When did we all become experts on evolution, global warming and international health care?

Giving equal time to different views does not mean that equally intelligent viewpoints are being presented. Consider the case of a Ph.D. evolutionary biologist vs. a man whose faith in God is predicated upon the tides going in and going out.

                 Any society where electoral success is predicated upon dismissal of evolution as "just a theory," global evolution as "pseudo science," and universal health care as a "communist abomination," probably has little to look forward in regards to future governance. Yet this is the situation we confront in America today, one where that which is accepted and promoted by the majority of educated citizens is vehemently rejected by elected officials.

              The outward rejection may or may not be done for political expediency. It is indeed hard to believe that any individual who can attain power through hard work, education and interaction with greater society could hold the myopic viewpoints of those who have abandoned reason and scholarship.

              Whether politicians are sincere or not, one fact remains: elected officials have gained power by pandering to millions for whom the theory of evolution, global warming and universal health care are anathema. A consensus does not always signify absolute truth; however, an affirmation reached by the best minds within a particular field possesses far more credibility than one reached by those who deem book learning as an elitist frivolity. Nowhere is this more apparent than in modern society where some of the most vitriolic attacks against the aforementioned are led by the most uninformed.

             All of us at some point are guilty of weighing in on matters where we possess little, if any expertise. It is an impossibility, given the limitations of the human life span and the human intellect, to become a true polymath. No individual, no matter how gifted, can count himself an expert in all the major disciplines. Owing to these restraints, there are times when we defer to the best and brightest among us. Being mechanically inept, I defer to my auto mechanic; being unschooled in Latin and Greek, I defer to the expertise of a classical scholar regarding translations. These limitations cause me no shame as I am aware that the totality of human knowledge is unattainable for even the most enlightened. What is puzzling is how so many who are so proudly unenlightened across the disciplines have stepped forward as experts regarding matters as thoroughly researched as evolution and global warming. Further confusion is added to the mix when one sees how a matter such as health care  in other nations, which can be researched with ease by anyone, can be so misrepresented. What it all comes down to is how people with no expertise, and no ambition of attaining any level of expertise, seen it fit to weigh in on issues above their professional training. This form of "punditry" is on full display thanks to the information age and it is disturbing.

             There is no reason why a society as advanced as ours should have people who see fit to "refute" the theory of evolution with "if man evolved from apes, how come we still have apes?" This is not a call to eliminate people who ask such questions, as the paranoid might accuse, but rather to find means by which such an embarassing assault on the intellect would be a thing of the past. Willful ignorance is the worst form of ignorance. In a society where the works of experts are freely available and often made more accessible to the layman, one would expect fewer occurrences of such simple-minded "refutations." Yes, discord exists among evolutionary biologists and proponents of anthropogenic climate change, but this discord is not over whether evolution or climate change exists, but rather minor matters within the accepted consensus. These matters are hardly refutations of evolution and climate change in and of themselves.

               Scientists do not expect the layperson to understand the complexity of their entire corpus of work, but efforts are made all the time to simplify and bring the fundamentals of their research to an audience not schooled in this discipline. That such guides for the layman are ignored in favor of hysterical rants by the obstinate and excessively proud is revealing. How exactly does someone who gets his "education" from mainstream news and newspapers scarcely above the level of a tabloid become a leading authority on the "hoax" of global warming? How can someone with no background in science become a leading spokesman against the theory of evolution?

               The fact that so many are so proud to the point where they can second guess experts in various fields is revealing. To which source do we attribute not only this willful ignorance, but a tendency to take on subjects about which they have neither expertise nor interest in gaining even basic competency?

                Moving from the somewhat demanding discipline of science to a subject where information is easily digestible at all levels, one can find find the same mentality applied to the subject of universal health care. Universal health care is the standard for all free, rich nations on this Earth. Despite this universality and our ability to look up statistics, we have a sizable portion of our population who insist on retaining what they have gathered from soundbites. A quick glance at an almanac, a W.H.O. table or a report by the OECD would easily answer all the questions regarding health care in other countries, yet so many rigidly stand by the blatant falsehoods proferred by talk-show hosts with an agenda. This is distressing owing to the fact that many will vote based on what they "know" about health care in countries they cannot even find on a map.

               To some, this article may come across as insufferably elitist. I think that it is the opposite. I believe it to be an invitation to all those who have sealed their minds to seek out credible witnesses and learn truth rather than propaganda. As stated before, scientists are far from infallible; however, what they offer is far more substantial than charlatans with an agenda. Have there been frauds in the scientific community? Absolutely, but they have almost always been relegated to the dustbin of intellectual history. The same treatment should be afforded those without any expertise who nonetheless try to shape public opinion for their own limited gains. Do your mind a favor, seek out those who have studied extensively in a particular field. If you are seeking refutation of a particular theory, find someone who is at the very least educated in the traditional sense of the word. Information conveyed by the ignorant has a way of lodging in the collective consciousness and the result is never a pretty one.

             

Vitriol in political discourse

       

          The tragic shootings in Tucson back in January of this year brought to the forefront just how acerbic political discourse in America has become. What was overlooked is that the assailant appeared to be linked with no militant organizations. As a result, attention was brought to an issue that, although not associated directly with the gunman, is worthy of analysis in today's political climate.

             Political discourse in the modern age is facilitated by the Internet. In the past, only a privileged few had the power to disseminate information to a wider audience. News' journals had the right to be selective about who published content within their periodicals and fringe characters could only dream of taking to the airwaves, particularly on the major networks. Today, gutter discourse has been taken from the bar stools and the dinner tables and spread to millions of potential readers on chat rooms, websites and commentary sections.

               The toxicity of the speech is evident on both sides of the political spectrum. Widespread opposition to Obama's administration by the right has certainly engendered rage, vociferated by ideologues who never lack for followers. What should not be forgotten, however, is that toxic discourse is not limited only to the right. Both sides are clearly culpable in this matter.

                The Bush administration, more so than the administrations of George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, brought out widespread discontent among the progressive faction of American society. Such discontent was consistently verbalized. Attempting to break what was seen as the hegemony of rightist radio, Air America began syndication in the early part of the 21st century. The radio station featured one Randi Rhodes who suggested that the 43rd president be removed in a fashion similar to the one employed by a certain member of the Corleone family. In addition, street protests frequently featured placards of George W. Bush dressed in Nazi regalia, as curious a characterization for one of the most ardently pro-Israel presidents as is Obama, a man of African ancestry, being represented as a member of that now defunct racialist organization. In addition to caricatures of the president implicating ideological alignment with the SS, we were also treated to a mockumentary concerning the assassination of George W. Bush. While never a supporter of George W. Bush, the incendiary rhetoric of his opponents struck me as macabre, to say the least. Even though an ardent supporter of free speech, I nonetheless felt that a certain boundary had been crossed, one where the ability of the conscience to delineate true dissent from sheer vulgarity and menace had become blurred. While eager to see Bush move into retirement, I at no time ever wished to see the man a victim of physical violence nor be linked, in however ludicrous a fashion, to one of the most monstrous regimes of the 20th century.

