The ammo box or the ballot box?

I received an interesting comment on my post about Polite Debate…(a long title that has to do with who controls what you do in bed. Yes, that includes you heterosexuals.).

The poster noted that he feels helpless “as a citizen of only average resources” to change this country’s political slide. His solution is to think that we might be coming close to a time when the “ammo box” is the only cure for this country’s problems.

I respect his position, and I certainly understand his fear. I feel it often, along with outrage and pure, unadulterated fury. I am a lesbian progressive stuck in, of all places, anti-gay, anti-evolution Kansas. I know how it feels to be helpless and oppressed.

When you feel like you’re backed up to a wall, it seems as if the only solution is to put aside the tools of organizing, politics and rhetoric and, perhaps, even to pick up a gun. Seems reasonable, doesn’t it, particularly if the alternative is oppression? Yet, it isn’t.

Morally, I oppose the use of violence. Politically, even thinking about violence as a solution means giving into the kind of despair that takes away the tools we can use to change this country. Ironically, considering violence makes us weaker, not stronger.

Here’s the core of my argument: We. Are. Not. Helpless.

As an individual of average resources – and trust me, my financial resources are most definitely average – I can make a difference, and so can you.

The trick is to not get sucked into the Superhero Trap. That’s the too-easy-to-fall-into idea that you’ve got to solve it all. And, you’ve got to do it all by yourself.

It is a fact that I, for example, do not have the financial means to fund an entire organization, or even to make a huge contribution or even a significant contribution. But I can give something.

As a person who’s worked with grassroots political organizations, I can tell you that even $10 makes a difference. If enough people give $10 or $20 or even just a little more, then that makes a HUGE difference to any political group.

You or I may not have a lot of time to give to a political group, but we can always do something.

Out here in Kansas, I was privileged to work on organizing the Kansas Equality Coalition, the state’s first geographically diverse gay rights organization. It was created and is still being run by volunteers. We all had different skills, but we all found something to do, even the woman in a small town in rural Kansas who helped out by baking cookies for meetings. Her cookies were very appreciated.

The first step is to be informed about what is actually going on. I suspect most of us are, or we wouldn't be so darn upset about it.

The second step is to ask yourself: What one thing can I do today? In this moment, how can I make a difference?

Can I give even a small bit of money?

Can I take one hour and stuff envelopes for someone or help fold and stamp a newsletter?

Can I hand out fliers?

Can I tell a friend about a meeting?

One other thing to remember: Progressives don’t have to change everyone’s minds. There are some folks we will never reach. All we have to do is change enough -- just enough -- to alter the outcome of an election.

George Bush’s approval ratings are now at 29 percent. Public furor over the Republicans in Congress is at an all-time high and elections are coming up in November.

What can you do? If you do just one thing today to help out in the right Congressional race, you could make all the difference in the world.

Poll numbers for Bush & the rest of us: It was the best of times, and the worst of times

Some good news-bad news being released in the polls hitting the news this morning.

First, the good news. Our not-so-beloved president has just broken the big three-oh mark on his approval rating. Wahoo! The Wall Street Journal reports:

President Bush’s job-approval rating has fallen to its lowest mark of his presidency, according to a new Harris Interactive poll. Of 1,003 U.S. adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 29% think Mr. Bush is doing an “excellent or pretty good” job as president, down from 35% in April and significantly lower than 43% in January. Approval ratings for Congress overall also sank, and now stand at 18%.

Over at AMERICAblog, they’re popping champagne corks, but I’m not ready to do that yet, particularly when you take a look at this next poll. The Washington Post reports:

A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

When taken in conjunction with Bush’s 29 percent approval rating, this poll leaves me feeling somewhat baffled. How can Americans not see what’s going on? Of course, the Post points out that the poll may be inaccurate and has a large sampling error. This also seems to be a pretty small sample for judging the national mood.

A total of 502 randomly selected adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey. Margin of sampling error is five percentage points for the overall results. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represents another potential source of error.

I guess we’ll have to just wait and see what happens, and more importantly, keep talking, explaining and uncovering the truth about what's happening. The real test will be what happens in the next few weeks, and in November, of course.

Religious universities and the thought police

Religious extremists often like to wrap themselves in the flag and to loudly declare that they are the most patriotic of Americans. What I don’t understand, though, is why many theocons and theocrats don’t support basic American values. Case in point: Brigham Young University’s current investigation – and possible expulsion – of five students for doing nothing more than exercising their Constitutional right to protest.

