I don’t mean to only condemn Canadians.  After all, we have riots in L.A. when our teams win.  Its just that the stereotype of our Northern neighbors is one of a reasonable, non-confrontational mensch. I would venture that one of the things that Canadians would say most defines them is that they are not Americans, meaning the crude, arrogant, ugly american, jingoistic and  above all – entitled. 

What a luxury it must be to be so enraged by an event which, by any measure, is picayune in the grand scheme of things.  Look, I understand an intense love for sports.  I understand that the word “fan” is derived from “fanatic”.  But to squander that passion on something of such trifling consequence is a waste of a good mob.

It speaks to the sense of disenchantment of a large mass of the populace, a feeling of disenfranchisement and a resentment that  we are not getting something that we have earned and deserve to have. Perhaps this is the closest we in the first world can come to identifying with the downtrodden masses of the rest of the world.  If only we could feel the same way about social justice on a larger scale.

We recoiled in horror at the sight of dead marines being dragged behind cars in Mogadishu. We clenched our fists in helpless rage at video reports of  beheadings of soldiers and civilians by Al Quaeda in Iraq. But thanks to President Obama’s decision not to satisfy the prurient interests of a bloodthirsty sector of the public, we did not parade the body of a reviled enemy in the streets of New York, nor did we exhibit the photograph of a vanquished foe like a trophy to taunt our enemies.That cooler heads prevailed in the White House stands in stark contrast to the celebrations and drunken revelry that marked the mood in the street.

Worst of all were  the predictable chants of U-S-A, U-S-A, that inevitably follow victory, whether on the playing field or on the battlefield. This display of ostentatious jingoism  is a natural by-product of the public’s overwhelming belief in the myth of American exceptionalism. It is an in-your-face middle finger given by a bully to a weaker opponent, a kick when your adversary is already down. It fuels the broad perceptions of America as an arrogant hegemony.

I suppose it is too much to ask for sober reflection instead of baying for blood, but the eternal optimist wishes that we could appeal to our better angels. I am reminded of the quote attributed to Alexis de Tocqueville (ironically apocryphal) that America is great, because America is good.  When it ceases to be good, then it will cease to be great.

This year, Jones decided  to up the stakes by dispelling with a simple burning and instead putting Islam’s holiest book on trial by declaring an “International Judge the Koran Day” complete with prosecutor and defender.  Members of his church acted as jury, while Jones acted as judge  and executioner.  Unsurprisingly, the Koran was found “guilty”, soaked in kerosene, and burned in a ceremony not unlike a witch burning. To be sure it is one of Christianity’s oldest rites – and it extends to unauthorized editions or translations of the holy bible as well.

Predictably, Islamic extremists, inflamed by their Imam, went on a rampage, attacking and overrunning a United Nations compound and killing 11 people, two of whom were beheaded. The riots continue and the number of victims killed is now beyond 20.

The question is which is worse  -  the rabble rousing moron willing to offend one and a half billion people, from the safety of the protection of the first amendment guarantee of freedom of speech(although it is debatable whether or not his act constitutes fighting words), or the religious fanatics filled with self righteous frenzy and the visceral need to take offense.

Its enough to make any sane and reasonable human being throw up his hands in despair and  say a pox on both your houses and be done with it.

Except that of course we actually have to live in the same world with these pious zealots – on the one hand a Christian extremist who should be a non entity, albeit a  loud and obnoxious non entity, but for the power of the internet, and on the other, the zombie mobs of Islamic fundamentalists frothing at the  mouth and only too willing to do the bidding of their mullahs, issuing fatwas as if they had a direct line to the Almighty.

If only I believed in a Deity, I would say God help us all.

One day, there will be a statue erected to another symbol of selfless dedication and stoic discipline – the anonymous workers of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant, who toiled tirelessly and anonymously  to prevent or contain a disastrous nuclear meltdown which would endanger their fellow citizens.