             Moving along to the third year of the Obama administration, one can see that the malcontents on the other side are equally as adept at spreading hatred and fear as their counterparts on the left. Whether it be birthers, racists, extremists, conspiracy theorists, the two-minute hate of Orwell's 1984 has been extended to a period of limitless dimensions. What differentiates the left from the right in one respect is that the latter have mastered talk radio whereas the left have met either abject failure (think Air America) or the ability to retain the like-minded, but not draw new converts (think NPR). Prominent among the rightists are the likes of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage and Sean Hannity. Outside the medium of talk radio, but equally prominent in writing and television, is Anne Coulter. Few "pundits" have managed to consistently spew the sheer hatred as Ms. Coulter has. Accusations of insanity and an intelligence level more befitting a victim of cretinism have been levelled at Coulter time and time again. The accusations are naive, to say the least. Anne Coulter is neither insane nor stupid. Anne Coulter's CV reveals her to be an alumna of Cornell, one of the most selective institutions in the United States. Now, it can be argued that many people of sub-standard intelligence have been granted admission to the nation's most prestigious universities, but these people are often legacies, something Anne Coulter is not reported to be. Coulter also possesses a law degree from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, a feat that is not to be taken lightly. No, Ann Coulter is far from intellectually deficient and far from deranged. What Coulter is is a canny, shrewd, self-marketing opportunist who has found the path to fame. This path includes giving voice to the yearnings of the insane and ignorant. With a built-in audience desirous of more and more, there is no want of employment. Even after dismissal from the National Review for her declaration of "invade [Muslim] countries, kill their leaders and convert them all to Christianity!" steady work was well within reach via other outlets.

               Ann Coulter is not the real problem in this country, nor are her ideological counterparts in print and television media. The real problem lies in the fact that millions of people are willing to empower her and several others like her. A more discerning population would eschew the likes of Coulter and her peers whether they be of the left or the right. Insanity sells and the sane have come to realize this. Until the population start demanding civil discourse from both sides, and the use of reason, we can expect the Coulters and the rest to flourish for a long time.

Addendum: for additional details concerning the views put forth by Ms. Coulter, try a Google search combining "Ann Coulter" with "Canada," "9/11 widows," "Timothy McVeigh," "The New York Times," "liberals," "Arabs," and "John Edwards." It is sobering, to say the least.

The not-so-obscure connection between Ricky Nelson and Ludacris

             Ricky Nelson died at the age of 45 in a plane crash the year I turned eleven. I cannot say that I was familiar with Ricky Nelson at that age, for "Ozzie and Harriet" did not run in syndication on our local channels, unlike "I Love Lucy," and "The Honeymooners." I had heard Nelson's name mentioned more than once by my father, who bore a physical resemblance to Mr. Nelson and was born three years after him. Ricky Nelson was a teen idol who shot to prominence owing not only to the success of his parents' sitcom, but also to his considerable talent. Although blessed with the appearance worthy of a teen idol, his abilities rendered him far above the category of "bubblegum pop."

             Last night, whilst scouring Youtube for popular music prior to the British Invasion and the onset of psychedelia, I came across a favorite I had neglected for far too long: Ricky Nelson's "Traveling Man." With delight, I replayed the clip three times and thought about the rich trove of music I had ignored for far too long: the music that enchanted us before the Beatles came upon the scene and radically altered popular entertainment. For over an hour, the pleasures of listening to Dion, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, Elvis Presley, Little Richard, Jan and Dean, the Ronettes and so many others came back to me.

           My wife, who holds similiar tastes to me, enthusiastically listened as I replayed the clip of the twenty-year-old Mr. Nelson rendering homage to all the girls he had loved before in a variety of locations. Some time earlier, my spouse and I had stumbled upon a clip for a "song" entitled "I got hoes in different area codes" by the appropriately self-labeled Ludacris. Now, my wife, like many others of her generation, has been influenced in a positive way by the feminist movement. Equality is expected and rightfully so; however, the song was as ludicrous as its writer and instead of taking offense, its absurdity drove her to laughter, as it did with me. What is striking is that so many of those who lament the vulgarization of our culture and who look to the "innocence" of the past do not recognize how so much of today's vulgarity has its antecedents in the past itself.

           Returning to the "wholesome" clip of a young Mr. Nelson that I watched last night, it struck me that his song really did not differ all that much from the one of Mr. Ludacris. What differentiates it is, of course, the clean-cut appearance of Mr. Nelson (for all the appreciation I have of modernity, I do wish we had the same aesthetic as the early 1960s -my apologies, I just love narrow-lapeled suits and skinny ties!) and the relative coyness of the lyrics (at least compared to what is being offered fifty years later by Ludacris). Mr. Nelson sings of conquests awaiting him in disparate ports, an "Eskimo" girl who longs for him, a fraulein in Berlin, a señorita in "Old Mexico" and others. Mr. Ludacris more explicitly sings of conquests from area codes ranging from 702 to 212. Is there a difference? Well, of course; rock and roll and rap are two different genres. In reality, musical genres aside, the content is pretty much the same: a man who is coveted by women across the globe and has no qualms about boasting of it. The limits of Post-War America would not allow Mr. Nelson to more graphically illustrate just what the traveling man actually enjoyed in those corners of the globe.

             To juxtapose Ricky Nelson and a rapper is not as ludicrous as it would sound. The nexus exists between the two, just today's musicians are a tad less tactful and evasive when detailing their escapades.

"Because we've been paying for your defense" and other inane accusations

              

                Many a European has come to American-hosted discussion boards to discuss the relatively generous welfare state their respective countries enjoy as compared with the United States. A predictable result of such an affirmation is that within seconds, an American respondent will chime in with, "well, the only reason you guys are able to have your 'socialized' medicine and 'free' education is because we've been footing the bill for you guys when it comes to defense; if it weren't for us, the Soviet Union would have obliterated you guys a long time ago!"

              Repeated extensively, it has become truth to millions. What is sad is that in today's information age, when facts from reputable sources are so readily available, few bother to do any actual research into the validity of this statement.

               It is true that all the nations of Europe have universal health care. It is also true that many of the European nations have heavily subsidized education, a system that normally does not leave its graduates mired in the level of debt that afflicts so many of their American counterparts. When a European takes rightful pride in this state of affairs, he is often reminded that without U.S. protection, his very nation state would not exist. That such a declaration is given such widespread approval among his American peers is disturbing, to say the least.

              First of all, no society exists independently of the other. All nations are interdependent to some degree. Total self sufficiency is virtually impossible. For an example, look at the difficulties suffered by nations that have isolated themselves in modern history: North Korea and Hoxha's Albania. Even Bhutan, a culturally hermetic society has, nonetheless, extensive trade with its neighbors. The United States is no exception. Our existence is owed to one of the countries our citizens so love to revile: France. Without France's gallant aid at the Battle of Yorktown, it is not unlikely that we would be a member of the British Commonwealth today. This fact is overlooked as we pride ourselves on being the counterpart to the "self-made man," in this case, the "self-made nation." Much of the technical expertise that has made us a leader in engineering, arms' manufacturing, medicine and several branches of science has come from the international community.

