tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5893671405309359092024-02-06T23:13:54.970-05:00Facets of EquivocationOnly reason is welcome here!Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-7662506213040179242022-08-30T13:15:00.003-04:002022-08-30T13:15:57.544-04:00Why E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial is the Best Movie<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><u>E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial<o:p></o:p></u></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“Best” and “worst” are, of course, subjective terms,
especially when it comes to art. Different people assign different values to things
using all sorts of criteria, so it’s impossible to make superlative statements
that can’t apply to everyone. But in my opinion, “E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial”
is the best movie ever made. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When we think of “best movies,” academics usually reference
movies like “Citizen Kane,” or “The Godfather,” or “Lawrence of Arabia.” These
are all critically-acclaimed movies, but they require certain prerequisites in
order to fully appreciate them: a knowledge of history, a knowledge of culture,
and, most significantly, age. Many of these “best movies” simply cannot be seen
or understood by children, and they therefore exclude a large number of
potential audience members. To watch something as a child, as an adolescent, and
as an adult and to still experience profound emotion is a feat that no other movie
does as well as “E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.” <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Youth.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">When I saw “E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial” in theaters in the
summer of 1982, I was a 6-year-old boy. I was just a little bit older than
Gertie (Drew Barrymore), but I related more to the 10-year-old boy Elliott
(Henry Thomas). We spoke the same language and had similar interests, and the
motivations of the grown-ups in the movie were more alien to me and Elliott
than E.T. himself. During the course of the movie, I experienced all the
emotions that Elliott experienced, and, through Elliott, I learned some new
ones as well. After feeling the shock and fright of getting scared by (and
scaring) E.T., Elliott didn’t retreat; instead, he went out on his own to find
this scary creature, luring him with (of course) candy. That brief scene of Elliott
sowing the ground with Reese’s Pieces and avoiding “Keys” (Peter Coyote) showed
me an example of bravery and courage that I could understand. When E.T. says
“stay” to Elliott as he is examined by scientists, I heard what Elliott heard: to
comfort Elliott, E.T. was sadly parroting Elliott’s words as E.T.’s condition
deteriorated. I felt Elliott’s grief and anger at losing E.T., and his
subsequent elation when E.T. comes back to life. I was in awe of the teenagers
as they used their biking skills to evade the authorities. The authorities’
guns frightened me, which made my relief and joy at the boys’ escape flight
that much more powerful. I felt the sadness of their parting, a parting that was
ultimately accepted as necessary. When we first see Elliott, he is a boy who
couldn’t get anyone to take him seriously. The last shot of Elliott looking up
in the sky as E.T.’s spaceship disappears is not that of the boy we saw in the
beginning, but of a young man ready for the future. As John Williams’s score
boomed its final chord and the screen went black, I wiped the tears from my
eyes and I knew that watching movies would be my favorite thing to do.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial” came out on VHS in the fall of
1988, and I got it for Christmas. I think I watched tape at least twice a day
during that holiday break. Now 13-years-old, I was able to better understand Elliott’s
pain, especially that of missing his father. I was happy when he got to kiss
the pretty girl in his class. I felt guilt when watching Elliott and his older
brother Michael (Robert MacNaughton) coercing Gertie by “torturing” her stuffed
animal. Of course, a TV monitor can’t project the same scope and scale of a
movie screen, but the beauty of the story shone through nevertheless.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As years passed, I would revisit the movie rarely, with
other interests taking my time. When watching the movie again as a senior in
high school, I was shocked at how I now could relate to Michael. As a child, I
saw Michael as much an authority figure as their mother Mary (Dee Wallace).
When Michael poorly backed out of the driveway, as a kid, I was shocked that he
was that bad; I thought everyone who could get behind the wheel of a car would
be an expert. His line of “we’re all gonna die, and they’re never gonna give me
my license!” sang so true to me as a new driver that I had an epiphany about
this movie: all the characters in this movie were written as <i>real people</i>.
(Well, except for the grown-ups, right? But I’ll get to that later.) This movie
stood out in my memory because of that enduring feeling: I could relate to
someone other than Elliott.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Change.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For those of us of a certain age, national and world
politics made less of an impact on our lives and were therefore less of a
priority. For older people, the experience of the end of the Cold War was a
disruption of the world order, a welcome one, but a disruption nevertheless. For
people my age, the end of the Cold War was seen as more of an inevitability and
a hope for new opportunities. It wasn’t exactly a topic that young people could
debate about.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Pop culture, on the other hand, was an easier field for
younger people. The impact that certain movies had in our young lives made them
an integral part of our psyche, so it’s understandable when something you once
held as constant and true is changed in any way, even in the name of progress.
When George Lucas re-released the original Star Wars trilogy with added effects
in preparation for the release of “Star Wars, Episode I: The Phantom Menace,”
the alterations felt more like desecration than improvement to some people. If
Lucas had only made cosmetic improvements like recompositing footage or
cleaning up matte lines, there wouldn’t have been much outrage. But Lucas’s
additions were so significant that his “improvements” or “corrections” invalidated
our enjoyment of a supposedly inferior experiences, experiences that we had
held to be ever unchanging. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">As the years passed, my generation became more aware of the
impact of the rest of the world outside of popular entertainment. There were so
many changes: the Clinton Administration’s scandals, the war in Bosnia, and the
2000 presidential election nonsense had taken its toll on American society. We
were all needing something definite to hold onto, be it a new experience like
“Harry Potter” or “The Matrix,” or re-experiencing older ones, like listening
to forgotten hits from the 80’s by downloading mp3s <i>en masse</i> from
Napster. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And, of course, there was 9/11.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">No matter your age, there was no denying that a profound
change had occurred on a worldwide scale. Nothing would ever be the same
anymore. Everything was in flux, and everyone had to confront the harsh reality
that there were forces who were willing to do anything to change what they
didn’t like. There was a widespread feeling of powerlessness, an existential
fear that unfocused anger would threaten to run unchecked on a global scale.
That need to hold onto something like a cherished memory grew even more
intense, and when Steven Spielberg re-released a Special Edition of “E.T.,” it
was not hard to feel insulted.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It was the summer of 2002, and the Special Edition was
released to commemorate the 20<sup>th</sup> anniversary of the theatrical
release of “E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.” There were only a few changes that Spielberg
made to “E.T.,” and some were not too bad. One example was the modification of
E.T.’s escape from authorities in the beginning of the movie: instead of an
obvious doll on a track, a CGI-version of E.T. bounding away using his arms was
digitally inserted. But even the subtle changes, like E.T.’s face being
digitally-enhanced to look more expressive seemed uncharacteristic. It was my
mother who voiced what I felt was wrong. She said, “E.T. is an alien; he
wouldn’t have human expressions.” She was right. E.T. looked and acted more
like a cartoon than a corporeal entity, and I found that to be a little
condescending. More specifically, my 6-year-old inner child felt a little
patronized, and that hurt. But that was nothing compared to the digital
replacement of the firearms with walkie-talkies. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I knew that Steven Spielberg was uncomfortable with
displaying guns in the presence of children, and it was certainly
understandable considering the horrors of the previous years involving
firearms, most notably the 1999 shooting spree committed by teenagers at
Columbine High School. But it was precisely the threat of violence that allowed
us to cheer so hard by the miracle of the boys’ and E.T.’s escape into the sky.
The greater the fear of danger, the more palpable the feeling of relief and
joy, and Spielberg took that away. In his effort to spice things up, Spielberg
made something blander. In his effort to sanitize, Spielberg made something
more sterile. During a time where we as a society had experienced so much loss
in the real world, losing a sense of joy in the fantasy world hit some a bit
too hard, and in a world where nothing was certain anymore, this alteration was
unequivocally declared by more reactive fans to be nothing less than a
perversion. Were the minds of Spielberg’s critics so fragile that they could
unironically proclaim that he and George Lucas had “ruined their childhoods?” If
you believe them to have been weakened by an ever-changing and more dangerous
world, then maybe. Personally, I was extremely disappointed, but I empathized
with Steven Spielberg; this movie was <i>his</i> baby, and like a parent, he
wanted to correct what he felt to be a mistake that he did to his child. But
like a parent, he couldn’t see the perfection in the masterpiece he created; what
he saw as flaws actually made his work endearing to the world.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Adulthood.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">More years passed. I enlisted in the Air Force. I got
married and moved overseas to serve in Okinawa. I moved back home, and I became
a father. I did a tour of duty in Iraq. I got divorced after 9 years of
marriage, and shortly afterwards, my enlistment in the Air Force ended. Jobs
came and went. Relationships, love, and heartache all came and went. The only
thing I was certain of was that I was a good father to a loving daughter. I
made it a point to be present for her no matter what, and our time together was
always precious. I counted myself lucky that she was interested in watching
movies, and I was anticipating the day when I could finally introduce “E.T.” to
her (the DVD or the <i>original</i> version, of course). When we finally
watched it in 2017, she was 9-years-old. I was 41.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I didn’t realize how long it had been since I’d seen the
movie, and it was the first time I watched it as a parent. On that level, I was
now able to relate to Mary, Elliott’s mother. I also could relate to “Keys,”
and I smiled when he told Elliott that E.T. “came to me, too.” As a child all
those years ago, I was irritated by that exchange. <i>E.T. didn’t come to you</i>,
I had thought. Keys said he had been wishing for this since he was a boy, but I
had thought that was impossible. <i>You’re a grown-up</i>, I had thought. <i>You
could never have been a boy, and you could never understand what it means to be
a child</i>. Now as an adult, hearing Keys talk to Elliott, I finally
understood what he meant.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Unfortunately, even though I understood and could now relate
to the experiences of the adults in the movie, I wasn’t <i>feeling</i> it as
much, because part of my attention was directed towards my daughter and making
sure she was enjoying it. That was really my priority, and I was relieved after
we finished the movie and she had declared it to be the “best movie ever.”
Mission accomplished. Milestone achieved.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In following years, I’d played back the movie in my head,
and as I learned more about my inner child in therapy, I finally felt what Keys
had meant. Keys saw himself in Elliott and was showing Elliott his honest and heartfelt
appreciation in the only way he could. “He came to me, too,” continues to hit
me hard in my memory; there is a child within us all, and that inner child
needs as much love and validation as real children. E.T. was able to give those
things to Elliott, and through Elliott, Keys was able to feel some of that
validation as well.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>From boys to men.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Elliott’s time with E.T. profoundly changes Elliott from a
timid boy to an assured leader. Elliott starts off the movie pleading to get a
chance to play Dungeons & Dragons with the older boys. The boys reflexively
mock his whining tone, and it’s painfully clear that Elliott has absolutely no
authority with this group. In the third act, Elliott becomes a general, with Michael
as his adjutant. It’s Elliott who makes up the escape plan and <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>gives the orders to Michael and his friends.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">There’s a small moment that means more to me now after
having served in a combat area: Michael pulls up the stolen government van to
his friends and tells them to “get the bikes,” to which one of them immediately
exclaims, “LET’S DO IT!” without question or hesitation. They then “suit up” in
their “helmets” of hats and sunglasses with such seriousness that it’s
hilarious, but the camaraderie they display is nothing short of inspiring.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These would-be cavaliers then work as a team, following
Elliott’s lead, expertly using the terrain to their advantage. They split up,
evade, and eventually reunite like cavalrymen, and through the miracle of E.T.’s
telekinesis, the cavaliers become pilots. It’s a quest that their time spent
playing Dungeons & Dragons might have prepared them for.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Michael has one final moment with E.T. as they say their
goodbyes. Michael reaches out to touch E.T.’s face, which E.T. reflexively
avoids, but eventually allows Michael to do. This is the first and only tender
touch that Michael displays throughout the movie. Michael is the family’s steadfast
knight, and in addition to displaying strength, he displays vulnerability. When
E.T. verbally thanks him, Michael responds with a kind and dutiful, “You’re
welcome.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>Four decades later.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">And now, “E.T.” is back in theaters for its 40<sup>th</sup>
Anniversary. I rarely go to re-releases like these, but this was one I couldn’t
miss. How serendipitous it was that it happened to be playing while out on a
date with my girlfriend, a woman who also loves the movie. Before we knew it, I’m
in my seat next to my her about to watch my favorite movie of all time, the
first time seeing it in a movie theater since 1982. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">It was a revelation.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">All my previous experiences with this movie were amplified,
and there were new ones as well. Melissa Mathison’s script allowed me to see
Mary not just as a parent anymore, but as a <i>woman</i> in her own right,
trying to deal with the hurt of not only being a newly-single mom, but also as
an ex-wife and a woman who pushes her own individual needs aside in order to
deal with the logistics of having three kids, a job, and a dog. I felt her
frustration when she said, “Stupid Ragu, I knew it wouldn’t come out!” as she
saw that the dry cleaners couldn’t get a stain out of her clothes. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I remembered the deleted scene on the DVD
bonus features that elaborated why Mary was wearing a tight cat costume for
Halloween: she was about to go on a date while the kids would be out
trick-or-treating. It makes Michael’s and Elliott’s stunned reaction to her
costume that much more hilarious in context. In that deleted scene, we also
learn that she was stood up, and it makes her anger as she drives to look for
her kids understandable, as she grumbles “<i>Mexico</i>” under her breath,
referring to her ex-husband’s whereabouts with (presumably) his new girlfriend.
When Mary yells “<i>This is my house!</i>” as the space-suited government
agents corner her in her home, I felt the power she was trying to muster as she
was trying to keep control of her and her family’s sanctuary. I could never
have understood the struggle Mary had been going through until now, and I felt
her anguish.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Throughout the movie, we never see any of the adults’ faces.
Spielberg, taking cues from Tex Avery and Charles Schulz, has all adult
characters (except for Mary) shot without showing their faces. John Williams plays
a sinister melody whenever the government agents appear, and when Keys’s face
finally is shown, it is eerily lit from lights under his sterile containment suit.
Knowing Keys’s benevolent intentions, it seems unfair the way the movie manipulates
the audience into immediately distrusting this authority figure, and it’s a
brilliant filmmaking choice. His kind and supportive words to Elliott may be
touching, but they’re just not enough to overcome this prejudice against Keys
and his men that was established from the start of the movie. When I was a kid,
I remember agreeing with Elliott when he yelled at the doctors, “<i>you’re
killing him!” </i>I remember being extremely shaken when the doctors used the defibrillators
on E.T.’s body, thinking they were torturing the poor dying alien. Now, I know
they were trying their best to save him, and they didn’t have time to spend
trying to explain to Elliott what they were doing, I wanted to reach out to try
and calm Elliott down, but I also knew it wouldn’t have made any difference. No
matter how smart Elliott was, this understanding was still something beyond his
capability, and as I watched the doctors and scientists do their work, I noticed
for the first time, <i>I’m now older than all of these people.</i> It was at
this point that I found myself for the first time, absurdly, incomprehensibly,
relating to E.T.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>The (missing) father.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Steven Spielberg has been on record about a couple of things
regarding this movie: first, that it was a story borne out of the loss of his
father’s presence after his parents’ divorce; second, that any Christian thematic
parallels were purely coincidental from this Jewish director. While ostensibly coincidental,
parallels of E.T. to Jesus are impossible to miss. Love, death, sacrifice, faith,
and resurrection are central to the structure of this movie. This superpowered entity
from the heavens, a being that is able to perform incredible feats like restoring
a plant’s health, healing injuries, levitating objects, and <i>flying</i>, is a
presence whose brief time among mortals enriches the lives of all he comes into
contact with. “His being here is a <i>miracle,</i>” Keys tells Elliott. The power
of faith, first shown in a tender moment as E.T. and Elliott listen to Mary
reading <i>Peter Pan</i> to Gertie, is echoed when Gertie wishes E.T. to come
back, a wish that Mary seconds. Allegories of death and resurrection within
literature and performance aren’t exactly novel, but the <i>wholesomeness</i>
of its presence in “E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial” makes the power of this theme
incredibly heartwarming to watch, even for a non-Christian like myself.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">But throughout the years, it was the loss of a father figure
for Elliott that I had the hardest time understanding. Because Elliott’s father
wasn’t in the movie and only mentioned a handful of times, I never gave much
thought about how his absence affected the characters; if he wasn’t there, he wasn’t
important. As a kid, when Michael and Elliott find their dad’s shirt in their
garage and smelled it, I found it a cute scene, but ultimately unnecessary,
really only there to show how the government found E.T.’s location. Now, I
completely understand what Spielberg was trying to show: the giant hole in his
life that Elliott now had because his father wasn’t there. Michael was older
and could understand: his outburst of anger at Elliott for upsetting their mother
by bringing up their missing dad and “Sally” is not coming from an insensitive
older brother but from a dutiful eldest son defending his mother. “Think about
how other people feel for a change!” is not something you’d expect to hear from
a teenage boy, but from a young man, now the default man of the house. Gertie
was too young to understand what was missing: all she knows is that her father is
“in Mexico.” It’s Elliott, the middle child, that is hit hardest. He has no one
to turn to for support. Gertie is the baby, so she is the one that is taken
care of. Michael has his friends for support, but Michael and his friends won’t
waste time with emotional nonsense from Elliott, who is (in their eyes) a “douchebag”
and a “wimp.” This boy needs his father, and the bond that Elliott forms with
E.T. takes that place.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The bond that E.T. and Elliott share is obvious, but as a
kid, I perceived it to come gradually. Watching it with new eyes, the bond is immediate.