An unwritten honor code pervades the Japanese zeitgeist, as evidenced by the long orderly lines for food, water, and basic supplies; by the absence of rioting or looting that characterizes the breakdown of human society in the face of natural disaster; and by the ethic of uncomplaining perseverance, gaman,  which allows the Japanese to endure unspeakable deprivation with magnificent dignity and grace. The response of the populace in other disaster stricken countries stands in sharp contrast –  Haiti and Hurricane Katrina come to mind immediately.

Americans in contrast, despite, or perhaps because of, their belief in their own exceptionalism, treat life as a competition, ruthlessly running roughshod over weaker opponents. A society based on unrestricted free enterprise, without compassion for the weak  to temper its excesses, has its limits exposed by extreme stress. The looting post Katrina was just a symptom of the chasm between rich and poor, and the logical end result of a me-first philosophy engendered by a system that values winning above all else.

That is not to say that it is all good in Japan.  The Japanese ability to endure without complaint for the national good allows inert and incompetent governments to stay in power. The hapless response of the current government to this admittedly unprecedented disaster exposes this dichotomy in the national character. In addition, the closely knit fabric of their society, which allows them to embrace a shared outlook, can also lead to discrimination against those who do not fit in. Burakumin, an ethnic underclass, are stigmatized, along with Korean and Filipino workers. Bullying is a major problem, from kindergarten all the way to the upper echelons of  the corporate elite.  Japan’s shamefully arrogant treatment of its Asian neighbors is well known and  historically documented, despite their best efforts to ignore, or forget it.   Atrocities against China and South Korea are obvious examples.  The Rape of Nanking ranks with the Holocaust and the Genocide of Rwanda in the annals of human cruelty.

So while the Japanese are no saints, they do have something to offer the world – an alternative path.  When faced with overwhelming odds and the utter destruction of an entire way of life, perhaps we could aspire to emulate their compassion, their dignity and their self sacrifice for a common good.  Inherent in their philosophy is a recognition that we are all in this together, that as fellow travelers we owe it to each other as much as ourselves, to be kind to one another along the way.

But a strange thing happened on the road to perdition. The lights stayed on. the infrastructure held fast. South Africa welcomed the world with open arms, a joyous song and the blare of vuvuzelas ( which may be the country’s most obnoxious gift to the world) A few tourists were robbed, but overall crime statistics went down. They even arrested Paris Hilton.

The hosts had to suffer the early exit of Bafana Bafana and then the heartbreak of the defeat of Ghana, the lone African team remaining, and yet they stayed on to cheer the rest. Their hospitality and their spirit entranced the world and quieted even the most vociferous critics.  The soccer itself, well it was underwhelming, but off the pitch, the unique atmosphere and the sense of history and occasion will be hard to match anywhere else in the world. It was as much a coming out party for South Africa, as the 2008 Olympics for China, but with less ominous overtones.

Of course problems remain. How long will the euphoria  last? Can South Africa leverage the goodwill into meaningful reform? Only time will tell. But it has just pulled off the biggest party in the world.  It has passed an important test – with honors. How can it not be confident going forward?  Bring on the Jeremiahs. Tell them to wear bibs.

And therein lies the essence of Mandela’s tightrope act during the formative stages of post-apartheid South Africa. Mandela shrewdly embraces the beloved touchstone of his former enemy to halt the seemingly inevitable spiral of bitterness, revenge and reactionary violence that plagues the rest of the continent when power is transferred. In 1995, South Africa needed the Rugby World Cup as much as China needed the Beijing Olympics in 2008 – as an announcement of its arrival on the world stage. But Mandela saw that a victory by the home team in front of a billion viewers around the world, especially a victory that could be celebrated by South Africans of all shades would have immense implications internally, beyond the benefits of “face”. Was he being manipulative? Perhaps, but his cause was just. Call it compassionate realpolitik, a realization that co opting your former enemy is more productive for all than grinding them under your heel and giving them cause to nurse grudges.

