Why the Antitheists Go Too Far.

While on vacation from TLWR, I'd come across a clip of Christopher Hitchens, who is the author of the book, God Is Not Great (which no, I have not read), and among other things, is a vocal atheist that speaks out often and quite abrasively against organized religions.

Mr. Hitchens, who's courage I do at times admire, is a frequent guest on many talk shows, so one may not be surprised if you've seen him on tv, or, as it is now called, Youtube. One clip in particular caught my eye as I was browsing through the place.

Here it is for mass consumption.

Personally, I don't watch Hannity & Colmes, I've been left unimpressed by Sean Hannity on the few occasions when I've been exposed to his brand of professional television journalism.

That said, and speaking as a confirmed agnostic (if there is such a thing - how does one confirm not really knowing much?), I find that Mr. Hutchins (and he is hardly alone in his scathing opinion of faith in general and of religious leaders) does not help the cause of secularism and tolerance.

It is striking to me that the very basis on which people of no particular faith take objection to religion in it's organized form, as Mr. Hutchins illustrates in that clip, is that most religions and moreover religious organizations, are unbending and rigid. They have and do create discord among peoples, and in many cases, as in the case of Falwell, do promote intolerance and even hatred.

Yet all proponents of faith cannot be judged by the same yardstick.

Moreover, the point being made here is this: How can one attack religion, on the basis of breeding intolerance, while at the same time, being so callous towards the sensitivities of those to whom you preach tolerance?

Clearly, in the clip, Mr. Hitchens has no regard for the sentiments of the countless people that did hold Jerry Falwell in high regard, and it would be a gross injustice to define them all as bigots, racists and other such labels. This attitude is disturbingly common among atheists, more so in the Middle East, though here they are careful to keep their views where few will hear them, because yes, someone like me might get shot for writing something like this, which is in no small part the reason that this blog is operating with its author's usage of an alias.

There cannot be tolerance without mutual respect and mutual understanding. There cannot be tolerance without an unspoken accord that allows for respectful dialog without attack or persecution.

I often feel that we that are not of faith have had to suffer in these latter years as the Christians did in their infancy. And in doing so, we have developed a sense of bitter vindictiveness, we do not care about your sensitivities as we have been forced to put up with your lack of consideration for ours.

Which, in a tit for tat world, is only fair. But we, the secularist, claim a higher moral ground, a higher ethical ground, in that we are the people of the people, that we struggle against hate, and against intolerance. We seek a world for all.

But in that vision, there is no room for hate, and no room for anger. The resentments and injustices of the past must be put away.

Perhaps what Christopher Hitchens said about Jerry Falwell was true. It doesn't matter. What matters here is that he could have expressed those truths, he could have expression those thoughts, in a manner less designed to inflame and incite. For a man of his education, it would have been no great feat.

He chose not to. Full Post.

The Raconteur is Back!

The Blog has fallen into disuse lately, as I've been having a bit of a rough go at it in the world beyond the computer screen. Things, however, have settled down, and I return with a vengeance. Don't bother clicking on Full Post, that's it. Full Post.

Free Enterprise: For Whom the Bell Tolls

I read something this morning that made me want to throw up just a little bit in my mouth. The sad thing is that the point of the article I refer to was one that I would otherwise agree with. It's just that there's a certain self pitying, xenophobic tangent in which the author indulges, and it requires some response.

My response to Mr. Yellen below:

I neither have an apartment in New York, nor am I a European or a South American, but the reference to exploitation strikes me as greatly ironic, and somehow profoundly insulting.

It comes laced with a sense of hypocrisy, though perhaps both are understandable and forgivable when seen to manifest themselves in people that have known little else.

I would ask Mr. Yellen, who's self confessed (and as quickly dismissed) xenophobia verily drips from some words in his article, where the cries of exploitation were when the American machine used the very same principles of buy and sell in so called third world countries, working into labor, land and capital?

Ah, but when exporting American money, it was labeled by all parties as 'Foreign Investment'. Today, evidently, the tables, to some small extent, have turned. Suddenly the 'cheap dollars' allow the 'exploitation' of cities like New York by 'foreigners'.