The university, which is run by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is investigating students who participated in an Equality Ride demonstration in April. Four of the five were among 29 people arrested during two days of demonstrations at the Utah campus. The other student protested off campus.

Organized by the nondenominational group Soulforce, The Equality Ride was a cross-country trip designed to draw attention to schools that ban lesbians and gays from enrolling.

365gay.com reports:

The university's Honor Code Office has launched an official probe of the student's conduct. It could clear the students of violating the code or find them guilty and punish them with anything up to expulsion.

While the code does not explicitly bar gay students it does forbid them from having sex or from advocating for a "gay lifestyle."

I would be curious to know if BYU receives any public funding. Private schools can, at times, be rolling in public money. (Note the Kentucky Baptist college that is getting $11 million in state money even though it discriminates against gays.)

However, leaving aside the question of how private any particular religious school might be, the issue under discussion today isn’t a legal one. BYU officials can legally do what they want. My issue, though, is a moral one, or I guess you could call it, a patriotic one.

Isn’t free speech a basic American principle? Isn’t the idea of a Thought Police, whether it is a religious one or a Communist one, a bit un-American? What good does it do for officials at BYU to preach a particular theology if the only way they can get their students to buy into it is to threaten them with explusion if they don't?

What is the honor in that?

The 12th Carnival of the Liberals takes the stage - or - a few words from the reality-based community

The 12^th Carnival of the Liberals is up at Daylight Atheism where a host of bloggers chime in on the various aspects of being a liberal. In the process of introducing the posts, our host writes a great little essay on what it means to be a liberal.

Among other things, he notes (and I most heartily concur) that "being a liberal means belonging to the reality-based community." He also explains that "being a liberal means supporting the right to privacy," and very kindly links to my post "Polite debate, cultural controversy, or civil war: What's the next step in the sex wars?" Many thanks for the link and the recommendation!

Our host, who writes as Ebonmuse, says his blog Daylight Atheism, is primarily aimed at bringing “to light the hate-based agenda of the religious right, the better to organize opposition to their noxious policies.” Again, a round of cheers.

But on the following comments, I have to respectfully disagree and offer a bemused chuckle. Ebonmuse writes (the emphasis is mine):

I'd like to make one remark in closing. Recognizing that the last few Carnivals of the Liberals have been hosted by atheists, and not wanting religious progressives and liberals to feel underrepresented, I put out a call for them to submit posts for this edition. However, none did. Perhaps this is because religious liberals are less engaged on the Internet or because they are unaware of the Carnival of the Liberals specifically, but I can't help wondering if this is another manifestation of whatever underlying cause has kept them so underrepresented in politics more generally. Although I am an atheist, I bear no ill will toward religious progressives; if anything, I wish they would speak out more often. With that in mind, I issue a challenge to the liberal religious people whom I know are out there: If you don't want your tradition to be defined by the evil of the religious right, then speak up! Show the world that you are out there and that the likes of James Dobson and George W. Bush do not represent you.

While I’m not exactly a Christian, at least not in any traditional sense, I am a member of a church (in Kansas of all places), and I do consider myself to be deeply spiritual if not down-right religious. Committed to science, I am also a firm believer in mysticism and things you can’t always see and measure. And yes, I guess that puts me firmly in the camp of the elusive religious liberal.

To understand my perspective, take a look at The Lesbian and The Fundamentalists.

I am a lesbian, feminist, single mother whose spirituality is closer to New Age and Buddhism than Christianity. This spring I battled the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and civil unions in Kansas. Imagine my surprise when I realized how much I have in common with fundamentalists.

To find some more very politically active religious progressives online go to Talk To Action, which includes a mixture of folks like Mainstream Baptist and very secular bloggers. Also check out the Network of Spiritual Progressives.

Bush says don't worry. Now, don't you feel better?

In a hastily arranged “appearance,” our not-so-beloved president assured us that all is OK with the newly discovered spying program. By the way, you can’t call this morning’s whatever-it-was a news conference because President Bush didn’t take questions. The Washington Post quotes him as saying:

"We are not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al-Qaeda and their known affiliates."

