"Pride in something over which you have no control is taking credit for something you didn't do. I love people who are who they are without apology AND without smug, showy displays." -- Marc-Anthony Macon
Summer is here, which in Manhattan means we're going to have to endure a lot of parades. In contrast to Harold Arlen and Ted Koehler, I do not love a parade. At these miserable events, a large group of people, sometimes bearing colorful floats and costumes, walks down the middle of the street, while another group of people watches them. It's fascinating stuff if you've never seen people walk.
Parades are also unconscionably disruptive to non-participants, who are simply trying to walk down the street in the usual fashion, with the standard intention of getting from one place to another. Almost all of the New Yorkers I know face St. Patrick's Day, Puerto Rican Day, Gay Pride Day, and many, many other days with deep dread and loathing. Want to cross Fifth Avenue? Sorry -- your life is on hold. We've got a bunch of people walking down the street here.
And why are they doing this? Because they're just so proud. They're proud to be Irish, proud to be Puerto Rican, proud to be gay.
There is, of course, nothing shameful about being any of those things. Nor are they any great accomplishment. Like Marc-Anthony Macon, the great friend and great writer whose quote begins this article, I think one should reserve pride for things that require some special effort, other than simply being born. To use myself as an example: I'm not at all proud of being Jewish. Nor am I ashamed of it. It's not a factor in any evaluation of self-worth, because I didn't do anything to achieve it. I was born, and there I was, Jewish. Pride shouldn't come so cheaply.*
It's a particularly egregious mistake in the gay community (though the Gay Pride Parade, which shut down large parts of our city yesterday, is undoubtedly the proudest of all). The case for equal rights for gay Americans -- a case I've often made, and a cause I believe in -- rests partly on the fact that gay people are born gay; it's not a choice. It's disingenuous, then, to march down the street congratulating oneself for it. Instead of turning Fifth Avenue into a dysfunctional mob scene, go to City Hall and demand to be issued a marriage license. That would be something to be proud of. But no -- everyone loves a parade. Look at us! We're walking down the street! With hats!
People are too easy on themselves. They overflow with pride in their ethnicities, their local and national origins, their sexual orientations, their body types. Are we really this desperate? Better to reserve all that high self-regard for occasions when one has actually accomplished something.
The issue has global implications, because this kind of unearned, we're-number-one narcissism is also what fuels nationalism and xenophobia. Americans who have never been to another country, and who know very little about life in other countries, are always quick to declare that this is the best country in the world, and that the wretched people who live in all other countries spend their pathetic lives consumed with envy for us. Ironically, the only people among us who really deserve to be proud of being Americans -- for whom it's a genuine achievement -- are immigrants.
But we have a powerful compulsion to root for the home team. If I'm from New York, that must mean people from Boston suck! It is this mindless illusion of exceptionalism that many would like to dignify with the word pride. It's generally accepted that it's good to "be proud of what you are," just as it's generally accepted that "taking something on faith" is a virtue. We should examine these phenomena more closely, and make mature decisions about how virtuous they really are. Be proud of what you do. If you're bursting with pride over your inherent, unalterable characteristics, then what you call pride is just meaningless self-congratulation. Like a parade.
I see your point and don't disagree with it, but I can't help thinking in the case of gay pride it's a welcome corrective to all the pressure gays have experienced over the years to feel ashamed of how they were born. Maybe that's been a factor in all the ethnic pride days too. At some point the corrective is no longer needed and therefore no longer welcome, but until that time, I'd cut the illogically proud some slack. Would your opinion change if these events were packaged as "I'm not ashamed of being Irish/Jewish/Puerto Rican/Gay Days"?
Great article. I have thought many of the same things myself. And I'm completely with you up until the last line of the next to the last paragraph. If you are a contributing member of this society, and work hard to improve your life and the lives of others in this country, then it does make sense for you to be proud to be an American. One might also argue that anyone can leave the country at any time, so choosing to remain gives you a reason to be proud of your home. However, I tend to agree with you that it's more a matter of rooting for the home team than having something to actually be proud of. Perhaps what we're looking for here is for people to be proud of America, rather than proud to BE an American. A fine line, but a legitimate one nevertheless.