The whole thing stinks of this all pervading arrogance, really. Specifically, the idea that it was alright for us, but it's not alright for them to do the exact same thing is what sticks in my craw.

For decades now, the US Government, both Democrats and Republicans, have fervently pushed the Global Economy into being this giant instaweb that it is today. They shoved free trade down the world's collective throat, forcibly at times, coercively at other times, breaking down barriers that in some part protected small time operators in underdeveloped economies from competing with robust megacorporations, and as far as the local small timers went, someone might want to wander down to take a careful peek at the categories of local produce that the US subsidizes in order to create a bulwark for the resident economy. Ah well, dog eat dog world, and all that. Except it wasn't always and it needn't be this savage.

Well, I've got news for you, Mr. Yellen: Free enterprise is a frightful bitch. And she swings both ways.

Don't get me wrong, while I don't tend to talk about economic policy as much as I rant on social issues, I find the unchecked and irresponsible levels of growth one of the greater evils of modern society. Just the wrapping in which this particular point was conveyed was, in a word...

Repugnant. Full Post.

Random Quote

I've decided that Quote of the Day will now be changed to Random Quote, mostly because it occurs to me that posting Quotes on a daily basis is impossible if you wish for the quotes to have any significance beyond ritual. Well, at least for me, there might be others out there that read enough material on a daily basis to find quotes worth quoting every day.

Today's quote though, from a memory of my childhood, it was spoken by a character on some cartoon or comic or something, but I can't recall who it was. It's stayed with me over the years.

"I've always resisted the idea that [the apple of] knowledge was the damnation of Adam." Full Post.

Even Benny and Snooch make fun of Dubya and Co.

For shame. Full Post.

The Raconteur Gets a Facelift.

So, I stayed up till noon today working on this thing, and let me tell you, HTML is something that, as Barbara Bush once said of Ms. Ferraro, rhymes with 'rich'. No really, it's evil. Spawn-of-Satan level evil.

But, we've finally pulled away the hazard tape and taken down the construction signs. I'm proud of my efforts. The Raconteur now boasts:

• Two sidebars, instead of just the one on the right.
• A larger area in total.
• A search box.
• An email address (impressive eh?)

The list looks dishearteningly sparse now but believe you me, actually getting it done while being entirely code oblivious is a frightening concept. And one that can take you upwards of ten hours.

In addition to the above, I now have at least a crude and rudimentary understanding of what changes what in the template code, which gives me the ability to modify such things as color and so on.

Translation: Now that we've tackled the code, expect a thematic overhaul in the coming days/weeks (depending on how long it takes me to woo those imaging genius people into helping me out here).

Also, while I'm being silly here, it bears noting that Svveet Jayne is true to her name.
Full Post.

Blog Under Construction.

The Raconteur is currently in the process of receiving a facelift. You may have noticed the nifty new search bar on the side, plus a couple of other less noticeable additions. Working my nonexistent coding skill in an attempt to add something more interesting. Meantime, don't mind the clutter. Full Post.

Hope and Nihilism in 2008

It's hard to find a blogger on the political column of things that's managed to escape having to read about the Ferraro disaster. As it happens, I was reading through a few posts here and there on the former VP candidate's statements, and I was struck by something rather troubling.

No, this post isn't another rant against Ferraro's statements, that's been done everywhere and I'm feeling rather too tired to raise my own protesting voice to join with the multitude.

Instead, I've some thoughts on the historical context and Obama's message of Change.


To start off with, I was reading up on Ms. Ferraro, and I think as any respectable (or not so respectable) would-be hobbyist quasi journalist ought to do, I thought I'd try and educate myself as to who exactly this woman was and what her background was, what she'd stood for and what she'd stood against through her career.

Naturally, when embarking upon such an undertaking, one refers first and foremost to the most esteemed bastion of collective knowledge on the planet earth, the most highly regarded compendium of information, the very fount of all facts. Yes, I refer to Wikipedia (with some self depreciating sarcasm).

No really, Wiki is a good starting point for a lot of research. It gives you a point of origin to look further into things. But I digress.