            America did not grow and prosper in a vacuum and neither did all nation states. Returning to our role as "Europe's savior" and thereby facilitator of their generous social-welfare states, this matter deserves greater scrutiny. To negate America's role in helping Western Europe secure lasting freedom would be an insult to our troops who sacrificed so much in two World Wars; however, America did not fight alone. As for WWII, we entered two years after the conflict erupted and some time after Britain had garnered substantial gains over the German Luftwaffe on its own soil. Canadians, British, Free French, partisans within the Resistance and Free Poles contributed substantially to the neutralization of the Nazi forces. What is often overlooked, particularly in the history curriculum devised after the close of the Second World War is the role of the Soviet Union in Germany's defeat. Three quarters of Nazi casualties were inflicted on the Eastern Front. The Soviets endured some of the most brutal fighting against the partisans of Hitler's monstrous regime. Seizing Berlin in the spring of 1945, the Soviet Union had finally put an end to Hitler's deranged vision of a new world order. In addition, the Soviet Union had another sobering experience fighting a Western European nation. That nation in question was Finland in the Winter War. The Winter War, nonetheless, did result in Finland losing 11% of its territory; however, it also was a brutal conflict that put the Soviet Union to the test and was an experience they were most likely unwilling to repeat after WWII. Now, it is true that much of the military elite had been purged by Stalin prior to the Winter War, but such a routing by a small nation is not a feat to be dismissed lightly, even if the invading forces were not enjoying optimal leadership.

             This, of course, engendered another prospect for the new world order. This new world order being one of Soviet hegemony. Ceded at Yalta were the nations of Eastern Europe, including Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and the Eastern part of Germany. The Soviet Union now had satellite states throughout the eastern sector of the continent. The Western nations of Europe, many of whom received generous allocations of resources thanks to the Marshall Plan, were able to develop a free-market system. Thus, the break between east and west was truly formed. The understandable fear was that the Soviet Union would eventually attempt to extend its grasp across the continent, aiming to take possession of nations such as West Germany, the countries of Scandinavia, Austria, Italy, Greece, Britain, Ireland, Iceland, France, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Switzerland and the Netherlands. To bolster themselves against such a prospect, U.S. bases were maintained on the soil of Western Europe and economic cooperation was facilitated with the creation of the EEC, the predecessor to the EU.

               Regarding the fear of the Soviet Union and its aims of westward expansion, some factors must be taken into consideration. The Soviet Union did possess satellite nations in the East; however, discord with Moscow was evident from the very beginning. Flagrant evidence of this existed in the Budapest uprising of 1956, the Prague Spring of 1968, the Polish Solidarity movement of the late 1970s and early 1980s and the relative cordiality between Ceausescu's Romania and Washington D.C. Thus, Moscow's grasp on its Eastern subjects was tenuous, to say the least. What we had was hardly a candidate for a true military alliance despite the Warsaw Pact. Thus, one cannot aver that the U.S.S.R. had true logistical support from its neighbors despite official economic alignment.

            Thus, campaigns abroad produced a staggering death toll, and it is inconceivable that the Soviets would have wanted a repeat of the Eastern Front and the Winter War. In addition, Post-War Europe now counted two states with an arsenal of nuclear weapons: France and the United Kingdom. The East and West now existed in a state of mutually assured destruction. In reference to this, one must ask exactly how an even larger deployment of U.S. ground forces would have been effective in the event of nuclear holocaust? No ground forces can compete with incineration via warheads. This naturally leads one to ask what the real purpose of having military installations throughout Western Europe was? It is within reason to conjecture that such installations would serve for easier deployments to other troubled regions within the globe. In addition, a military installation provides for intelligence gathering near the enemy state. Protection out of pure benevolence appears a tad far fetched, yet is readily accepted as the answer to the question regarding purpose.

           So, have the nations of Western Europe been able to enjoy "free" university and "free" health care owing to the magnanimity of Uncle Sam and her selfless protection of her allies? Hardly. Let us look at what transpired when the nations of Eastern Europe were freed from Soviet hegemony in the early 1990s. Every single one of the Eastern Bloc nations made the transition to the free market and every single nation of the Warsaw Pact retained universal health care. The nations of Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland most certainly were not under the umbrella of Uncle Sam's protection, and were hardly enjoying a free ride at U.S. taxpayer expense all those years. The same can be said about the nations that were forcibly incorporated into the Soviet Union, e.g., Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania. All of these nations have universal health care and, it can be said, that despite a rocky transition to a free-market economy, the statistics from those nations regarding life expectancy are hardly lamentable, although certainly not on a par with the West. Give it time, though, and we are likely to see the Baltics, as just one example, up there with Spain and the Netherlands in terms of World Health Organization statistics.

                Russia today does not present a viable threat to the continent of Europe. Her military budget is less than that of Britain and less than that of France. Economic cooperation is mandatory for a new Russia of the free market. America is not giving Europe a free ride, thus enabling her to fund her social programs. The concept is additionally ludicrous as nations that most certainly do not enjoy U.S. protection have also implemented universal health care programs as well as subsidized university education. The examples are too numerous to cite here.

                American society has become one where any excuse can be used to justify a negative status quo. The newest low in attempting to justify our inhumane health-insurance system is one that attempts to portray the world as indolent moochers all benefiting from our largess and thus being able to provide basic social services to their citizens. It is an argument that is accepted by only the most inert of our citizens, yet it has gained traction and is likely to be accepted as truth for some time to come unless more people speak up. The sooner the better, I might add!

A collection of the most humorous birther stances

           

             Some websites provide one with a valuable service of sorts. The valuable service to which I refer is a glimpse into how some of the most extreme individuals "think." Evidence of this can be found among the members of a movement known as the birthers. For those who have not been following, the birthers are a group of people who are intent upon proving that Barack Obama was born outside the United States, is not a natural-born citizen, and is thus ineligible to hold the office of Commander in Chief.

             Birthers are a curious lot. Marginalized by the rational members of the right, they nonetheless persist in their "plight." So many "arguments" have been brought forth concerning Obama's alleged birth in Kenya, that I consider it worthwhile, for the purposes of keeping genuine comedy alive in our somewhat negative society, to publicize them. Here go some of the most absurd birther pronouncements:

              1. Obama's mother gave birth to him in Kenya because they have free health care over
                  there.
              2. The birth announcement in that Hawaiian newspaper is for a different Barack Obama. Just
                  because a Barack Obama was born on that day in Hawaii doesn't mean it's the Barack
                  Obama.
              3. McCain (or "McLame" as some posters have taken to calling him) was too stupid to pick
                  up on where Obama was born. If he had, we wouldn't be in this mess we're in right now.