I appreciate your sarcasm. I happen to feel that it is the highest form of humor. Keep in mind, though, that it is easy for sarcasm to cross a line into insult and vitriol. Once that happens, people stop taking you seriously.
I could go on about this for months and all that would come of it would be a snippy dissertation that would piss off every academic unfortunate enough to skim its contents, but yeah; you said it, brother. Aside from being bothersome, tedious, generally childish displays, pride-oriented parades (the gay pride version being one of the worst in my eyes), serve primarily to limit the perceived public definition of a group to a large extent, and to some extent, to define that group internally.
As Dad suggests, these events come off less like "We're proud" and more like "We're not ashamed." That latter statement is just so obvious to me, that getting up on a float and saying it, regardless of how nebulously I express it, sounds a bit like "methinks the 'proud' homo doth protest too much." It's as if Pride participants need an event to remind themselves that they aren't ashamed, and that's pathetic. Being a hated minority is good for growing thick skin, if nothing else, and anyone who has endured even a fractional lifetime of that should not need a parade to feel safe and supported.
As for Tiwaka's point - eh...sort of. But not really. In fact, no - not really at all. If I work hard and contribute to American society, I am proud of MY WORK. I am not proud of American or Americans. Unless I was directly involved in their achievements, pride in their work is, again, taking credit for something that I didn't do. I didn't write the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. I didn't write the Emancipation Proclamation. I didn't fight at Normandy. I didn't fight in any battle that preserved freedom and our ideals. While my efforts may have, in their small way, made this country a better place, they have hopefully also made the world a better place, so I see no reason to be any more proud of being an American than being a world citizen. Patriotism, nationalism and civic pride are, as far as I can tell, lathered in heaps of hubris with this idea that a place is worthy of praise because I was born there.
Individuals achieve things that are worthy of pride. Sometimes, individuals working together can achieve great things, worthy of pride. But without a specific, definable achievement in mind (let's say, a high school graduation), mass displays of pride are not only counter-intuitive, I suspect they're effectively counter-productive.
I could go on about this for months and all that would come of it would be a snippy dissertation that would piss off every academic unfortunate enough to skim its contents, but yeah; you said it, brother. Aside from being bothersome, tedious, generally childish displays, pride-oriented parades (the gay pride version being one of the worst in my eyes), serve primarily to limit the perceived public definition of a group to a large extent, and to some extent, to define that group internally.
As Dad suggests, these events come off less like "We're proud" and more like "We're not ashamed." That latter statement is just so obvious to me, that getting up on a float and saying it, regardless of how nebulously I express it, sounds a bit like "methinks the 'proud' homo doth protest too much." It's as if Pride participants need an event to remind themselves that they aren't ashamed, and that's pathetic. Being a hated minority is good for growing thick skin, if nothing else, and anyone who has endured even a fractional lifetime of that should not need a parade to feel safe and supported.
As for Tiwaka's point - eh...sort of. But not really. In fact, no - not really at all. If I work hard and contribute to American society, I am proud of MY WORK. I am not proud of American or Americans. Unless I was directly involved in their achievements, pride in their work is, again, taking credit for something that I didn't do. I didn't write the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. I didn't write the Emancipation Proclamation. I didn't fight at Normandy. I didn't fight in any battle that preserved freedom and our ideals. While my efforts may have, in their small way, made this country a better place, they have hopefully also made the world a better place, so I see no reason to be any more proud of being an American than being a world citizen. Patriotism, nationalism and civic pride are, as far as I can tell, lathered in heaps of hubris with this idea that a place is worthy of praise because I was born there.
Individuals achieve things that are worthy of pride. Sometimes, individuals working together can achieve great things, worthy of pride. But without a specific, definable achievement in mind (let's say, a high school graduation), mass displays of pride are not only counter-intuitive, I suspect they're effectively counter-productive.
Many this week (including NPR, New York, and MTV) have reported an amusing little idiosyncrasy in the Newsweekwebsite. If you go there, and on your keyboard enter the Konami code from the old video game Contra (up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, B, A, enter), you will be taken to an alternate version of the Newsweek site which reports that zombies have attacked:
For likely theories, and reminders of similar pranks in the past, read Prefect on the subject.