Meanwhile, not even all Republicans are thrilled with the program. The Post reports:
Earlier, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee said the panel will demand answers from America's leading telephone companies on the reported National Security Agency program to collect information on millions of calls.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) vowed to haul the companies before his committee in response to a USA Today report that says the NSA has been secretly using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth to build a massive database of foreign and domestic phone calls.

Declaring war on birth control

As a follow-up to my Sex Wars post, take a look at an article over at Talk To Action that details the history of the anti-birth control movement. The author argues that The New York Times is a bit off when it says this is a new phenomenon.

While Judie Brown and her allies in the Protestant ranks are waging a full frontal assault against contraception, they declared war on birth control some time ago. The only thing new is that these days -- flushed with victory over the Roberts and Alito confirmations, and in giddy anticipation of the arrival of the South Dakota abortion ban's arrival before a more conservative Supreme Court - they've gotten a little braver about admitting it.

New & improved Bush definition of an American citizen -- criminal until proven innocent

As a political gadfly of the lesbian, feminist and anti-war persuasion, I always figured the government might watch me sometime. Even though I have never entertained any thought that could remotely endanger anyone, I always figured that such a possibility goes with the territory of promoting unpopular political views.

Imagine my surprise, though, when I realized this morning – thanks to USA Today reporter Leslie Cauley – that the feds’ domestic spying operations have swept up everyone from my 79-year-old mother to my very Republican and George Bush supporting aunt. Heck, if my cat, Ernestine, could own a phone, the feds would be watching her, too.

Our crime? No crime.

No suspicion.

No evidence.

No warrant.

If we are guilty of anything it is only that we live in the United States and we own a phone – that is a Verizon, AT&T or BellSouth phone. All you folks who telephone through Qwest, count yourself as lucky. That company actually said no to the Bush Administration’s massive post-9/11 request for information.(Good for you, Qwest!)

Perhaps one of the most chilling part of USA Today’s story about the National Security Agency program is a question and answer sidebar that starts with this very simple entry.

Q: Does the NSA's domestic program mean that my calling records have been secretly collected?
A: In all likelihood, yes. The NSA collected the records of billions of domestic calls. Those include calls from home phones and wireless phones.

The information collected is known as “call-detail” records, apparently, on every phone call made since 9/11 within the United States. These records include the numbers being dialed and, I suspect, dates and times. Even though names, addresses and other personal information are not included that is easy enough to get. It’s easy for me to find, let alone the NSA.

We’re supposed to be OK with this because we are told the NSA is only looking for patterns and not actually listening to what anyone is saying. But since everything is secret, there is no way to know what is actually being done and how this information is being used.

In some ways, this doesn’t surprise me at all. In other ways, I have to admit that I am stunned at how little the Bush Administration believes in the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The American Prospect’s Tapped blog does a good job of linking this news to “the broader chain:

One thing the Bush administration says it can do with this meta-data is to start tapping your calls and listening in, without getting a warrant from anyone. Having listened in on your calls, the administration asserts that if it doesn't like what it hears, it has the authority to detain you indefinitely without trial or charges, torture you until you confess or implicate others…

Golly! The Kansas Legislature finally funds schools

Out here on the prairie, we’re waiting for the next shoe to drop. The Kansas Legislature finally yelled, wrestled and strong-armed itself last night into passing a three-year $466 million school finance plan, but serious questions remain.

Will this plan actually help Kansas kids? Will the Kansas Supreme Court accept it, given that it’s far less than expected? Will lawmakers have to cut other needed programs to pay for this plan and the nifty new business tax cut they seem determined to pass?

The answer to the final question will come today when the Kansas Legislature goes back into session at 10 a.m. After a nearly record-breaking wrap-up session (15 days), lawmakers appear determined to finish up today and go home.

As a citizen of the Sunflower State, I’ll be thrilled when they leave. One is never fully safe when the Statehouse is humming, particularly if one is a member of a hated minority.

Meanwhile, Alan Rupe has already said he will challenge the plan in court. Rupe is an attorney for the school districts whose lawsuit prompted the state Supreme Court to order lawmakers to actually live up to their Constitutional duty to fully fund schools.

Is this plan the best one for kids? We already know that the Legislature may have already caused grief to some parents and kids in my own town of Lawrence.

Because of the delay in passing a finance plan, the Lawrence school district announced that it pulled the plug yesterday on a plan to run all-day kindergarten. One local lawmaker thought the bill would allow the district to reconsider its decision, though.

