Republican Idealism

I saw that Roger Ailes (of Fox News fame) was on ABC's This Week today. I certainly didn't watch it, but from the commentary I read Paul Krugman and Arianna Huffington gave him a "smack-down". I'm not linking to it for two reasons. First, I think you can find it on the intertubes with minimal effort. Second, it wasn't the epic smack down purported to be. I think the best description is that Ailes seemed dis-interested in the clips I saw.

Then I came across this NYT article via digby and found this little bit:

Jill Abramson, the managing editor for news, agreed with me that the paper was “slow off the mark,” and blamed “insufficient tuned-in-ness to the issues that are dominating Fox News and talk radio.” She and Bill Keller, the executive editor, said last week that they would now assign an editor to monitor opinion media and brief them frequently on bubbling controversies. Keller declined to identify the editor, saying he wanted to spare that person “a bombardment of e-mails and excoriation in the blogosphere.”

Despite what the critics think, Abramson said the problem was not liberal bias.

This is in reference to the ACORN-pimp-propaganda promulgated by the now infamous James O'Keefe. The ACORN story was run almost non-stop despite the fact that the video was heavily edited for content.

Something in my tiny little brain clicked at this point. Why should Ailes care if some effete liberal pwed him on a talk show? Through Fox News, he drives the media narrative. He could care less about how he comes off personally. I guarantee that Fox will have some serious push-back tomorrow about some completely made-up, borderline libelous, issue to placate his fat ego. He knows nobody will call him on it. He knows the rest of the media will breathlessly follow whatever lies he chooses to propagate. Assholes, all of 'em.

Fuck it, we'll do it live!

Our History

The conventional wisdom is that without knowing history, we are destined to repeat it. I think that a more accurate statement is that humans are inherently stupid. Humans are inherently narcissistic. For some reason, humans are puerile. Ultimately, (I have no idea historically about guns) we cling to religion.

Cling is too nice a word. We gravitate towards it. We seem to need it. Religion. It is the last bastion of stupidity on the planet.

Personally, I don't think religion is stupid at all. In fact, I think it is a noble philosophical pursuit. Fundamentally, it is an attempt for humans to understand not only what happens after we shed this mortal coil, but an ultimate meaning for our existence.

However, historically, that is not the case.

I blame the Romans and Muhammad (yes, that Muhammad)

Why, you may ask?

First, the Romans. During the first Council of Nicaea, Constantine allowed the divinity of Jesus to become doctrine (see Arian Controversy). A great philosophical debate at the time because it could be neither proved nor dis-proved at the time of the argument. It was, however, a great mechanism for ruling a large population. It is no coincidence that the birth of Christ coincides with Saturnalia, the Roman new year associated with gift-giving.

Second, Muhammad (I've drawn much of my understanding of the man from Edward Gibbon). The Prophet of Islam. His sole claim to legitimacy is his final victory over Mecca, a city that cast him out because of his lifestyle/beliefs. His victory was not a diplomatic one, he was able to organize an army to destroy Mecca's leadership to allow him to move back home. Nevertheless, he set the precedent of one religion at all costs. He guaranteed benefits that he could neither deliver nor conceive. The real indictment, IMO, is after Muhammad's death when the Sunni and Shia sects were formed. Historically, this is a political decision on who is most qualified to lead the religion after the founders death. Politics in religion. Which brings me back to Christianity.

For those of you Christians reading this, check this out from the Spanish Inquisition:

The methods of torture most used by the Inquisition were garrucha, toca and the potro. The application of the garrucha, also known as the strappado, consisted of suspending the victim from the ceiling by the wrists, which are tied behind the back. Sometimes weights were tied to the ankles, with a series of lifts and drops, during which the arms and legs suffered violent pulls and were sometimes dislocated.[57] The toca, also called interrogatorio mejorado del agua, consisted of introducing a cloth into the mouth of the victim, and forcing them to ingest water spilled from a jar so that they had impression of drowning (see: waterboarding).[58] The potro, the rack, was the instrument of torture used most frequently.[59]

Last part sound familiar? Stuff a rag in the mouth and pour in water. Done nearly 500 years ago, how quaint. Read the whole post, it was primarily a tool to extract false confessions from Jews and Muslims who were forced to convert to Christianity. Hopefully, you learned this in high-school like I did.

Unfortunately, many did not. That is why we had eight years of the last administration. Which brings me back to my original point: Unless we learn from history, we are destined to repeat it. Indeed, we already have.

As an American, the use of religion by political leaders as a talking point is obscene and goes against the Constitution. Period.

Based on what I've said here, it isn't religion that should stay out of politics, it is politics that should stay out of religion.

There is a popular saying: "Those that can, do; those that can't, teach". As a teacher I find this statement almost ridiculous. Almost. Just remember that power, in any form, relies on you being stupid.

Don't be stupid (and I'm not talking about religion). I find it sad that today's society can mock science, while depending on it so deeply (this will be the subject of my next post).