But what no other account has mentioned is the political message embedded in this prank. Go to newsweek.com and enter the code, and then scroll down to the articles. Click where it says "Zombies" in one of the little boxes to the right of an article, and here's what you get:
UPDATE [9:43 PM]: Well, the "tea party" thing no longer happens. Maybe Newsweek can't figure out how to stop the zombie bug, but they do have some control over their keywords. Anyway, on the level: two hours ago, clicking on "Zombies" brought you to Newsweek search results for "tea party."
UPDATE [6/15 9:46 AM]: And now the whole thing no longer works. I guess Newsweek figured it out. It was fun while it lasted.
There's no situation more embarrassing: You're at a party, or out with friends, and someone asks you to name all 192 member states of the United Nations. "Of course," you confidently snap. But after effortlessly reeling off the first fifty or so, you realize that you're stuck. The evening turns sour. Awkwardness pervades. Your friends stop returning your phone calls. There is nothing left but abject humiliation and despair.
Don't let this happen to you! Just remember this simple little song.
Last Thursday, May 6, was the National Day of Prayer, on which Americans are encouraged by law to talk to their imaginary friend. The National Day of Prayer has often been a subject of controversy, as well it should. This year, it followed a federal court ruling that the Day of Prayer is unconstitutional. Discussing the ruling recently, Bill O'Reilly said, "The Constitution clearly states the government cannot impose religion on its citizens, but setting aside a day to encourage the expression of voluntary spirituality is in no way an imposition."
Needless to say, O'Reilly is wrong. What the First Amendment "clearly states" is that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So the law Congress passed in 1952, stating that "the President shall issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a National Day of Prayer on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals" is itself unconstitutional. So is the 1956 law that codified "In God We Trust" as the national motto. It's also obviously unconstitutional (and outrageous) that religious organizations don't have to pay taxes.
But if you think Bill O'Reilly is misguided, that's nothing compared to his guest. Sarah Palin, who is to the English language what a mongoose is to particle physics, said this about the founding fathers:
"They crafted a Declaration of Independence and a Constitution that, um, allows that Judeo-Christian belief to be the foundation of our laws and our Constitution, of course, um, essentially acknowledging that our unalienable rights don't come from man, they come from God, so this document is set up to protect us from a government that would ever infringe on our right to have freedom of religion and to be able to express our faith freely."
I know, I know. But let's go through this.
The Declaration of Independence says absolutely nothing about Judeo-Christian belief being the foundation of anything. The three lines religionists always seize on come at the beginning and the end. First, the introductory paragraph cites the aim of the colonists "to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them." The reference to "Nature's God" doesn't sound very Judeo-Christian; it's just what a deist like Thomas Jefferson would write. (Jefferson subscribed to Spinoza's vision of a God who created the universe but took no active role in human affairs. He scorned "faith" and had no use for organized religion. Jefferson took a razor to the New Testament, removed all references to Christ's supposed divinity, and republished it as The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.)
In the second paragraph, we learn that people are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights," which does speak to a general belief in a higher power, but not at all to Judeo-Christian belief being "the foundation of our laws." And then there's a bit at the end, in which the colonists go forward "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence" -- again, an extremely mild and ambiguous spiritual reference.
I love the Declaration of Independence for its elegant language and its historical significance. It's a founding document of the American nation. It is not, however, a founding document of American law. The Constitution, on the other hand, which is the founding document of American law, never once mentions God or a Creator or Divine Providence; its only reference to religion is in the First Amendment, as quoted earlier. Surely if the framers really did want to make explicit that they were founding a nation based on Judeo-Christian religion, they would have. But they didn't make it explicit at all. They didn't even hint at it.