It’s a bond created for survival, and examining the bond more closely, it is
clear that it is unfortunately parasitic. That is not to say that E.T. is
consciously harming Elliott, but Elliott’s loss of self is disturbing to watch
as the movie progresses. When the scientists discover that E.T.’s and Elliott’s
brainwave patterns are perfectly synced, the implication that Elliott’s words <i>might
actually be E.T.’s</i> is profound. When Elliott repeatedly tells Keys that “he
wants to go home,” it’s not that hard to hear E.T. saying through Elliott, “<i>I</i>
want to go home.” Later, Elliott inexplicably starts to recover, while E.T.
starts to deteriorate. As their bond breaks, E.T. says “Stay,” to Elliott. This
exchange, which I had once thought was E.T. saying one of the few words he
knew, takes on a more poignant tone when interpreted E.T. as telling Elliott to
“stay” as E.T. willfully releases Elliott from a vital bond, sacrificing his
own life in order to spare Elliott from a conjoined death. Elliott’s recovery,
in other words, is no longer inexplicable.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In the middle of the movie, Elliott tearfully pleads to E.T.
to stay, that they “could be happy” together and they could “grow up” together.
At the end, when E.T. asks Elliott to “come,” Elliott sadly but apologetically answers
“stay,” telling E.T. that he will stay home with his own loving family. It’s a
decision that hurts, but it’s one that Elliott makes completely on his own as an
individual. When E.T. tells <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Elliott “I’ll
be right here” and points a glowing finger to Elliott’s head, I felt the
reassurance coming from E.T. for the first time, while simultaneously feeling
Elliott’s sadness and resolve as he whispers, “Good-bye.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b>For Everyone.<o:p></o:p></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial” is unique not just because it is
a movie that can be seen and appreciated by all ages, since all ages (except
for the very old) are represented, but also because there are no villains in
this story. It is a story that is best told through the medium of film, with
all the visual and aural magic that only film can provide. It is a product of
its time, yet the humanity of all the characters makes it timeless. Think about
when Michael comes home from football practice to raid the fridge. As he’s
singing Elvis Costello’s “Accidents Will Happen,” he scans the fridge and mumbles,
“nothing but health shit.” A timeless sentiment.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">These sentiments transcend time. No movie has ever shown how
the same miraculous encounter could affect different people of different ages in
the same way. “E.T.,” both the movie and the character, came to me when I was a
boy. E.T. came to me as a teen. E.T. came to me as an adult. E.T. came to me as
a father. <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">E.T. is here for everyone.<o:p></o:p></p>Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-83072076108493180102009-12-22T13:03:00.000-05:002009-12-22T13:04:25.078-05:00The Art of CompromiseIt is apparent that the health care bill that will pass (if it does) will not be in a form that any self-respecting progressive liberal will like. There will be no public option, there are massive concessions to the health insurance industry, and the process has given perks and benefits to single states at the cost of all American taxpayers. But if it does pass, it will be worth it.<br /><br />The most important goal that we all must remember is the extension of health insurance coverage to those who presently cannot afford it. Thirty million men, women, and children will now have health care coverage that would not had this bill not have gone through. In addition, passage of this bill means that the public option will be added to our health care system eventually, it just won't be as soon as people expected.<br /><br />When President Clinton passed the federal budget during his administration, it was a very hard-fought battle, with concessions made on both sides. The GOP got to pass legislation giving tax breaks to those who really didn't need it, angering many tax-and-spend liberals (of whom I can sympathize with). But the end result was what is now known as a "super-bull" market, with innovations that led us into the 21st Century. My argument is not that I support tax breaks for the wealthy, but that for government to apply its helpful energies (and yes, I believe that's not a contradictory statement) to the people, it is important that those wheels be greased. If that grease comes from letting go of things we really want in order to reach the magical number of 60, then it must be done. It's ugly, but that's politics.<br /><br />And thirty million men, women, and children will now have affordable coverage that didn't before.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-6124803980563931032009-04-06T09:16:00.006-04:002009-04-06T10:20:49.699-04:00How we honor the fallenAs some of you may know, one of my additional duties at Dover Air Force Base is that of an Honor Guardsman. My participation as a member of the Honor Guard has been limited to a handful of ceremonies, mostly that of retirements and changes-of-command. I look forward to each time I get to put on my ceremonials and taps, beast (i.e.: hard slap) my inoperative M-1 rifle in unison as we present arms for the national anthem, and stand motionless for as long as the ceremony lasts. I've come to appreciate those who can sing the national anthem with efficiency and clarity, and I get annoyed when a singer tries to "soul it up," and add notes to an already inspiring song. When I am in those ceremonials, I know that I am presenting myself as the image of the United States Air Force in particular, and the Armed Forces in general.<br /><br />When I was in training for the Honor Guard, I participated in one our most solemn duties: the reception and transfer of the flag-draped transfer cases of our fallen troops. As a trainee, I hadn't yet learned the commands and procedures for carrying the cases from the aircraft to the lift and finally to be loaded in the mortuary's van, so I, along with my fellow trainees, were positioned on the aircraft to deliver our slow, simultaneous, three-second salutes.<br /><br />We watched as four cases were deplaned, one at a time. As we saluted time and again, the lack of media coverage became more and more apparent to me. I understood why the ban on the media was in place -- why subject these images to ridicule and disrespect? But not only were there no cameras in place, but family members were not allowed on the flight line as these cases were transferred. So, I kept asking myself, <em>for whom are we doing this</em>?<br /><br />I asked that question to my instructor later on. He said that we were doing that so that the fallen would know that we were treating their remains with respect. I didn't really think much of that answer, because pretending to know what the dead find respectful is presumptuous at best. In addition, don't we all take an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States?" Doesn't that Constitution include the protection of a free press?<br /><br />Let me be clear. I am a very liberal person. I believe in the free press and am against censorship. I believe that gays should be allowed to marry and should not be afraid to serve openly in our military. I believe in civil liberties and the freedom to criticize our elected officials. These are the main reasons I enlisted, and why I feel so strongly about preserving the Constitution. And it pains me to no end when the images of these ceremonies are politicized on both sides. I understand, even sympathize with those on the right who wanted to keep the media ban in place, because I get disgusted by the arguments from anti-war protesters on the left. The disgust does not come from any difference in political ideology, but from a very clear disconnect between the politics of war and the simple humanity of a fallen troop.<br /><br />It's easy to find fault with right-wing partisans who hide behind those of us in uniform, lest anti-war <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">protesters</span> be validated be validated by the publication of the images that display the horrible price that an unjust war asks for. But some left-wing partisans have no better arguments. Those who say that these images should be published to show the price we pay may have a legitimate argument, but their argument is not about the ceremony, but about their own political agenda. It's no longer about the sacrifice that an American has made, but about sticking it to Bush or Cheney or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Rumsfeld</span>. The outrage over our invasion in Iraq has clouded the judgments of those on the left so much so that they feel more strongly against Paul <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Wolfowitz</span> than they feel sympathy for parents who have just lost their child.<br /><br />But the publication of these images is necessary if we are to honor the sacrifice that these men and women have made. We bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution when we are not afraid to publish how far we are willing to sacrifice for that document and its ideals; however, we need to balance out the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">public's</span> need for information with the family's need for privacy, which is why I am relieved about the Obama <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">Administration's</span> and Secretary Gates' <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/05/AR2009040502268.html">decision </a>to lift the ban on media coverage with the provision of family approval.<br /><br />Ceremonies are performances, some more solemn than others. It may seem callous or dismissive to refer to a burial as a performance and an Honor Guardsman as an actor, so we have euphemisms. Instead of "staying in character," we say we "maintain our military bearing." Instead of "choreography" or "blocking," we say "movement execution." Instead of "beats," we have "counts." Instead of "rehearsal," we say "drill." But every performance needs an audience; without an audience, the performance becomes almost worthless. Let us show how we honor the fallen, and let us always remember that no matter how you feel about the war or our government, that no matter whose body is in that transfer case or coffin, that body held the life of an American son or daughter. For these solemn moments, let the outrage take a breather and think not about partisanship, but about our children, our siblings, our spouses, and our parents. Let us be thankful for the families we still have, because a family in Dover or Arlington has just become smaller.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-74609425647724856552009-02-25T12:07:00.002-05:002009-02-26T11:05:52.280-05:00Hello, Governor JindalGovernor <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Jindal</span>, my name is Omar. I, too, am the Gen-X son of immigrants who considers himself an American. My parents saw poverty in their home nations before immigrating to the United States. My <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Filipina</span> mother was a baby during the Japanese occupation of the Philippines. Her oldest sister had told me of the necessity of keeping a low profile around the Japanese troops lest she catch the eye of a soldier looking for a comfort woman. My aunt also told me that the Japanese had used their Manila home as a garrison headquarters, which makes me appreciate the Third Amendment of the U.S. Constitution that much more.<br /><br />The start of your <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/24/sotn.jindal.transcript/">response </a>to President Obama’s speech seemed bipartisan enough, calling for Republicans to not only support the President and Democrats during times of agreement, but to also offer up better ideas when disagreeing with Democrats. Then your speech went south and turned into a problem that has been plaguing conservatives for quite some time: the notion the government, any government, is bad government. Your example as evidence: the lack of proper government response at the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina. That’s where you lost all credibility, all the more so because you are the governor of the state most affected by the storm and the government inaction.<br /><br />Governor <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">Jindal</span>, it was precisely the conservative notion of limited federal government that allowed the mess of Hurricane Katrina to perpetuate. It was the reluctance of President Bush to let the state and city fend for itself that prevented the swift recovery of New Orleans. It was the lack of regulation and oversight that prevented <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">FEMA</span> from acting in a responsible way when the federal government did eventually step in and attempt to do its job. Yes, the hurricanes caused the destruction, but it <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">wasn</span>’t government that failed at the recovery; it was bad government.<br /><br />You then proceeded to criticize the wasteful nature of Washington politicians, a criticism often spouted from the very Republican hypocrites who are doing the actual wasting. You point to silly programs such as “$300 million to buy new cars for the government, $8 billion for high-speed rail projects, such as a ‘magnetic levitation’ line from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Las</span> Vegas to Disneyland, and $140 million for something called ‘volcano monitoring…’” Governor, if you knew what you were talking about, you would realize that the funds for new government cars are actually for battery-powered vehicles that are now being used on military bases that save money on gasoline; that keeping track of volcanoes is not a frivolous expense. Governor, you and I may have been children when Mount St. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Helens</span> erupted in 1981, but that <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">doesn</span>’t mean it <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">didn</span>’t happen and cannot happen again. As far as the mag-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">lev</span> train? The $8 billion set aside for high-speed rail projects is to be spent at the discretion of the Secretary of Transportation, a Republican. In addition, the proposed mag-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">lev</span> line from Anaheim to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Las</span> Vegas (supported by the Republican governors of both California and Nevada) is not part of the Recovery Act.. Governor, do you even know what a mag-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">lev</span> train is? If you did, then maybe you would support its inclusion.<br /><br />Governor, your opposition to government-run health care is an understandable one. No one wants the government to supersede an individual’s decision over his or her health care. But that is precisely what <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">HMOs</span> are doing right now. Families are suffering from longer wait times, higher co-pays, and shoddier service, because <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">HMOs</span> are cutting costs by not only not hiring more physicians and staff, but also by not purchasing more equipment. A typical visit to an HMO may end up costing a family $100 in co-pays and medications, not to mention lost work time, all in the effort to keep medicine privatized.<br /><br />Governor, I recognize your love for this country, but I’m disappointed you do not recognize that your pride in its accomplishments does not catch the whole picture. You said that America was “the nation that cast off the scourge of slavery, overcame the Great Depression, prevailed in two World Wars, won the struggle for civil rights, defeated the Soviet menace, and responded with determined courage to the attacks of September 11, 2001.” Governor, what you do not seem to recall was that we were the last enlightened nation to cast off the institution of slavery, and that it took another century after the Emancipation Proclamation to guarantee civil rights for all races. By that time, communist Cuba had more equality than Louisiana. You bring up 9/11, not remembering that the world had responded with courage and sympathy with us, until they scorned us when we invaded Iraq. And we are still paying for it, 8 years later. Governor, you said that “the American spirit has triumphed over almost every form of adversity known to man, and the American spirit will triumph again.” I believe that as well, but you have to recognize that the American spirit triumphed over adversity <em>in spite</em> of social conservatives.<br /><br />Governor <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Jindal</span>, on a more personal note, your election to the governorship of Louisiana could be an inspiration for all children of immigrants to this great country were it not for the fact that you changed your name in order to hopefully better assimilate in the United States. You went with the name “Bobby” instead of “<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">Piyush</span>” because it was more American, and it is telling – you wanted to fit in. I understand. I can relate. I hated my Arab name growing up. I felt second-class, different, all because of my foreign name. But now, thanks to men and women of all different races in this nation, from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Denzel</span>, to <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Kanye</span>, to Barack, to Ming-Na, I’m not ashamed of my name anymore. I certainly hope you <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">aren</span>’t either.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-3788198202220478762009-02-12T08:41:00.001-05:002009-02-12T08:44:51.838-05:00The (George) Will of the People (Part II)Usually, George Will offers his conservative viewpoints with a bit of evidence to back them up. Unfortunately, today's <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021103314.html">column </a>offered no evidence.