While wandering the hallowed halls of this most esteemed virtual institution, the Raconteur came across this transcript of a 1984 (prophetic dating, perhaps, it brings to mind George Orwell) VP debate between Ms. Ferraro and George Bush the senior, who was VP at the time.

As said earlier, this article, if I may be so presumptive as to label it thus, is not about Ms. Ferraro, or about George H. W. Bush. This article is about Obama and his message of Change, and inherently, of Hope.

In 1984, Obama was younger than the Raconteur is now, and had received his Bachelor of Arts only a year prior. What has this debate, this transcripts of to do with our charismatic candidate of today?

Everything.

Strip away the names, the faces, the incidentals. It could have been a debate from this year's primary. What struck me, as I read through this leaf of history, was the remarkable similarity between then and now, in the content of the debate.

The issues are still exactly, perhaps alarmingly, the same: War and Peace. Healthcare. The Economy. A massive deficit.

It could very easily have been Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John McCain there, instead of George Bush and Geraldine Ferraro.

Twenty four years ago, we were still arguing about the exact same things, still hashing out the exact same issues. Twenty four years from that point, they're still here, they're still contended, and they're still problems.

Seeing this, I ask myself, what has changed? Has anything really changed, have we made progress, has there been any effect at all, of the innumerable votes cast year after year, election after election?

How much passion we have thrown into the wishing well.

Enter then Obama, with all his promise and all his emphatic stand. Yes we can, he says. And yet, haven't we heard it all before? An endless theater of plays, ineffectual yet entertaining, riveting.

Is this Barack Obama? What does this say, for Barack Obama, if all of his promises and all of his speeches have all been made before, albeit, with less charisma, less passion, or less style? We've been here, haven't we?

And yet, nothing changes.

That is where, I believe, Obama's greatest weakness lies, and also his greatest strength.

On the one hand, we are all, to a great extent, jaded and disillusioned with the systems we have inherited. It is perhaps difficult to believe another man with another promise, while the dragons of decades ago still hold society under siege.

From a different viewpoint, however, that is exactly the point of Obama's campaign, and his candidacy. He challenges us, we who are often skeptics and godless heathens (first among them, myself), to believe. He challenges us to run the gauntlet one last time and cast aside our pessimism, to embrace yet again the idea of hope, the idea that yes, we can. We can change. We can hope.

In the light of history, yes, you'll find many debates in the past that circle around the same issues today. Yet it is also true that there have been a few among us that have managed to bring about change, that have managed to alter society for the better. There was a man called Martin Luther King, after all.

Could this man, Obama, really be that different, from all those that have come before him, raising the same banner that he holds up today? I don't know. But many believe he could, and he is.

Whether his promise proves as good as his speech yet remains to be seen. What is true however, and something of great value in of itself, is that he has inspired thousands, in this cynical age, to remember what it was like to hope.

To the countless among us, who often find ourselves with many convictions and yet few beliefs, he has given a gift that maybe we have missed out on for a long while.

He made us believe again. Full Post.

Quote of the Day

Starting off a new section in the Blog today, between writing the Middle East Essays, here's the ever common Quote of the Day.


I'm not sure how other people do it, but I want to -eventually- be able to have Quotes taken from the date on which they're posted here, ie, have the Quote be something that was said today.

But that'll take me some time till I shortlist a few dozen sources that I think are quoteworthy (not to mention having the time to ingest all that information), so till we reach that stage, I'll just post up some Quotes that have struck me as inspiring, funny, interesting, or just plain crazy, over the years.

Starting off with one of my favorites:

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
- Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken.

Full Post.

Why Do They Hate Us? A Candid Look at the Middle East (Part 1)

Being a fairly atypical sort of middle eastern man, both in appearance and in mindset, I often get asked the question by American acquaintances:

"Why do they hate us?"

It's a complex question. One that politicians have artfully avoided and, in a great sense, created.

The simple truth is that the people of the Middle East do not (or perhaps did not?) hate the West. While the validity of that statement is precarious today, what is certainly true is that the Middle East does not hate the American way of life, does not hate the Western ideals of democracy, liberty and freedom.