O'Reilly, not wishing to be one-upped by Palin, went on to say that "what [the framers] thought was right and wrong came from the Ten Commandments, and that is beyond a reasonable doubt." (Palin jumped right in, claiming the framers wanted to "create law based on the God of the Bible and the Ten Commandments.") What are these people talking about? Of the Ten Commandments, only three have any connection to our laws -- the three that say, in short, don't kill, don't steal, and don't lie (under oath). But these have been part of nearly every legal system ever envisioned, including in Ancient Greece and in the East, centuries before the Old Testament was written. These ideas do not come from the Ten Commandments; they were appropriated for them. And they in no way constitute what is really unique and visionary about the American system: Due process, checks and balances, freedom of expression. These noble concepts, of course, appear nowhere in the Commandments or in the Bible.
Anyone who says that our founding documents prove America was intended to be "a Christian nation" is simply wrong. This is not name-calling; they are, by the dictionary definition, ignorant. They make this claim based not on fact, but on belief. They believe with all their hearts that America is supposed to be a Christian nation. So of course that must be what it says in the Constitution! If only they would shut up for a few minutes and read it. Believing something, as religious people prove every day, doesn't make it true. If something is true, you don't have to believe it. You can know it.
Noah Diamond! I am a Christian and you are a Jew. It does not bother me one bit if you decide to observe Roshoshanna (spellin?) or pry at the wall, neither foes it bother me for my Muslim brother to do his thing on the prayer rug or for the Dahli Llama to have his followers, why does it bother you for me to have a prayer day. Last I looked no one was FORCED for pray no armed troops were out in force taking talleys of who did not pray. It is a matter of choice, don't if you don't feel the need.
I personally do not feel Jesus is an imaginary friend. I rather take offense at that. Jesus is a very real part of my life and has been with me and comforted me through many difficult days.
The constitution does give me the right to pray, and hearing about Thomas Jefferson's razor blade editing of the bible reminds me of the time a bible salesman tried to sell my Jewish friend Esther a bible, upon learning she was Jewish he offered to tear out the New Testament. It only made him look stupid.
I am not a zealot nor a religious right, I am not ignorant. I believe in the dignity and divinty of all people. My church's liturgy reminds us of that every single Sunday. I am so sorry for the people who believe nothing, only in themselves, I will pray for them.
I thought Liberals were non judgemental and tolerant.
I am indeed a Jew, ethnically speaking, but I'm not a Jew in the same sense that you are a Christian. I'm a Jewish atheist. I don't celebrate Jewish holidays or attend services. I gave the religion a try, including two years of Hebrew school, but for me it offered little of value. However, like you, I would never question anyone's right to engage in religious practices. What I object to is Congress passing laws respecting the establishment of religion, as specifically forbidden by the First Amendment. Your right to pray is, of course, unimpeachable. But for Congress to encourage it by law, however mildly, is unconstitutional.
My "imaginary friend" reference was not specifically about Jesus, but God in general. But perhaps "imaginary friend" is a cheap shot. I'm sorry that you were offended. Maybe I should have said "hypothetical friend." I'm quick to point out the lack of evidence for God's existence, but of course, I can't prove that God does not exist. So I'll consider it a hypothesis rather than a delusion.
The story about the Bible salesman is a great, amusing anecdote, but I don't think it's analogous to the Jefferson Bible. The salesman was trying to make a sale. Jefferson's point was that Christ said some valuable things which deserve to be considered on their own merits, without dogma.
I didn't say that all religious people are ignorant, and I wouldn't say that. I said that it's ignorant to claim, as O'Reilly and Palin have, that the Declaration and the Constitution mandate law based on Judeo-Christian belief. As I've written in the article, a reading of those documents proves otherwise. I've used the word ignorance only in that context, and in that context, I stand by it.
Just as you were offended by my "imaginary friend" joke, I must take issue with your characterization of atheists as people "who believe nothing, only in themselves." I believe in many things. But I make a distinction between what I believe and what I know. There are things which I suspect, but cannot verify, and I would never claim that those are truths.
Finally, I don't think I'm intolerant. I have many dearly beloved friends and family members (including, of course, you) who completely disagree with me about all of this. I'm happy to hear their opposing views, and I'm always very interested in what they (and you) have to say. To me, the questions which religion attempts to answer are the most fascinating and important questions in the human experience. I think it's vital for atheists, agnostics, and believers of all persuasions to discuss these questions openly, rather than avoid them for fear of conflict. Wouldn't Jesus agree?
