Joel's Long, Strange Trip Through Life

No more gay __________!

2009-11-12T12:23:00.000-08:00

Talking to my dad a while back, I was reminded of a fundamental of Christian right philosophy I had worked hard to forget. My dad, who is a retired high school AP government teacher with a master's degree, nonetheless loyally takes the fundamentalist position in virtually any argument. The topic on this particular day was Prop 8. He offered the standard arguments: marriage is between a man and a woman, gay marriage would devalue traditional marriage, etc. So I asked him to just try to argue his side as a government teacher, from a purely constitutional point of view. He couldn't bring himself to it. I told him that there was no way Prop 8 could withstand legal scrutiny, specifically under the fourteenth amendment. My dad smiled wryly and threw up his hands and said, "I know I'm behind the times, but what's a dyed-in-the-wool Baptist supposed to do?!"

The truth is, my dad is a very half-hearted fundamentalist. He knows better, but he hedges his bets on eternity by arguing weakly on the Lord's side. It's a phenomenon I hadn't thought about for a long time, this superstitious defense of "Christian values" no matter how ridiculous, extra-legal, or just plain mean it is. Later on I heard a woman on the radio trying to explain why her organization opposed gay enlistment in the military, and I realized that it's not the military, or marriage, or adoption that worries religious conservatives. After all, Baptists and Mormons - to name just two of the most conservative religious groups - are not doing much to uphold the sanctity of marriage, with divorce rates of 29% and 24%, respectively. There are currently close to 143 million orphans in the world, and around 100,000 in the U.S. alone; but fundamentalists would deny these children a loving home because the prospective parents are gay. And as for the military - if our former Baptist-in-Chief had a respect for the armed forces, his impetuous deployment of military personnel was an odd way of showing it.

Fundamentalists simply feel compelled to oppose gay-anything. If referendums to abolish gay car buying, or gay bus riding, or gay moviegoing were on the ballot, they would be out in the rain holding signs for those, too. The thinking goes, since homosexuality is a sin, we must fight it in whatever form it appears. Not to excuse it, but it's not an altogether illogical viewpoint. What's remarkable about it is that it only applies to homosexuality. It's an oft-mentioned fact that homosexuality is only mentioned a handful of times in the Bible, but the other side of that is that other sins, such as idolatry, hypocrisy, and greed are mentioned dozens of times, and fundamentalists are mostly, strangely, silent on them. Why weren't there crowds of right wing picketers outside the offices of AIG, Goldman Sachs, and GM?

The answer is simple: homosexuality is icky. If idolatry or greed involved guys kissing guys(hypocrisy does involve this; do ya hear me Larry Craig? Charlie Crist? Mark Foley?) then right wingers would be johnny-on-the-spot fighting them. But homosexuality is gross, so someting must be done! Fundamentalists aren't angry because homosexuality is condemned in the Bible - they're thrilled by it; if only eating with your mouth open and picking your nose in public was a sin!

Fundamentalism has always been about the church trying to re-shape the world in their own image, using the Bible to justify their work. Unfortunately, the Bible isn't always clear or profuse in in its condemnation, so fundamentalists have to do a kind of biblical gerrymandering, carefully drawing boundaries that include the important matters and exclude the inconvenient. They're basically doing to the Bible what that infidel Theist Thomas Jefferson famously did: tearing out the pages of the stuff they don't like and keeping what fits their world view. That's what this is all about; fundamentalists don't try to make the world conform to the Bible, they try to make the Bible conform to their worldview. Of course, in this country fundamentalist leaders have every right to fight for their ideas, no matter how narrow and hateful they may be; but they're playing with loaded dice, dressing up their arguments with threats of fire, brimstone, and happy gay couples. At least they could be honest and admit we are battling over secular principles, instead of declaring a holy war that their followers feel a spiritual obligation to support.

Email to the Stephanie Miller Show Re: Abortion

2009-06-02T07:15:00.000-07:00

Stephanie & the Mooks,
As a progressive Christian, I listen with frustration this week as the murder of George Tiller and the issue of abortion are discussed on your show. As you have acknowledged repeatedly, there are passionate people on either side of this fiercely emotional issue, and I believe it is the passion - to a greater extent than on any other issue - that gets in the way of any compromise or even understanding between the two sides. People can't even agree on labels: it's inaccurate and unfair to label people "anti-choice" or "pro-abortion." The vast majority of pro-lifers are not, as Jim Ward calls them, "mysoginists" who are trying to subjugate women, and pro-choicers are not abortion-loving death merchants. To me this issue comes down to logic and where it leads you. If you believe - as most Christans seem to - that life begins at conception or soon after, it follows logically that abortion is murder, because that is what ending a life is called. If you believe that life begins much later in a pregnancy, or even right at birth, then you will probably consider abortion a terribly difficult, yet morally acceptable choice. Whether abortion is right or wrong ultimately has nothing to do with religion or gender; it's not wrong because God says so and it's not right because women say so. If abortion is morally wrong, then arguing that abortion is okay because it has always been around is not an acceptable argument, any more than justifying robbery because it has always been around. Also, if abortion is wrong, that certainly doesn't justify the murder of George Tiller, and to be consistent, pro-lifers must lead the charge to prosecute the murderer, while at the same time asking the judge or jury to spare his life. It's unfortunate that science can't solve this issue, and that emotion will always take center stage in this debate, because both sides have eschewed the search for common ground by making it an issue of good versus evil.