There are some among the people I know, who would take issue with my labeling of democracy, liberty, and freedom as 'Western' ideals. But coming from the life that I have, and having seen and experienced life as it truly is in the heart of the East, I can say with confidence that at least in today's world, such things are indeed banners held up under the Western flags.

But returning to the topic at hand, this is not a simple matter to approach, not in the least.

It is true that there are significant grievances that the Arab/Muslim world have against the West. It is perhaps unfortunate that these often valid grievances have been marginalized by the leadership of Western nations. There is this atmosphere of infallibility, this overriding belief in American innocence, rampant among the populace.

Most Americans I know feel the need to ask the question. "Why do they hate us?"

It is often accompanied by a sense of incredulity. And that's the real tragedy here, that most of the people responsible for putting into power the perpetrators of great humanitarian crimes... really haven't got the faintest clue as to what's gone on here.

The following shall attempt to be an unbiased historical account of the events that have led to this great clash of cultures. It is, and I say this with regret, coincidentally, an indictment against the Foreign Policies of the United States and previously, the British Empire. Citations and sources shall be provided to anyone that would like to check back and debate the facts presented here.

The following shall attempt to answer the all pervasive question:

"Why do they hate us?"

To begin with, it is true, speaking as one that has spent the entirety of one's life amid the Middle Eastern people, that there is this tangible undercurrent of anger and violence that ripples through arab and generally (but to a lesser extent) muslim society in the East. Particularly among the poorer, less privileged cross sections of society, one feels very clearly an aura of compressed tensions.

Like the ticking of a bomb about to go.

Witness Iraq. It is a primary example of, not only George W. Bush's (and by extension, America's) foreign policy failures, but of the cancerous schism that exists within the Muslim world itself. Never have a people been so divided, so torn by hate, as the people of and in Iraq.

Witness also Palestine, where Hammas and Fateh factions still battle amongst each other, covertly or overtly, for supremacy, for power, but more, because of this overriding sense of distrust and hate directed towards the other side.

Muslim society has not always been this way. To understand the problems of East/West divide, it is essential to understand the state of Muslim society today, and very importantly, how it got to be in the state that it is presently in.

[To be continued] Full Post.

Hillary's Foreign Policy Experience Fraud

Now most of the folks reading this (presently just me, my lady, and that odd fellow that stumbles quite by accident into this forbidden corner of the blogosphere and goes 'Wha?') have heard probably more times than they ever wanted to hear, about the vaunted Hillary Clinton Foreign Policy credentials. Other than the Crowe/Sinbad affair (which was ludicrous, lets be frank), one of the key citations from Hillaryland is the Northern Ireland Peace process.


Before gleefully diving into this post, which is just itching to be written, let me give full credit to Jay McDonough over at Swimming Freestyle, for bringing this story to light, and where I'd actually read it.

But boy, do I have news for you. Or perhaps you already knew and the Raconteur was the last to find out. As it turns out, the people that actually negotiated the Irish Peace process say she really didn't have much to do with the 'peace process' part of her being in Northern Ireland.

According to an article in the Telegraph, a UK Newspaper, Lord Trimble, a Nobel Prize winner with the Ulster Unionist Party, and formerly First Minister of the province, Ms. Clinton's statements as to her having a direct role in the peace process were a "wee bit silly".

Some enlightening quotes from the article itself (which I highly recommend one read):

"I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around."

"I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player." - Lord Trimble.

A few more:

"...Whether she was involved on the issue side I think probably not." - Conall McDevitt, an SDLP negotiator

"[Mrs Clinton was] a cheerleader for the Irish republican side of the argument." - Steven King, Ulster negotiator.

Putting this into perspective, there is no doubt in my mind that HRC played a positive role in the Irish Peace process. I am fairly certain that the work, and time, she invested into that affair had some positive results.

The point here, however, is the deliberate and manipulative manner in which that positive yet negligible role has been presented by the Clinton camp. The point here is that in attempting to draw more credit for her work there than she rightly deserves, Ms. Clinton is hailing back to the good old Rovian tactics that have plagued the political arena for the last decade and more.

It's absolutely shameful, not to mention deceitful and unethical, for a candidate running for office at the highest level should resort to such deliberate and ruthless distortion of facts in order to have themselves shined upon in a better light.