I haven't written much about the so-called Tea Party movement here, because this is a place where I write about important things. The media has a passionate fetish for this particular hiccup, and every time someone who's "concerned about fiscal issues" holds up a picture of Obama dressed as Hitler, it's breaking news. Did you know that last week's rally in Los Angeles, protesting Arizona's new immigration law, drew 50,000 demonstrators -- more than any "Tea Party" event ever has? Probably not, because that protest was barely covered. But turn on any cable news show on any day and you're certain to see footage of protesting teabaggers.
Oh -- but they don't like to be called teabaggers. Maybe you've heard. They are Tea Party activists, see, and they're so offended by the term teabagger that they are actually comparing it to the word nigger. They also don't like being called racists, but if you're comparing these two terms, I think you've pretty much earned it. Even if teabagger were an offensive slur, to equate it with the brutal legacy of American racism (inherent in the word nigger) is far more offensive.
So as not to focus exclusively on the hysterical protesters on TV, I've looked for quotes from some of the serious, articulate leaders of this movement. The problem is that this movement doesn't have any. But yesterday on The View, Tea Party Express director Amy Kramer actually said that teabagger was "just as disgraceful" as nigger. "It's disgusting, it's disgraceful, and no one should use it," she said. "We shouldn't be using either of those terms." This is like saying we shouldn't be tickling people with a feather or chopping off their heads with an axe.
In truth, teabaggers is much more accurate than Tea Party. They actually embraced the term until they realized it was also a popular sexual colloquialism. As I'm sure you know, to teabag is to insert your testicles into someone's mouth, or to have someone insert his testicles into yours. During the act of teabagging, one's powers of reason and communication are somewhat compromised. Let's say you were trying to make a point about government spending, but at the moment, you happened to have someone's testicles in your mouth. Your message would be garbled, incoherent. Or let's say you were at a rally, trying to wave a "Go Back to Kenya" sign, but your testicles were in someone's mouth. It would be hard to concentrate. A kind of delirium would set in. The next time you see these people protesting on television, imagine that they have testicles in their mouths, and it all makes a lot more sense.
Tea Party, on the other hand, is supposed to be a reference to the Boston Tea Party of 1773, a key event on the road to the American Revolution. The colonists were protesting the fact that the British crown was taxing the American colonies without granting them representation in Parliament. "No taxation without representation," remember? But the Boston Tea Party is in no way analogous to the modern-day movement which has appropriated its name. Americans today are not excessively taxed -- one of the great ironies of the whole thing is that taxes are now lower than they were under Bush -- and, more to the point, they have representation. The colonists weren't against paying taxes; what they objected to was having no voice in their government. But the teabaggers, as American citizens, have the right to vote for their local, state, and federal representatives. The Sons of Liberty of 1773 would wonder what the hell the teabaggers of 2010 are complaining about.
So I will continue to refer to them as teabaggers. Just because they don't know anything about the Boston Tea Party doesn't mean the rest of us have to perpetuate their ignorance. Calling them the Tea Party is like calling Michael Jackson the King of Pop. Sure, theywant to be called that, but the rest of us needn't participate in their delusion.
Okay, okay -- if they don't want to be called teabaggers all the time, let's alternate it with another term: Racists. Lately, the movement's leaders, when not denying that the movement has leaders, have been spouting much guff about how they discourage racism at their events. That may or may not be true, but obviously if they are trying to distance themselves from racism, they're doing a horrendouslybad job.
"We are not racists," Amy Kramer insisted on The View. "This is about fiscal issues, as I've said." Yes, she did say that, several times. "We're all about fiscal issues," she announced at the beginning of the interview, citing "three core values: fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets." Uh-huh. So you're the director of a national group that promotes economic reform...I guess you know all about the American economy, then. Nope: "I'm not an economist," Kramer said. "I'm not qualified to do that." So you're not particularly informed about the subject you claim to be "all about." It's not that you know anything about it; you just have a general sense that you're not happy with it. I wonder why?