More details in the Lawrence Journal-World and the Wichita Eagle.

Sex wars

[bump]
While the blogosphere has been tied up in screaming fits about the politics and possible scandals surrounding Porter Goss’s resignation as CIA director and Gen. Michael V. Hayden’s appointment to that position, I have been pondering what goes on in people’s beds. Most specifically, I am wondering what is going to happen when American heterosexuals realize that their sex lives are being targeted by Christian dominationists.

At the same time, I wonder what the future of our great and continuing culture war will be. What will we do as those dominationists, who are more properly known as dominionists, attempt to control the most intimate parts of all of our lives?

Think I’m exaggerating? Take a look at Russell Shorto’s fascinating article in this Sunday’s New York Time’s Magazine. Shorto argues, quite convincingly, that the next step for the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-anything-but-them movement is to take control of everyone – and I do mean everyone’s – sex life. Shorto writes (the emphasis is mine.):

Many Christians who are active in the evolving anti-birth-control arena state frankly that what links their efforts is a religious commitment to altering the moral landscape of the country. In particular, and not to put too fine a point on it, they want to change the way Americans have sex.

In other words, these folks want to control every heterosexuals' sex life. Shorto reports that the anti-birth control folks want to reserve sex for married heterosexuals who are jumping into bed for the sole purpose of making babies.

Shorto continues:

The subject is talked about in evangelical churches and is on the agenda at the major Bible-based conservative organizations like Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition. It also has its point people in Congress — including Representative Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, Representative Joe Pitts and Representative Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania and Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — all Republicans who have led opposition to various forms of contraception.

Although I’ve never seen this discussed in such detail, the idea doesn’t surprise me. I’ve heard it bouncing around Kansas for at least a decade, coming out of the mouths of both ministers and politicians.

As a lesbian, I’m familiar with the rip-out-your-gut feeling of knowing that a group of people – well funded, well organized and determined – want to do nothing less than walk into your bedroom and keep you from expressing your love the way you need to. People do desperate things when they feel this way. I wonder if the anti-birth control people realize that?

All of this is coming as I’ve been enjoying a new column in Newsweek. (Who knew I’d be so enamored with the mainstream media this week?). Written by Jon Meacham, the author of “American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation,” the column is tackling the central issues of the culture war.

Meacham says he came in for some harsh criticism after he published his first column. In it, he suggested that it was possible to actually talk to Christian dominationists, and he suggested some theological arguments to use. I discussed that here.

I have received a number of replies; the most interesting—and, to me, most discouraging—were from people who seem to think that we are trapped in a permanent conflict that will admit no resolution. One reader wrote: "When dealing with zealots, your logic makes no difference in what they hear/believe or feel should be forced upon others—the only folks that would read your article and agree with you are the same folks that already agree with you."

Mecham adds:

If we decide that it is impossible for people who do not believe that they are in possession of the ultimate, only truth to speak reasonably to those who do, then it is not a far jump to saying civil society is unsustainable. The point of a republic like ours is for opposing forces to contend against one another peaceably, within a sphere of checks and balances. Given that some fundamentalists believe in forced conversions or in holy war, what are we to do in the face of such threats to our security and serenity? Surrender? Do nothing?

I would add that many people who would be my allies might well feel that the only alternative is to do to them before they do to us. In other words, use force. I suspect that people would first support the use of political campaigns. However, if these folks from this one, narrow band of Christianity are so determined to march into all of our bedrooms, how long will it be before people feel backed into a corner and decide they have to fight back physically?

It seems insane to even suggest that could happen, but when you mess in the most intimate parts of peoples lives, all bets are off.

And yet, I put my faith in Mecham’s approach. It’s an approach that I’ve argued for vigorously and have been attacked for taking. (Call it the “Respect-Their-Right-to-Exist / Argue-With-Them / Organize-Against-Them Approach.) As a lesbian, I’ve had to deal with these people and their desperate need to control my bed for my entire life. I am truly tired of it, yet what good does it do if we become as bad as they are? Where will it lead us if we don’t even try to talk?

Thus, I throw my lot in with Meachem:

It seems to me that we must keep the conversation going.

Down he goes! The tumbling, free-fall spring of George W. Bush

Yet another low for our-not-so-beloved president. Bush rates only a 31 percent approval rating in the New York Times/CBS News Poll released tonight.

