 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  | 
permalink: http://alibi.com/blog/articles.html?desired_user=sisterimapoet
Blog PostsComments
Ad hominem, Dr. Sax. Ad hominem.
"The Ol' Ball Game" [ Sat Nov 27 2010 4:16 PM ] I couldn't agree with you more, Dr. Baker. Concerning politics, dialectical discourse in this country is incredibly hard to find at any level--federal, state, or local. This is certainly not a new problem; it is a problem as old as democracy. I often wonder how those of us who are disinterested in taking a particular side--by which I mean we do not have a vested interest in believing a particular side, financial or otherwise, but rather want to get to the bottom of the issues--could hope to raise the bar in political discourse. I invite you to disagree with me on this, because I would love to be wrong in this case, but I believe the problem lies with the masses of voters. They are not sufficiently educated, nor are they trained to recognize the non-arguments employed by political propagandists each election season. Like Willie Stark in Warren's All the King's Men, politicians who overestimate the intelligence of the voters by discussing the nuts and bolts of their policies will soon lose their followers to their demagogical opponents. Sadly, this danger is all too real for journalists, as well. Journalism is a business like any other, and as such relies upon the bulk of its consumers, in this case the readers. Unfortunately, conflict and colorful rhetoric sell as well as sex, while facts and data are soporific. Our world is steadily becoming a Bradburyian nightmare in which words exceeding three syllables are useful for nothing other than ostentation, information of substance can only be delivered if it is a concomitant of entertainment, and anyone who aspires to escape the mold cast for him will contend with brutal normative forces. My theory is that if this trend can be reversed, one crucial device toward this end will be the reintroduction of the study of philosophy into public education. After all, so much of a person's political beliefs are merely an outgrowth of his philosophical views. How can we be in accord over what would be for the greater good of our society if we cannot be in agreement over the basic philosophical question "what is good?" What immunity to propaganda can people be said to have if they cannot differentiate a valid, logical argument from an empty non-argument? If the voters' political beliefs are based entirely on unchallenged assumptions transmitted to them by the media, religion, teachers, their families, and their peers, the future would appear very dim, at least insofar as it depends upon democratic processes. In essence, for far too long American children have been taught what to think rather than how to think, and the course to correction will not occur overnight. The way I see it, the relatively perspicacious among us can either brainstorm the solutions to this problem, or choose a side, buy an air horn and a foam finger, and scream our heads off at one another at the "ol' ball game" of American politics. If it can rightly be said that past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior, we will almost certainly opt for the latter. Last edited [11/28/10 11:58 PM]
Good point. Besides, Falco wouldn't likely be seen perching on a telephone pole. He'd prefer to be in an Arwing trying to claim more bogeys than Fox. And the "Biggest Dork" award goes to...
I'm voting for Kestrel, because I agree with his views on foreign policy and health care. Seriously, though, it does look like a Peregrine falcon.
Homer, Homer, Homer! Your comment betrays such a level of ignorance that I'm forced to concede you are either incapable of reason or you are trolling. Do you know what the word "anecdote" means? If not, go to Dictionary.com and look it up. I bring this up because that's the only possible defense you could have for saying there's any truth to a stereotype--your own anecdotes or those that have been shared with you by friends and family. These are logically inadmissible, because there is no way that the sampling of Jewish people with whom you have interacted represents the total population. Furthermore, your perception on the occasions you have interacted with such people is subjective (go look up "subjective" if you don't know that word either). The truth is that greedy people come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and ethnic backgrounds. Greed is not to be considered the defining characteristic of any culture.
There seems to have been a lot of misunderstanding about my criticism of Bad Religion. I'll review just to be 100% clear. Bad Religion seems to me to be a cowardly band in a genre that is supposed to be an in-your-face, say-whatever-needs-to-be-said genre. I say this because it is still restricting the religions attacked in its logo to Christianity, while Islam, as the fastest-growing religion in the world, is completely left out. I cannot say for certain, but it would seem they avoid it because the political Left in America is decidedly for the acceptance and understanding of Islam (and justifiably so), and the political Left happens to be among Bad Religion's target demographics. An Islamic icon in a red circle crossed out would be too controversial for the band to tackle, although it claims to be against religion in all forms. Accordingly, I see an inconsistency between the band's creed and its marketing. It seems to me the band is more interested in selling albums than speaking out for its beliefs. After all, a Christian cross in a red circle crossed out can't possibly hurt the band's album and merchandise sales; if anything, it helps them. Exploiting the Christian symbol for album sales draws in the dough from rebellious children reared on Judeo-Christian values--a key demographic for the sale of punk rock albums. In this way, Bad Religion's assault on the Christian icon is not unlike the album-selling tactics of such schlockly shock rockers as Disturbed. It's all about getting money from the rebellious kids, who probably got the money from their Christian parents as an allowance.