<br /><br />First of all, in the politics of fear, this column was quite two-faced. Will accuses Obama of trolling out fearmongering, and then Will concludes his article by comparing the nation to Napoleon's troops at Waterloo. Nothing more calming than a comparison to Waterloo. Let's mention Little Bighorn while we're at it.<br /><br />The seeming failure of bipartisanship (as if the first 100 days of a new presidency are the only times where a government can demonstrate bipartisanship) was caused by a failure of the losing side to offer up anything new to the table. Tax cuts are said to be stimulative -- in 1981, 2001, etc. What proponents of tax cuts forget is the recessions that soon followed (Black Monday, anyone?). What proponents of tax cuts also forget is that massive deficit spending has been proven to recover a failing ecomony. And no, I'm not talking about the New Deal.<br /><br />The debate about how effective the New Deal was to pulling us out of the Great Depression continues, but all can agree that it was World War II that got us out of it completely. And what happened? Massive borrowing, massive deficit spending, raised taxes, businesses in support of government jobs, full employment, a draft, and food and materiel rationing. It was government intervention at such a grand scale, and this intervention pulled us out of the Depression. And New Deal opponents seem to forget that it was the same president who presided over the New Deal as who presided over World War II.<br /><br />And afterwards, what did we do? We experienced the biggest economic boom of the time with the most massive public works project in the 20th century outside of the war effort: the building of our nation's interstate system.<br /><br />The role of government to secure the rights that all men (who are created equal) are inalienably endowed with is considered one of the self-evident truths of the Founding Fathers. And when it doesn't work, we have to alter or abolish it. That's what voters did in 2006 and 2008.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-76968790334792183912009-01-15T09:21:00.003-05:002009-01-15T10:08:37.271-05:00The (George) Will of the PeopleIn today's <em>Washington Post</em>, conservative columnist George Will <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/14/AR2009011402930.html">wrote </a>about California Attorney-General Jerry Brown's appeal to the California judiciary that the results of Proposition 8 were unconstitutional. Will is derisive of the obvious paradox that a constitutional amendment being declared unconstitutional, and any principled person dedicated to the government being decided by the people would find Jerry Brown's argument ludicrous.<br /><br />And here lies the problem for progressives. If a socially unjust law is overturned by the people, then the circumstances demonstrate democracy at its finest; however, if the majority of voters enact a provision that would deny people equality, progressives look to the courts to legislate in their favor. Conservatives cry double-standard, and are left angered that their will and their vote have not counted for anything. Frustration and resentment builds amongst all in both sides.<br /><br />In our American government, we learn that only the legislative branch makes law. If the executive passes an act that supercedes deliberative legislation, or if the judiciary overturns a piece of legislation, the executive and judicial branches are seen as overstepping their bounds. Yet throughout American history, there have been numerous instances of both the executive and judicial branches doing exactly that, for better or worse. Perhaps the most notorious case of judicial bigotry was the <em>Dred Scott</em> case.<br /><br />But keep in mind that the use of the words "notorious" and "bigotry" are only used through the lens of present-day social mores. So now, let us ask ourselves these questions:<br /><br />What does it mean to be American? Is it to be a supporter of representative government and democracy? A supporter of capitalism? Does it mean wanting to be the biggest and the strongest and the best? To whom or what do we look to determine what is truly American? George Washington? George Will? George Bush? George Stephanopolous? The Declaration of Independence? The Constitution of the United States?<br /><br />Throughout the world, there is one word that is at the heart of what it means to be American: freedom. America may have been late to abolish slavery, but the Emancipation Proclamation was seen to be the embodiment of the American ideal. When blacks could not go to schools of their choice, Brown v. Board of Education overturned the legal segregation policies of Plessy v. Ferguson. FDR integrated the Defense Department. Harry Truman integrated the United States Armed Forces. When that was not enough, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 prohibited discrimination. And none of these events happened with the consent of the legislation. They were all executive or judicial decisions.<br /><br />Before the Civil War, popular sovereignty was used to determine whether a territory would be admitted as a slave state or a free state. One man argued against that. It is ironic that a man who would later on declare that government of the people, by the people, for the people would argue against popular sovereignty, something supposedly by the people. But Abraham Lincoln understood the fundamentals of what was expressed in both the Declaration and the Constitution: that it is a self-evident truth that government is necessary to secure the blessings of life and freedom, not prohibit it. When citizens are deprived freedom and equality, it is the responsibility of government to ensure that those rights are upheld.<br /><br />It would behoove George Will to pay attention to the history that he <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/10/16/ST2008101600234.html">claims to admire</a>.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-5584133965741269862009-01-02T16:25:00.001-05:002009-01-02T16:26:43.502-05:00Islamophobia 2009And so the New Year begins with an all-too-familiar case of <a href="http://theequivocator.blogspot.com/2008/07/islamophobia-new-acceptable-prejudice.html">Islamophobia </a>as nine Muslims are removed from an AirTran flight for making innocuous comments about the safest place on an aircraft.<br /><br />The outrage at this eviction is tempered by the equivocation of the victims themselves. One of them, Atif Ifran, told <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/02/family.grounded/index.html?iref=mpstoryview">CNN</a> that he was “impressed with the professionalism” of the FBI agents who questioned him, a tribute to whatever sensitivity program of interrogation that the CIA waterboarders never received. From the airline that kicked them off? No apology, and no help with getting them to their destination besides refunding their tickets.<br /><br />When I was a child, my family and I would travel often. I must have been 10 years old when my family became a victim of profiling. My father was forced to open our luggage at the ticket counter so they could rifle through our clothes and our underwear that we had spent so much time packing the night before. I watched helplessly as my father protested this treatment, and I felt embarrassed; I was not embarrassed at having our bags searched, but at the way my father was upset at the authority of the baggage-checkers. I knew that Arabs had been hijacking aircraft, and I felt that they were only doing the right thing.<br /><br />Year after year, whenever my father and I traveled, I would witness his ordeal as he would be singled out of the scanning line and have to take off his shoes. And I came to accept that this would eventually be my fate as well. I learned to keep my mouth shut at customs lest I say the wrong thing, and let my father do the talking. As I grew older, I came to accept myself as a sort of second-class citizen in the airport. I became accustomed to getting “randomly screened.” It was a matter of procedure that my bags would be the ones searched through, delaying my return home from the airport. I knew well enough to wear shoes that could be put on and taken off with ease.<br /><br />So after 9/11, traveling didn’t change as much for me as it did for everyone else. I would shake my head sadly as I watched person after person go through the same embarrassing rituals that my father and I went through. I saw women wearing shoes that had too many straps break down and cry when they weren’t moving fast enough. I saw airport security men and women adopt the “I-have-the-worst-job-in-the-world-and-I-get-to-do-it-all-over-again-tomorrow” stare. And I saw businessmen in suits with looks of outrage on their face as they opened up their briefcases. I even had strangers (not realizing my Arab heritage) vent to me while waiting to board the flight about their difficult times with security. And I thought, why are you all so pissy? I go through this all the time! It never occurred to me that no one deserved to be treated this way until after I joined the military.<br /><br />So, can you equivocate racial profiling? Rather than unequivocally say no, I would like to offer these tips to paranoid travelers:<br /><br />1) If you’re at the airport, and you see a Middle-Eastern man with a beard wearing Muslim clothing, don’t worry. Chances are he’s not going to do anything else to draw more attention to himself.<br />2) There have been more disruptions on aircraft caused by intoxicated people. Since most Muslims don’t drink, you’re more likely to have a smoother flight with Muslims onboard than not.<br />3) If you are selectively screened by airport security, remember that unless you’re a minority, be thankful that you probably won’t have to go through things like this every day. Minorities, unfortunately, do.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-86962229355689693872008-12-31T12:20:00.000-05:002008-12-31T12:21:50.822-05:00Us versus Them in GazaIn 2004, a documentary called “Control Room” was released, chronicling the Al-<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Jazeera</span> coverage of the United States invasion of Iraq. One of the men featured in this movie was a Marine lieutenant named Josh Rushing. He was a relatively low-level press officer from <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">CENTCOM</span> assigned to handle the foreign news agencies’ questions about <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">CENTCOM</span> matters. During the documentary, Lt. Rushing recalls how disgusted he had felt when watching images of injured and dead Americans. He then recalls how his earlier reaction to even more horrifying images of injured Iraqi children did not affect him as much. He felt ashamed of his double-standard, saying that, “it upset me on a profound level that I wasn't bothered as much the night before,” adding, “It makes me hate war, but it doesn't make me believe that we're in a world that can live without war yet.”<br /><br />It is human nature to flock to a common cause. Us versus them, in other words. We see it all the time, everyday. Your department at work is better than the others. Your company is better than the competition. Your sports team, family, city, state, nation, etc. We all group together to find commonality in ourselves. So when something bad happens to our side, it feels much worse than if something equally bad happened to the other side. It’s human nature.<br /><br />For example, take the Virginia Tech shootings. In all, 33 people were killed, including the gunman. Compare that to the hundreds killed in Iraq bombings, the thousands of children killed in the Chinese earthquakes, and the scores killed in the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">Mumbai</span> massacre, and 33 <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">doesn</span>’t seem like a lot. But we don’t feel the same way about the Iraqi hundreds the same way we feel about the students of Virginia Tech because the Iraqis <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">weren</span>’t Americans. The loss of life at Virginia Tech means more to Americans than loss of the Iraqis, the Chinese, and the Indians. It’s just human nature.<br /><br />What’s the point of all this?<br /><br />At the end of this year, fighting has erupted once again in Gaza. The cease-fire was broken by <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">Hamas</span>, by their continuous rocket attacks; Israel has retaliated with continuous bombardment. So far, as of this writing, over 350 Palestinians have been killed, and Israeli deaths are in the single digits. Yet even with the high disparity between death tolls, American political and general opinion is in full support of the Israeli bombardment. As one Washington Post columnist asks, “<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat%3aa70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum%3aa725552c-bd4a-4a5f-a5b9-a0c96cfae382Discussion%3abd7c158d-efd4-4cff-94ba-64c0be8eca42">What Reasonable Alternative Did Israel Have?</a>”<br /><br />Before this question can be answered, others need to be asked first:<br />1) What is life like for an average Palestinian?<br />2) Who does more for this Palestinian: <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">Hamas</span> or Israel?<br /><br />These questions are crucial to understanding why <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">Hamas</span> and groups like it have so much support. They have support for the same reason men like John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">Gotti</span> had support: <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">Hamas</span>, like John <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">Gotti</span>, supported the people. Groups like <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">Hamas</span> are well-funded, and not all those funds go to weapons purchases. They provide health care, schools, and basic necessities to help people live a dignified life. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_13">Hamas</span> may be a terrorist organization that needs to be eliminated, but they are not the ones who have killed Palestinians.<br /><br />One might ask, “But what about the life on an average Israeli?” It’s a fair question, but it’s a question that has many more answers than the previous questions I posed. We here in America know more about the plight of an Israeli than we do about the life of a Palestinian. As such, we care more about Israeli citizens than we do about Palestinians, Egyptians, Jordanians, Syrians, Lebanese, and yes, Iraqis. The death toll in the current conflict suggests that the life of an Israeli is worth more than the life of a Palestinian. To assuage guilt, we can justify the disproportional death toll by claiming that while the Israeli casualties are innocents, the Palestinian dead and injured are all <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_14">Hamas</span> or <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_15">Hamas</span> supporters and deserve it.<br /><br />Regardless of Israel’s response, it was <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_16">Hamas</span> who broke the cease-fire by firing rockets into Israel. It would be irrational to think that those rockets were meant for any other reason than to kill Israelis, and Israel has every right to defend itself. But at the end of the day, we end up with thousands on one side dead and injured, and a <span class="blsp-spelling-corrected" id="SPELLING_ERROR_17">minuscule</span> fraction of that on the other side.<br /><br />So, what to do? Here’s my suggestion, and it’s a risky one. Israel should treat the Palestinians in Gaza better than <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_18">Hamas</span> treats them. If <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_19">Hamas</span> gives them clothing and food, then Israel should give them better clothing and more food. If <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_20">Hamas</span> gives the citizens in Gaza the semblance of dignity, then Israel should treat <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_21">Gazans</span> with even more dignity. Because until one life is seen as equal to another, there will be no end to this conflict.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-87855652600788902912008-12-20T16:59:00.003-05:002008-12-20T18:03:39.118-05:00Thoughts on this Rick Warren thingWhen Senator Obama was elected President of the United States on November 4, 2008, it was a very happy day for me and many of my friends. I felt personally vindicated by his win, because to me, Barack Obama has been the quintessential equivocator. His oft-repeated phrase from "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU">A More Perfect Union</a>" was the epitome of equivocation: "I can no more disown [Reverend Wright] than my own grandmother."<br /><br />The trouble with being an equivocator is that with the ability to understand all sides of an issue, explanation or even defense of an otherwise untenable position is seen as tantamount to unequivocal support. I can understand why pro-life activists are so passionate about wanting to prevent abortions, but that doesn't mean that I support the sabotage of family planning centers.<br /><br />The way in which President-Elect Obama filled his Cabinet surprised many of his supporters and his detractors not only in terms of speed, but in choice. Liberal and conservative voices alike were intrigued at the pragmatism of his choices; if you had listened to Obama's speeches, read his books, and followed his demeanor throughout the campaign, you should not have been the least surprised.<br /><br />During the past two years, Barack Obama has shown himself to be a man who follows his own drumbeat. He was never a fiery speaker, and (with prepared speeches) he was never boring. His eloquence was only matched by his temperance: pundits and supporters alike were wondering why he didn't go negative during his primary campaign against Senator Hillary Clinton. Why didn't he immediately and forcefully sever ties with Reverend Jeremiah Wright as soon as the "God Damn America!" clips flooded the airwaves and cyberspace? How could he be so gracious and magnanimous to his opponents during the debates when they were all hounding him? Obama didn't listen to criticism from his supporters; he did what he always did and kept it cool and equivocal.