That spirit of forgiveness and redemption led to the remarkable creation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission – a uniquely South African body that became the model for healing wounds around the world. But if this sounds preachy – it isn’t. Director Clint Eastwood moves the story along at a reasonable clip, drawing from his principals performances of honest power. Morgan Freeman is possibly the only actor in the world who has the gravitas to play Mandela. After all, who better to play the world’s closest thing to a living saint than an actor who has played God. Although his accent is not perfect, he accurately reproduces Madiba’s deliberate and almost hesitant speech patterns and the rhythms and cadences of his delivery. Likewise, Matt Damon does not quite capture the accent, and is much smaller than the 6’3″ Francois Pienaar he portrays, but is convincing nonetheless as an apolitical sportsman who has his own epiphany and throws himself wholeheartedly into the fray to play above his talent level and to bring his team along with him to be part of something bigger than the game. Of course in the interests of the story, some of the details got lost – manager and former Springbok captain Morne Du Plessis played a major role in getting the team to buy into the program.

I suspect that most quibbles will come from South Africans themselves, who will find the American actors unconvincing. There are also glaring errors in the depiction of rugby itself – at one stage the camera captures the ball being moved backwards in the scrum from hand to hand -a faux pas obvious even to novices of the game. Still, the rugby set pieces looked and sounded great -there was a sense of a clash of the titans between the underdog Springboks and the fearsome All Blacks (talk about irony)and the editing had me on the edge of my seat in the last few minutes, even though the end result was obviously never in doubt.

To complain about a flattened vowel here or there is to make the perfect the enemy of the good – Eastwood did not set out to make a documentary after all. He concocted a morality play from actual events and he succeeded in doing so without being ponderous or didactic.

In the end it is the story of a canny politician and the ally he found to steer the narrative of history away from potential disaster. I walked out of the theater upbeat and proud to be South African – vindicating Mandela’s theory. And the most amazing thing about this feel good story was that it actually happened that way.

I was with her when she drew her last breath, my hand caressing her head. My scent was the last thing she smelled, my voice was the last sound she heard and my face was the last sight she saw before she slipped away into eternity. I had already made the decision to end her suffering, and was preparing to take that last drive to the vet; but in her final act of love, she spared me the heartbreak of saying goodbye in a cold and clinical room with bright lights and antiseptic smells. She died in my arms at home, her muzzle in my lap, my tears laying wet on her fur.

She suffered a great deal in her short life. Her epilepsy was the worst the vets had ever seen. She had multiple seizures every 6 weeks from the age of 2, more frequently towards the end. She almost died from pancreatitis. The drugs she took sapped her energy and weakened her legs. In the end she was slipping into the indignity of incontinence. People who knew her well, even her vet, remarked how lucky she was to have been adopted by me. But, really, I was the lucky one. I was the one who had the great fortune to have been the object of such pure and unconditional love, to share a connection with another being so profound that words were unnecessary. Every day I got to look into her eyes and see not just a reflection of who I am, but the promise of who I could be.

When asked, some will say after a pet has died, that along with the sadness, there is a guilty sense of relief. They look forward to a life without the obligation of daily walks, or the inconvenience of finding a pet sitter for a weekend away, or the restrictions on longer vacations with the worries of pet boarding. Yes it is true that life without Thandi will be less expensive, and less inconvenient, and less worrisome, and yet…and yet I would give up every one of those free tomorrows for just a single burdensome yesterday.

PLAYBOY: Implicit in the Administration’s attempts to force the networks to “balance” the news is a conviction that most newscasters are biased against conservatism. Is there some truth in the view that television newsmen tend to be left of center?

CRONKITE: Well, certainly liberal, and possibly left of center as well. I would have to accept that.

PLAYBOY: What’s the distinction between those two terms?

CRONKITE: I think the distinction is both clear and important. I think that being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, noncommitted to a cause — but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it’s a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they’re not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they’re preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can’t be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism.

As far as the leftist thing is concerned, that I think is something that comes from the nature of a journalist’s work. Most newsmen have spent some time covering the seamier side of human endeavor; they cover police stations and courts and the infighting in politics. And I think they come to feel very little allegiance to the established order. I think they’re inclined to side with humanity rather than with authority and institutions. And this sort of pushes them to the left. But I don’t think there are many who are far left. I think a little left of center probably is correct.