Just something the Billary proponents out there might want to think about: Do you really want someone like THIS in the Whitehouse? More poignant a question, perhaps, of all times for it to happen, after eight years of Dubya's incompetent, talking-to-god style presidency, do you really need more of this sort of thing NOW?

This incident, from an observer's point of view, really underlines what the Clinton Machine has been all about.
Full Post.

Re: The Raconteur Bible - What About the JWs?

In the recent 'editorial' on the foundation of the politic ethic on which I base my convictions, in the comments section specifically, Thomas got me thinking about examples in which people try not to impose their religious convictions on one another through policy and law.


So. Here's an example: The Jehovah's Witnesses. Their notions about blood and what is and is not permissible are pretty well known.

And yet, despite their sometimes fatal refusals to medical blood transfusions, I've yet to hear even once that any of them attempted to regulate such medical practice for people not of their own faith. Further, we can all easily guess what the reaction might be to a bill propagated by the JWs aimed at banning blood transfusions.

So then... very clearly our society is capable of isolating religious belief, very capable of restraining that belief in the context of rule, policy and law making, to apply only to those who subscribe to that particular belief.

Is it so hard to see the same principle applied to the larger context? Full Post.

Conquering Trackbacks: The Raconteur Victorious

After nearly having to tear my hair out in frustration, I've finally managed to stomp the trackback monster. It took a lot of doing, and several hours scouring google but we finally did it. Oh but 'twas not a war won alone. We had allies.


Actually, I had nothing to do with it. It was this page here, with easy to follow instructions, that surged the Raconteur to victory (wait, did I actually say Surge and Victory?).

You may have noticed however, that there are now two comment links at the bottom of each post. This is because I still haven't managed to completely eradicate the evil Haloscan comment system, just managed to get it to not overlap the Blogger comments system.

That's on the action list. Hopefully, Blog Bloke over at his blog can help eradicate the vermin.

For now, the Raconteur, and his nearly nonexistent readership breathes a collective sigh of relief. Full Post.

Oh my god! The Blog's on fire!

While trying to add in Haloscan's trackback functionality to the Blog today, I somehow managed to mangle the blog into erasing all previous comments. Never fear though, I'ver taken pains to restore vocalization to those gentle few who's actually stopped by and left something for me to read.

As it turns out, Haloscan's trackback functionality also comes with a really nifty looking comments editor (which, or so I hear, will allow me to actually moderate stuff too - should the unfortunate become necessary - rather than just delete, which is what Blogger offers).

Also, I'm not sure if the new commenting system allows for OpenID and Blogger sign in, which would be a real tragedy if it doesn't, so I'm going to experiment around with it and see.

In the meantime, and if I decide to stick with Haloscan (supposedly there's a way to get their trackback without their commenting system - still looking) commenting system, I offer my sincere (believe me, it probably hurts me more to see your comments go away than it does you) apologies, and I'll copy/paste the comments awhich I took pains to save after temporarily restoring the old template. Full Post.

Lactivists and Where the Hell Was I?

It was recently brought to my attention by my brother (who was likely searching for illicit material on the internets - as boys of that age tend to do), that there are a lot of women up in arms over the right to breastfeed in public (which I support), but are also protesting the notion of being asked to cover up while doing it.


So. I did some digging, and other than an intercession with ABC in 2005, there was a bit on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher (of which I'm a great fan, by the way, of both the show and it's host), where in the "New Rules" segment, Bill goes out on the limb and says, "I never thought I'd say this but... New Rule: Don't show me your tit."

Which, other than it being a comedy skit to begin with, inspired this response from lactivist Erin Kotecki Vest, titled "Bill Maher Can Suck My Tits".

At this point, I'm saying to myself, "What the hell have I gotten myself into, now?"

But no really. This is serious. Alright, maybe not so serious but there's a point here.

I'd tried to leave a comment over at Ms. Vest's post back at the HP, but somehow their website hates me and doesn't want me to be the first poster on any topic. Or maybe the page is broken as there are no other comments there either.