Joel Swett
Antioch, CA

Rugged Hypocrisy

2009-05-06T14:02:00.000-07:00

To hear my parents' critique of Barack Obama's first 100 days, you might imagine them reading me Horatio Alger stories at bedtime when I was a child and having a picture of Teddy Roosevelt on the mantle. You've heard the talking point, the one-word catch-all response to every plan Obama and other Democrats propose - "socialism" - which seems to mean any direct help government might give to people without jobs, healthcare, or clean air and water.

Evidently these are problems people must solve entirely on their own, despite the fact that a major share of the blame rests, directly or indirectly, with the very people wanting to withhold the solution.

I admit, it took me a long time to see issues like corporate greed, healthcare, and welfare from an unslanted and realistic viewpoint. The wealthy have done an extraordinary job of establishing corporate profligacy as a national virture, of weaving greed into the fabric of our national identity, so much so that the mere mention of government assistance to any segment of society triggers a chorus of angry chirping, not just from the one percent of extremely wealthy people who anticipate a tax increase (which they will find a way to dodge), but from the 41% of the poorest people who also voted for George Bush!

One event that really opened my eyes to the corporate corruption in this country is my ongoing battle with Kaiser Permanente to get regular psychotherapy visits consistent with my condition, which Kaiser diagnosed. It's a typical issue of a corporation offering you something before you buy, then withholding it afterward. The problem is, in my case, Kaiser is withholding a service that is considered crucial to maintaining mental health, not unlike seeing a dietician or nurse practitioner is crucial for a diabetic's physical health. The bottom line is, if Kaiser's top priority was their patients' health, people like me would get the help we need; but Kaiser is a for-profit business, so their top priority is making a profit. A general principle of capitalism is that a business has a natural incentive to provide a quality service above all else, because if it doesn't it'll go out of business. This, of course, is true, unless that business provides a service everyone needs, and every business in that field provides exactly the same quality of service.
The thing is, there are some things that just shouldn't be subject to market forces or bottom line considerations, a person's health foremost among them. And people know this. I don't believe that your "average" American would stand by and watch a child's teeth rot for lack of dental care, or let a person with lupus suffer with crippling pain, or see a woman deliver a baby with no pre- or postnatal care - without intervening. But Americans are so conditioned to defend corporate interests as a pillar of American life like apple pie and baseball, that they fight to kill programs that reflect their own values.
The truth is, my parents raised me to care about other people, to empathize, to pick a person up, to do whatever is necessary to help the helpless. They don't practice the cold, selfish Republican rhetoric that they preach. And Teddy Roosevelt, whom conservatives exalt as a self-made champion of individual responsibility, was really not one to let capitalism run amok and leave the needy to care for themselves. He was a fierce advocate of corporate regulation to protect the interests of consumers and workers, and his "Square Deal" program was designed to ensure that everyone, regardless of social station, could get ahead and have access to the basic necessities. This is what we supposedly stand for as Americans - a basic right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - a system where, as Teddy Roosevelt put it, "the creature of man's making (corporations) shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it."

Thoughts on Miss California

2009-04-21T13:27:00.001-07:00

Miss California's bumbling response to a question about gay marriage during the Miss USA pageant might have caused her to finish second in the contest, at least according to her. In the two days since the pageant there has been a lot of uproar by people on the left and the right, and this time the right's response has merit.
The question at issue, posed by gossip blogger Perez Hilton, who is gay, was probably inappropriate for the pageant forum. Hilton asked, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?”
I say "inappropriate" because it is a loaded question that inevitably would create the appearance of favortism if it is believed that the judge(s) is expecting or hoping for a particular answer. It would be like asking a contestant if they agreed with the Iraq War, or whom they are voting for; the questions are supposed to showcase the poise and eloquence (such as it is) of the candidates, not to extract political views. So whether or not I agree with the answer is irrelevant.
What is relevant is the ability of the contestant to think on her feet and give an answer that is linear and makes sense, and if the politics of Miss California's answer didn't hurt her, the substance of it certainly did:
“Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I do believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offence to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you.”
The whole point of a pageant answer is to say something bland, yet palatable, so that no one can really complain about the meaning of the answer, as long as it makes sense from beginning to end. Here, Miss California starts out giving the answer she thinks Perez Hilton wants, then she either has an attack of personal integrity or she realizes that members of the judges' panel and the audience might not agree with the answer she is giving; I really don't know which. What's funny about this is imagining the engine in her brain straining and bending and overheating as she tries to construct an acceptable, vanilla answer to this unfair, non-softball question.
Obviously, people on the right are crying foul because they believe, as I said earlier, that Perez Hilton's question was loaded, and in this sense they're right.
At the same time, people on the left are upset at her answer, which is unfair, because a pageant answer isn't supposed to be "right." If we learned nothing else from the 2008 presidential campaign, it's that we never, ever, want to hear political opinions from a pageant queen.