<br /><br />What gave Obama the label of being a liberal was the only quantifiable thing that anyone could offer as evidence: his voting records. Because voting only calls for a yes or no, equivocation is absent in the results. But his books, his speeches, and his conversations with reporters and citizens have all shown listeners his appreciation for the pragmatic center. His ideals may be to the left: support for a woman's right to choose, ending the Iraq war, and unapologetic support for homosexual rights, but even these issues are tempered with sympathy for their counterparts (overall reduction in abortion, refocusing on Afghanistan, a lack of desire for federal support of legalized gay marriage).<br /><br />And so we come to Pastor Rick Warren, who has been asked to deliver the invocation at the inauguration of President Obama. Here is a man who has been deeply committed to using scripture to inspire activism in the realms of poverty, disease, and the environment. He has also been a fierce proponent of Proposition 8. Gay voters who voted for Obama see this pick as a giant slap in the face to the advancement of gay rights. That the inclusion of the gay marching band is seen as a weak consolation goes to show the anger many in the gay community have.<br /><br />I am dismayed at this criticism. President-Elect Obama's choice of Rick Warren to lead the invocation should not come as a surprise to anyone who supported Obama. Obama has shown himself to have deep faith in the Christian religion, and he also recognizes that a vast majority of Americans do as well. And given his choices, what should he have done? Let's see what his other choices could have been:<br /><br />1) Pick Candace Gingrich to lead the invocation. Result: slap in the face to anyone who considers themselves moderate or conservative.<br />2) Pick an unknown or a non-denominational speaker to lead the invocation. Result: slap in the face to atheists and non-Christians.<br />3) No invocation. Result: slap in the face to any person who considers themselves religious.<br />4) Pick Joel Osteen. Result: fill in the blank.<br />5) Pick James Dobson. Result: slap in the face to every single one of his supporters.<br />6) Pick James Earl Jones. Result: the most memorable invocation in the history of the world.<br /><br />Andrew Jackson ordered the forced relocation of Native Americans. He also brought the national debt to the lowest in its nation's history. Abraham Lincoln threw potential enemies of the federal government in prison without charge or trial. He also ended slavery. FDR quarantined Japanese-Americans during World War II. He also desegregated the Defense Department. Barack Obama invited an ignorant man to give the invocation at his inauguration.<br /><br />He also is the first person to have a gay and lesbian band march down the street to help inaugurate an American President. Let's not forget that.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-12680560414087792312008-09-23T15:15:00.005-04:002008-09-24T12:06:47.561-04:00How do you explain "Socialism for the Rich" to Joe Sixpack?We all have our different social networks. Personally, most of my friends are involved in community theatre, which means (at least in the DC Metro area) that they are pretty open-minded. Politically, most of my friends in the theatre community are left-wingers, although there is the occasional Republican, even of the log cabin variety. Considering I attended a Quaker school, almost all of my high school friends are liberal. Most of the people in my workplace are also on the left side of the political spectrum. My colleagues at work and my theatre and high school friends are all Obama supporters. My family is a different matter; my mother is a social and political conservative (she voted for Huckabee in the primary, and absolutely adores Sarah Palin), while my father is a Clintonite Democrat. Regardless of political position, everyone I know could be considered a political junkie.<br /><br />Then there are my friends and associates in Delaware whom I see once a month in the Air Force Reserve.<br /><br />While a few of my fellow troops are politically aware (on both the left and the right), most could not care less about politics. In fact, one guy didn't know how to pronounce the name of the Democratic presidential nominee. He represents, I believe, a plurality (if not the majority) of the American voting public. He's someone who prefers his information in easy-to-swallow soundbites and prefers quick-and-dry answers to questions that deserve complex responses.<br /><br />Since the announcement of the $700 billion bailout that President Bush the Treasury Department wish to give to failing Wall Street corporations, the blogosphere has exploded with finger-pointing, accusations of hypocrisy, and most of all, the designation of the bailout as "socialism for the rich." Fiscal neoconservatives are critical of this bailout from a less-government standpoint, while Democrats are critical of any legislation that does not include provisions for increased regulation and oversight.<br /><br />However, the debate amongst these various political groups will only be white noise when it comes to the average voter. Adam Smith? John Maynard Keynes? The New Deal? Henry Paulson? What are these things? It's just too complex to sit around debate. The consequences of the housing bust combined with the multiple bank failures compounded with government intervention revealing hypocrisy concerning government handouts is just gibberish to a lot of people. There is absolutely no way to break this down into something cut-and-dry.<br /><br />So what do these folks rely on? Chain emails that spread misinformation. Spoon-fed news on cable. It's easier to condemn that hypothetical mother who keeps having babies simply to collect a welfare check (although the Welfare Reform Law passed by the Clinton Administration got rid of such loopholes), but it's not so easy to draw parallels to the proposed government bailout. And why not? Because of how we are raised to demonize our enemies.<br /><br />With Ronald Reagan as the figurehead for laissez-faire economics and his famous line that "government <em>is</em> the problem," the neoconservative movement was able to capture and hold on to a sentiment that is easy to manipulate. Communism, in any of its forms, is what happens when the government steps in where it shouldn't. Government will take away your hard-earned money and give it to some welfare mom who should get off the pipe and get a job. Get rid of government, and let the free market make as much money as it can; everyone will benefit! But if you let the government look after you, it'll insinuate itself into every aspect of your life. If you let the government handle your healthcare, it won't be long before the government can deny a treatment you need. If you let the government help you, then you'll become dependent on it for any and all things.<br /><br />With that creed, neoconservatives were able to simultaneously demonize government oversight and social programs by linking it to dictatorial communism. Deregulation allowed for corporations to do what they would. Tax cuts reduced the flow of capital into the federal government, and the budget deficit skyrocketed. Yet, even Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush realized that some money had to come into the federal coffers, so those either taxes were raised (Reagan), or reinstated (Bush). After the Clinton Administration's bipartisan effort balanced the federal budget (leaving a surplus), President George W. Bush gave it back to the American people, cut taxes, gave tax breaks, and we all lived happily ever after. (Due to my involvement in the U.S. military, I am hesitant to publish my unabridged opinions of our current president and his administration, lest I become a target of government reprisal.)<br /><br />Many in America are still easily manipulated by the fear of communism, as if socialized medicine is a slippery slope to the GULAG or a one-child only policy. Yet when the government hands out bailouts to companies like Bears Stearn or AIG, the seeming hypocrisy of the government goes unnoticed. Why? Because businessmen who make money are not the enemy: they are the backbone of the American capitalist spirit that made the United States number one. They're not the welfare mom on crack who has babies to con U.S. taxpayers out of their hard-earned money. An attack on the American businessman is an attack on capitalism, and an attack on capitalism is an attack on America.<br /><br />This is why many Americans will continue to support Republicans and neoconservatives, even as some are willing to criticize the bailouts. It's much easier to understand and hate an individual with whom you don't want to associate yourself (a welfare mom) than with someone who has taken advantage of the very regulatory system that he helped tear down.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-34261754795493269102008-07-18T08:51:00.012-04:002008-08-08T16:10:22.074-04:00Islamophobia: The New Acceptable Prejudice<p align="center"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5232238455754259602" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPnoALCVYC9Qw4QjWF2OR5GjT74PuoaNYirvm15ZN9fQ8yjiEMHgTWarNgAnsKEOritmGIquI2WQzrbuborL_wdWNEd-vXEUENQbU3EcIuI4wos6IfhTqn2G5c7K9AI-UUfWqHQhHqotzk/s200/071408obamanewyorker.jpg" border="0" /></p><div>A recent poll stated that 12% of Americans, more than one in ten, believe that Senator Barack Obama is a Muslim. It's quite a large percentage, given the publicity of Obama's former pastor, the now notorious Jeremiah Wright. For many months, the Obama campaign has been furiously trying to explain that Obama is not a Muslim. Then, a brilliantly satirical caricature of Obama and his wife Michelle appeared on the cover of <em>The New Yorker</em>. Both the Obama camp and the McCain camp called the cover offensive, but the folks at <em>The New Yorker</em> stuck to its guns and defended its satire. The least problematic of this incident was that they had to explain that their cover was satirical, and everyone knows that when you have to explain a joke, it's no longer funny. It's Comedy 101. Granted, it's <em>The New Yorker</em>, hardly that funny to begin with. But that's an entry for another time.<br /></div><div><br /></div><div>How did Senator Obama himself feel? In an <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/15/lkl.01.html">interview</a> with Larry King, Senator Obama stated that "when you're running for president for almost two years ... you get a pretty thick skin. And, you know, I've seen and heard worse." He then added that "this is actually an insult against Muslim-Americans, something that we don't spend a lot of time talking about. And sometimes I've been derelict in pointing that out. You know, there are wonderful Muslim-Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things. And for this to be used as sort of an insult or to raise suspicions about me I think is unfortunate." King then immediately switched topics and discussed the war in Iraq with Senator Obama.<br /><br />In addition to treating the magazine cover with a grain of salt, Obama brought up a point that I've been aching to hear raised: what's wrong with being Muslim?<br /><br />During this campaign, Obama's secret Muslim past is an accusation that has been tossed around by the ignorant, playing on fears of another 9/11. As a consequence, the Obama campaign has tried to distance itself from the Muslim community, even going to far as to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/19/us/politics/19campaign.html?_r=2&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1213871929-HnJhTohn284sADrRjZGJPw&oref=slogin">remove two Muslim women wearing headscarves</a> lest they appear in the same vicinity as Obama. The Muslim world is so feared and stigmatized that American Muslims are treated like second-class citizens. Fortunately, the Obama campaign immediately apologized, and that was that. If only that could be true of all apologies.<br /></div><div>Racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism are the top three prejudices that are taken advantage of in order to discredit an opponent's argument. Since there is no way to successfully defend oneself against charges of these three prejudices without sounding like an ignoramus, these prejudices are the standard go-to for argumentative tactics. They work, because they evoke feelings of oppression, from slavery to the Holocaust. The fear of resembling an oppressor is so grand, no self-respecting person can afford to make a remark that is even close to sounding racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic, bringing about obvious benefits (less outward prejudice) and drawbacks (free-speech is stifled).</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div>But Islamophobia is not pounced on with the same outrage that racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, and even homophobia are. Even before 9/11, Hollywood a<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgew5il0puH81GJVjG8URns36dqIorSQMzR-v21efkLWCJPGcC6xv0fUYFNkWyGf3pIYd2TAu2mwcfLw-mJIK79mMUHV5ZphX8Z1PY-poWzznSnJQ3r7QApmbv0_Cmohv0XfvzZ4_oNCrT3/s1600-h/executive_decision_ver1.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5232238465984837058" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 74px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 97px" height="127" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgew5il0puH81GJVjG8URns36dqIorSQMzR-v21efkLWCJPGcC6xv0fUYFNkWyGf3pIYd2TAu2mwcfLw-mJIK79mMUHV5ZphX8Z1PY-poWzznSnJQ3r7QApmbv0_Cmohv0XfvzZ4_oNCrT3/s200/executive_decision_ver1.jpg" width="96" border="0" /></a>nd the mainstream media almost always portrayed Muslims in an unflattering way. Muslim representation has ranged from the sexist oil sheik, to the racist ca<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5GoDwuOaLpkOC0OpfwOjVn53-anbNY9OoZNXb5qJ6dP9N5mNQU1VSs2fW37KV1U-Sh8jmTrKqGrF9QmH7OA8-h1siyUUZg4ZQZjRm1iEHGeZ21OKXttIMKu8tg25ugefbKHUYnFpENCeV/s1600-h/1217629~True-Lies-Posters.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5232238462961361378" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 75px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 127px" height="128" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg5GoDwuOaLpkOC0OpfwOjVn53-anbNY9OoZNXb5qJ6dP9N5mNQU1VSs2fW37KV1U-Sh8jmTrKqGrF9QmH7OA8-h1siyUUZg4ZQZjRm1iEHGeZ21OKXttIMKu8tg25ugefbKHUYnFpENCeV/s200/1217629~True-Lies-Posters.jpg" width="82" border="0" /></a>b driver, to the womanizing Persian, to the airplane hijacker. Granted, these Muslims exist, and they're not just a few people, but we've barely even seen token "good" Muslims. The consequence is that many people are less aware of what Islam really is. They watch movies like "Executive Decision" or TV shows like "24<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgZozzQLHuoWs-oTZweHnpr4ePvRtMQPDwnuwEUeTHzEfbYTwwqh55PabtzPRJhrYqVZFo-8acbHZIu0r366Z8LHExcE5bE9ycHFY_14Pkn848nCM3_60DBNcH78gOKVVruCXNcdnm5mDO/s1600-h/24.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5232238453283554770" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 106px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 94px" height="99" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgZozzQLHuoWs-oTZweHnpr4ePvRtMQPDwnuwEUeTHzEfbYTwwqh55PabtzPRJhrYqVZFo-8acbHZIu0r366Z8LHExcE5bE9ycHFY_14Pkn848nCM3_60DBNcH78gOKVVruCXNcdnm5mDO/s200/24.jpg" width="121" border="0" /></a>" and assume that Muslims are just a bunch of Jew-hating terrorists who pray to their mysterious god "Allah" and <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglsqUMU57eRT1pgjRtkd_iXk-VyGK5c_TD5iyHzCWWD-uMnjwiRdHEieeqSlqLY5GM8XU5Oe7GLBTcAiFg45IxS3-s697A4tqLuITey6PnVsYCjCkXaVxbJdkLRmPJdnNHF6WiQ08iesJ9/s1600-h/821415~The-Siege-Posters.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5232238458354484370" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 75px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 117px" height="129" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEglsqUMU57eRT1pgjRtkd_iXk-VyGK5c_TD5iyHzCWWD-uMnjwiRdHEieeqSlqLY5GM8XU5Oe7GLBTcAiFg45IxS3-s697A4tqLuITey6PnVsYCjCkXaVxbJdkLRmPJdnNHF6WiQ08iesJ9/s200/821415~The-Siege-Posters.jpg" width="96" border="0" /></a>honor-kill their daughters because their holy book the Koran commands them to do it. Every single time a nutjob Muslim commits a crime, the stereotype is reinforced. The reinforcement turns into resignation and acceptance. The acceptance manifests itself as prejudice.<br /></div><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv_hchZE9NuoBQ85j_krKcBeCyL3-3mXckq7Uf0gkl3l_4Duy_zb_ArLWipyJaTtHthc2kPfftIjJ5stXMzZIMQS2881N1rDNekfmMTcs_kprR6oa4zJJRg-XfoennvRaTgZjJmRRhzYgw/s1600-h/080528_ray.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5232239267620528274" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" height="93" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjv_hchZE9NuoBQ85j_krKcBeCyL3-3mXckq7Uf0gkl3l_4Duy_zb_ArLWipyJaTtHthc2kPfftIjJ5stXMzZIMQS2881N1rDNekfmMTcs_kprR6oa4zJJRg-XfoennvRaTgZjJmRRhzYgw/s200/080528_ray.jpg" width="143" border="0" /></a>Consequently, anything that is related to Islam is now tied to terrorism. From Rachel Ray's <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Story?id=4949437&page=1">sc</a><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Story?id=4949437&page=1">arf</a> to Barack Obama's name, fear has overtaken reason. Apathy has been substituted in place of the pursuit of knowledge. Theology and dogma now explains <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEifB1DkrPw1rbcl8Vb0r3jWS70CixNsPvocY5o2Pqgs0ZMSXPaxM9nybMhCKzQZz15ucnrQY6DRC9QS3ROjqiIZ2usGJYZAlcW3B6U7EP4GuncuP1fgTKhZtLN8iRT7yzW4bvizQ8BzReXK/s1600-h/obama-robes.jpg"></a>the behavior of all Muslims, even though theology and dogma have little place in everyday American life.