In any case, and now that I've finally stopped laughing, haven't we taken the protest a bit too far?

I know I'm going to get some flak for this (or would have, if I had any readers), but I'm sort of with Bill on this one.

Before the lactivists decide to have a nurse-in at my front door (which would be decidedly not funny), no one is denying you the right to breastfeed your child whenever said child happens to need breastfeeding, in public or otherwise.

I should underline that, but I so hate reading those points made in huge caps underlined to make a point. I'm going to take the high road and assume that my readership (such as it is) can indeed both read and retain information for around a few minutes.

Now, having said that, lets drag this out into the light and ogle it a bit.

It's about freedoms, once again, the immortal rant about freedoms. And yet again, people assume that freedom means that we can do whatever we want. Which isn't the case. You're free so long as you don't infringe on other folks' freedoms, though it gets hairy at times to find the line as in this case.

So a hypothetical scenario. You're at your favorite restaurant with some friends, your family, or your significant other. The lady at the next table is having her meal entirely topless. (I just heard the teen male segment of the readership scream out a "Hell Yeah!").

Would you be comfortable in such a situation? I know I wouldn't, and most people I know wouldn't.

Stretch it further a notch. Suppose you're at a dinner somewhere and the couple at the table next to you are engaging in riotous, unrestrained acts of copulation right there while your grandmother keeps having to close her mouth so her dentures don't fall off.

Breastfeeding in the bare, in public, is a bit similar. Yes your child needs to be fed, but all the other people sharing that public space with you don't necessarily want to see your boobies.

It's unfair to compare the whole thing to people not being comfortable around gay couples and what not, which is what many lactivists do, when presented with the above argument. The difference is that the homophobia is driven by discrimination against a lifestyle, and a segment of people based on factors outside their control, such as their sexuality.

Breastfeeding, on the otherhand, isn't an issue that goes nearly as deep. Put it down simply, no one has a problem with you breastfeeding your child. Most would encourage it (including myself). The problem is that we just don't want to have to be exposed to your boobies.

So here's the question I'd put to lactivists. What exactly is the problem you have with covering up, so that people like me don't have to be exposed to your glorious mounds of womanhood, and you can feed your babies when they need to be fed?

You know, shawls were invented quite a long time ago.
Full Post.

The Raconteur Bible

This is where we get serious.

Take a moment to try and read up on the various schools of thought out there on what really is 'Liberalism', and you'll end up with more information than you could ingest in ten weekends and a lifetime supply of doritos.

One could pour out the water tank and write an epic post about what everyone that came before wrote and thought about Liberalism. One could cross reference and make sure one's own perceptions fit into the prescription.

I'm not going to do that.


I'm going to cut out the history lesson and dive straight into my conclusions, which are as simple as it gets. Even George Bush might 'get' it on a first read.

First off, unlike many others, my primary concern lies in social issues, and I'll leave others to debate out whether big government or small government holds the greater merit (for now, anyway).

Within that context of social issues, then, here we go.

The founding principle of my ideology, in typically paradoxical fashion, is a vocal rant on beliefs. Simply stated:

Belief, faith, and tradition must not be allowed to become the basis for discrimination against groups (minority or majority).

In our very confused and self aggrandized modern world, the principles of freedom and liberty have been brutally mauled, some might even go so far as to say they have been damaged beyond repair.

We have come to accept, as a generality, the idea that freedom implies that the world should be as we would like to see it. It is a closed world view, it is an exclusive one, and it is detrimental to those over which we have no right, but may have authority, or power.

Beliefs on ethics, morality, and what is right, or wrong, have served an essential purpose in the development of human society. I would not be writing this today if our forefathers had not derived (divinely or otherwise, whatever you happen to believe) systems of ethics and beliefs.

This very post is in itself a system of ethics and beliefs. So why am I railing against myself? A paradox, as I said at the outset? No.

The defining point is that our differences, that our values and beliefs, often conflicting more than they coincide, should not be imposed in any way or form on peoples that do not share in those beliefs, as far as is possible while still maintaining a society that regulates itself under the rule of rational law.