Anarchy in the IMC

2009-02-26T22:51:00.000-08:00

I have one genius idea that would instantly induce rabidly committed parent participation in the search for solutions to our district's and -more broadly- our state's education budget's woes:
TAKE AWAY SPORTS! TAKE...A...WAY... SPORRRRRTS! NO MORE FOOTBALL!!! See how fucking fast parents haul ass to the district office with checkbooks and reporters in tow. Any parent who finds our plea for copies "whiny" is sooo past convincing of any other grievance we have - what more basic material do students and teachers need than paper with stuff on it?
I thought Obama's line about high school drop-outs "failing their country" the other night was a nice sentiment, albeit naive as hell. But when a kid asked me to explain that this morning, I suddenly felt so hypocritical. I understand the rhetoric, and I have no sympathy for drop outs, but who's failing whom?
I have to give my fellow Knitting Circle homies credit. I surrendered this issue the moment after I heard about it.
I chose to offer my considerable knowledge and shephardly nature to teaching because I thought, despite all the bullshit my parents (both teachers, one in MDUSD) warned me about, that I would spend the better part of my school day enchanting students with the discovery of classic literature and inspiring them to brandish their pens, like King Arthur wielding Excalibur, and loftily scale new heights in poetry and prose. Instead, I help kids re-assemble their novels and tape them togther; I take complaints about the run-down quality of the materials I pay for; and I have to put all my assignments on tranparencies that are too blurry to read. And I'm getting to where none of this really bothers me, anymore. After all, if I worry, they win. I'm providing a free service to people under the banner of an employer whose ONLY job is to provide material support to my intellectual efforts. So why am I the one who ultimately has to bear the weight of a crisis that should cause concern first to practically everone but me? Why do I have to carry this weight during the day, then run, crying, into the arms of Dave Cosca at night? Fuck that (the carrying, not the embracing). I'm going to do what I can with what I'm provided, and I'll start taking my job seriously again when anybody else outside of the teachers does.
Workers unite! I'm with you, Kropf. No bullshit. I even subscribe to Mother Jones now.
Whatever goes upon a soccer van is bad. Whatever goes upon four bald tires or eats wings in Kropf's room at lunch is good. I'm out.

Letter to SarahPac - submitted to and ignored at its website

2009-01-27T13:41:00.000-08:00

Dear SarahPac

So what are Sarah Palin's ideas and goals for the country, other than having Sarah Palin as President? Can somebody at "SarahPac" tell her she needs at least a high school senior's knowledge of civics and some intellectual curiousity to responsibly lead the country? I'm not a pretentious Alaska-hater or liberal dogmatist, either. It's just very, very deflating to think the future of this country lies in the hands of people who are 10% skill and 90% ambition. God help us.

Joel Swett

Letter to Rush Limbaugh - submitted to and ignored at his website

2009-01-26T17:05:00.001-08:00

Dear Rush,
I listened to your show as a teenager and liked the way you parodied and reduced people to stereotypes. I even subscribed to your newsletter. Eventually, though, I went out into the "real world," met "real people," and learned how destructive it could be to apply the generalizations you offer on your show, in "real life." I realized pretty early on that you were an entertainer first and pundit second, but unfortunately a lot of people I know never got the message. They go on quoting you chapter and verse, ignoring the discrepancies between the world you present and the world they live in, and they fervently oppose the "liberal" candidates and pundits whom you have labeled as snobby, drug abusing, polarizing eltitists; and they see no irony in this!
While I wouldn't have envoked you the way President Obama did in his meeting, I don't blame him for the sentiment, either. People listen to you, then they call their congressmen, who then go into battle on Capitol Hill fighting bills that may very well benefit the country, but a bunch of dittoheads got a hair across their ass, so they fight on. THIS is what bothers me about your show - that you gleefully proffer half-truths and distorted "facts" in the service of entertaining your audience, which are then acted upon as political reality, muddying the discourse and clogging up the wheels of government. Is it your fault you have a huge audience who believes everything you say and acts on it? Of course not, and it would be wrong for anybody to begrudge you the opportunity to do your show. And I don't expect you to endorse or even passively wave at policies you oppose; I completely understood your comment about wanting to see Obama's plans fail - I thought you were completely misinterpreted - and I wouldn't expect anything different from a conservative talk show host. But as you know when it comes to the issue of free speech, legal rights and moral responsibilities do not always coincide. I imagine President Obama's reasoning in suggesting that Congressmen not listen to you is that since you're an entertainer and your ratings depend largely on the controversy of the day, real or imagined; and since you have not shown much moral restraint in the kind of discourse you pursue, that it would be extremely counterproductive to have a person whispering in their ears who has everything to gain by shamefully pouring untruths about the state of the country and the President's plans to address them down their throats, the good of America be damned.

Sincerely,

Joel Swett

It's Merry CHRISTMAS, douchebag.

2008-12-12T07:41:00.000-08:00

My friend Lance Johnson recently blogged on the now-annual War on Christmas (http://lancecjohnson.blogspot.com/), which pits God-fearing traditional Christmas celebrants against secular assholes (like Lance) who try to ruin Christmas by using empty alternative phrases, such as "Happy Holidays" and "Winter Vacation." But Lance offered the perspective of a religious outsider looking in; I'm offering it from the inside looking out.
Let me establish a couple things. First of all, Christmas originated with Christianity. Obviously, we don't know exactly when Jesus was born, so the date is somewhat arbitrary. However, the popular liberal notion that Christianity co-opted from pagans the idea of a winter holiday with trees and presents is just another blatant, vain attempt of secular humanists to discredit Christianity and justify their participation in Christmas activities and traditions. The other thing is, America is a Christian nation. I'm not going to try to stop Jews from celebrating Hanukkah, or Muslims Ramadan, or blacks Kwanzaa - whatever the fuck that is. But we're living in a Christian nation under a Christian Constitution, and people have no business pushing their agenda during this, the most sacred of holidays.
Christmas is my favorite time of year - the songs, the ornaments, the gifts, the wassailing - I love all of it. One time some friends of mine told me they weren't going to exchange gifts with anybody that year because they were going to sponsor a family through the Salvation Army. I said, "What, you're not celebrating Christmas?!" Bah, humbug! And every year when I'm out shopping for Christmas gifts, I have to put up with store clerks saying, "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings." I'm just trying to buy some nice things that will make Christmas special for my friends and family, and some pimply, smart-ass clerk is trying to push their agenda on me. So I do what my mother taught me - I lean forward and say, with boldness and conviction, "Merry CHRISTMAS!" Having been humbled in a loving yet firm manner, I trust that person will rethink their motivation for saying such things and change their behavior. Unfortunately, this battle must be fought one person at a time.
But the battle is worthy. Christmas should be a time of joy and cheer. It's also a time to be Christ-like and fight for our faith against people who are trying to erode the Christian values of our nation. Christmas is not a time to let our guard down and tolerate people's placating sentiments. Jesus is the foundation of Western culture; Jews and Back-to-Africa blacks and do-gooding liberals have nothing in common with him, and they have no right to water down and obscure the Reason for the Season.