<br /><br /></div><div>And where are the so-called "moderate" Muslims? Where are their voices? If they are so moderate, why are they not doing more to condemn the actions of extremists? Several months ago, I gave my <a href="http://theequivocator.blogspot.com/2007/10/why-dont-muslims-condemn-islamist.html">answer</a> to those questions. Since then, little has changed. Muslims and non-Muslims alike don't talk. The silence breeds further acceptance of negative stereotypes, and it continues from there.<br /></div><div>One of the causes of this silence is the sad fact that no one really knows where to go to find answers to their questions. While political correctness has its place, the fear of being un-PC too often dampens people's reasonable questions. It's risky to sound unaware, lest being unaware becomes tantamount to ignorance. I disagree. Ignorance, to me, implies the knowledge of something's existence, while consciously ignoring or seeking out the truth. Being willfully ignorant is a redunancy. Not being aware of something is different; at least it's somewhat excusable.<br /></div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwQU_caMgocUaryLBzgs6rb7Xl2wfzwFfmsDyeHPrBG3j_nPrZKCnPwOoeLg-6ufF4KcQZ0D6Lb65nL4tMGYwuLm7G_ehOhOhpDijqUwmZySMfF7m0EIwLs4aOztmmqo7g9Urz2nW0qzob/s1600-h/mattson2x-large.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5232238551359667458" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 101px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 135px" height="85" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwQU_caMgocUaryLBzgs6rb7Xl2wfzwFfmsDyeHPrBG3j_nPrZKCnPwOoeLg-6ufF4KcQZ0D6Lb65nL4tMGYwuLm7G_ehOhOhpDijqUwmZySMfF7m0EIwLs4aOztmmqo7g9Urz2nW0qzob/s200/mattson2x-large.jpg" width="101" border="0" /></a><br /></div><div>So where does one go for answers about Islam? The most obvious answer is, well, Muslims. And when you talk to Muslims, you'll find out that their way of life is not all about reading the Koran, or praying five times a day, or even abstaining from pork and alcohol. Dogma may be the foundation of belief, but because Leviticus says that homosexuality is forbidden doesn't mean that there aren't gay Jews.</div><div></div><div><br /></div><div>Communication is the foundation of all learning. Once communication has been established and the facts have been ascertained, we can then make our judgments. Any conclusion made without all the facts is premature judgment, hence the term <em>prejudice</em>. And that has to stop.</div>Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-39216838349407113162008-07-01T08:28:00.010-04:002008-07-14T12:08:02.521-04:00How do you deal with the Unreasonable?In July 1, 2008's Op-Ed Section of <em>The Washington Post</em>, columnist Richard Cohen wrote a <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/30/AR2008063001904.html?hpid=opinionsbox1">piece </a>that touched on a sentiment that I've had growing in me since the start of the new century. The article itself is a criticism of Senator John McCain's search for endorsements from famous members of the American clergy, most notably Billy and Richard Graham. He writes that "the endorsement of such clergymen has been sought by virtually every Republican presidential candidate of our times," a practice that Cohen feels is "disquieting."<br /><br /><div><div>I understand where Cohen is coming from. The pursuit of approval from the faithful is a necessary one to undertake if one is to get anywhere in politics. Since most of America (and, indeed, the world) either practices a religion or holds a belief in reverence for the supernatural, professing a faith is the easiest way to gain trust. In America, it's Christianity.</div><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9IW_qR-fI1UjEb5oDcbcCrDzIOZC8WfdqVgIDXnbi6ZojL0saeZc7orHRRHhAeHWLNnf7v9c4UY1Qb8R1SBfE-p_8G1GT6uDISu7VAqtNZ-9-e1kVUSTia0nZGInHi4yKhsv7jrHrX377/s1600-h/romney.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5218065142022485410" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh9IW_qR-fI1UjEb5oDcbcCrDzIOZC8WfdqVgIDXnbi6ZojL0saeZc7orHRRHhAeHWLNnf7v9c4UY1Qb8R1SBfE-p_8G1GT6uDISu7VAqtNZ-9-e1kVUSTia0nZGInHi4yKhsv7jrHrX377/s200/romney.jpg" border="0" /></a>Most Americans who have faith weren't really concerned about Mitt Romney's bid for the presidency. True, he had to come out and defend his faith, but at the end of the day, Romney was accepted in a way that wouldn't have been possible if he hadn't been religious at all. In other words, better to have a different faith in Jesus than no faith in Jesus at all.</div><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHObGq-peSNYpHLsWIcl4oANp7Oiu1Gu4G_3rBjT1zRgs9QI9Z_HF6oU-VX8E7xTwxkkB588kWNi7fAWMyMKOwS_XSnUJ1MxHI96S-XRIcIoX9_bWkuwXObzvzVE6bIViNrvTdWaEnVZX6/s1600-h/einstein.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5218065387436666114" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjHObGq-peSNYpHLsWIcl4oANp7Oiu1Gu4G_3rBjT1zRgs9QI9Z_HF6oU-VX8E7xTwxkkB588kWNi7fAWMyMKOwS_XSnUJ1MxHI96S-XRIcIoX9_bWkuwXObzvzVE6bIViNrvTdWaEnVZX6/s200/einstein.jpg" border="0" /></a>I've noticed that an individual's piety is seen as the redeeming quality behind even the most scientific and reasonable of people. Albert Einstein's research fundamentally altered the way in which the universe is seen and questions the concept of predestination, but rest assured, Einstein himself could not fully comprehend the magnitude of his discoveries. "God does not play dice," he is famously quoted; ergo, since Einstein believed in the supernatural, so must we all.</div><br /><div>In <em>The Assault on Reason</em>, Al Gore methodically traces the pattern on how Americans, through television and the 24-hour news networks, have given up on their heritage of Enlightened reason to surrender to gut instinct. It's a brilliant argument, but it later seems disingenuous when he attempts to balance reason with faith.<br /></div><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZtXQbSH3O-9sRnRjHryYkz7Xb_nT64DWbEbmtQ4Q9E1cmHboPjuTGPwnDOBb1_TrzK57vz8quNJW0quDj_p0wvmYVuV4mh9g6Vs5ZMYcVvUvobZbtnLoMAGIKK6mXqqHPfEjZptvZHIJP/s1600-h/trajectory.gif"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5218065501722098818" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjZtXQbSH3O-9sRnRjHryYkz7Xb_nT64DWbEbmtQ4Q9E1cmHboPjuTGPwnDOBb1_TrzK57vz8quNJW0quDj_p0wvmYVuV4mh9g6Vs5ZMYcVvUvobZbtnLoMAGIKK6mXqqHPfEjZptvZHIJP/s200/trajectory.gif" border="0" /></a>Cohen notes that piety can "excuse ... ignorance and intolerance." It's true. How often have we forgiven people because they either found Jesus, or converted to Islam, or turned to Buddhism? And how often have logical arguments screeched to a grinding halt when a matter of faith is brought up? In fact, the only way reason is able to progress is for matters of faith to be ignored. Even amongst scientists who have faith, their faith is compartmentalized in a place that is accessed only at sporadic times. This compartmentalization is necessary in order for science to progress. When trying to chart the trajectory of a falling particle into the gravity well of a singularity, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount doesn't have much applicability.</div><br /><div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr3ugDH3w3oMD3I6KeeHIpKBppoNGNpsZftvpQzeVzeRqs1azKvyQmapZ1rhAsI6NONyX3bONE36n51yl0teg8PbvGOqDCg7yigprH1NOSRNeheYs0cKVtuANgdbjLJ5b-Si_Xh5fYe-en/s1600-h/727-ground-zero-cross.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5218065503840548866" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhr3ugDH3w3oMD3I6KeeHIpKBppoNGNpsZftvpQzeVzeRqs1azKvyQmapZ1rhAsI6NONyX3bONE36n51yl0teg8PbvGOqDCg7yigprH1NOSRNeheYs0cKVtuANgdbjLJ5b-Si_Xh5fYe-en/s200/727-ground-zero-cross.jpg" border="0" /></a>Faith, by definition, is unreasonable. It causes wonder, that there's something greater than what we can see, no matter what tools humanity can invent to see farther or smaller than ever before. It is the source of inspiration that can drive a believer to handle venomous snakes without fear or stand up for civil rights. It's also the source of courage that allows a man or woman to willingly strap on explosives and kill. It's the screen through which we can ignore destruction and see something totally different and unrelated. And in this modern age, it is seen as the ultimate trump card to an individual's character and trustworthiness -- that no matter what his or her reasoned or scientific background, that individual is willing to allow the unprovable to supercede documented evidence.</div><br /><div>And so it goes. Time and again, American politicians will court the faithful by underlining their own faith. And time and again, Americans will follow those who show the most faith in their beliefs. But it must be stressed that although following the faithful may have led us to legislated equality, the faithful also led us to believe there were WMDs in Iraq.</div></div>Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-62654720164029803842008-06-20T10:14:00.003-04:002008-06-20T11:50:18.911-04:00Charles Krauthammer is an idiot.I leave it to you, the lonely readers of this blog, to discover on your own just how unreasonable Dr. Charles Krauthammer can be. I will not give examples, and I will not post links. Reading this man's stuff is one of the most painful things a person can do. In my opinion, he is worse, yes <em>worse</em>, than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, or Bill O'Reilly, as a conservative voice who blows things out of proportion in order to misleads (intentionally or not) the public into believing what he says has actual merit in reason.<br /><br />There are some conservative columnists that I can read with a sense of appreciation for their viewpoint. The best was, of course, the late William F. Buckley. Today, the most palatable conservative columnists (at least in <em>The Washington Post</em>) consist of Michael Gerson, George Will, and sometimes, even Robert Novak. Their conservative slant is obvious, but it is usually tempered with reasoned arguments stemming from their own political ideology. You can take these men seriously. Hannity, Coulter, and O'Reilly (like Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher on the other side) don't use reason to support their opinions, and so intelligent people, both on the left and the right, recognize that these individuals' rants are exactly that: rants. Nothing more than entertainment that tries to pass itself off as news, and never to be taken seriously.<br /><br />What makes Krauthammer worse than these ranters is that he is expected to be taken seriously. He's a featured columnist in <em>The Washington Post</em> and is a panelist on <em>Inside Washington</em>. Go ahead. Read his work. Then do your own homework on what he writes about. After that, get back to me on why any reasonable person should take him seriously.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-74329244827138122272008-05-16T15:42:00.003-04:002008-05-16T16:40:37.977-04:00“As California goes…”“…so goes the rest of the nation. It's inevitable. This door's wide open now. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not.”<br /><br />So said San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom on Thursday, May 14, 2008 after the California Supreme Court ruled against a ban on same-sex marriage. Spectators cheered. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was supportive.<br /><br />Opponents are fuming. How could a Catholic mayor and a Republican governor allow this affront to the institution of marriage to occur? They are crying inappropriate judicial activism (as if there were any other kind). I call it progress too long in coming.<br /><br />How ironic is it that gay marriage would be legal in states under Republican governorships (Schwarzenegger in California, Mitt Romney in Massachusetts)? Log cabin Republicans notwithstanding, members of the Republican Party are stereotypically seen as bigots; they hate gays (except hot lesbians), immigrants, minorities, and the poor. Bambi’s mother was probably shot by a gun-loving Republican hunter. (I kid; the hunter was a Libertarian.)<br /><br />But I digress. The court’s ruling is an important step in the long march toward true equality. The court did exactly what I did when defending gay marriage to a fellow student in my Civil Rights history class: they used the precedent of a 1948 ruling that struck down a ban on interracial marriage.<br /><br />Although it’s a bit touchy to compare anti-miscegenation laws to bans on same-sex marriage, both the ban on interracial marriage and the ban on gay marriage have interesting parallels in the proponents for those bans. They said that miscegenation and homosexuality were unnatural and sacrilegious. Blacks and homosexuals have both been considered less than human, and violence has been perpetrated against both groups, killing innocents. And while homosexuals have had an advantage in being able to hide their orientation (a “luxury” Blacks don’t have), the cost of being discovered can be a terrible price to pay, depending on where one lives.<br /><br />I don’t expect bigots to read this blog, but in case they do, listen up. The time is approaching when your stupidity will be exposed as such. Homophobia will be perceived as something quaint and outdated, like burning witches, black and white TV, or paying for long distance calls. You will go the way of the dinosaur, the dodo, and Laserdiscs. And when you become artifacts relegated to dusty halls of antiquity, you will be observed not with awe or interest, but with the disdain that comes with looking at how shamefully humanity once behaved. It's inevitable. It's going to happen, whether you like it or not. In order for you to survive, you must adapt and evolve.<br /><br />What am I saying? You probably don’t believe in evolution either.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-3525997629670003912008-05-12T15:44:00.004-04:002008-05-13T09:35:04.870-04:00The Elitist Films of Brad Bird<div align="center"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwMm1UeF1LUdfyMsGPQMCij3j-XOxe6Q9mmo8S5laaT2D-V_T_rJtnuZedyW-6_SvRbqiwwhpU1YWlT1V7zHZRKAG4GkAos1iNd2LvHk-7WtouCCfIM9hCau0mfBcvNbW90H9gaNGdqJAO/s1600-h/incredibles.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5199854033783086674" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgwMm1UeF1LUdfyMsGPQMCij3j-XOxe6Q9mmo8S5laaT2D-V_T_rJtnuZedyW-6_SvRbqiwwhpU1YWlT1V7zHZRKAG4GkAos1iNd2LvHk-7WtouCCfIM9hCau0mfBcvNbW90H9gaNGdqJAO/s200/incredibles.jpg" border="0" /></a> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqrcW2TUbNnzz2O_CzT3K2Dl2Qt3H41Rj4c8nX2gQZJB2fxJblNPftKWkPYP0m02nDYclXIMrNBI37aiQDi4epZbRZXxBrzAwTDGoT028q3aWAcGfuULaC72qSfUNLCYvdYpUjdAkX2DqF/s1600-h/obamamuncie.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5199854038078053986" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiqrcW2TUbNnzz2O_CzT3K2Dl2Qt3H41Rj4c8nX2gQZJB2fxJblNPftKWkPYP0m02nDYclXIMrNBI37aiQDi4epZbRZXxBrzAwTDGoT028q3aWAcGfuULaC72qSfUNLCYvdYpUjdAkX2DqF/s200/obamamuncie.jpg" border="0" /></a><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPUZAWGcHd9kNwc4HWVBrNHsA0EbRKpltmbUPE8wywoqMN2l6HjbvkASTpcB3-vsrDvhjAEZcDBF70TEzGXtQqHNX6lUhY97iv_6krguXCw99EmElK-iEreWrYnQzjhwBFnZnvobhHNfkJ/s1600-h/remy.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5199854042373021298" style="CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiPUZAWGcHd9kNwc4HWVBrNHsA0EbRKpltmbUPE8wywoqMN2l6HjbvkASTpcB3-vsrDvhjAEZcDBF70TEzGXtQqHNX6lUhY97iv_6krguXCw99EmElK-iEreWrYnQzjhwBFnZnvobhHNfkJ/s200/remy.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><br /><br /></div><div align="left"></div><div align="left"></div><div align="left">On April 6, 2008, Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) attended a fundraiser in San Francisco. There, he stated:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.<br /></span><br />His opponents quickly jumped on the words “bitter” and “cling to guns or religion” and labeled Obama as an “elitist.”<br /><br />It is important to understand what the word “elitist” connotes. While “elite” stands for the best of the best, the pinnacle of achievement, the word “elitist” carries with it implications of snobbery and condescension stemming from a sense of presumptuous superiority. In other words, people want to be elite; nobody wants to be elitist. From my experience, this is a uniquely American sentiment. I challenge someone to find a non-American equivalent to the rhetorical saying, “What, you think you’re better than me?!” Chances are, if that question was asked in another country, someone would actually answer “Yes” and not feel the slightest ounce of shame or embarrassment if his response was accurate.<br /><br />There is a certain characteristic about each of us that can be difficult to discuss. It’s not race, gender, religion, or even sexuality (though these are at many times difficult to honestly discuss). No, in America, even the most open-minded and equivocating liberal can get squeamish when discussing the characteristic of achievement. If you are the best at something, you had better keep it to yourself, lest you sound like you are bragging, and nobody likes a braggart. Bragging hurts people’s feelings, and is relegated to the caricatured world of hip-hop.<br /><br />Well, there is one non-rapper in whom elitism has found a sympathetic voice. His name is Brad Bird, and he is the writer and director of the Academy-Award winning Pixar movies <em>The Incredibles</em> and <em>Ratatouille</em>. These two movies not only are about the elite, but these movies celebrate elitism.<br /><br />Brad Bird has been outspoken in his support for animation as a tool to express his vision. Listening to him during his interviews on the DVD extras, I easily got the impression that he thinks very highly of himself. What’s more, I couldn’t disagree, certainly not after watching his movies. Bird knows not only knows how to tell a story, he knows what kind of story he feels he needs to tell. And the common thread binding The Incredibles and Ratatouille is the pride one should have in being the best.<br /><br />In both movies, the protagonists never had to work for their skills; both the Incredible family and Remy the rat were born with their powers and palate, respectively. In <em>The Incredibles</em>, Mr. Incredible is frustrated at having to hide his power, and is mad that his super-fast son Dash isn’t allowed to compete in sports. When he objects to attending his Dash’s “graduation” from the fourth grade to the fifth, he exclaims, “[A ceremony is] psychotic! They keep creating new ways to celebrate mediocrity…” And who is the villain in this movie? A smart, yet disillusioned, inventor, bitter that his youthful efforts were rejected by Mr. Incredible. His master plan is to equalize the playing field by selling his inventions to give ordinary people super powers; in his words, “when everyone’s super, no one will be.”