           Analyzing the birthers has been done umpteenth times, but there is a perverse amusement in going back and looking over the utterances of such individuals. Assuming the Internet is not plagued by more trolls than usual, such sources of "insight" can be found generally on sites such as freerepublic.com, hotair.com or any news' article on Yahoo that features a comments' section. Amusing, yes, but frightening at the same time.

Post-post-modern celebrity and what it means

              

              The prophecy of Andy Warhol regarding fame and the future has become such a part of cultural literacy that one is unlikely to come across anyone who is unfamiliar with it. The prediction of Mr. Warhol, deceased since 1987, has a peculiar resonance in the age of the Internet, a medium of communication unknown to the general public in his lifetime.

               In today's world, if one is accustomed to charting the vicissitudes of celebrity and how it is regarded by the general public, one is aware of the gradations regarding celebrity itself. Tuning into a late-night talk show some time ago, I was treated to the spectacle of a Mexican-American comedian interviewing two teen idols of days past, those days being the early 1990s. What struck me in particular was how the host noted that the two men, now visibly situated in middle aged, had attained fame through "legitimate" means. In this case, the presenter was indirectly referencing television, not the Internet, to which he alluded seconds later.

               What I carried away moments later was a feeling that fame has its hierarchy of legitimacy. Hardly a new concept, but never before had I thought about how one "legitimizes" his fame by the medium of communication used to attain it.

                Seventy years ago, the concept of a television star was unknown. One hundred and twenty years ago, a movie star was an unknown. Twenty-five years ago, no one had heard of an Internet sensation. Popular culture analyzes the nature of celebrity; however, these analyses often detail the obvious: why that person is a celebrity and if his "talents" merit such widespread attention. What is neglected are the societal attitudes towards the methods of communication used to attain that celebrity itself.

               Is the Internet celebrity a lesser celebrity within the taxonomy? Perhaps. The reason for this designation is that the Internet is the most democratic form of communication we have. One must be engaged by the other to make an appearance in traditional film. The same strictures exist in regards to television. With the Internet, we have seen a democratization of information transmission. The Internet has allowed millions, if not billions, to voice their opinions, disseminate what they see as art, attack the viewpoints of others, promote themselves, and take part in criminal mischief. It has, above all, given a voice to those who crave adulation, a desire that has been part of human nature since our origin as a species. With the Internet, everyone is a star in his own eyes, everyone has the means to spread his message but, as is the case with television and film, one cannot force others to view it; thus, the means of broadcasting oneself may be more accessible to the general public, but it serves as no guarantee that their talents will be recognized and marketed for the masses.

              In conclusion, a person who attains celebrity via the Internet is kin to the television star and the cinematic luminary. And, as is the case with the stars of the big and small screen, their prominence is owed to an audience who choose to patronize them. Ultimately, it comes down to the audience, to whom a celebrity, whether he gained his start on stage, television, cinema or the Internet, owes his fame.

                                                  

The curious support for a country by those who believe its founders are bound for Hell

           

                   I remember as a young man meeting an aspiring writer, a man down on his luck who served as something of a reverse mentor to me. He had a tendency to use the word "facultative" in his colloquial speech, thus leading me, a twenty-two-year-old student, ignorant of the word, to my dictionary. What I discovered is that the writer was using it in a sense that might not please the more orthodox compilers of the O.E.D. You see, my friend had a tendency to utilize the word as a means of describing a type of person who adapts himself to the needs of others for mercenary purposes. This interpretation of facultative could be used to describe a political stance taken in modern-day America. This stance, of course, is the alliance between the Christian Right and the Zionist movement.

              Israel is a beleaguered nation. Even with peace accords signed by neighboring states such as Jordan and Egypt, it remains vulnerable to attack by hostile governments within the region, most notably Iran, Lebanon, Syria and several others. Despite generous U.S. aid to its military, a full-out assault by a coalition of Islamic states could spell its demise. Adding to this factor is the fact that Israel has seen itself the focus of much criticism throughout the nations of the West owing to recent actions by its government and military. Any logical observer can understand that with these issues to confront, Israel understandably looks for sources of support where it can find them.

              One such source of support is the Christian Right in America. Listening to John Hagee or viewing Trinity Broadcasting for only a few minutes, a viewer is struck by the impassioned pleas to support the Jewish State. In many ways this is a symbol of progress.  Throughout the centuries, it was often those who held to the tenets of Christianity who inaugurated pogroms and expulsions. So, to see Christians unified in supporting Israelis, one does feel a sense of reassurance when comparing the situation to times past. However, such support does need to be placed under more stringent observation. When put under scrutiny, a paradox becomes immediately apparent.

             The paradox in question involves the stance of the Christian Right towards those who do not share their belief in Christ as the Messiah. Frequently, if one peruses chat rooms and message boards, one can see a truly malignant attitude directed towards non believers, particularly Muslims, who accept Christ as prophet, but not as divine. On more than one occasion I have had the chance to witness denunciations of those affiliated with other Christian sects, particularly Roman Catholics and Mormons. Several in the Evangelical movement do not see adherents of those faiths as true Christians, and thus their souls are in jeopardy. Having seen firsthand the dismissal of Muslims, Hindus, Catholics, Buddhists and Mormons as "hell bound" by so many of this movement, one must turn our questioning towards Israel and how the Evangelical Right see it.

             Having established their point of view towards those who do not accept Christ as the son of God, as well as those who interpret Christianity in a manner different from theirs, one is not unreasonable to ponder the Evangelical attitude towards Jews. Now, to be fair, variations exist within all groups. Generalizations are the enemy of the intellect, but it must be remembered that Evangelicals are a group united by common belief with only slight variations among individual members. For the most part, it cannot be denied that Evangelicals believe in a sorry fate for those who do not accept Christ as savior. This is what brings us to the curious situation of Christian Zionism.

             Christian Zionism is an ideology that has come to prominence with the rise of the Evangelicals in the United States. It puts forth that Christians are obligated to support the Jewish state. The Jewish state will be, if one is to believe the followers of Tim La Haye and several others, the site where the Rapture will transpire. The Rapture, the return of Christ, where the righteous will ascend to Heaven and the wicked will receive their just deserts is predicted to happen at any time. More than once I have had the unique experience of driving behind a car with a bumper sticker explaining that if the car is found empty alongside the road, it is because the driver has been "raptured." How confident the driver is of his own moral rectitude and desirability by God himself!

             Now, for those credulous souls who believe that the existence of Israel is part of the criteria for the return of Christ, Christian Zionism is entirely logical. What could make more sense than endeavoring to preserve the land you believe is  necessary in order to usher in the return of your savior? Thus, the appeals to support Israel on behalf of the Evangelicals are quite understandable. Understandable, yes, but cynical and politically expedient as well. One has to return to just what the overwhelming majority of Evangelicals believe will happen to the souls of those outside of their sect. A horrid fate it is indeed. Although some renegades within the Evangelical movement have posited a "dual-covenant theory," that is hardly the standard among members of the movement. No, Jews, along with Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists, Hindus and atheists are bound for the eternal torment, sayeth the Evangelicals. In the case of Israelis, they do not say it as clearly as they do when it comes to those other religious groups. Nonetheless, Israel does receive moral and financial support from America's Christian Right. However, it must be understood that the support comes solely from a need to satisfy the ultimate aims of the Evangelicals. This aim is, of course, a land for the anticipated event they so eagerly await. Despite the aid to Israel and the positive press given it by the Evangelicals, it cannot be denied that they view the overwhelming majority of its citizens as destined for perdition.