The Transformation Is Complete!

2008-12-06T22:48:00.000-08:00

Sitting on the couch on Election Night, watching Proposition 8 pass, I felt as if I had finally, officially, completely shed my evangelical Christian skin. I couldn't believe - naively, I guess - that a majority of California's voters would be so prejudiced that they couldn't see the irony of establishing a constitutional amendment that itself is anathema to the very spirit of an American constitution. But what I experienced on Election Night was really more like realizing I had caught the flu. After seeing Milk last weekend and watching Sean Penn's tragic portrayal of gay rights activist Harvey Milk, I became violently nauseous.

Before I go on, I should say, I'm usually one of those people that cynically scoffs at people who get emotional over a film, particularly one with a cause. However, unlike so many "message films," Milk manages to keep the emotional manipulation and self-righteousness to a minimum. It doesn't set up straw men or ignore inconvenient truths. It represents both sides of the gay rights "culture war" as they were then and how they are now, and they haven't changed much.

The trajectory of this "culture war" nearly parallels my own life, beginning around the time I was born, approximately 30 miles east of San Francisco. The political and spiritual atmosphere of the gay rights movement and my childhood , however, had only geography in common. Watching Milk and seeing the smug, perfectly coiffed, gold watch-wearing preachers and politicians, and their righteously indignant (their term, not mine) followers took me right back to the Sunday mornings of my childhood. The "family first" rhetoric rang with the same familiarity of the hymns our congregation sang in every worship service, and all the Bible songs we sang in Sunday School. I never caught even the slightest whiff of irony as church leaders condemned homosexuality then led the singing of standards such as"Amazing Grace" and "Jesus Loves Me."

That was the worldview I grew up with; it was all I knew. I was an earnest student of the Bible and other religious literature when other kids were reading comic books and sports biographies. I wasn't dumb; I knew what the Bible said and I could interpret it with a level of maturity and understanding beyond my years. Unfortunately, my spiritual education started very early, so before I could even read the Bible I already viewed the world through a narrow, authoritarian lens. So as I grew up I studied, prayed, attended church, and scorned worldliness with a dreadful fear of God's wrath. It wasn't until I was a junior in college, after I had transferred out of Bible school and started meeting people - including gay people - with wildly different lifestyles and experiences, that I even started to question my worldview. Over the next 10+ years, I came to see my evangelical upbringing for what it was: fearful and superstitious. I learned to enjoy the company and the viewpoints of people different from me, not so much because I had changed my moral code, but because I realized it was God's place to judge, not mine. He wasn't going to smite me for befriending "sinners."And over that time I drifted away, not from God, but from evangelical Christianity.

It was also during this time that I began dealing with bipolar disorder, especially acute depression that often bordered on suicidal. Somewhere along the line, with the best of intentions, my mom gave me a copy of The Four Temperaments, by Tim LaHaye, a writer best known for the apocalyptic Left Behind series. In it, he describes the antiquated notion of the four personality types, and he writes, in so many words, that depression is sin. As much as it angered me to read that, I tried to dismiss it as just the words of an old man with old ideas. The thing is, the book is still a best-seller, and my parents have two copies on the bookshelf in their den. People actually believe that shit - my people. It turns out I have a mental illness that many Christians view as sinful. They feel the same way about homosexuals. Now, I'm not comparing bipolar disorder to homosexuality, for obvious reasons. But watching Milk, I was able to, as Harper Lee famously wrote in To Kill a Mockingbird, "climb into (Harvey Milk's) skin and walk around in it."

So it was that sitting in the theater, hearing people cheer and gasp and cry with the triumphant rise and tragic fall of Harvey Milk, a mix of anger and grief and shame came over me with an intensity I had never felt before. I wanted to shout apologies for the ignorance I had learned and then practiced for so long. I wanted to punch something until the rage went away. I wanted to scream and sob for the treatment of Harvey Milk and every other gay person who has been persecuted. I was angry and sad for myself, because finally, after all these years of watching idly from the sidelines, I was seeing fundamentalist, mean-spirited religion from the other side. My view of evangelical Christianity, which until recently had never risen much past irritation, was shattered, and I was so hurt by the memories of the countless people I had loved and trusted and admired, and whom I had let convince me that love and compassion are conditional gifts to be graciously lavished on those we wish to change.

The "culture war" depicted in Milk and still being waged today is sad for all the reasons I've mentioned. But there is another, more personal reason I've grown so disenchanted with evangelicalism. I still cling to my belief in Jesus and his model of virtue, as firmly as ever. But I don't believe Jesus has either a right-wing or left-wing agenda. I just don't know, and presuming to know Jesus' position on something and then browbeating people for not conforming to it is dangerous and wrong. We are left with what limited information we have about Jesus' life and his words, and there are precious few specifics. Mostly, Jesus rails against greed and hypocrisy, things evangelicals don't talk much about. There's not a lot about blue states or red states, preemptive war, gun rights, or homosexuality. Of course, Jesus did say, "Love your neighbor as yourself."