</div><div align="left"><br />In <em>Ratatouille</em>, there are two characters that illustrate Bird’s elitist streak: Remy the rat, and Anton Ego, the appropriately named food critic. Both Remy and Ego consider themselves superior in knowing what tastes good. Other movies would have painted Ego as someone who didn’t know anything about what he critiqued and turned him into some sort of buffoon (much the same way Bob Balaban’s critic character in M. Night Shyamalan’s <em>The Lady in the Water</em> was portrayed). But his monologue at the end of the film makes this stuck-up food critic a sympathetic character:<br /><br /><span style="font-size:85%;">In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new, an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: Anyone can cook. But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more.<br /></span><br />It is not too much of a stretch to see that Bird is using Ego to plead a case for himself; Bird is a man of “new talent,” and the world of animation showcases the “new creations” that have the potential to rock even the most stodgy film critics to their core.<br /><br />Unfortunately, Bird’s films leave out two very important facets of achievement. The first is the potential emptiness that comes from being at the top. At the end of the movie, notice how after Dash easily wins a school race, he jogs off the track with a smug look on his face. Dash is the fastest runner in his school, no doubt. But what would happen to his mentality after winning every race without even trying? What would Dash gain from effortless wins at trivial contests? Second, Bird’s films do not focus on something that I’ve found to be true in all people: that everyone is good in at least one thing if they try. For Linguini, the would-be chef, it’s roller skating. For Remy’s father, it’s leadership over an entire colony. No, not just anyone can cook, but anyone can do something well.<br /><br />It is this dismissal of other people’s achievements that is the dark side of elitism. This dismissal stems from an inability to equivocate. And from what I’ve seen, Senator Obama is the most equivocal politician since Adlai Stevenson. Obama is an elite senator; he is definitely not an elitist.</div>Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-86306910738472666022008-02-26T14:01:00.009-05:002008-05-20T16:10:30.304-04:00The Power of YouthIn November of 2004, Rolling Stone Magazine published its list of "<a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/500songs">The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time</a>." Of course, they only took note of songs released after 1950 (with one exception released in 1949), so Chopin's Polonaise in A-Flat Major and Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture did not make the list. (That's a travesty, because the 1812 Overture has cannonfire as percussion. <em>Cannonfire!</em>) If one were to take the list at face value, it would appear that the 1960s was the only decade that produced music worth listening to. Virtually every Beatles, Beach Boys, and Rolling Stones song is on this list. The number one song is "Like a Rolling Stone," by Bob Dylan, undoubtedly picked for only two reasons: the title, and Bob Dylan. The most recent song to make the list (at the time of publication) was "Hey Ya," by Outkast, coming in at #180. That's a nice song, but better than "Thriller," by Michael Jackson (which didn't even make the list)?<br /><br />To me, the list is indicative of one of the more interesting facets of human nature: how different age groups perceive each other. In 1967, when Rolling Stone Magazine was first published, it was representative of the hippie folk scene that defined counterculture at the time. While youths were fighting, killing, and dying in Vietnam, other youths were protesting the war. Today, many of those youths are grandparents, and like all grandparents before them, they think that things were a lot better when they were in charge.<br /><br />It's easy to scoff at personalities like Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) or Andy Rooney, and for good reason. These are men who are set in their ways and seem to be confused at the advances in technology (Senator Stevens infamously compared the Internet as "a series of tubes"). But put in perspective, the editors at Rolling Stone Magazine are not that far behind. For all intents and purposes, the compilers of that list were the elderly. Maybe not in terms of numerical age, but definitely in terms of state of mind.<br /><br />In all cultures, humanity is taught to respect its elders. After all, they've lived longer, and presumably have survived many of the same experiences that youth inevitably goes through. Their survival is evidence of their wisdom, and it would behoove young people to pay attention to what the elders have to say, lest youth set themselves upon a course that is irreversibly destructive.<br /><br />What the elderly consistently seem to forget is that throughout history, it is its youth that provides the vision and will to explore radical ideas, ideas that help shape humanity's course through time as forward progression, not reactionary regression. Paradoxically, as time progresses, these trailblazing youths are accepted into the establishment and are cited as evidence of the power of age and wisdom. However, we don't see this because we focus on the outrageous negativity that seems to generate from young people simply because they are young. We condemn Lindsay Lohan as an alcoholic, but it's OK to hear stories of how Peter O'Toole went on a bender with Richard Harris back in the day, or nostalgically remember the good old days of John Belushi.<br /><br />Yet humanity always expresses suprise and admiration when a young person does something noteworthy, as if accomplishment is reserved only for the aged. Let's look at four historical figures and their ages when they first burst onto the scene:<br /><br />Name: Albert Einstein<br />Accomplishment: Theory of Relativity, redefining old Newtonian notions of gravity and time<br />Age: 26<br /><br />Name: Martin Luther King<br />Accomplishment: Led Montgomery Bus Boycott, kick-starting the Civil Rights Movement<br />Age: 26<br /><br />Name: Thomas Jefferson<br />Accomplishment: Wrote the Declaration of Independence, a document that applied Enlightenment ideals in political ideology<br />Age: 33<br /><br />Name: Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart<br />Accomplishment: Dying <em>before</em> he became really popular<br />Age: 35<br /><br />Who else? Post whom you think we should remember as an icon of youthful innovation.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-47033372021402028872008-01-31T13:09:00.000-05:002008-02-01T16:59:25.599-05:00Why Correct Pronounciation is So ImportantIf you live in or near a diverse metropolitan area such as Washington, DC, you'll hear more than your share of weird names. By "weird," of course I mean "difficult to figure out how to say." However (at least here in the DC metro area), it is way more unusual to run into an easy-to-pronounce English, Jewish, or Latino name (such as Williams, Cohen, or Lopez) than it is to run into those harder-to-pronounce names of the rest of the world. Names are things each of us takes very seriously, especially when it comes to our own. It can be a source of great frustration if your name isn't easily pronouncable; I know that my North African last name isn't common, but it's not that hard to get correct, and I am very grateful when my name is pronounced correctly on the first try.<br /><br />Of course, I can forgive people not being able to get my name right away. After all, my last name is unique to a family originally from the coastal town of Hammam-Sousse, Tunisia. But when it comes to names that we, as Americans, should all know how to pronounce correctly, I get very picky. I know I'm not the only one. On January 18, 2008, Michelle Obama's <a href="http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/michelle-obama.html">mispronounciation</a> of Nevada elicited some dismayed reactions from her audience. To her credit, Ms. Obama immediately and fervently corrected her pronounciation.<br /><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM9fiUeXVN0ihoaxWyWmAjyO60k1vb5Bwr_n6LRLgOXew1XJD0s-o2ahPYlo4Id04XePc7NicznfLdvdxROWYwfolI47egqdmaXz4y38ODlle2smG579XeTU2kfggy2D2f3CNhpLAmksMW/s1600-h/george-w-bush.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5162057623534488882" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 112px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 149px" height="159" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhM9fiUeXVN0ihoaxWyWmAjyO60k1vb5Bwr_n6LRLgOXew1XJD0s-o2ahPYlo4Id04XePc7NicznfLdvdxROWYwfolI47egqdmaXz4y38ODlle2smG579XeTU2kfggy2D2f3CNhpLAmksMW/s200/george-w-bush.jpg" width="128" border="0" /></a><br /><br />It may sound elitist to criticize the pronounciation of certain words, but it is extremely difficult to take someone seriously when that person pronounces the word <em>nuclear </em>as "noo-kyuh-luhr." Or when "jaguar" is pronounced "jag-wire." "Birff-day," "ex-scape," and nowadays, "eye-rack" for "Iraq" are other examples.<br /><br />But why bother? You might wonder who cares about the difference between saying "neh-VAAH-duh" (incorrect) or "nuh-VAD-uh" (correct)? Well, for starters, Nevadans do. Learning how to pronounce names as they should be pronounced shows a degree of consideration to others. Not bothering to care about what may seem small to one person is the antithesis to equivocation. In the end, it's about caring and respect.<br /><br />Here are some places that I've learned how to pronounce correctly:<br /><ul><li><em>Helena, Montana</em>. It's HEL-luh-nuh, not huh-LAY-nuh. I actually called the <a href="http://helenacvb.visitmt.com/">city</a> to confirm. Coincidentally, it's the way my daughter's name should be pronounced.</li><li><em>Worcester </em>or <em>Gloucester, Massachusetts</em>: It's "wuss-ster" or "gloss-ster." Think of the "worce-" or "glouce-" as one syllable. Ironically, citizens of those cities can't pronounce "Harvard" correctly.</li><li><em>Concord, New Hampshire</em>. Pronounced exactly like "conquered."</li></ul><p>Any other names or things you wish people would pronounce correctly?</p>Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-11733341790120781232008-01-18T10:12:00.000-05:002008-01-18T12:43:38.093-05:00Liberal Fascism?! Well, maybe...On Wednesday, January 16, 2008, conservative author Jonah Goldberg went on "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" to discuss and plug his new book <em>Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning</em>. As Stewart prefaced prior to its showing , the interview was heavily edited for time. In six minutes of an allegedly 18-minute interview, we were shown Goldberg's attempt to show how liberalism, in the neoconservative stereotype, is closer to fascism than liberals would care to admit. We were also shown Stewart's obvious disdain for that opinion.<br /><br />Let this be clear: I'm a very liberal guy, politically and socially. I believe that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, and I believe that there should be legislation to prevent discrimination against gay marriage. I believe in the benefits of gun control and free speech. I believe that those who can afford it should be taxed higher. But there are times when attitudes no longer become simply liberal, but leftist.<br /><br />While I don't plan on reading Goldberg's book, I can pretty much guess that he has a warped opinion on what most liberals in America believe. His stereotype of a liberal is a probably pot-smoking, organic-food-buying vegan atheist who supports an authoritarian welfare state and would sooner sympathize with a terrorist or illegal immigrant than with Larry the Cable Guy. Goldberg believes the organic-food craze is just like the Nazi urge to push for a pure existence to further the master race.<br /><br />The thing is, I've seen symptoms of these beliefs in the posts, blogs, and discussions I've had with other liberals. Think about the organic food craze: we feel pressured to buy organic, especially for our children. Why? Will eating a non-organic apple or genetically-enhanced cow turn me or my child into a freak of nature? Of course not, but we'll pay the larger cost for the peace of mind that nothing "unnatural" is in our bodies. There absolutely nothing wrong with eating organic, but what gets lost is that there is nothing wrong with <em>not</em> eating organic. (Of course, when we get sick, we'll pop those pills and rub those creams to remedy our illnesses, regardless of whether or not they're organic.) It's about the fear.<br /><br />We are quick to blame the neoconservatives in this nation for fear-mongering. They wish us to fear that illegal immigrants are taking our jobs and bringing crime into this country; fear that terrorist attacks are imminent; fear that welfare means higher taxes and breeds apathy; stricter gun regulation translates to less safety and more government control.<br /><br />But what about traditional liberal worries? Are they any less about fear-mongering? What about the fear of global warming? The fear of religious autocracy? Eating McDonald's? So while neocons play upon the fears to promote their agendas, so do liberals. What liberal doesn't feel proud to buy at Whole Foods or Trader Joe's? What liberal wouldn't be feel good driving a hybrid? What liberal wouldn't feel safer with stricter gun laws or more secure with guaranteed government handouts? And all liberals are politically correct, whether they would admit to it or not.<br /><br />No, political correctness, while a lot like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak">Newspeak</a>, won't lead to a dystopia like <em>1984</em>. Eating organic won't turn you or your child into a Nazi. But liberals need to recognize where opposition to left-wing ideology comes from, because the opposition is not without merit. Each of us needs to take a look at who we listen to, and who we don't. Chances are, those that we ignore or summarily dismiss may offer some valid points once in a while.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-31064587713592917782008-01-18T09:13:00.000-05:002008-01-18T10:12:40.836-05:00Senator Clinton is a racist...NOT!What do DVRs and headlines have in common? Both are a convenience to the average American who can't seem to find enough hours in a day to do everything. We can't watch all the television we want when we want it (writer's strike notwithstanding), and we can't read all the news that's out there. We can wait for television, so it's recorded for later consumption; news is a different story. Since news develops at such a rapid pace, we need concise headlines that are attention-grabbing and may not necessarily tell the whole truth. While we now have more time to devote to other pursuits, it comes at the expense of reason and deduction. Politicians use this facet of our reliance on instant gratification (whether consciously or not) to twist innocuous statements into something completely different. For example, I can say, "I once volunteered to work at a Boys and Girls club because I enjoyed the company of children," and it can be reported as:<br /><ul><li>32-year-old Man Enjoys Company of Young Boys, or</li><li>Blogger Worked with Girls at Club</li></ul><p>Take Senator Hillary Clinton's statement that was blown out of proportion: "I would point to the fact that Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done...That dream became a reality, the power of that dream became real in people's lives because we had a president who said we are going to do it and actually got it accomplished."</p><p>The statement was truncated into various forms, but the most repeated sentences and phrases were the first sentence and "it took a president to get it done." The Obama camp made Clinton out to be a racist for seemingly diminishing the impact that Martin Luther King, Jr. had in the Civil Right Movement. Charles Krauthammer <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/17/AR2008011702239.html?hpid=opinionsbox1">wrote</a> correctly that Clinton's comment was not racist, but erroneously inferred that Clinton was comparing herself to President Johnson and Obama was like Dr. King, a "charismatic dreamer."</p><p>Both the Obama camp and Krauthammer are inaccurate. Watching the video and reading the words offers a clear picture of what Senator Clinton was talking about: she was talking about how important it was to have a strong president to carry out the dreams and visions that needed to be realized. The Civil Rights Act was used as an <em>example</em>, and was not the subject of Clinton's statement.</p><p>I'm happy that the Obama and Clinton camps are putting this behind them, but this incident will fester in people's minds, because the knee-jerk reaction to truncated statements and headlines is so powerful that it overwhelms our sense of reason. It degenerates (as always) into a "you're a <fill>," "Am not!" "Are, too!" "Am not!" that is easier to absorb and understand the complexity that is life.</p><p>And we also don't have the time.</p>Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-80213119204564243972008-01-15T14:56:00.000-05:002008-01-15T17:05:38.131-05:00The Birth of Helena Kara Latiri: Gross and AWESOME (Part 2 of 2)Continued from <a href="http://theequivocator.blogspot.com/2008/01/birth-of-helena-kara-latiri-gross-and.html">Part 1</a>...<br /><div></div><br /><div>The Birth.