             Because of this, one should always take into careful consideration where one gets his support. Those with such self-serving motives are hardly genuine friends to the Jews. Aiding a nation while immersing yourself in an ideology that preaches that the inhabitants of the land you support are bound for Satan is hardly symptomatic of virtue. It shows a canny and utterly cynical stance designed to further one's own interests.

             Is a Christian alliance of sorts with Jews better than outright opposition and cruelty? Absolutely. However, one must consider that this outreach is not based on genuine love and acceptance of another faith, but an opportunity to serve one's own needs, a need that those outside of the Evangelical Movement have trouble understanding. Full acceptance and love of another group does not exist when in the not-so-dark recesses of your brain you see them as deserving of eternal torment. The Jews are a people who have been subject to unimaginable suffering for centuries, thus one would hope that they deserve better than to see themselves manipulated by those who view them as a theologically deficient other worthy of eternal punishment.

Because a billygoat can't consent to marriage and neither can a child

           


             If one's purpose in life is detecting particularly virulent strains of ignorance among the general populace and attempting to remedy them, then one could say that it was not a life lived in vain. With this in mind, I wish to address an "argument" that is consistently put forth and, unfortunately, not given the easy dissection it deserves and its rightful place in the intellectual dustbin.

             "If gays and lesbians are allowed to marry, then it will only be a matter of time before a person can marry a billy goat or a child!" The reasoning is ludicrous yet given much currency in media such as the Internet and radio talk shows. Why is such a position on gay marriage an absurdity? Gay marriage is the act by which one consenting adult *consents* to marry anothtr consenting adult. In other words, two people capable of rationalization have made a conscious decision to make legal their union, thus entitling them to file joint tax returns, visit each other in hospital, obtain health insurance and enjoy the same freedom granted to those, like myself, who were born genetically heterosexual. Of course, the argument is still out on whether or not sexuality is genetically determined, but I might weigh in with at no point in my life have I ever thought, "hmmmm....straight or gay.....the latter could offer me societal exclusion, possible violence directed against me and widespread bigotry......yeah, I think I'll take gay!" I can testify that I had no more choice in being attracted to the opposite sex as I did with choosing right handedness and green eyes.

                Now, returning to the widely used and decidedly anti-intellectual reasoning of the billy goat and the child being the next to find themselves legally wed, we must consider the essential differences. Billy goats are not capable of consenting to marriage. They are not capable of understanding the very concept of marriage. They are not capable of signing a marriage certificate. As a result, you may not marry your billy goat no matter how much you may love him. The same goes for all animals as animals do not understand marriage. The same situation arises in regards to children. There is a reason why there are penalties regarding statutory rape. These exist because people do not fully grasp deductive reasoning in childhood and adolescence; therefore, they are not permitted the same rights as those who do (i.e., adults).

                 There is no need to drag this on any further. If Adam and Steve can fill out the paperwork at City Hall and be married by a judge, it is impossible to see how this will have any effect on your heterosexual marriage. If you're going to argue against gay marriage, please put aside any rationales involving billy goats and children as you only make fools of yourselves by doing so.

How is mandating a purchase from a private corporation part of socialism or communism?

      


             Documenting the inane in our society is a challenge owing to the frequency by which it appears. Few things so contravene common sense and common knowledge as the oft-repeated claim that "Obamacare" is part of socialism. Repeatedly espoused by those who have an inexplicable attachment to a system that has proven exclusionary, overpriced and largely unavailable outside of work pools, thus limiting employment opportunities, the statement is accepted at face value and rarely put under scrutiny.

         To labor under the belief that Obamacare as it stands is a genuine fix for all the problems of insurance in the United States is delusional, but even this flawed effort could help inspire a true solution in due time. Returning to the accusations of socialism, it is painful to watch individuals capable of higher thought repeating such an absurdity. First of all, Obamacare is not the public option many had fought for; instead, it is a mandate by which individuals must purchase health insurance. Now, to be fair, one has a legitimate argument that a mandate could be the slippery slope towards coercion in regards to other matters. The fear of large government intruding further into the daily lives of citizens is a valid fear and should be addressed. What is odd is how so many of those who rant breathlessly about big government and its intrusion into the personal life do not raise issue with the far-reaching scope of the D.E.A. who routinely violate privacy as well as anti-gay legislation which strictly regulates activities between consenting adults. When it comes to health care, the militants are out in force.

           Let us try to summarize Obamacare in the most concise manner possible. Obamacare is not a public option. Obamacare does not establish an American counterpart to the British NHS. What Obamacare does is mandate that citizens buy health insurance from a private enterprise such as Blue Cross/Blue Shield or Aetna or be fined. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, legitimate fear is induced among many who worry about the extent of government entering our daily lives if one such mandate is enforced. This is not unreasonable. What is unreasonable is that millions of people are calling the mandate "socialist." Mandating that an individual purchase something from a corporation is hardly socialism. In fact, many would say that it is pandering to the interests of the corporate oligarchy itself.

          Two of the most avowedly capitalist nations on this Earth utilize a mandate system. They use this in place of the public option which is the norm in the UK, Australia, France, Canada, Ireland and most free, rich nations. Those two nations are Japan and Switzerland. Both enjoy some of the highest standards of living despite the economic downturn in Japan that has plagued that nation since the early 1990s. Statistics in regards to health care for both nations are impressive. In addition, there is no popular movement in either nation to disassemble what has been established. The Swiss and the Japanese are mandated to purchase health insurance just as citizens of our country are mandated to sign up for the draft at age 18, pay income tax and, if we lack the proper credentials for home schooling, send our children to an educational establishment. Because of this, both nations have a high-risk pool comprised of its own citizens. This reduces the cost of insurance, particularly when one compares it to how much a person with a pre-existing condition would pay if he were to work for himself rather than a company.

                Switzerland and Japan have given no indication of abandoning their respective mandates. They show no signs of going over to our system where insurance is almost always obtained through employment. It is not unreasonable to speculate that the Swiss and the Japanese have considered how much this would limit the occupational futures of their citizens. As a result, they have wisely avoided our policy, a relic of the Post-War era. Many Japanese do get their health insurance through their employment but should they lose their job, insurance is still affordable and available on the private, individual market. This is something that cannot be truthfully said about our society.

                 Nowhere in the text did I say that Switzerland and Japan are better countries than America. It's just that they have progressed in one individual area where we appear to be stagnating. Taking a leaf from the book of a foreign country does not indicate hatred of your home country. We need to abandon this mindset. We also need to look at what other societies do correctly and see if we can adapt it to our large and heterogeneous population. A mandate does not necessarily spell the end of freedom. Switzerland and Japan are two examples of free societies where a high standard of living is enjoyed and medical care is highly regarded.