Consider, for a moment, that people like Osama bin Laden, people like Adolph Hitler and all the grand villains from the rogues gallery of humanity's past and present, were all acting upon their beliefs, were (and in the case of the present villains, are) acting with the sincere conviction that what they do is right.

Oh, but we do nothing, we do not act, one might protest.

But you do. Actions are not limited to despots, rebels, and terrorists. All societies act, even democratic ones. Every single time you vote to put people in office, every time you use that political voice, that power, to support one view or the other, you act.

Action is unavoidable. Action is necessary.

The point being argued here is that all action must have a rational basis, that all actions must be justified by rationality above and beyond the unassailable fortress of faith and the impregnable bastion that is belief.

All beliefs, all ideologies, without some rationalization, are inherently equal. The belief of Gandhi, without the buttresses of reason, is as valid as the belief of the South African administration responsible for Apartheid and it's legacy.

Beliefs, specifically religious beliefs, are born equal, are ideas that cannot be proven externally, without relying on some element of belief itself, and are thus all equally valid. All of us are entitled to our beliefs, and I challenge any man of cloth to prove his faith to be more 'true' than that of the opposing camp.

And therefore, no belief should be used as the basis of law, in a society, in a world, where such a belief may not be shared by all.

You may believe that Whites/Men/Straights are religiously or morally more valid in their nature than Blacks/Women/Gays. You have that right. You are entitled.

But do you, I ask, have the right to impose your beliefs on those others, by instituting laws and policies that are inequitable?

Faith is a shield, someone once said to me, with the grandest of intentions. Much alas... it is also a weapon, one that has been and continues to be used.

If justice and equity are to be served, then we must, if we are to be fair, put aside our differences. We must be able to say, Yes, the Catholic has a right to his beliefs. Yes, the Muslim has a right to his beliefs. Yes, the Atheist has a right to his beliefs. Yes.

It is the acceptance and regard that we have for our differences that builds our strength as a community. It is the dogma and disregard that splinters it.

So we must, as a society, and as a world, while basking in our respective faiths, leave behind our beliefs, when it comes to the voting booth, or the policy room, or the Senate floor.

That is the essence of the Raconteur Bible, which, returning to a word much used in this essay, is the core of my beliefs. Full Post.

God no, it's the phone!

This just cracked me up.

Does anyone else think that someone should put up a phone ad with clips from from here?

Wait... I forget I'm the only one reading this. Then again, the sum total of this blog's readership laughed. Full Post.

HRC and Replican Style Propaganda

In his recent entry at the Huffington Post, Jon Landau berates the Clinton campaign over the "3 am" ad. The ad aside, this struck me as interesting:

Many in the pundit community who know better (and I guess I am trying to be a pundit here) will forgive or approve of the ad because they subscribe to a cynicism that postulates that anything that works is smart. Dan Abrams is on MSNBC saying that exact thing right now. Next we will hear: "Sure the Swift Boaters were creeps, but you really have to hand it to that Karl Rove...he knows what works" -- win at all costs and the ends justify the means.

My belief is that you can't be a progressive and resort to these kinds of right wing propaganda techniques.

It's interesting because it assumes that certain political orientations are precluded from certain behaviors. Likely, it wasn't the writer's intention, but it seems to imply that you can assume what sort of approach someone has (in other words, what they are or are not willing to do) by looking at the nature of their political beliefs.

Naturally speaking, I disagree.

It's something akin to saying, as a Catholic you can't lie. Obviously you can, and some of you do. Whether you should or not is another story entirely. The idea that a 'progressive' is not capable of engaging in the rampant fear mongering that got the United States where it is today is entirely baseless. The idea that a 'progressive' won't prescribe to a methodology espousing an 'ends justifies the means' approach holds as much merit - which is none.

The truth is that being a progressive is not a guarantee of anything much. All it means is that, in this particular case, Ms. Clinton holds certain political concepts in higher regard than others. How she chooses to go about achieving the ends her 'progressive' stance requires of her... is another matter entirely.

At the end of the day, it boils down to people and how they approach things.

Think about it. George Bush could have been a Democrat. It wouldn't have made his presidency anything less than the disaster it is, nor would it have made his methods any more tolerable.
Full Post.