Hi Stroso: Thanks so much for your thoughtful reply. I stand corrected about the number of adherents to Christianity versus the number of adherents to Islam. I seem to have misconstrued a statistic I heard that Islam was the fastest growing religion in the world, thinking instead that this meant it enjoyed numerical superiority. Thank you for pointing out this error. However, I don't feel this nullifies the point I made, particularly because Islam is the world's fastest growing religion, and if current growth trends continue, it will soon be the world's most popular religion. As such, its absence is indeed quite conspicuous in an anti-religious conversation. As to points B and C which you brought up, I think you may have missed the rhetorical tone of what I was saying. I wasn't honestly suggesting the band change its name. I was only pointing out what I perceived to be an inconsistency between its logo, its merchandising, and its stated creed, which is opposition to religion in all forms. The band's logo clearly attacks Christianity, while all other religions are left out, most strikingly Islam. I wonder if we could argue from silence that the band is afraid to extend its assault to Islam because to do so would be controversial, especially in light of the present-day political ramifications. If that is the case, I would find such timidity to be woefully inconsistent with all that I used to like about punk rock. The band could at least update its merchandise. As to the final point, in which you seem to accuse me of being overly verbose, I will let Morrissey defend me: "In the daily scheme of things, people's language is so frighteningly limited, and if you use a word with more than 10 letters it's absolute snobbery." I did not use a dictionary to compose my writ. My writing style is authentic. May I suggest that you sound a bit like an anti-intellectual populist when you criticize another's writing for "having too many of them big words"? You should instead thank me for regaling you with a rare treat--a lavishly well-written comment--regardless whether you agree with the argument contained within it.
There seems to have been a lot of misunderstanding about my criticism of Bad Religion. I'll review just to be 100% clear. Bad Religion seems to me to be a cowardly band in a genre that is supposed to be an in-your-face, say-whatever-needs-to-be-said genre. I say this because it is still restricting the religions attacked in its logo to Christianity, while Islam, as the fastest-growing religion in the world, is completely left out. I cannot say for certain, but it would seem they avoid it because the political Left in America is decidedly for the acceptance and understanding of Islam (and justifiably so), and the political Left happens to be among Bad Religion's target demographics. An Islamic icon in a red circle crossed out would be too controversial for the band to tackle, although it claims to be against religion in all forms. Accordingly, I see an inconsistency between the band's creed and its marketing. It seems to me the band is more interested in selling albums than speaking out for its beliefs. After all, a Christian cross in a red circle crossed out can't possibly hurt the band's album and merchandise sales; if anything, it helps them. Exploiting the Christian symbol for album sales draws in the dough from rebellious children reared on Judeo-Christian values--a key demographic for the sale of punk rock albums. In this way, Bad Religion's assault on the Christian icon is not unlike the album-selling tactics of such schlockly shock rockers as Disturbed. It's all about getting money from the rebellious kids, who probably got the money from their Christian parents as an allowance. Last edited [11/28/10 3:03 PM]
Personally, I outgrew punk rock when I outgrew high school. I couldn't find enough in the stark minimalism of punk to keep me interested beyond that, especially knowing there was a vast world of music beyond it to explore. One could argue that I was never a true punk fan, and I would probably agree in order to end the boring discussion as quickly as possible. My sister and I were dining at Frontier the night of the Bad Religion show, when 20-30 punkish people began trickling in with their t-shirts, patches, and buttons. I saw the logo, which featured a Christian cross in a red circle crossed out. I am familiar with the sophomoric premise of Bad Religion's ideology, and I understand the line of thinking. I would personally cite economics as the reason for the world's strife and turmoil, with ideology (usually created by wrenching a religious premise out of context), tacked on as a rider to justify wars and oppression. The real culprit for human conflict is the scarcity of resources. This is a digression, however. On to the kernel: what struck me as amusing was that the cross was the targeted symbol for the band's logo, while there are plenty other major religions at which to throw stones. I've studied enough sociology to understand the reason for this singling out of Christianity. It is, after all, the dominant religion of the Western hemisphere, and as the Western hemisphere has enjoyed global hegemony for several centuries, it's a case of the underdog cornered by the wolf. However, with a wry smile I noted mentally that Muslim iconography was strikingly absent from the band's logo. Now why would this be? After all, Islam overtook Christianity in the 90s as the world's most popular religion. Christians are easier targets, I suppose, for their proclivity to be relatively permissive of criticism. After all, a tenant of Christianity is that persecution should be suffered willingly and patiently, while retaliation is discouraged. How much spine does it take to slap someone who is taught to "turn the other cheek"? What I used to admire about punk rock was its boldness. It had an in-your-face willingness to say what everyone else is afraid to say. Yet, I see Bad Religion still tiptoeing very obviously around the world's most popular religion by leaving it off of its merchandise. Why don't they just change the name to Bad Christianity? That's my two bits. I'll leave the exorbitant price of admission ($23 dollars for a punk show?!?!?) out of it. | 
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
There seems to have been a lot of misunderstanding about my criticism of Bad Religion. I'll review just to be 100% clear.
Bad Religion seems to me to be a cowardly band in a genre that is supposed to be an in-your-face, say-whatever-needs-to-be-said genre. I say this because they are still restricting the religions attacked in their logo to Christianity, while Islam, as the fastest-growing religion in the world, is completely left out. I cannot say for certain, but it would seem they avoid it because the political Left in America is decidedly for the acceptance and understanding of Islam (and justifiably so), and the political Left happens to be among Bad Religion's target demographics. An Islamic icon in a red circle crossed out would be too controversial for the band to tackle, although they claim to be against religion in all forms. Accordingly, I see an inconsistency between the band's creed and its marketing.
It seems to me the band is more interested in selling albums than speaking out for its beliefs. After all, a Christian cross in a red circle crossed out can't possibly hurt the band's album and merchandise sales; if anything, it helps them. Exploiting the Christian symbol for album sales draws in the dough from rebellious children reared on Judeo-Christian values--a key demographic for the sale of punk rock albums. In this way, Bad Religion's assault on the Christian icon is not unlike the album-selling tactics of such schlockly shock rockers as Disturbed. It's all about getting money from the rebellious kids, who probably got the money from their Christian parents as an allowance.