                 In conclusion, Obamacare has nothing to do with socialism. Only the intellectually lazy among us make that accusation. Obamacare is a gift to private insurance companies. It adds new customers to the rolls, thus increasing their profits. A mandate may not be the best solution, but creating a national pool could very well lead to the end of "job lock." "Job lock" is the phenomenon of people staying in jobs for which they may not be suited. The reason for this is solely for the affordable benefits that are unattainable on the private market. If Japan and Switzerland can figure this out, then we should be able to as well. Obamacare, Switzerland and Japan are three things that are the polar opposite of socialism yet in the minds of many they are synonymous.
           
  

Resources on Rosa Luxemburg

            I will leave it professional biographers to give readers an account of the life of Rosa Luxembourg (1871-1919), the famed Polish radical thinker. What I can offer are a few resources for learning more about this woman:
                               
                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JqDbpTCb5Y&feature=share (a German feature film on her life)
                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFLbgSdpFe8 (a short documentary in English on the thoughts of Rosa Luxemburg)
                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vyq3b5CRrKc&feature=related (Luxemburg on dictatorship)
                          http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/06/red-rosa/8500/ (Christopher Hitchens on Rosa Luxemburg's letters)

The impossibility of being overeducated

           One distressing trend in modern society, so well documented on the Internet, is the increased use of the term "overeducated" to describe a certain set of individuals. It is not unreasonable to believe that the term had its origins in the classification of "overqualified," a logical designation for someone whose skills exceed what is required for a certain posting.

            "Overqualified" and "overeducated" are hardly interchangeable. While the former denotes a valid situation that keeps certain people from acquiring employment (i.e., in other words, university graduates willing to take on jobs that require no education as there are so few other options), the latter is utterly improbable.

             It is true that many great thinkers have made great errors in judgment (e.g., Martin Heidegger and his enthusiastic support for the Third Reich, as well as George Bernard Shaw and his ideological alignment with the Bolsheviks). Yet one cannot automatically derive a correlation between extensive education and an automatic affiliation with the extremes of political theory. It is also true that many great thinkers, ineffectual in their dealings with others, and sometimes isolated from those with whom they share no intellectual interests, have entertained -and actively supported-regimes that, while promising utopia, delivered us the Purgatorial instead.

           What one must consider is just how rarely a Shaw or a Heidegger is born into this world. Most critical thinkers are today occupied with the mundane task of earning a living, and the most appropriate environment for them is often academia. Academia, despite repeated accusations from the reactionary right, can hardly be called an instrument of the neo-Bolsheviks. Today's students are churned out with a sole purpose: to use their newly attained credential to secure gainful employment. Thus, the graduate is sent out into a world where his ability to be a consumer will be the metric by which his worth will be established. This is a process that repeats itself generation after generation. When one compares the number of graduates who will dedicate themselves to lifelong radicalism as opposed to climbing the social ladder in a consumerist society, one sees that the latter is by far almost universal.

           Returning to the theme of "overeducated," the very concept is an impossibility. At what point does a person become overeducated? Surely no sane society would look at the acquisition of knowledge as a dangerous form of excess. Although the "overeducated" individual may now have trouble relating to someone whose evenings are dedicated to reality programs, he may very well have prepared himself for a leadership position in an increasingly benighted society.

            There is no point at which an individual should say, "I've already learned too much; going past this point would render me 'overeducated,' thus I need to desist from filling my head with any new information." No, the acquisition of knowledge should be a lifelong activity and the more acquired, the better!
 
              The full-time pursuit of knowledge may isolate one from peers whose free time is dedicated to discussing the antics of the Kardashian sisters, but that is hardly a reason to close one's mind. The mind is an organ constantly in need of sustenance. To neglect it would be a crime against nature. If "overeducated" means not being able to adapt oneself to the norms of a society that disdains critical thinkers, one should look at life from the outside as a more virtuous life indeed. You will have more allies than you think, and small numbers have often dictated positive trends despite widespread opposition.

           You can never be "overeducated," just educated to the point where you can more clearly see just how beneficial ignorance is to a small, but influential sector of society.

                                                  
          

GOP: why are you so modest about your role on the pro-choice side of the divide?

         

                   I have known single-issue voters in my thirty-seven-year life span. One of them, a man with an intellectual pedigree that would be coveted by many, nonetheless informed me, and not in jest I might add, that he would vote for Satan himself if he could guarantee the abolition of Roe v. Wade. An anomaly? Perhaps in certain circles, but it would be imprudent to neglect just how many Americans subscribe to similar thought patterns. What is curious is how convinced these people often are of the moral rectitude of Republicans when it comes to the debate itself. The GOP, knowing full well that millions of Americans do vote on this particular issue, has profited from this perception.

            Rarely placed under scrutiny is just how Republicans have facilitated legalized abortion throughout the years. Aware that parties do indeed change in ideology over time, one cannot, in all fairness, associate the GOP of Lincoln with the GOP of today, nor the Democratic Party of the early 20th century to what we have presently. With this factor acknowledged, one should look at the Republican Party only within the time frame that includes its shift to its current incarnation as the party of social conservatism and traditional morality: the early 1960s to the present.

            The role of Republicans in the legalization of abortion can be traced with a great deal of ease.
Dwight David Eisenhower, a man who is as rarely mentioned by today's GOP leadership as Reagan is quoted by them, played a role in this drama. Having nominated William Brennan and Potter Stewart to the Supreme Court, Eisenhower would give the court two men who would go on to judge in favor of Roe v. Wade in 1973. In fairness to the memory of the late President Eisenhower, most would argue that the very debate on the subject of legalized abortion would never have even been a consideration when these two men were nominated. Thus, Eisenhower can be exonerated in this regard, but the fact remains that two Republican nominees did later help facilitate this landmark ruling.

                  While Democrats were in control of the Oval Office from January of 1961 to January of 1969, two of the justices of the Supreme Court who would later rule in Roe v. Wade were appointed. One was Byron White, a Kennedy appointee and the other Thurgood Marshall, who was nominated by President Johnson. Curiously, it was the Kennedy nominee who was one of only two dissenters during that fateful case in 1973.

            From the time he assumed office in January of 1969, until the decision in Roe v. Wade, Richard Nixon gave the United States four additional justices of the Supreme Court. Of those four(Rehnquist, Burger, Blackmun and Powell), the only dissenter was William Rehnquist. Having made his nominations at the beginning of his term, it is illogical to think that Nixon could not have at any time seriously considered the abortion question. The issue of its legalization was already quite prominent, particularly in California where Republican Governor Ronald Reagan signed into legislation one of the most liberal abortion laws in the nation. Although Gov. Reagan later cited coercion and deception as factors in his decision, one must ask if this was another cynical, expedient move for the aspiring president of all 50 states. One cannot gainsay that Nixon delivered three justices who are forever associated with Roe v. Wade. Nor can it be denied that such appointments were made at a time when the legalization of abortion was a serious issue for public debate.