"What people don't understand," Kramer said, "[is that] this is not about President Obama." Like many teabaggers, she's quick to add that the "spending" she opposes began under Bush. But is there any doubt that Amy Kramer and the vast majority of teabaggers voted for Bush/Cheney twice and for McCain/Palin once? They vaguely believe that "government spending" has been "out of control," but they didn't care enough to get active about it until America had a black president.When you claim that your lower taxes are actually higher, when you protest an utterly fictitious "government takeover of healthcare," when you confuse the stimulus with the bailouts -- in short, when nothing you have to say bears any relation to reality -- people are going to start wondering what you're really upset about. All they have to do isreadthesigns.
If the teabaggers were not largely racist, and if their cause really was individual freedom and limited government, they would be protesting the Arizona immigration law. If they really represented the interests of the little guy against the big guy, they would be protesting the Supreme Court's ruling on corporate campaign contributions, and the BP oil spill. If they really cared about financial reform, they would favor breaking up the banks and regulating Wall Street. But they don't really care about any of these things. They don't even begin to understand them. All they know is that they've been really angry since, oh, November 4, 2008, and now they want to "take back America." From whom, exactly? Its democratically-elected representatives?
"Of course, they want to discredit us," Amy Kramer said, when asked about the charges of racism. But there's no need to discredit a movement which never had any credit in the first place. When these people try to explain themselves, it never makes much sense. But give them a break -- after all, they have testicles in their mouths.
Note: The graphic at the top of this entry is from PBS's interactive Patchwork Nation map, a great tool which demonstrates, among other things, how infinitesimal the teabagger movement really is.
This open letter to Ralph Piss has also been posted as a comment on his blog (following his post "Sarah Palin Poem #232").
Ralph,
The history of conflict between us is well known to anyone who reads my blog or yours. As I'm sure you know (but won't admit), I have always welcomed our exchange of ideas, when it has qualified as such. I have done much to help you, despite the considerable ideological gap between us, and despite the countless vitriolic statements you have made about me.
In my view, though, you went too far recently, when you attributed statements to me which you know I never made, and then published an entire website devoted to insulting me and highlighting said statements, and then expanded upon your original lie. I have asked you to remove the fabricated "quote" from your blog and website. That was more than two weeks ago, and you have failed to comply.
As I see it, the only way for us to settle this is in person. On the Internet, it's far too easy to make extreme statements without ever having to look someone in the eye and be accountable. That is why I am challenging you to a debate. My suggestion is that we meet in a neutral location and hold a civil, unmoderated debate in two parts. The first part of the debate will concern our positions on the major social and political issues of the day, and the second part will focus on our personal conflicts. I hope you will accept my challenge, and I welcome your input regarding the venue, the format, and the rules.
Let's have this out once and for all, Ralph. It's the best thing for us. It's the best thing for America.
In yesterday's crooked -- and, as it turns out, successful -- attempts to send the health care bill back to the House, Senator Tom Coburn proposed an amendment which would prevent child molesters from receiving Viagra. But if Senator Coburn is really concerned about child molestation, and not just about thwarting progress in health care, perhaps he should argue for the abolition of the Catholic church.
Even without the recent revelations concerning Germany and Wisconsin, it's been clear for a long time that the Catholic church is, in part, a child sex ring. It permits and facilitates the rape of young children by grown men. And whenever this evil is discovered, the church has a long history of simply transferring pedophile priests to new locations, where they inevitably strike again. We now know that Reverend Lawrence C. Murphy of Wisconsin molested two hundred deaf children, and that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger -- in between his time in the Hitler Youth* and his career as the current Pope -- labored to protect not the children but their assailant. The New York Timesreports that internal correspondence "shows that while church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed, their highest priority was protecting the church from scandal."
Church officials tussled over whether the priest should be dismissed! It was, to them, an open question, whether a supposed role model who had violated two hundred children was still fit to be a Catholic priest. Not only that -- their decision, ultimately, was to let Father Murphy continue with his divinely-inspired investigation of the pre-pubescent penis. "I simply want to live out the time that I have left in the dignity of my priesthood," Murphy wrote to Ratzinger near the end of his life. "I ask your kind assistance in this matter."