</div><div></div><br /><div>I was surprised. As Dr. VanMilder got dressed for the delivery and the nurse was preparing all of the tools and instruments and lighting necessary, I must confess that my mind was not on anything specific. I thought about how quiet the delivery ward was. I thought about the consequences of having a child's birthday on New Year's, and how it was less than two weeks before my wife's birthday and only one week after Christmas, less than a month after our wedding anniversary, and how much budgeting would have to go into gift-giving each winter. I thought it was awesome that Heather's contractions didn't lead her to scream obscenities (which I was preparing myself for), but instead, took place while she napped. I thought of the wonders of modern medicine, while at the same time appreciating that females of all species have been giving birth to offspring for eons.</div><br /><div>The nurse disassembled the foot of the bed, which slid away to reveal stirrups on either side of the bed. The nurse quickly assembled them, and I thought it was like a giant Transformer toy. Then I noticed that the doctor was <em>still</em> getting dressed. By this point, the doctor had put on overgarments over her scrubs, at least two pairs of gloves, foot coverings up to her shins, and a face shield similar to the one I wore when I serviced liquid oxygen to the LOX converters on F-15s. The nurse herself had on a pair of latex gloves, and I felt extremely contagious, because I was only dressed in my street clothes. No mask, no gloves, just a long-sleeved shirt, jeans, and sneakers. Meanwhile, the doctor looked as if she was prepared to shoot tear gas into a mob as she stood between my wife's spread legs.</div><br /><div>Heather's feet were on the stirrups; the nurse was on Heather's left side, and I was on the right. I had a clear view of what can now only be described as "birth canal." It had grown in size since I'd last seen it, and of course, that made sense. But I was surprised, because it's not something that anyone had ever really taught, whether in sex ed or in birthing class. We learn all about the uterus and even the steps of labor, but being a guy, that information really went in one ear and out the other. Guys are usually just grateful that they don't have to ever experience that. They should be, too, because to be honest, it was a bloody mess. Fluids were oozing out, and there was a smell. Of course, I didn't really care, but these are observations that people are afraid of making.</div><br /><div>The doctor then instructed Heather to start pushing during the next contraction, and Heather did just that as the nurse and I held on to each of Heather's legs. When the doctor yelled "Push!" and the nurse gave an authoritative count of "One...two...three..." all the way to ten, I realized that this was it. This was what we all see in the movies and television, and boy this wasn't anything like that. It was quiet, intimate, private, comfortable, and safe. For my part, there was no animosity, no stress, just this act of biology that I was witnessing live for the first time. I wasn't watching Lifetime; I was watching Animal Planet.</div><br /><div>After the fourth set of three pushes, I saw the generous amount of hair that signified my daughter's head was approaching. I wasn't sure which part of her head I was looking at, so I thought that the baby's head was just the size of my fist. The doctor's fingers were kneading and spreading, as the hair kept creeping closer and closer to the exit. On the seventh set of pushes, the amount of hair grew and grew and grew! When her face slid out from underneath, my jaw hit the floor. I was looking at the most unnatural sight I'd ever seen in my life.</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbRLa-fxP-pk148u1DW4mt4iV9FRJc97ufxvELC9TiYVuWP_Y_O_q96KilM2Ry1bI9qLVPOM6uc6FCxtJthBU6gb-xiYAqKU9qsptDkLwbbGGus34I-kOpOF5kXvUBgL_pqX2vS2cXEqD2/s1600-h/259266-kuato.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5155822086450888578" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbRLa-fxP-pk148u1DW4mt4iV9FRJc97ufxvELC9TiYVuWP_Y_O_q96KilM2Ry1bI9qLVPOM6uc6FCxtJthBU6gb-xiYAqKU9qsptDkLwbbGGus34I-kOpOF5kXvUBgL_pqX2vS2cXEqD2/s200/259266-kuato.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>There she was, my daughter's face, sticking out between my wife's legs, and the only thing I could think of was Kuato saying "Quaid...start the reactor..."</div><br /><div>With the ninth and final set of pushes, the doctor delivered Helena out from the womb. The first thing that I needed to see was that Helena was, indeed, a girl. You see, ever since her 20-week ultrasound, I'd been concerned that she might be a boy. Nothing wrong with that by itself, but all of the pink clothes and dresses and tights and "It's a Girl!" themed gifts would be wasted, not to mention my embarrassment at preparing the whole world for something different. So when Helena came out, all I could see was her back, which made the wait for gender verification even longer. Even when the doctor exclaimed, "Here she is!" I still wanted to see for myself. When the doctor handed Helena to Heather to hold, I sighed with relief.</div><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj62VV_FyGdp23RMSo1jQ6Vmh6CatrxX_Fwh8zpO52-_f6IGrd3qvcGQmPM0fPGSvbIxeADuA3vLQo6GqKrMr6owNuQ7mqL_sCYwieqcFLCYNyfZg1SWtwtQeBhlDbCHP77NmChsJMHK_Bn/s1600-h/dir_07_letoblue.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5155822086450888594" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj62VV_FyGdp23RMSo1jQ6Vmh6CatrxX_Fwh8zpO52-_f6IGrd3qvcGQmPM0fPGSvbIxeADuA3vLQo6GqKrMr6owNuQ7mqL_sCYwieqcFLCYNyfZg1SWtwtQeBhlDbCHP77NmChsJMHK_Bn/s200/dir_07_letoblue.jpg" border="0" /></a><br /><div>Helena was huge. I was shocked. I didn't think a human being could hold a whole other human being inside herself. Also, Helena was a cuttlefish. She started out whitish-gray, then as she started crying, her body turned a deep shade of purple. The purple gradually gave way to red and then to pink, and when I could see her eyes, they were blue like the Fremen of Arrakis.</div><br /><div>The doctor handed Helena to Heather, and the cord was still attached, but clamped. The doctor asked, "Daddy, would you like to cut the cord?" I said, "Of course!" but in a tone that reflected the mood I snapped into when she asked me that. I became an enlisted man ready to execute the orders of my superior, and cutting the cord was simply another order to carry out. It didn't mean anything to me other than a medical procedure that I happened to perform. I cut the cord, which looked like a slimy blue coiled rope that reminded me of very thick rotini.</div><br /><div>Helena was crying strong, and Heather instantly snapped into a soothing mother. It was a side of her I'd actually never seen before, and I was so happy to see it. Any lingering doubts I had that Heather would be a good mother disappeared without a trace.</div><div></div><div>Helena weighed in at an impressive 8 lbs, 10 oz. Helena was cleaned and swaddled and I got to hold her for the first time, and I looked at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milia">milia</a> on her nose, her prominent upper lip, and her flat nose. I listened to her crying as I rocked her, letting her lungs work for the first time in her life. I wasn't thinking about how my life was going to change. I wasn't thinking about how much sleep I was going to miss. I wasn't thinking about how many diapers I would have to change or how I was going to get her to eventually stop crying. I just looked at her in amazement and thought, <em>This is my daughter. I hope she doesn't hate me too much.</em></div><div></div><div>It's been two weeks, and everyone is doing great. Being a dad suits me, I think. I rush to her side whenever I hear her cry, and I'm happy to change her diaper. I'm glad she's a strong girl, and seeing her go through delivery reinforces my trust in her strength. Right now, there are two things that I'm waiting for: her smile and her laugh. When those things happen, I'm pretty sure my ability to say no to her will be hammered away.</div><div></div><div>I wonder if Helena will enjoy Total Recall...</div>Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-82264992862381140272008-01-14T08:27:00.000-05:002008-01-15T17:06:22.938-05:00The Birth of Helena Kara Latiri: Gross and AWESOME (Part 1 of 2)What you are about to read is the uncensored, undiluted truth about a man's experience witnessing the birth of his first child. Since most of my friends are parents already, much of what I will write will not come as a shock to them. No, these next few entries are meant to strip away the unnecessary sentimentalizing experience that is childbirth. It's about the realities of the moments that I as an expectant father went through during the 50-plus hours around the birth of Helena. It's about how I felt not just as a father, but as a husband, a son, an in-law, a friend, and a man. Much of what I will write may sound crazy, but keep this in mind: my daughter, wife, and I are alive and well and happy to have each other.<br /><br />New Year's Eve.<br /><br />So the due date of the 27th of December had come and gone, with no sign of labor. My hopes at claiming a tax credit for 2007 were dwindling fast. My father-in-law Charlie and my sister-in-law Jenny had been staying with us since before Christmas, and they were set to head back home to Alabama within days. Both Charlie and Jenny were sick with colds, and cabin fever was starting to take hold. Being in a holding pattern during the holidays was not the most stress-relieving experience.<br /><br />Then that <a href="http://parentingweekly.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_information/nesting_instinct.htm">nesting instinct</a> kicked in. Heather had the four of us running around cleaning and straightening. I cleaned up the backyard (something that I'd been meaning to do), and I decided to get a haircut. I did this for 3 reasons: 1) there was a distinct possibility that I would have to report for Air Force Reserve duty that weekend, regardless of whether or not Helena was born by then; 2) I wanted to look good for the inevitable pictures that would come soon (hey, if Heather can get her nails done and her hair did, I deserve a $10 haircut!); and 3) I needed to get out of the house.<br /><br />I got my hair cut at a stylist in Aspen Hill. There, the stylist told me stories of how her nesting instinct preceded the birth of her four children by about 24-48 hours. (She also charged me $25; I'm never going there again...) I became convinced that I was going to be a father that night.<br /><br />At around 5:30 PM, Heather's contractions started. Because we had been waiting so long, we dismissed the contraction as just a strong Braxton-Hicks contraction. When another one came about a half-hour later, I knew it was for real. Heather lied down on the bed to see if the contractions went away; they didn't, and became regular at around 7:30. We timed the contractions for another hour or so, and got the go-ahead to go to <a href="http://www.holycrosshealth.org/svc_maternity_main.htm">Holy Cross Hospital</a>.<br /><br />The four of us left with virtually everything we needed. Our baby bag had already been packed, but I did end up forgetting the boombox and music that Heather wanted to listen to in the delivery room. It turned out we didn't need it.<br /><br />Heather was admitted for observation, and Dr. VanMilder, the Kaiser Permanente doctor on-call, noted that Heather had only dilated 2 centimeters. Heather was told to walk for an hour to see if the dilation would increase. It was at that point that my mother came in to see how everyone was doing. She played her "I'm a doctor" card to get through the waiting area, and while I know she meant well, the added stress of having my mother there definitely didn't help!<br /><br />After an hour of walking, the contractions didn't the dilation, and the doctor gave us two choices: 1)go home and wait a little longer, or 2) stay and receive pitocin to speed up the process. We both agreed that going home would be way more trouble than it was worth, so we were moved up to the delivery room.<br /><br />The delivery room was very nice. It was like a hotel suite with hardwood floors and a delivery bed and monitors. Heather was hooked up to the monitors, and the baby's heart rate was racing at around 185, when it should have been around 150. Fluids and 100% oxygen weren't helping, so Heather received an amniotomy, breaking her water at 11:30 PM. Immediately, the baby's heart rate dropped to normal, and I breathed a sigh of relief as the doctor whimsically remarked to herself, "Huh, who knew that's all it would take?" Taken out of context, the doctor might have sounded incompetent, but growing up with a physician for a mother, I knew that medicine is a lot of trial and error. Everyone also knew that the baby was big and strong and could take a lot.<br /><br />Now that Heather's water had broken, the contractions became more intense. While previously they appeared to me a discomforting pain, they had increased to the point where Heather was vocalizing. I felt quite helpless, because there really wasn't anything I could do to soothe Heather through each contraction. In birthing class, we were instructed to soothe, help coach breathing, or rub/massage arms and legs. Jenny and I tried doing all that, but Heather wouldn't have any of it. So basically, I was forced to watch Heather moan in pain without touching or saying anything for two minutes at a time. Soon after we noticed that it was New Year's Day, Heather was asking for an epidural.<br /><br />The anesthesiologist, Dr. Lee, administered the epidural at around 12:30 AM. (I challenge anyone to find me an anesthesiologist who is <em>not</em> an East Asian man.) Immediately, the contractions became observably less painful. It was at this point my father-in-law and sister-in-law decided to leave the hospital and wait at the house for the news. Charlie especially didn't feel well, and it was well worth it to rest comfortably at home than wait and feel miserable, quarantined alone in a hospital waiting room.<br /><br />The epidural had a great effect. Soon after Charlie and Jenny left, Heather took a nap. I even managed to catch some shut-eye for a little bit. For the next three hours, Heather's uterus would contract and her cervix would dilate, all while Heather was asleep. At around 3:45, Heather woke up feeling like she needed to take a giant crap. I went to the nurses' station, and soon, Dr. VanMilder arrived. The doctor examined Heather, and while Heather was asleep, her cervix had dilated to 9 inches. "It looks like we're going to have this baby now!" the doctor happily told us.<br /><br />Coming up on <a href="http://theequivocator.blogspot.com/2008/01/birth-of-helena-kara-latiri-gross-and_15.html">Part 2</a>: 25 minutes of preparation + 20 minutes of pushing = the birth of Helena "OH WOW, SHE'S BIG!" Latiri.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-86211382302229565662007-12-26T09:39:00.000-05:002007-12-26T11:56:18.560-05:00Movie moments that make me cry<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP4XrRPhgkKY3HAByI4aJW3kU4NXkswEJwMgLJv4jO0FnYcFfHq47B9k6MjoNxwWB30NTRDsBsCv-_RAJTx8JiyRIUrS0CapFxg2aC2vPU1dz1X0JYHm9koiajqLCr329c9EX08QxTowmy/s1600-h/ET.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5148320850473718626" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjP4XrRPhgkKY3HAByI4aJW3kU4NXkswEJwMgLJv4jO0FnYcFfHq47B9k6MjoNxwWB30NTRDsBsCv-_RAJTx8JiyRIUrS0CapFxg2aC2vPU1dz1X0JYHm9koiajqLCr329c9EX08QxTowmy/s200/ET.jpg" border="0" /></a> For those who know me, it will come as no surprise that I am very opinionated when it comes to things that I like or don't like. This is especially true when it comes to movies, television, or theatre. It basically stems from a weird cost-benefit scale: the amount of money that is spent on a production combined with the amount of money I have to spend to watch this production is proportional to how much I should expect to enjoy said production. I'll come up with the exact mathematical equation some time later, but the gist of it is this: if it's expensive, it better be good.<br /><div><div><div><div><div>So if a movie or play has a high budget and sucks, it hurts me as an audience member, because I feel I've been cheated. Examples of this include: Pearl Harbor, Rush Hour 2, and Batman and Robin (and I saw that for <em>free</em>). Of course, a movie doesn't have to have a high budget and great effects to move me. It certainly helps, but it's not necessary.But when it comes to making me cry, it's got to be really powerful. Perhaps it's because I'm having my first child any day now, but I'm compelled to write this. The following is a list of movie moments where I always, <em>always</em> tear up. NOT on the list is anything from Beaches, The Notebook, or any Nora Ephron movie.</div><br /><div></div><div>In no particular order:</div><div></div><br /><div><em>E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial</em>. There are <em>two</em> moments in this movie that make me tear up. The first is the speech that Elliot gives over E.T.'s frozen body that culminates with, "E.T., I love you." The second is at the end of the movie, when E.T. and Elliot say good-bye to each other and E.T. points to his heart and says, "Ouch."</div><br /><div><em><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5w07q464TQxsqBN4wVH_9ut-SxNa6PmnZHcxrkJIUvyAPGm8Ri24zSZTLnFvX3EZgim64HZOchxpfS5OiEeIX-S-zTwAOi_u42BaBo7bWLaCBMGTiULeJW8MRa2_E-N2Dn9aYWlUJ-811/s1600-h/aragorn.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5148315821067014994" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 194px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 170px" height="173" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5w07q464TQxsqBN4wVH_9ut-SxNa6PmnZHcxrkJIUvyAPGm8Ri24zSZTLnFvX3EZgim64HZOchxpfS5OiEeIX-S-zTwAOi_u42BaBo7bWLaCBMGTiULeJW8MRa2_E-N2Dn9aYWlUJ-811/s200/aragorn.jpg" width="200" border="0" /></a>The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King</em>. Another movie with two moments. Both occur at the end of the movie, and they cannot be truly appreciated unless you have watched the previous nine-hour adventure. The first moment occurs after Aragorn receives his coronation and stops the four Hobbits from bowing with, "My friends! You bow to no one." And he and the entire population of Minas Tirith kneel before the Hobbits. The second occurs shortly thereafter, when Sam, with courage and confidence, leaves his friends at the drinking table to go talk to Rosie Cotton, cutting to their kiss at their wedding.