I am not gay, and I have not had to suffer through years of persecution with religious zealots using referendums and propositions and ballot measures to bend the country to their blighted, "patriotic" will, but I do know what it feels like to be bullied. Bullies do whatever they can to scare you and take away your joy. When they walk away you feel beaten and isolated and ashamed. Come to think of it, "bully" is just another name for "terrorist." How ironic.

I Am a Patron of the Arts

2008-04-28T10:30:00.000-07:00

I am very into the arts. I have the soundtrack to Amadeus and every now and then I like to prepare a plate of brie, pour a glass of white, and sit down for an edifying evening of opera on PBS. I love PBS, by the way; I hardly watch anything else. Network television, with the exception of my one guilty pleasure, Desperate Housewives, is just a cultural wasteland. If it's not Rupert Murdoch shoving right-wing politics and vulgarity down our throats, it's exploitative "reality" shows parading in front of us shameless exhibitionists and obnoxious narcissists vying to see who can embarrass him/herself the most in their 15 minutes of fame, as Andy Warhol put it.
Speaking of Andy Warhol, on a friend's recommendation, I recently visited SFMOMA (San Francisco Museum of Modern Art) for the Roy Lichtenstein exhibit. However, I would hardly call that "art." I don't see the difference between it and the comic books my barely literate neighbor children looked at when I was in elementary school. The Monet exhibit at the Legion of Honor, on the other hand, was excellent. Impressionism really is my favorite; I adore Monet and Van Gogh. I was watching a Josh Groban concert on PBS during their pledge drive (I am a frequent donor) and he sang a song about Van Gogh; so sad. Who knew he cut his own ear off?
As I mentioned earlier, I love opera, and Josh Groban is simply one of the best opera singers in the world. I listen to other genres besides opera, however. My taste in music is actually quite eclectic. As I said, I have the Amadeus soundtrack, and when I'm not listening to NPR in my Prius, I tune into KKSF for some jazz. Jazz truly is the "Great American Art Form." My favorite jazz musicians are Norah Jones and Kenny G. I also enjoy listening to Tupac Shakur, also known as "2Pac." I know what you're thinking - "Rap? That's kind of dubious" - but Tupac was actually a gifted poet, expressing the angst and disillusionment of African-American society.
I am fascinated with African-American art in all forms. They are so talented, and usually they have no training at all. It's just sad that so many of them are addicted to drugs. It makes me mad that white people aren't doing more to help them. I guess that's why there are people like Oprah Winfrey.
I watch Oprah everyday. Americans owe her so much. How else would we know what is really going on around the world, in places like Africa? She gives so much of her time and money to help others, and not only black people. Her biannual "Oprah's Favorite Things" episode, for example, is a testimony to her generosity. She buys hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of the latest fashions and gizmos and gives it all away to people in the audience! Oprah also gives in less tangible ways, though, like with her book club. As busy as she is, she finds time to read the very best literature, and then she leads a book club in which her whole television audience can participate!
I really shouldn't discuss humanitarian television personalities without mentioning Ellen Degeneres. She, too, gives away very expensive gifts to people in her studio audience who need them. Also, she's a lesbian, so I support her 100%.
Actually, it's just about time for Ellen, and she's having Tim Gunn, from Project Runway, on the show today. So I must bid adieu. Au revoir!

Things That Suck Ass (A far from comprehensive list)

2008-02-24T22:53:00.000-08:00

Germs
Waking up before noon
Home-cooked meals
Noise
Walking
Faculty meetings
Barbershop quartets
Holidays
My birthday
Empty boxes of booze
Orange, yellow, and red
Soccer
Friendly people (what's the deal?)
Snakes
Shaking hands/hugging/being touched/having personal space invaded/being looked at
Raiders' fans
Food with nuts or carmel in it
Being surprised
Racists, homophobes, anti-religionists, fundamentalists, and geograsnobs
Anti-gay legislators who are sooooooooooo gay
Styes
Driving my wife's purple car with the crystal dangly thing hanging from the mirror
Having juggs
Toothbrushing
Po-lice on my back
Desperate Housewives of Orange County/The Hills/Millionaire Matchmaker/The Bachelor/Dancing With the Stars/etc.
Grand Funk Railroad
My dreams
Daytime talk show hosts giving away shit like it's their shit to give away
People who have children
Having to read/watch "news" delivered by people with a clear agenda, whether it's mine or not
Hemorrhoids
Oprah Winfrey
People pulling asshole driving moves around me and not being allowed - by the State of California, my doctor, or my wife - to carry a gun
The people across the alley from me alternately screaming at each other or having loud, wild sex
Cats having sex
Sixth period freshman English
Greeters
Grocery shopping
Teenagers
Baseball free-agency
Southern California (everything south of Santa Barbara)
Bad breath (if I can smell it, you're TOO DAMN CLOSE TO ME)
Having to touch doorknobs
Going places
Movie theater surfaces (and the journalists who uncovered all the semen on the seat fabric and armrests)
Having to walk around a lockerroom
Gary McFuckin'Henry
Smooth Jazz (it is not even jazz, Mr. AudiMcDockerMerlot)
Shopping for size 6 1/2 shoes
Having to settle for an identical model of shoe, but in women's size
Not being able to sleep and wasting sick days
People who don't like popular things only because they are popular
Having to take a crap away from home
People at sporting events or concerts who specifically yell at me for standing up when I can't see unless I stand up
World Series of Poker on TV (and while we're at it, bowling, women's basketball, softball, and pool - except the billiards tricks competition)
The people across the driveway with emphezema who come outside to cough and belch
Their kids, who don't have language skills, so they just run around shrieking
Bad restaurant service
Having to make up for my parents' tactless behavior towards the service
The feeling I get after I eat KFC (but not KFC)
A cold toilet seat

to be continued...