Sure, no problem, Murph! Don't worry about it. We understand. In addition to the hilarious phrase "the dignity of my priesthood," Murphy's request for Ratzinger's "assistance" shows an astonishing lack of remorse. He wrote that he had "already repented," which I guess means he apologized to his imaginary friend. But not to the children he abused, not to their parents, not to their community, not to the large number of good people who trust and admire their religious leaders.
The tendency of Catholic clergymen to rape children is a logical result of religious arrogance and ignorance. The church thinks it's above the law. The church thinks that there is a God, and that they are closer to God than anyone else -- a dangerous delusion in an individual, but a catastrophic one in an institution. The church is accountable only to an entity which does not exist -- or, at best, whose existence can never be proven, who never says anything or rules on any case, who by his apparent absence allows humans to do whatever they can get away with in their own consciences. Father Murphy was clearly unburdened by conscience.
Moreover, the church keeps its clergymen in the unnatural and untenable state of sexual celibacy. In every priest there is a lifetime of repressed physical need, accompanied by a deep sense of moral infallibility. In addition to this, they are surrounded by young children who are under their care and control. Their proper job, which is itself highly suspect, is to indoctrinate these children in the ancient mythology and superstition of one of human history's most violent and repressive cults. It's a toxic situation, and it has wrought another kind of Crusade, against children.
The Catholic church, and its leader, must be prosecuted. If it were anything but a church, it would have been shut down long ago, and all those who have facilitated its crimes would be in prison, where they belong. Imagine for a moment that this legacy of systemic child abuse had taken place not in the Catholic church but in Chuck E. Cheese restaurants. Imagine that Chuck E. Cheese employees were constantly molesting their young customers, and that Chuck E. Cheese management was willfully protecting these employees from prosecution, transferring them to a different restaurant when the heat got too hot. There wouldn't be a Chuck E. Cheese left in America. And who would lead the crusade against them? Religious moralists.
* It's often considered bad form to point out that the Pope was a member of the Hitler Youth, and last year I took some heat for mentioning it on Daily Kos. The standard defense goes that when Ratzinger was growing up in Germany, participation in the Hitler Youth was compulsory. Uh-huh, whatever. It still seems to me that when selecting a world leader for all Catholics, the church might have gone to the trouble of finding someone who had never had any affiliation with the Nazis. Might have been nice.
So it turns out Barack Obama is a transformative president. It turns out positive change can be accomplished under Democratic leadership.
Those are the things we were beginning to doubt, but last night's historic vote allayed those doubts. The commotion surrounding the vote, and the debate leading up to it, also told us some things we already knew:
1) The bill isn't good enough. It's wonderful that it passed; it's a step in the right direction; and maybe it really is the best we could do. Its passage is at least as resounding a tribute to Speaker Pelosi as to President Obama. But Pelosi's declaration last night (via a quote from Ted Kennedy) that health care was no longer "unfinished business" was not quite true. Health care is still unfinished business, and it will remain so until America joins the rest of the civilized world in choosing a single-payer, non-profit system which eliminates insurance companies altogether. But we're closer to universal coverage now than we have ever been, and that's no small feat -- presidents have tried to do this, and failed, for over a century.
2) Bipartisanship is the wrong approach. In theory, it's fine. But when one of the two parties involved is today's Republican Party, there is just no point in trying to work with them. As Pelosi aptly pointed out last night, the bill is bipartisan, in that it includes (by her count) two hundred Republican amendments. Yet not a single Republican voted for it. Which makes us wonder what all those Republican amendments are doing in there. We could have passed this bill -- or even a better one -- a year ago, if Obama had spent less time trying to convince Republicans and more time trying to rally Democrats.