                   With Nixon's resignation in 1974, our nation gained the conciliatory Mr. Ford, often credited with mollifying much of the anger engendered by his predecessor's criminality. Ford also has his place in the furtherance of reinforcing abortion's legality across the land for it was he who appointed John Paul Stevens to the court. Initially believed to be a stalwart conservative, Stevens went on to side with the more liberal element of the Supreme Court, particularly on the abortion issue. In addition to his nominations, Ford himself hardly fits the portrait of a pro-life Republican as he and his wife, a prominent cultural influence on the nation, were often described as "pro choice."

            Governor Reagan of California found a counterpart of sorts in the Republican governor of New York Nelson Rockefeller. It was Rockefeller who signed into law in 1970 a repeal of the state prohibition on abortion. Four years later, Rockefeller became vice president to Gerald Ford.

            Returning to the theme of Ronald Reagan. Governor Reagan, who coveted the GOP nomination in 1976 and lost, brought himself back into the fray in 1980, this time gaining the nomination for presidential candidate. Victorious, he found himself early on in his presidency obliged to nominate a replacement for Potter Stewart. Replacement came in the form of Sandra Day O'Connor, a woman whose stance on abortion was opaque, to say the least. Reagan went on to appease his constituents with the nomination of Robert Bork and a less-than-convincing rationale for his 1967 decision regarding abortion and legality in California. Reagan, whose nomination of Robert Bork ignited a firestorm across the nation, eventually offered us Anthony Kennedy, who would go on to join, in 1992, O'Connor's plurality opinion in Planned Parenthood vs. Casey.

              History repeated itself during the presidency of George H.W. Bush. During the elder Bush's tenure in the White House, he gave this nation two justices for the Supreme Court: David Souter and Clarence Thomas. Thomas, reviled by the pro-choice lobby, would serve as the foil to Souter, a conservative on several issues who nonetheless took the side of O'Connor and more liberal members of the court on this issue.

               The presidency of George W. Bush was probably the most directly correlated with the goals of the anti-abortion movement. Bush the younger gave the Supreme Court Samuel Alito and John Roberts. Thus, today's GOP, thanks partly to George W. Bush, is seen as the anti-abortion party. The association continues despite a history that shows something to the contrary.

               At no time did I offer my opinion on the legality of this practice. My purpose in writing is to demonstrate to the reader that the GOP have played a considerably liberal role concerning an issue where they are seen as the voice of opposition. This is only part of the story. Some of the most prominent men in the GOP have enabled legalized abortion to remain law since 1973. As many Republicans today boast of the proud legacy of their party as fierce abolitionists in the 19th century and the unfortunate role early Democrats had in upholding slavery, it is interesting that they do not feel the need to resurrect this part of their history. It is just as much a part of Republican history as the Lincoln Administration, but one can be certain that today's Republicans will much more quickly cite the party of Lincoln than those men who helped continue a practice for which they maintain abhorrence. This engenders one question, a rather cynical question, but an important query nonetheless: do the Republicans know that they could lose a substantial sum of single-issue voters and therefore call for the abolition of Roe v. Wade whilst doing everything behind the scenes to make sure that it remains the law of the land? For if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, is it not unlikely that the party would lose a significant selling point to voters? That is something to ponder.

   

Because its rightful place is in religious studies, philosophy, anthropology or Sunday school!

            To see how anemic our progress has been in certain areas of public life, one need only consider just how less-than-divergent the modern era is in regards to the teaching of evolution as compared with the year 1926. Why 1926? Because this was the year in which William Jennings Bryan squared off against Clarence Darrow in a Tennessee courtroom over whether or not teaching Darwin's theory was licit within the public school system. Strangely, while our society has advanced in so many ways (e.g., race relations, the role of women in the workforce and the accessibility of technology), it has either remained stagnant or regressed since that celebrated case.

          Brought to the forefront during presidential elections and given scrutiny during rewrites of school curricula, the theory of evolution remains strangely contentious as a public issue. Few theories generate such strident defense and antagonism, certainly not the theory of gravity nor the theory of relativity.

           What has been intellectually scarring for our society has been the misappropriation of the very word "theory." Numerous people equate scientific theory with the colloquial usage of the word, thus, the oft-repeated comment of "evolution's just a theory" as though a theory were a mere hunch. This has terrible ramifications for it justifies in the mind of certain believers the negation of something tested time and time again and accepted almost unanimously by the leading scientists. Further deleterious effects can be felt at the classroom level.

        In a society where willful ignorance can be seen as a virtue (i.e., one's virtue is tied to how easily his unschooled mind can be manipulated by those who profit from ignorance), such an occurrence is a grave danger. The principal opposition to the theory of evolution comes from the religious right. This sector of our society currently fields two viable candidates for the presidency of the United States and has made incursions regarding the selection of appropriate lesson plans for science classes.

        The chief grievance given by the religious right regarding science as it is to be taught is that competing "theories" are not being taught in the classroom, (i.e., intelligent design and/or creationism are being excluded). The problem is that the Book of Genesis is not a theory, nor is the presence of a deity who constructed such a complex world from nothingness. These are matters of faith, to which all citizens are entitled to subscribe, if they wish. Just as one does not expect French to be taught in Spanish classes, nor the history of Romanian film to be taught in an English literature class, one should not expect a decidedly different discipline to be taught outside its proper place. Yet this is the case regarding intelligent design and creationism. They are perfectly viable subjects, provided that they are taught in the appropriate departments. Those departments are, of course, philosophy, religious studies, anthropology and Sunday School courses, not science.

        Introducing the non scientific into the laboratory can have dire consequences. In the matter of introducing elements of faith, the risk is of a certain hegemony in that compromised discipline. This refers directly to the possibility that indeed the Book of Genesis will be the competing "theory," thus generating contempt from those who subscribe to a different set of religious beliefs.

        The science classroom/laboratory is no place for conflicts of another discipline. Arguing religion or introducing religion into a biology course is as irrational as placing science in a French classroom. Whether or not there is a divine creator is something that the laboratory -at least at this present time-can neither prove nor disprove as there is no scientific method that can be applied to issues of faith. For debate on the existence of a creator who conforms to holy scripture, the best environment is a class that directly touches upon this subject, chiefly the realms of philosophy and theology.

         The argument by most scientists is not entirely against the teaching of intelligent design. Rather, it is about where it should be taught. Science class is for science, that branch of learning that has laboratory experiments, fossil records, hypotheses and other material elements for proving or disproving. Intelligent design is not science. It is philosophical speculation, more appropriate for a class on philosophy. Just as metaphysics is not a hard science, neither is intelligent design.

Addendum: I in no way wish to see the right to worship curtailed in any form. Believers have every right to prayer provided that others are not mandated to engage in the same activity. Every activity has its proper place. Surgery takes place in an operating theater, operas take place on a stage and religion has its rightful place in the churches, not the science classes.

"And if you don't like violence, obesity and ignorance, then 'git' the hell outta my country!"