We hope you enjoy this blog, and have a wonderful day.

2008-02-17T17:12:00.001-08:00

When I have kids, God help us, I will never say to them, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." That's bullshit. Kids need to learn how and when to be critical of other peoples' actions. What I will tell my kids is, "If you don't have anything sincere to say, don't say anything at all."

Remember when your mom marched you over to the next door neighbor's place to say sorry to the kid you shoved into the mud, even though you weren't sorry at all? What she should have said was, "I'm sorry my kid's a little douche, he will never do it again."

Have you ever had to deal with a customer service representative? This person's job is to cheerfully yet apologetically deliver the news that you are screwed and their company will not help you. Except they're really not sorry. You know the tone: "We do appreciate your business, and we do apologize for the inconvenience, but we are unwilling to lift a finger to help you today."

Maybe you have been unfortunate enough to have a well-meaning (or not) friend or family member arrange for you to be sung to at a restaurant on your birthday. Unless you're too embarrased or annoyed to notice, none of the waiters or waitresses are into it. They HATE it.

My question is, why do we need all this insincerity? Who is being fooled? Who has left a restaurant and thought the girl who opened the door, grinned, and said "thanks for coming" was just genuinely sweet and polite? Who has hung up the phone with a customer service rep believing that the company really has done all it could and is really, truly sorry they can't help?

As George Carlin famously pointed out in his brilliant "Euphemisms" bit, our culture has an obsession with minimizing unpleasantness in a way that obscures the real problems, thus making them easier to ignore, and insuring they never get dealt with. One of Carlin's examples is "shell-shock", a condition in which many WWI veterans continued to suffer the mental effects of war long after the war was over. With each war, Carlin points out, society changed the name of this condition to make it sound a little more clinical and less serious: from "shell shock" to "battle fatigue" to "operational exhaustion" and finally, to "post-traumatic stress disorder - just to avoid the unpleasant reality of people coming home from war that fucked-up. As a result, society has never really fought for these people, or the circumstances that cause it. This is just another case of insincerity, of changing language's fundamental purpose of communicating true ideas into coddling, masking, and dissembling.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not wishing that people, particularly people in the service industry, stop practicing good manners. I don't want the sullen bitch at Red Lobster to start giving me shit for asking her to repeat the salad dressings. I would just like everybody to stop acting as if we like each other and start actually liking each other...or not. But let's not fake emotions we don't feel.

I truly believe that I would be much more willing to participate in social discourse if so much of it wasn't fake. I don't like the way people communicate now - I don't always know when people are interested in talking to me or if they're just going through a social motion. Think about all the small talk and pointless politeness we do on a daily basis; I'm surprised there aren't more people like me that just give up, stay at home, and wait for someone to invent a real Invisibility Cloak so we can go out again.

Deep down, despite what I often say, I do like people, and I do like interacting with people. I really do think life is much fuller and more satisfying when one can regularly engage in sincere, if not terribly deep or meaningful, communication. It seems that most people are much more content with the kind that is easy, careless, and lacks any heartfelt interest or intimacy. Therefore, if you have nothing sincere to say to me, swallow it and walk away.

The Best Things In The World

2008-02-15T12:34:00.000-08:00

Monkeys/Orangutans
Hooded sweatshirts
Hard-bop jazz
Green
Arrested Development
Napping
Liquor in a box
Grateful Dead
Khaled Hosseini
Boobs
Best Buy
Miles Davis
Not being touched or spoken to
Dogs
Amy Winehouse
Retro t-shirts
Baseball
Taco Bell
Eddie Vedder
Mushroom Jack cheese
Public sapphism
iPods
Bob Dylan
Cinearts
Golden Oreo vanilla wafers
the word "asshole"
Barbra Streisand*
Gina singing Neil Diamond songs
Fenway Park
Sunny days
Sleeping in
Will & Grace*
Barack Obama
The New Yorker
Sedona, Arizona
Solitude
The Marpac 980 Sound Screen & SleepMate Sound Conditioner
Michael Chabon
John Steinbeck
T. Jefferson Parker
Books about the Supreme Court
Prime rib
MLB2007 The Show
Shithead student absences
Coke Zero
Haight Street/Telegraph
My imitation silk pajama bottoms
Arthurian legends
Revolutionaries
Arcade Fire
Kings of Leon
"Connecticut's For Fucking" by Jesus H. Christ and the Four Hornsmen of the Apocalypse
Honey Nut Cheerios
Bread
My Che Guevara doll
Tie-dye t-shirts
Size 7 shoes in stock
Pirates of the Caribbean - the ride
Road trips
Lavish musicals*
Not being sung to on my birthday
Nondogmatic people
Mashed potatoes
Getting good mail
Mojitos*
Steven Wright
Pulp Fiction
Goodfellas
Audrey Hepburn movies*
Burritos
Frank Sinatra
Yankee Candles*
Dane Cook
Conga drums
Gangsta rap
Foam fingers
The Office
Jesus
Turtles
Juno
Buddy Guy
Dreams that don't involve people chasing and/or killing me
Lance's** beer

*not gay
**gay

Celebrities: How 'Bout a Warm Glass of Shut the Hell Up

2008-02-14T08:14:00.000-08:00

"Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul." from Billy Madison

Any time I have the displeasure of listening to a celebrity speak, off-script, my mind churns with thoughts very similar to those expressed above. Actors talking about the artistic agony of practicing their "craft." Athletes who give 110%, take it one game at a time, and realize it is what it is. Musicians who elocute, "uuuuhrrrrr drrrr lrrrrrr uhmm rrrrrrr, know'm sayin'?"

