the roof is still standing and the house isn't on fire and American Idol is still on, can we honestly say there is a problem? Heck! Climate change might even work in our favor. If the earth heats up and the sea rises, that increases the chance that you'll own beachfront property. Why not roll the dice? Maybe during the scrambling of the earth's climate zones, the band of scorching temperatures at the equator will widen, and the Caribbean will come to you.

Surfing while on the couch! Literally!

The climate change denial dynamic reminds me of veteran home-owning couples. If you are one, this exchange will sound familiar: Look, there's a hole in the wall. It's not that bad. Fix it! No! If you don't fix it, I'm not going to your dumb movie. Aw, but it's a Saturday! All right, I'll fix it. Wait, why not think of it as a free window?

When discussing climate change, we're not just fighting knee-jerk contrarians and considering fair questions from independent thinkers, we're struggling against human nature itself. That's a double bummer because even if stopping the effects of global warming is impossible, just by trying to clean up the environment, we'd accomplish lots of good. Surely there are worse fates.

Human nature's work here is almost done. Having successfully rationalized us away from any effort, or acknowledgment of error, it's time to apply the finishing move that concludes all human activity: the spin. So here we go: When it comes to global warming, we're not fiddling while Rome burns, we're just not afraid of change!

Hey Religious Extremists, Why is Your god Such a Wimp? (or, A Male’s Guide to the Impending Lesbian Apocalypse)

2010-02-02T12:16:00Z

I've never understood the common usage of the word macho.

To be clear, I'm referring to the dictionary definition (ultimate masculinity) and not the informal one popularized by The Village People (ultimate gayness.) The word macho is intended to define the pinnacle of tough, but it ends up representing supreme insecurity.

Understanding that contradiction, it's clear that extreme religion is precisely macho. Because I live west of the Prime Meridian, extremist Muslim behavior is more easily noticed, since Islamic tradition isn't intertwined with our culture and considered a part of just how things are. Examples of Islamic macho/insecurity may be more obvious to us Westerners, but anyone who opens their mind even slightly will notice there is little if any difference among Christianity, Islam and Judaism in the extreme.

At their distant ends, all three focus their restrictions on women. When it comes to the religious fringe, it's all dudes all the time. Yet these are the same people who are also violently homophobic.

Another paradox, yes, and it gets worse. Even the gods of extremism reflect the bi-polar nature of macho. A classic example is when the Taliban claimed they had to destroy Buddhist statues in Afghanistan because the statues were just too much for the mighty Allah to gaze upon. (Link.)

Now I'm just a mortal, but I'm proud of the fact that I'm secure enough not to demand my friends blow up anyone who doesn't worship me. Hey, that's their loss!

So here's my question for religious extremists: If your god is such a badass, why does he need mortals like you to fight his battles? Why is your god scared of statues? Or cartoons? Or same-sex love and marriage? Or women thinking, saying and doing what they want?

Silly extremists! Either your faith in your god's power is lacking or your god is a total wimp.

Actually, we all know the real reason for macho's split-personality, why men (and male-like gods) talk tough but act fragile. I'll break the rules and say it out loud: Because females have all the power. They can do anything a male can except make sperm.

That's not to say I would complain if the world was taken over by women and we men were used simply for sperm harvesting. To the more sultry and flexible of our female conquerors, I say harvest away! Sadly, with advances in reproductive technology, even sperm isn't necessary.

A lot of reports and studies appear to support the idea that extremism is on the rise. How much is being fueled by insecure men, aware of their accelerating (or already present) obsolescence? I swear it's only a matter of time before lesbians take over. Name me a single lesbian that isn't damn good at what she does. You can't do it! That's right, men. We are biologically useless! Accept it! Or make a fool of yourself by acting macho.

One who works against the efforts of power-hungry people of their same "race" are often referred to as race traitors. So, being a male who admits to male pointlessness, does that make me a sex traitor?

I hope so, because frankly, I'm down with that. Oh wait, I thought you said trader. Dang it.