           Of all the nations in the world, which one:
                     1. Enjoys the longest life expectancy?
                     2. Has the lowest infant mortality rate?
                     3. Has the lowest per-capita homicide rate?
                     4. Has the best human rights' record?
                     5. Scores the highest in reading, math and science?
                     6. Has the healthiest citizens?
                     7. Has the happiest population according to surveys?
                     8. Has the highest per-capita income in the world?
                     9. Has the lowest percentage of its citizens living below the poverty level?
                    10.Holds the ranking as the least corrupt nation?
                    11. Has the lowest percentage of suicides?

         If you answered "America" to all eleven questions, you may be surprised by what reputable sources of information (e.g., almanacs) have to say.
 
         This is no way implies that America is not a great nation. America stands at the forefront in many of the most important categories; however, our national pride often blinds us from seeing what is wrong with our society and prevents us from focusing on how to rectify the situation. What is distressing is the fact that the oft-repeated command of "America, love it or leave it" did not fall into decline ca. 1970, but has persisted in the modern era. Why is such a mandate so blatantly offensive to thinking individuals? Well, first of all, the implication of such a statement is that if one is not happy with a negative status quo in regards to human rights, education, health care -the cornerstones of a civil society -one should flee and leave the society to degenerate further than it already has.

          It can be admitted that progressives are sometimes a pessimistic lot, often focusing inordinately on the negatives, rather than the positives, of our society; however, attention needs to be paid to that which is ailing our society as a means of redressing these wrongs. True, there are many among us who lament without offering solutions, but the recognition that something is wrong is the first step in advancement towards a more idyllic society.

           Those of us who love this country have an obligation to prevent its decline. In the past, when injustice flourished, it was the task of righteous individuals to resolve these inequities. Today the situation is no different. We are losing our standing internationally in too many categories, particularly health, education and safety, and it is time for us to assume a role at the forefront.

            "Love it or leave it" has never been solid advice and its resurgence in recent years is dispiriting indeed. What is ironic about the command given so often by people on the right of the political spectrum is that it can so easily be used against them by their adversaries. Fortunately, many progressives are gracious enough to desist from this as such a dictate is too inane even for ironic use.

               "Love it or leave it" only has some relation to logical thought if the person at whom it is directed is seeking fundamental, not elemental change, regarding what has is right about his society, (e.g., freedom of speech, religion and assembly). Fortunately, only the most extreme (and easily recognizable) partisans of the left have ever called for such reconstruction of our nation. In today's America, the overwhelming majority of progressives are seeking solutions to that which plagues our nation. The most notable of these issues is the fact that many among the working poor are not able to obtain comprehensive and affordable health insurance. Because of this, they often wait until the situation is so dire that they opt for the ER. Other struggles undertaken by progressives include ensuring that actual science is taught in classrooms, not philosophy, mythology or theology. These are all elemental changes that in no way detract from the greatness that is America.

                Fighting to implement that which will be for the greatest benefit of the majority is scarcely treasonous. Yet in a society conditioned to value reaction rather than actual thought, there is always the risk that social reform will be seen as subversive. To counter this, it must be increasingly emphasized that our nation needs constant scrutiny, as well as visionaries who offer the most practical solutions to what is wrong.

What is the point of high school reunions in the age of Facebook?

...the lucky 0.01% of the population who had the looks and money of the 90210 kids when they were in high school. Jealous still? Yeah!

       Since joining Facebook in late 2008, I have accumulated the sum total of 164 "friends," if such a term can be utilized even in the loosest sense. Two of these friends are people I have never met. Several are individuals I scarcely knew in my younger days. Only a handful are those individuals with whom I have meaningful, regular interaction. Yet Facebook is a phenomenon that shows no signs of falling into obscurity. The reconnections, outpouring of intimate details plus the random musings are all part of what has sustained its phenomenal growth in its short lifespan.

       This morning I logged onto the site only to discover that my high school will be hosting a twenty-year reunion in March. I have never attended a high school reunion as my memories of those four years are better dealt with through willed amnesia and physical distance. What I find puzzling is that such an event still has prominence even in the age of Facebook, an era in which the high school reunion has become an everyday event, thanks to technology.

       Everyday life now functions as a reunion of sorts thanks to Mark Zuckerberg's creation. No longer are we to idle away time wondering whatever became of our classmates as their routines are now intermingled with our own. Facebook gives a regular glimpse into the daily lives of those who once captivated us, induced scorn, provoked pity and elicited admiration.

       My own story is probably a cliché: from the time I started high school until I graduated, I was 6'1" (1,85 cm.) and weighed a mere 120 lbs. As a gaunt, unathletic, anxiety-ridden and unfocused adolescent, my time was not a particularly happy one. In fact, it probably serves as a required pedigree for any writer.

        Returning to the theme of the high school reunion, it appears that such a formality is redundant in our era of instant connections. Our daily lives are intertwined with others who knew us through what was either that most awkward of phases, or the high point of our existence: adolescence. What is to be gained from the physical, rather than virtual encounter we experience each day? Probably not a lot.

       If men lead lives of quiet desperation, Facebook has offered a channel whereby that desperation can be amplified for an audience. Rarely a day goes by when one is not taken aback by an update narrating the lovelessness, or dissolution, of a marriage, the ingratitude of children, the stifling nature of a job, the unlikelihood of youthful ambitions being realized, random -and often inane-musings on life and frustration with the very technology that has brought us together. Facebook offers this and more. It offers one the chance to see the Brandons and Dylans of bygone days now devolved into Homer Simpsons, complete with beer guts and combovers. It also offers the chance to see a delicate beauty now coarsened by the hardships of life or an underachiever marvel that he has sustained himself above the poverty level. In addition, you can experience your ideological opposite rant on breathlessly about matters on which he is hopelessly uninformed. These and other factors neither detract nor add to the human experience overall.

         Just why the high school reunion persists as an institution I will never understand. For some, the four years of high school were the apogee of existence. To me, unless you could pass for five years older than you were, had parents who bought you your own apartment and funded your daily life with a trust, and you were the owner of a foolproof fake ID and a Porsche, I see little value in remembering those days gone by. Yet remember is what we do. Much of this is based in a morbid quest to validate onself against the standards imposed on oneself by oneself, not by those with whom you graduated. In reality, the captain of the football team probably cares little about what you have done with your life. You have just deluded yourself into believing that there exists a still-united clique whose affirmation you must attain even in adulthood. As a result comes the anxiety as you prep yourself for that reunion. Save yourself the bother. Enjoy instead the knowledge that today brings you no curfews, no acne, that alcohol is attainable with ease and that your destiny is largely your own, something that cannot be said about one's adolescence. The money you save by not flying to your reunion could be spent on a ticket to the unknown, another continent where new memories wait to be created. As for me, if given the choice between flying to New York for a reunion or spending it on a trip to Bhutan, I will opt for the latter. I find myself far more enriched when creating new experiences rather than re-living that which is thankfully over.

Insanity: you not only carry out an atrocity on your fellow human beings, but you plan it when you have only *one month* left in the damned place!