If They'd Only Told Me About the Thousands...

Of dollars bloggers out there are making, I might have broken into this before. And by now I'd be lounging with Andrew Sullivan on Real Time with Bill Maher.

And here I thought I might be approaching a semblance of meaning.

Jokes aside, I -do- know what RSS is now, thanks in no small part to Google, Wikipedia and several other sites in between. We're making progress, captain.

Tomorrow, expect an editorial on the Raconteur Bible, which is something of a statement of ethics, on which pretty much every future argument made here will rely. Full Post.

The Frightening World of Blogs.

Now that we're up and running (nominally, anyway), I'm introduced to obscure, occult-ish sounding things like RSS feeds and trackbacks.

A question is raised: What the hell are these things?

Time to roll up one's sleeves and find out. Full Post.

Foundations Laid; Reach Skyward.

"A political theory founded on the natural goodness of humans and the autonomy of the individual and favoring civil and political liberties, government by law with the consent of the governed, and protection from arbitrary authority."

- Liberalism, The American Heritage dictionary.

Perhaps one of the most critical qualities of the human creature is the ability to achieve definition. To define is to recognize, and at some level understand concepts, entities and realities, encompassing every single entry in the vast dictionary of the human mind. The limitations perhaps, stem less from our understandings, our definition of things, and more from our limited abilities to communicate those same understandings in our evident need for communal, universal definition.

It is necessary then, in the creation of the universal definitions that make up our languages, to sacrifice a great amount of meaning and substance in the interest of commonality, leaving only the barest bones found to be shared among the infinite ideas that are packaged so neatly under one label. And so, even within the same language, many people may utter the phrases, yet their meanings might be so entirely different that they might drive words to shame.

What is Liberalism? What lies left of the center? What principles and ideological pillars hold up this entity, and what bricks make up its walls? The conventional answers cite fiscal and social policy, ethical principles and so on.

But so much lies filtered through the lens of context. So much of political language is mired intrinsically into the backdrop of the politics of Western society, and how easy it is to forget that principles - applied or otherwise - are universal. Yet within each context, the hue, the intensity, the very validity of any given train of thought takes on sometimes vastly different dimensions.

What is Liberalism then, to those entrenched in the third world? In societies where basic liberties, elsewhere taken for granted, are luxuries rarely enjoyed? What is Liberalism to an apostate Muslim, born and raised under the shade of the social, religious and political fabric of the Middle East?

This, precisely, is the context of from which I have been moulded; ultimately, it is the greater context of this blog. To my perspective, liberty and the core of the leftist agenda (much ridiculed in this day by conservative opponents) is not some vague ideal that is rarely tested enough for it to matter, and is therefore safely discarded as the soulless offerings of 'bleeding heart’ liberals.

In the world in which I and many others live, it is a call that can neither be readily denied nor easily championed. It is a world in which even the staunchest conservative of the West might be deemed too liberal by half.

Looking through this window, one might see conservative values applied in ways that might never be tolerated elsewhere, the ultimate abuse of an ideology, and a story of how terribly wrong such things can go. Such a view might not be so evident from a Salt Lake City window. It is, unfortunately, all too common a scene in places less sheltered from the human storm.

In times of strife are men truly tested, or so it is said. Perhaps that is true also of ideologies.

This blog is an attempt to bridge the gaps of definition and context, to provide a viewpoint that, though readily found in many places, is seldom seen in such light. As an introduction it rates poorly, having ranted too long on the abstracts and not introduced much of anything at all.

To correct that oversight, there will be three or four editorial pieces posted here each month, on topics ranging from politics to economics to society, with a more frequent posting of current affairs as and when I feel I should post them up.

While the majority of topics will deal with issues and viewpoints generally falling into the 'liberal' spectrum, this isn't an exclusive blog. We'll probably be branching out into a lot of things that were never in the pipeline. I also warmly welcome debate and dissent, and I hope that eventually, when and if anyone other than 'The Team' reads/comments, we can create the sort of atmosphere where we can sit down and have a toss around over the contents.

Here then, to the pursuit of Liberty.

Welcome to The Left Wing Raconteur.

Full Post.