The pretentiousness, cliches, and boorishness don't really bother me that much, though. What really chaps my ass is when celebrities pontificate, when they take off their movie star hats, or their athlete or rock star hats, and become pundits. When I'm watching the Oscars, I just want to see Sean Penn grab his statue, thank his mom, and hit the trail; I don't care what he thinks about the war or the Bush administration. I don't need to hear a Super Bowl quarterback's empty religious platitudes. And as much as I treasure Barbra Streisand's voice, do we need a political re-write of "The Way We Were"?

But before you start chanting "Free Speech!"... I'm aware that celebrities have exactly the same right as everyone else to share their opinions, and the fact that many more people listen to their opinions shouldn't affect that right. One could even argue persuasively that celebrities should speak up about important issues because they have the unique opportunity to spread awareness of those issues. It's not that they speak out or even what they speak out about (often I agree with them), it's the self-importance of it, the earnest "this just became important to me so now you must listen to me" tone of it. For example, we have always been aware that there are starving kids in Africa, but thank God Angela Jolie found out about it and schooled us on it. It's also the fact that for most of these celebrities, it's all talk. An Atlantic Monthly article from a couple years ago claimed that most outspoken celebrities are not only uninformed and inert, but stingy - fundraising organizers complained that many celebrities make no monetary contributions to their respective causes, believing that their appearance at an event is generous enough. I will make one exception, though, for a celebrity that seems very informed and dedicated to working towards solutions to some of the world's most serious problems such as poverty and AIDS. Bono has certainly received a lot of attention in recent years for his extra-curricular work, meeting with popes, presidents, and other influential world leaders; and while he seems to have a pretty massive ego on stage and in entertainment interviews (how many rock stars don't?), he seems to be very humble about his activism and he uses his celebrity to open doors and shed light on issues in a way that the average person cannot. Unfortunately, though, most celebrities seem to prefer talking to doing.

But I suppose it's natural for people to be narcissistic and self-important when they are watched by thousands and people hang on their every word, and I suppose it's our own fault that celebrities believe we care what they think. And I guess that's the thing - people do listen, and people do care what they say. Afterall, foreign policy is much sexier coming from George Clooney than James Carville. And as ridiculous as Madonna is, it's not her fault that people run out and buy red strings to tie around their wrists the day after she starts practicing Kabballah.

America is still a market of ideas, a democratic forum for the discussion of issues, and the
citizens - not the media, not the celebrities - decide who "has the floor." Unfortunately, people don't listen to pale, tweedy intellectuals; they listen to beautiful, familiar cultural icons who solve all the world's problems in their spare time. We need to realize that saving the world in a movie or touring the world with a guitar or being a world champion athlete does not make a person an expert on how to save the world.

Race: The Big, Muddy Pit of Misunderstanding

2008-02-12T14:09:00.000-08:00

From Seinfeld:

Jerry: ...I love Chinese women.
Elaine: Isn't that a little racist?
Jerry: If I like their race, how can that be racist?

"I would like to apologize to the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, for referring to its members as 'colored people.'" - Steve Martin, from Pure Drivel

I don't have White Guilt. Not at all, not even a little bit. Does it anger me that Africans were sold to slave traders hundreds of years ago, shipped to another continent against their will, and then sold into involuntary servitude? Does it anger me that it took a bloody and incredibly divisive war to gain "freedom" for the slaves, a "freedom" that in practice continued to subjugate blacks and deny them fundamental rights for another century? Does it anger me that after the all battles, all the laws, all the rhetoric, and after all this time, African-American culture continues to feel the effects of slavery and will for many years to come? The answer to all these questions is unequivocally "yes." However, I don't feel guilty.

I know what you're thinking: White boy a little defensive. Truthfully, I am defensive, and I'm probably also a bit too sensitive. I'm tired of seeing "the race card" played over and over again in situations that, by any reasonable measure, are not racial issues. Now before I go any further, let me clarify that I am not talking about affirmative action or any other race-related hot button political issues. I'm just talking about rhetoric.

When it comes to white attitudes about race, I tend to see people standing at very separate poles (it took me five minutes to figure out a way to write the previous sentence without using the term "black and white"). At one end you have the "bleeding hearts" who go to great lengths to establish a deferential, apologetic tone in their language; and at the other end you have the people who proudly refuse to use silly "P.C." terms like African-American, Latino, or Asian. (Most people probably fall somewhere in between, but they're inconvenient and irrelevant on this point). So on one side you have people who will do anything to avoid conflict and on the other you have people who seem to invite conflict, and into that milieu you throw both legitimate claims of racism along with those that just seem frivilous and reactionary. What you get is a culture that is equal parts confused, hostile, well-meaning, and frustrated; a culture whose social growth, at least in regards to race, is severly stunted. The quotes at the top of this page perfectly represent the dilemma: nobody really knows anymore exactly what is and what is not the wrong thing to say.

Obviously, the solution to this problem, if there even is one, is not easy or immediate. My personal, and admittedly naive prescription, is for everyone - white, black, and other - to mark a day on the calendar and say, "as of this day, we forgive, though we must not forget." Perhaps that might be the day that Barack Obama is nominated as the Democratic candidate for President, or short of that, at least the moment when he transcended racial barriers and proved himself a viable presidential candidate. As I said to begin this piece, I don't feel guilty about America's racist past. I'm not, nor was I ever, part of the problem. I do, however, want to be part of the solution. And while there is a lot of work white people need to do towards that end, I believe that the key to moving forward is forgiveness, which of course can only be granted by African-Americans.