Bush’s rating ties the low point reached by his father in July 1992, just before Bush the Elder lost his effort to win a second term. The Times reports that this is the “third lowest approval rating of any president in 50 years” with only Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter rating lower.

Americans have a bleaker view of the country's direction than at any time in more than two decades, and sharp disapproval of President Bush's handling of gasoline prices has combined with intensified unhappiness about Iraq to create a grim political environment for the White House and Congressional Republicans.

What’s surprising to me is that 46 percent of those polled still approve of Bush’s handling of the “campaign against terrorism” as The Times calls it. Meanwhile, only 29 percent approve of the way he’s handling Iraq and only 27 percent approve of his foreign policy.

I’m not certain how those numbers make any sense together, not to mention why anyone would agree that the who-the-heck-is-Osama president is great in dealing with terror. (I'm not kidding about Bush forgetting Al Qaeda. Given his obsession with Iraq, has Bush even mentioned Osama bin Laden anytime recently?)

Oh yes, can't forget this: Only 13 percent agree with Bush’s handling of the issue of gas prices. Youch! Not even the most conservative conservatives agree with him on that one.

Business as usual: Radical conservatives push for radical conservatives on the Kansas Board of Education

Hat tip to Red State Rabble for pointing out that the ultra-conservative Kansas Republican Assembly recently endorsed the Radical Republican Four running for the state board of education. These are: John Bacon, Connie Morris, Ken Willard and Brad Patzer.

Bacon, Morris and Willard are among the current board members who never met a scientific principle, such as that little thing called evolution, they liked. They also pushed through the appointment of an ideologue with zero education experience to head the state's education department. Patzer is expected to vote the same way.

Rabble notes:

The Kansas Republican Assembly has played a key role in financing right-wing activists on the state school board through network of interlocking political action committees constructed to skirt Kansas campaign finance laws and channel money to conservatives on the board.

The election this November will test the ability of radical social conservatives to win politically when voters know their agenda. If we can beat them here in Kansas, they can be beaten anywhere.

For those of you outside of Kansas, it will be an interesting campaign to watch in a detached way. For those of us living in the Sunflower State, the November fight is a lot more important. The stakes are nothing less than control of our children’s minds.

He’s Sinking! George Bush’s continued descent to Nixonian depths

Following up on my previous thoughts about whether President Bush will beat Richard Nixon for the coveted title of Most Hated President, Bush is now closing in on the 20^th percentiles in his approval ratings.

The USA today/Gallop Poll has him at 31 percent with his disapproval rating at a record 65 percent.

Polite debate, cultural controversy or civil war: What’s the next step in the sex wars?

While the blogosphere has been tied up in screaming fits about the politics and possible scandals surrounding Porter Goss’s resignation as CIA director and Gen. Michael V. Hayden’s appointment to that position, I have been pondering what goes on in people’s beds. Most specifically, I am wondering what is going to happen when American heterosexuals realize that their sex lives are being targeted by Christian dominationists.

At the same time, I wonder what the future of our great and continuing culture war will be. What will we do as those dominationists, who are more properly known as dominionists, attempt to control the most intimate parts of all of our lives?

Think I’m exaggerating? Take a look at Russell Shorto’s fascinating article in this Sunday’s New York Time’s Magazine. Shorto argues, quite convincingly, that the next step for the anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-anything-but-them movement is to take control of everyone – and I do mean everyone’s – sex life. Shorto writes (the emphasis is mine.):

Many Christians who are active in the evolving anti-birth-control arena state frankly that what links their efforts is a religious commitment to altering the moral landscape of the country. In particular, and not to put too fine a point on it, they want to change the way Americans have sex.

In other words, these folks want to control every heterosexuals' sex life. Shorto reports that the anti-birth control folks want to reserve sex for married heterosexuals who are jumping into bed for the sole purpose of making babies.

Shorto continues:

The subject is talked about in evangelical churches and is on the agenda at the major Bible-based conservative organizations like Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition. It also has its point people in Congress — including Representative Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, Representative Chris Smith of New Jersey, Representative Joe Pitts and Representative Melissa Hart of Pennsylvania and Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — all Republicans who have led opposition to various forms of contraception.

Although I’ve never seen this discussed in such detail, the idea doesn’t surprise me. I’ve heard it bouncing around Kansas for at least a decade, coming out of the mouths by both ministers and politicians.