]]> http://seniledelinquent.wordpress.com/2009/07/13/what-liberal-media-bias/feed/ 0 senile delinquent http://seniledelinquent.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/spitting-into-the-wind/ http://seniledelinquent.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/spitting-into-the-wind/#comments Tue, 26 May 2009 18:25:04 +0000 seniledelinquent http://seniledelinquent.wordpress.com/?p=166 ]]> The California Supreme, the same court that in May ruled in favor of same sex marriage , today upheld Proposition 8, but this may be one of the last battles that  opponents of same sex marriage will win. The court was reluctant to overturn the initiative process, but their sympathies and the tide of history are against the prohibition of marriages for all.

In the months since Proposition 8 was passed, Iowa, Vermont and Maine have joined Massachussetts in legalizing same sex marriage. Initiatives to do the same are moving forward in New York, New Jersey and New Hampshire.  The forces of bigotry and the agents of intolerance are on the wrong side of history. Demographics are against them.  A recent study analyzing Prop 8 found that four factors — party identification, ideology, frequency of religious service attendance and age — drove the “yes” vote for Proposition 8. For example, more than 70 percent of voters who were Republican, identified themselves as conservative, or who attended religious services at least weekly supported Proposition 8. Conversely, 70 percent or more of voters who were Democrat, identified themselves as liberal, or who rarely attended religious services opposed the measure. More than two-thirds (67 percent) of voters 65 or older supported Proposition 8, while majorities under 65 opposed it.

Hopefully, by this time next year, California will have joined the ranks of those states who just said no to intolerance and hatred.

There is a strong relationship between education and belief in Darwin’s theory, as might be expected, ranging from 21% of those with high-school educations or less to 74% of those with postgraduate degrees.  Those with high-school educations or less are much more likely to have no opinion than are those who have more formal education. Still, among those with high-school educations or less who have an opinion on Darwin’s theory, more say they do not believe in evolution than say they believe in it. For all other groups, and in particular those who have at least a college degree, belief is significantly higher than nonbelief. Those with high-school educations or less are much more likely to have no opinion than are those who have more formal education.

There is a strong relationship between church attendance and belief in evolution in the current data. Those who attend church most often are the least likely to say they believe in evolution.  Previous Gallup research shows that the rate of church attendance is fairly constant across educational groups, suggesting that this relationship is not owing to an underlying educational difference but instead reflects a direct influence of religious beliefs on belief in evolution.

Lest we deride this as a purely American phenomenon, across the Atlantic, a poll by ComRes found that more than half of the public believe that the theory of evolution cannot explain the full complexity of life on Earth, and a “designer” must have lent a hand.

And one in three believe that God created the world within the past 10,000 years. This estimate comes from perusing biblical references, including counting up the number of “begats”.

Intelligent design, or ID, is the latest pseudoscientific incarnation of religious creationism, cleverly crafted by a new group of enthusiasts to circumvent recent legal restrictions. ID comes in two parts. The first is a simple critique of evolutionary theory, to the effect that Darwinism, as an explanation of the origin, the development, and the diversity of life, is fatally flawed. The second is the assertion that the major features of life are best understood as the result of creation by a supernatural intelligent designer. To understand ID, then, we must first understand modern evolutionary theory (often called “neo-Darwinism” to take into account post-Darwinian modifications).

It is important to realize at the outset that evolution is not “just a theory.” It is, again, a theory and a fact. Although non-scientists often equate “theory” with “hunch” or “wild guess,” the Oxford English Dictionary defines a scientific theory as “a scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts.” In science, a theory is a convincing explanation for a diversity of data from nature. Thus scientists speak of “atomic theory” and “gravitational theory” as explanations for the properties of matter and the mutual attraction of physical bodies. It makes as little sense to doubt the fact of evolution as to doubt the fact of gravity.

It is comforting to think that over time, natural selection will kick in, and that ignorance will eventually be bred out, but the persistent influence of religious wing nuts in the public sphere makes me think it might be a very long time.