I realize that my solution sounds a little bit like the schoolyard bully telling his crying victim to "just get over it", and in fact, a lot of white people say that exact thing about residual black bitterness. What I mean, though, is that we are faced with a choice if we expect to ever have a more harmonious culture: Do we stay suspended in a state of arrested development by trying the same crimes over and over as each generation grows further removed from the sins of slavery, or do we set our sights on healing and cooperation to establish true equality in the future? In college I discussed and debated these issues with members of the Black Student Union, and the argument I always heard, when I suggested that the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons of our culture needed to throttle back on the blame-game rhetoric, was that after hundreds of years of slavery, second-class treatment, and the resulting poverty, crime, drug abuse, etc., blacks had a right to be pissed off and let whites feel the anger. My response was, blacks certainly have reason to be righteously, royally pissed, and the institutional white affluence and black poverty is something to be incredibly bitter about. However, is revenge worth the polarization and inaction that it causes? Even though I can't put myself in an African-American's shoes, I know that revenge, as sweet as it tastes initially, is very costly in the end, especially if you want progress.

I understand that forgiveness is something that must be requested, not demanded. But I want to ask my black friends to forgive my ancestors and start discussing ways of solving problems like inner-city poverty, the crack epidemic, educational/vocational inequalities, and begin to take some pride in our accomplishments.

Faith - Response to Nolan

2008-02-06T11:33:00.000-08:00

The word "faith", and like it the words "patriotic", "compassionate", "reduced fat", and many others, is an example of culture's need to find a friendly, specific word and apply it as broadly as possible to make us feel all warm and comfortable. The problem is - and this is obvious to the few who apply logic to these things - the further a word is stretched, the less real meaning it retains.
Nolan, and before him, Hitchens, is exactly right that "faith", as we see it applied in our culture, is not particularly virtuous, or even admirable. In practice, it's alternately more a blissful ignorance of answers to questions we're not prepared to face or a stamp of approval for people such as political candidates, as Nolan mentioned. But many people (my parents, ahem) don't stop at political candidates; they choose the athletes they cheer for, the restaurateurs they patronize, the local news anchors they watch, and even their dentists and optometrists according to their faithiness. My mother's response to me leaving my old optometrist (who I believe was a fucking thief, by the way) was, "but he's a good Christian man; he has a Bible on the table in his waiting room." Yeah Mom, he's also a shrewd businessman.
I hate that I'm so cynical about religious expression. Unlike many of my friends, I believe in God, in Jesus, in a nonliteral biblical creationism, etc., and yet I've become just about as kneejerk about public professions of "faith" as any of the non-religious people I know. I guess what angers me is the manipulation, the commercialism of it. A large number of people highly value public avowals of "faith", so candidates, athletes, and recording artists (N.W.A and 2 Live Crew thanked God in their liner notes, for Christ's sake) give the people what they want; it's all part of the cult of personality.
Obscured and misused a term as it may be, though, there is a definition of "faith" that is not tantamount to superstition, blissful ignorance, and fairy tale-telling. While it still might not be considered by all a "virtue", the fruits of it are certainly virtuous. Faith is belief in a particular set of explanations for the origins of humankind, humankind's purpose, and the way humans should treat each other. Faith is a compass that, for those who have it, guides people in their everyday lives. Faith is not about voting one way or another or demonstrating against the way people live. It's not about worrying over every little decision and then fretting over mistakes. It's not about rhetoric, guilt, superiority, or just saying "no". Faith is not about the way others live their lives. Faith is about recognizing one's own faults and making an effort to improve. It's about loving and helping people (if not always agreeing with them) no matter what. Faith is about trying to make the world a better place by taking those "explanations" mentioned above and applying them as one lives his life on a daily basis.
Does a person need faith to be virtuous? No. Some of the kindest, most "moral" people I know are guided not by an organized religious faith, but by a set of values they consider relevant and appropriate for living a "good" life. Still, regardless of how society bends and stretches the word, "faith" exercised humbly and sincerely is unquestionably virtuous.

I Love B.O.

2008-02-04T11:12:00.000-08:00

If I was writing my first blog at any other time, I probably wouldn't choose politics as my topic. My attitude towards American politics has grown very cynical and negative. I wouldn't want to start out with a vicious rant. But with Super Tuesday coming up tomorrow, I want to write about a candidate who I think might actually be able to give Americans some hope for healing some wounds at home and repairing our image abroad.
Though I can't vote for a presidential candidate in the California Primary (I don't belong to a "major" party), I am extremely hopeful that Barack Obama will seize enough state delegates tomorrow to make his appointment as the Democratic presidential candidate all but certain. I'm not so naive that I think Obama is totally selfless or incorruptible, nor do I even agree with him on all the issues. What I see in Obama is a leader, like John F. Kennedy, with the charisma and sincerity to unite and give hope to people, unlike anyone since JFK.
America needs a leader who looks different, talks different, and sees the world differently. We need to cleanse our palates of the cynical presidential politics of the last 40+ years and elect someone who can make us proud, who our kids can admire, who will not make us cringe every time we see a clip of him speaking with foreign leaders or denying some moral indiscretion.
As cliched and trite as the word change is, America needs it. Am I certain Obama will deliver it? No. But I'm more certain than I've been about any other candidate in my lifetime, and I think at this point it can't hurt to be a bit enthusiastic and hopeful. Who knows, maybe Obama will restore some of my faith in America's leaders.