</div><br /><div><em>The Joy Luck Club</em>. We've seen Ying-Ying's story, a sad one of how she had to drown her newborn son because it was the only way for her to escape a horribly abusive relationship. Flash-forward to years later, when her daughter, Lena, is in a safe yet passionless marriage in a "lopsided" house. After years of self-imposed emotional dormancy, Ying-Ying narrates how she will confront her daughter "like a tiger in the trees, now ready to leap out and cut her spirit loose." When she does confront Lena, Ying-Ying instructs her that if she wants "respect" and "tenderness" from her husband, then Lena should leave, and "not come back until he give you those things, with both hands open."</div><br /><div><em><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmFmIZ6jNulenOlRaFKA-eOGnnUmuPN1Zqd00sWOauVUzE6sSSpciijOTBmDD70IXyKtlThQSIK00pfLfFLsVZk1LOeNhJJCirVEFP-sFOhykpmjexxaeXuXpK9wixCGlggi7kR8wv2Diq/s1600-h/harry.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5148321073812018034" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 87px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 102px" height="200" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgmFmIZ6jNulenOlRaFKA-eOGnnUmuPN1Zqd00sWOauVUzE6sSSpciijOTBmDD70IXyKtlThQSIK00pfLfFLsVZk1LOeNhJJCirVEFP-sFOhykpmjexxaeXuXpK9wixCGlggi7kR8wv2Diq/s200/harry.jpg" width="186" border="0" /></a>It's a Wonderful Life</em>. Of course, it's when George receives donation after donation from all of the people he's touched and helped over the years, including his romantic rival Sam Wainwright who cabled money from England, and ending with the arrival of his younger brother in uniform, the war hero whom George saved when he was a little boy.<br /><br /></div><div><em><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_b0mi5tkRjv7YYp2yE5-ZPOcBEij___MEQZ8kTUYnT4IoswTZiAaIBCEnkcX10ABL7n9nrbxFFoWzzWWkuFFywZO4qUBC1aRsYrqHItSoW6CbGPSCktewM7i6xFIwSZdAu0KFCi80h5yw/s1600-h/tom.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5148321078106985378" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; CURSOR: hand" height="132" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj_b0mi5tkRjv7YYp2yE5-ZPOcBEij___MEQZ8kTUYnT4IoswTZiAaIBCEnkcX10ABL7n9nrbxFFoWzzWWkuFFywZO4qUBC1aRsYrqHItSoW6CbGPSCktewM7i6xFIwSZdAu0KFCi80h5yw/s200/tom.jpg" width="94" border="0" /></a>Rent</em>. I don't particularly like the characters in Rent, but Jesse L. Martin's performance as Tom Collins at Angel's funeral singing the reprise of "I'll Cover You" (which, in my opinion, is one of the best love songs ever written) works every time.</div><br /><br /><br /><br /><div><em>Frequency</em>. Frank Sullivan appears out of the shadows to kill his son John's would-be murderer, miraculously still alive thanks to John's warnings of death by fire and later by lung cancer. "I'm still here, Chief."</div><br /><div><em>Field of Dreams</em>. "Hey, Dad. You wanna have a catch?" And I <em>hate</em> baseball.</div><br /><br /><div><em><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5sjuZsE6xk9B4bgDl1KT6KD4Vpidve45zh9RPpYpbseo1eaCDF3X5c9YV5MENqv3_XhuaKz4f5SGUC-pWVWPqvficMdOlHFpRFZd0OFTdlCz42DWugt2eZP4zMv3NHdeGcr2s23TX-3K9/s1600-h/schindler.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5148321078106985346" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 114px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 79px" height="103" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5sjuZsE6xk9B4bgDl1KT6KD4Vpidve45zh9RPpYpbseo1eaCDF3X5c9YV5MENqv3_XhuaKz4f5SGUC-pWVWPqvficMdOlHFpRFZd0OFTdlCz42DWugt2eZP4zMv3NHdeGcr2s23TX-3K9/s200/schindler.jpg" width="125" border="0" /></a>Schindler's List</em>. Oskar Schindler is about to leave the Jewish workers he saved from extermination when he drops the ring they made for him. Schindler drops to his knees immediately to retrieve the only memento he could ever receive.</div><br /><br /><div><em>Finding Nemo</em>. Marlin holds the unconcious body of his son and he briefly flashes to the memory of holding Nemo as his only survivng egg.</div><br /><br /><div><em><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYxRayCcNQaubPs4yVMpknCbHzdG6PTYFKBHJ1Huip8aBkNOSK5KFij4HuUdTAdu6d014VTlLar4Q6UzrenIjgmqtiyaQxoFkepV041Desp3t6l7fgkoKlJRf82id2S9oDdntgQqQDVoSt/s1600-h/SPR.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5148321078106985362" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 129px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 64px" height="79" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhYxRayCcNQaubPs4yVMpknCbHzdG6PTYFKBHJ1Huip8aBkNOSK5KFij4HuUdTAdu6d014VTlLar4Q6UzrenIjgmqtiyaQxoFkepV041Desp3t6l7fgkoKlJRf82id2S9oDdntgQqQDVoSt/s200/SPR.jpg" width="147" border="0" /></a>Saving Private Ryan</em>. At the end, we see James Ryan at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial, now a grandfather, asking his wife, "Tell me I've led a good life...Tell me I'm a good man."</div><br /><div></div><br /><div></div><div>And last, but not least:</div><br /><div><em><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdL3GAnA7ysLZ0N4Qgs1ueELH2msdU21yle1C6I9Gegn9h71cceESVijlk7I2d96RQNtNh24vrPcjLiNVLmMBJ-SGCWprDXikdhuEcMpi8DOuVTmvnyKuAtWjYHV9BrRGuvBPv4RvfU4hP/s1600-h/predator.jpg"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5148325196980622258" style="FLOAT: left; MARGIN: 0px 10px 10px 0px; WIDTH: 136px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 175px" height="181" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjdL3GAnA7ysLZ0N4Qgs1ueELH2msdU21yle1C6I9Gegn9h71cceESVijlk7I2d96RQNtNh24vrPcjLiNVLmMBJ-SGCWprDXikdhuEcMpi8DOuVTmvnyKuAtWjYHV9BrRGuvBPv4RvfU4hP/s200/predator.jpg" width="142" border="0" /></a>Predator</em>. There are so many moments, from the time Dutch and Dillon arm wrestle to when Blain gets his chest blown away to the montage of Dutch getting ready for the final battle. OK, I'm kidding, but after getting emotional just writing this entry, I needed some levity!</div><br /><br /><div></div><br /><br /><div>Feel free to add your own moments, but try not to put "Bambi's mother getting shot," "Simba trying to wake Mufasa," "the destruction of Old Yeller," or anything involving pets, terminal illnesses, or pets with terminal illnesses. It's too easy.</div></div></div></div></div>Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-45032508816831389602007-11-20T13:44:00.000-05:002007-11-20T14:46:05.982-05:00The Difference Between Faith and TrustIt sounds awful to say, but I don't believe I have faith in anything or anyone. Before any of my family or friends react with outrage, please bear with me as I explain.<br /><br />Every time I get into my car, I put on my seat belt. I do so even though I will probably not need it. In fact, if I were to drive a whole week without wearing my seat belt, it probably wouldn't matter. But I would never do that because of the <a href="http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html">statistics</a>. These statistics are supported with evidence that I see on the road, hear on traffic reports, watch on the news, and hear about from other people.<br /><br />So what does all that have to do with my faith (or lack thereof). One could say that I have faith in the traffic reports, the untested seat belt, or the veracity of other people's stories. I would disagree with that statement, because my attitude toward those things does not constitute faith, it constitutes trust.<br /><br />Faith is the belief in something regardless of whatever evidence that may exist to disprove it. Trust is the reliance on something that is built upon experience. We are taught to have faith, but we learn on our own how to trust.<br /><br />We learn to trust our family, because they provide and support us from a young age. We learn to trust our friends, because they support us when family cannot. We learn to trust authority, and authority figures gain trustworthiness based on performance or accuracy. We learn to trust ourselves, because we know our strengths and weaknesses. But when our family, friends, authority figures, and our own impulses betray us, our trust weakens. When we have no trust left, what can we rely on?<br /><br />For many, people turn to religion. It provides hope and a stability that can be a powerful aid during times of crisis. It allows someone to turn off that part of their brain that calls for reason and just experience relief. It is the one place that can be counted on for acceptance, which is why when things are going so rough for people, their lives turn around for the better once they open a Bible or set foot in a church.<br /><br />But what do I rely on? I rely on what I've experienced to be true. In my experience, when times get tough for a person, a family, a community, or even a nation, people chip in to help, regardless of whether or not the people know each other. Some do it for religious reasons, others do it for tax breaks, and others do it because it makes them feel good. But whatever the motives behind a person's desire to be help out, the result is the same: there will always be people who help people. This is not faith in humanity, but a trust in humanity. It is a trust that is fulfilled every time there is a natural disaster and help arrives, and a trust that is betrayed when help does not. But through it all, there will always be those who have a character to give it their all for the sake of their fellow man.<br /><br />Which is why I don't have faith in my family and friends. I trust my family and friends. I trust them with my life.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-56178247151918296982007-11-16T09:52:00.000-05:002008-01-27T10:49:07.799-05:00Atheists: The New Evangelicals (Part 3: The Continuing Search)Continued from <a href="http://theequivocator.blogspot.com/2007/11/atheists-new-evangelicals-part-2-my.html">Part 2</a>...<br /><br />And so there we have it. Older atheists such as those in WASH are bitter and curmudgeonly, and younger atheists such as those in the Beltway Atheists are arrogant and dismissive. Both groups seemed intolerant, and anyone who wants to be an atheist only has these choices to look forward to, right?<br /><br />Of course not. The broad strokes that I've painted these two groups with go against the very creed implied in this blog. There are many different facets to everything, and in order to equivocate, one must look at all aspects. First of all, one common aspect was their atheism, which I share. Second, all seemed educated, well-read, and interested in a sense of community. Unfortunately for me, all these aspects alone were not enough to establish a relationship with either of these groups. The vibes of arrogance and intolerance were too much for me to deal with, because I came to realize that I was not simply searching for a group of atheists with whom to hang; I was looking for a community to where I would feel comfortable taking my future children.<br /><br />Now, where could that community be? Where could one find tolerance of all, where the goodness of humanity was thought to be universal, where there was a unity of spirit focused on the improvement of life here on Earth? (You can tell where I'm going with this...)<br /><br />The very first moment I set foot at the <a href="http://www.cedarlane.org/">Cedar Lane Unitarian Universalist Church</a>, I felt comfortable. I'm not a fan of congregations, because there's a little too much groupthink for me, but after sitting through the service (which was about unity through humanity and not through worship) I got to know the members and the spiritual education that was offered. To say that they were ecumenical is an understatement. Acceptance was a way of life, as was fostering a spirit of improvement, not just of the self, but also of the community and the planet. Focus was not on any hypothetical afterlife, but on the here and now. Good deeds were performed not to score points for admission into heaven or good karma, but to benefit the one mortal life we lead.<br /><br />So it seems like I found a place where my family and I could go once a week and have a good time. Hooray! Yet there is still this little voice inside telling me that I'm being a hypocrite for praising a church, when the whole idea of organized religion rubs me the wrong way! But then I realized that it's not about me anymore. I have a child on the way; this is about her. I've already discovered my own path to truth, and it took a long time. By teaching my child what everyone believes in, she'll better understand the world and its people. And I feel this is the best place for her to learn.<br /><br />No belief can be forced upon another. Just as democracy cannot be spread at the point of a gun, religion or atheism cannot be spread by animosity. The message has to be relayed by example. If a person is good and reasonable, then conversations can be held. With conversation comes education, and with education, ignorance and irrationality will hopefully be purged. It's not that truth will set us free, but truth will allow us to leap further.Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-589367140530935909.post-82085684405267325472007-11-13T09:59:00.000-05:002008-01-27T10:48:41.615-05:00Atheists: The New Evangelicals (Part 2: My experience with the Beltway Atheists)<span style="font-size:100%;">Continued from <a href="http://theequivocator.blogspot.com/2007/11/atheists-new-evangelicals-part-1-my.html">Part 1</a>...<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">So my first experience with a congregation of atheists turned out to be a bust. After watching Christopher Hitchens and Ayan Hirsi Ali on television, I was starting to think that bitterness was just part and parcel of being an outspoken atheist. Since I associate bitterness with age, I felt that perhaps a younger group might be more to my liking.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">I found a more youthful local group with the <a href="http://www.beltwayatheists.org/">Beltway Atheists</a>. They met every so often in different watering holes in the DC Metro area, and I decided to hook up with them at a nice place called <a href="http://www.busboysandpoets.com/">Busboys and Poets</a>. It's a nice little place that's bar/restaurant/liberal bookstore. Basically, it's a place where people snap their fingers instead of applauding. The group members trickled in, and some ordered dinner, while others ordered drinks. Conversation was much easier with this group than with the members of WASH, and I struck up one with someone who had just passed the bar that day. He seemed a less excited than I would have been if I had passed the bar, but if there's one thing I've learned about myself is that equivocation goes hand-in-hand with being non-judgmental. At least at first.<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">I moved my conversation to a group who were lounging in the couches near the window, and it was at that point that the atheist discussions started. I was basically interviewed about my history, and I gave my autobiography (which is another post for another blog) and experiences with religion, which basically boiled down to this: I don't believe in anything supernatural, but I have no real problem with religious people or communities, as long as they don't harm humanity.<br /><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">Well, a religious community not harming humanity was an explicit contradiction as far as some of these members were concerned. A summary of the members' attitudes could be expressed as such: "How could you, a reasonable man with a science and history background, not be outraged that people believed in imaginary sky gods and worshipped them? People should know the truth about reality, and allowing to believe in God would lead to more of the chaos and violence that we are experiencing today! It should be your duty to explain to these poor, misguided fools that they are wrong. There is an excess of tolerance, and atheists shouldn't be shy about speaking out against the mass delusion of the world known as religion!"<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">Where did this animosity come from? Apparently, it came from a sense of persecution, something which I found ridiculous. Sure, atheists aren't exactly the most beloved members of American society, but in recent history, the pogroms against European Jews would better fit the label of persecution than the disdain that atheists might experience. But then I began to pity some of these young men and women. Some had grown up in religious households that really messed up their heads. One young woman grew up in a home that not only didn't allow belief in Santa, but as a young girl, this woman preached to her fellow students about the sin that was Kris Kringle. Remember that brand-new lawyer? He was taught about the sin of sex and the purity of abstinence, and these teachings led him to have absolutely no clue as to how to talk to women. That night, the poor guy got sloshed on beer after beer, and it was embarrassing.<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">Religion messed up these people's lives so much so that it evoked a resentful emotion that I can only describe as an underlying sense of vengeance. Their Halloween party had the theme of dressing up as your favorite Bible character (since the Bible was a <em>scaaary</em> book), which I found to be mean-spirited. There was no room for live and let live. Someone saying "God Bless You" or "Merry Christmas" to them was tantamount to a racial slur. They considered themselves better than others, and there was a look in their eyes of righteous anger that I'd seen somewhere before.<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">I left the place (after expressing my well-wishes) with another sense of disappointment. Was there no place that I could just go and have fun? I don't need to talk about atheism with other atheists; I already am one, and I don't need my atheism to be validated by others.<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">And that look of righteous anger? Similar to the looks from members of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church">Westboro Baptist Church</a>.<br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;"><br /></span><span style="font-size:100%;">Stay tuned for the <a href="http://theequivocator.blogspot.com/2007/11/atheists-new-evangelicals-part-3.html">conclusion </a>of Atheists: The New Evangelicals...</span>Omarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11807898501698232794noreply@blogger.com0