As a lesbian, I’m familiar with the rip-out-your-gut feeling of knowing that a group of people – well funded, well organized and determined – want to do nothing less than walk into your bedroom and keep you from expressing your love the way you need to. People do desperate things when they feel this way. I wonder if the anti-birth control people realize that?

All of this is coming as I’ve been enjoying a new column in Newsweek. (Who knew I’d be so enamored with the mainstream media this week?). Written by Jon Meacham, the author of “American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation,” the column is tackling the central issues of the culture war.

Meacham says he came in for some harsh criticism after he published his first column. In it, he suggested that it was possible to actually talk to Christian dominationists, and he suggested some theological arguments to use. I discussed that here.

I have received a number of replies; the most interesting—and, to me, most discouraging—were from people who seem to think that we are trapped in a permanent conflict that will admit no resolution. One reader wrote: "When dealing with zealots, your logic makes no difference in what they hear/believe or feel should be forced upon others—the only folks that would read your article and agree with you are the same folks that already agree with you."

Mecham adds:

If we decide that it is impossible for people who do not believe that they are in possession of the ultimate, only truth to speak reasonably to those who do, then it is not a far jump to saying civil society is unsustainable. The point of a republic like ours is for opposing forces to contend against one another peaceably, within a sphere of checks and balances. Given that some fundamentalists believe in forced conversions or in holy war, what are we to do in the face of such threats to our security and serenity? Surrender? Do nothing?

I would add that many people who would be my allies might well feel that the only alternative is to do to them before they do to us. In other words, use force. I suspect that people would first support the use of political campaigns. However, if these folks from this one, narrow band of Christianity are so determined to march into all of our bedrooms, how long will it be before people feel backed into a corner and decide they have to fight back physically?

It seems insane to even suggest that could happen, but when you mess in the most intimate parts of peoples lives, all bets are off.

And yet, I put my faith in Mecham’s approach. It’s an approach that I’ve argued for vigorously and have been attacked for taking. (Call it the “Respect-Their-Right-to-Exist / Argue-With-Them / Organize-Against-Them Approach.) As a lesbian, I’ve had to deal with these people and their desperate need to control my bed for my entire life. I am truly tired of it, yet what good does it do if we become as bad as they are? Where will it lead us if we don’t even try to talk?

Thus, I throw my lot in with Meachem:

It seems to me that we must keep the conversation going.

2 Comments:

Anonymous said...

First, there is a little gem floating around that I wish to share: "There are three boxes used to defend liberty: ballot box, jury box, ammo box. They are to be accessed in that order.

I would argue, in fact, that we are very nearly ready for step three. Sexuality is one area that has become unbearably oppressive, but there are others: Eminent domain, the drug "war", all of the infrastructure that comprises our "laws for money" system, the acid-like erosion of civil liberties; Sadly, I can go on.

The worst part is the complete feeling of helplessness. There is absolutely no venue or means available to me, as a citizen of only average resources, to have any real effect upon the situation. I can speak to like-minded individuals, as I am here, but aside from outright revolt, what am I accomplishing? You already agree with my distress over the extant situation.

It is truly a sad time to live in for those who value freedom and liberty, as I do.

Ben

8:20 PM

Jordan Glassman said...

An interesting question, due in no small part to the fact that many have been faced with situations where a sour debate ended with one or both sides wondering if the other person was even listening. Sometimes, following a discussion, argument, or debate with a person with extreme conservative, religious views, I walk away, shaking my head and wondering how a person could possibly think that stuff. And if they actually heard or understood anything I just said.

Let's assume for the moment that the answer is no, that zealots pay no attention to logic or reason, and believe what they may, in defiance of empirical data. Then how does positive change ever occur?

The answer, I think, lies with children. These zealots are parents... too old, too invested, too hardwired to change their ways. Maybe they are in a rut, or maybe they can't change. It is the children, modern children, with unlimited access to information. Though influenced by irrational parents, they are gradually introduced to and influenced by different points of view, and reach the only logical conclusion.

Of course, this has been going on for years, independent of contemporary technology. Maybe it just happens faster now.

Either way, the conversation must keep going, else the next generation will have nothing to read. But it is not at all difficult to imagine that there are many, if not most, of my ultra right-wing implacable peers who hardly listen or think at all, and certainly can't be convinced of anything.

10:17 PM