3) The Republican Party is a disgrace. The Republicans in Congress (one of whom shouted "baby killer" at Stupak on the House floor, another of whom declared that health care reform is "as worthless as a Confederate dollar after the Great War of Yankee Aggression") are indistinguishable from the ones outside the Capitol who hurled racial and anti-gay epithets as well as saliva at House members. Sorry, right-wingers, but when virtually nothing you say bears any resemblance to reality, rational people are going to reach the obvious conclusion that your hatred of Obama is racially motivated. The Senate bill passed by the House last night is in no way "a government takeover of health care." And I say this with disappointment, as someone who wants the government to take over health care. That's simply not what the government is doing, and anyone who says it is is either ignorant or lying. There's no way around that. So what's your real problem?
4) It's time for pro-choice Democrats to take aggressive action in support of abortion rights. The uncomfortable truth is that the current Democratic majority exists partly because political pragmatists of the Rahm Emanuel variety saw that the party could pick up seats by getting behind anti-choice Democrats like Bart Stupak. We made room for them in the tent, and now here they are. The unnecessary and humiliating executive order Stupak squeezed out of the White House -- essentially reiterating the 1977 Hyde Amendment -- should be seen as a breaking point for all who support women's rights. After the president signs the health care bill, congressional Democrats should get to work expanding the availability of abortion for all women who want or need it. An excellent step would be the repeal of the Hyde Amendment itself. Why shouldn't federal funds be used for abortion? Because some people don't like it? A lot of people don't like war. So let's either repeal the Hyde Amendment or pass something which prohibits taxpayer dollars from going to the military.
Celebrate the passage of the health care bill, but don't settle for it.
I'm not going to spend any more time on this than it's worth, but there are some things I have to clear up. After all these years, I wasn't surprised at all that last week, shortly after the release of our latest web video, New Faces of 1492, our old friend Ralph Piss took to his blog to trash it. ("New Faces of 1492 Sucks" was his clever headline.) That didn't bother me a bit -- especially since he embedded it as well as condemned it.
However, looking back in his recent blog entries, I was struck by the fact that the three most recent were all about me, or about Nero Fiddled projects. In all of 2009, Ralph only posted one article -- a bitter rejection of Who is Ralph Piss?, a documentary by Morgan O. Horgan, which I co-produced last year. Of his four 2008 posts, the most recent was an extremely hostile review of our then-current theatrical production ("Life After Bush: A Disgusting Night of Liberal Lies"). I was compelled to leave a comment, pointing this out to Ralph, and over the next few days our conversation proceeded like this:
Clicking the link brought me to what is undoubtedly the worst-looking do-it-yourself website I have ever seen. It's typical of Piss, with lots of misplaced emphasis, simplistic thinking, and self-aggrandizement. It has a few eyesore-laden pages, stuffed with clip art, and a comments section (in which one "JOE THE PLUMMER [sic]" congratulates Ralph on being "a great American"). But the site consists mostly of material comparing me, unfavorably, with Ralph. None of this bothers me in the slightest -- not even the fact that the homepage shows my face exploding.
But what does bother me is that on one page of the website -- accessed by clicking a button which reads "Click here to see what Noah says" -- Ralph attributes to me a paragraph of text which I quite plainly never wrote or said. In this little masterpiece -- which is as full of unmistakable Ralph Piss flourishes as the rest of the site -- I supposedly declare that I "don't know anything about politics, and my comedy plays are NOT FUNNY!" (Sounds like me, doesn't it?)
This I do take seriously. Ralph can say whatever he wants about me, but he can't put words in my mouth. I would never do that to him. In comments left on both his Piss on America blog and this new website, I have refuted his claim that those are my words, and asked that he remove either the page or the inaccurate attribution. So now the ball is in Ralph Piss's court. He has been plugging this "Ralph Piss is Great, Noah Diamond is Stupid" website -- in comments left on this blog, as well as his own (where the current post is "Sarah Palin Poem #219").
I state unequivocally that I am not the author of the comments attributed to me on Ralph Piss's "A few words from Noah Diamond" web page.
How disapponting to see the return of Ralph Piss to public discourse. His absence has been like a period of health between bouts of intestinal distress. Now, alas, the nausea resumes.
Where do you suppose he's been? Trying to figure out how to write? Maybe he's escaped from prison. Rehab. An asylum of some kind. We can only hope for his early recapture and the return to civil discourse that event will herald.
