There's a new drug of choice making big inroads in the world - and not only where you expect drugs to be, but in good middle-class American communities. It's dangerous and addictive - but no drug czar can or will ever be able to touch it. The Taliban and other groups will be able to use it to support their causes - it will make some people very rich and undermine governments - wreak death and havoc en masse, and destroy families and friendships and communities at the local level. It's dangerous indeed - but if I got caught with it right now, I could not be arrested. I might actually be raised up, quoted, get a TV or radio show - because using this drug is encouraged through American media and other outlets around the world.
What is it?
Righteous Indignation.
"But righteous indignation is not a drug" some say. I disagree.
Righteous Indignation (or RI) alters the chemistry of the brain - like drugs do. Try talking sense to someone who has just taken a big hit of RI. They can go on some badass trips. One person may decide to blow himself and any number of innocents up. Another might kill a doctor in church - totally confident that he is doing the 'right thing.'
Someone high on RI can go for hours and hours - like on a crack binge. Excited talking, arms gesturing, oblivious to the signs of others around them who are slowly backing up toward the doorway to make a quick exit, focusing only on those real or imaged persons who are sharing the same trip.
The other reason RI qualifies as a drug is that - like alcohol or other drugs - it affects families. I've lost a few family members to RI. Interacting with them, when necessary, I can see them reaching for the next hit - seeing if I'm holding, if I want to share. They posit a topic close to their hearts - "I heard Obama is a communist" - and wait for me to respond. If I'm on board, our shared indignation feeds the other - and we both get a hit of RI. Up on our high horses, we pass it around and get revved up, maybe go listen to Rush to add to our rush.
It's a strong and powerful high that gives a person a lot of energy - and I admit I have partaken from time to time. That's how I know that it's hard to get off that horse once you're on it.
There's enough heartache in the world, enough relationships and positive progress lost because so many are stoned on one thing or another, spending their energy either high or looking for the next hit. This one - this RI - is going to be tough to deal with. Maybe, in trying to find a way to deal with the damage of RI addiction, we can learn more about overcoming the usual suspects. Addictions, after all, are but a symptom of a deeper disease of the spirit. Maybe by working to move away from the anger and bitterness of RI, we can find a model to better combat pot, crack and heroin.
It could happen.
In the meantime, "Hey, Mom, I'm not holding... okay?"
Nov 7, 2009
When do I get to vote to deny civil rights to bigots?
There's a great column at the Huffington Post on what Thomas Jefferson would think if Group A was able to vote on whether Group B gets the same rights that Group A enjoys. It's theoretical in nature - but oh wait, it really happened.
The whole situation reminds me of a country club that gathers to select who gets to join and share the great honor of eating in their dining room off the good china. Americans - regular Americans - Real Americans - don't like that kind of elitist snob-knobbery - unless, of course, it involves The Gays.
The reason it's so easy for people to vote against gay rights is because either you are or you aren't gay - and if you aren't, you're safe. It doesn't matter if gays are denied the rights and privileges afforded to straight people, because more than likely straight people are still going to be straight tomorrow and for many years to come. The chances of turning gay and regretting tomorrow the vote they cast today is slim to none.
Now, it would be very different if there was an initiative to take away the rights of - I don't know - let's say philanderers. After all, you can be pretty sure you wouldn't cheat on your spouse, but what if... ? Would you be willing to take away rights now that you may want to have later? Even conservative moralists - see Jim Bakker, Gov. Sanford, et al. - can get caught up in forbidden passion. And they know it. And because of that, I can guarantee you that you won't see any ballot initiatives on morality - EXCEPT where that 'morality' concerns homosexuality and the rights of those most immoral of creatures - gay people.
Let's look at some of the groups that have more rights than gays and lesbians when it comes to marriage:Murderers, drug dealers, pedophiles, Michael Vick, hookers and pimps, rapists, terrorists, tax cheats, Bernie Madoff, politicians and other miscellaneous crooks and liars, degenerate gamblers, mafia hitmen...
I may be straight - but I'm a white woman married to an Asian man, and within my lifetime it was a crime for me to marry my husband because of his skin color. The same arguments were posited then against interracial marriage as they are now against gay marriage... and it's a shame and mindboggling that people are still there... I mean, duh!
My hope is that sooner than later, we as a country can remove the stain of this continuing societal sin and give our gay citizens the rights they deserve as humans, let alone Americans. I mean, seriously people - what makes us so much better than other countries when we vote to keep our brothers and sisters second-class citizens?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-alvear/what-thomas-jefferson-wou_b_342300.htmlThere is only one thing worse than voting to deny somebody their rights: Voting to give it to them.
The whole situation reminds me of a country club that gathers to select who gets to join and share the great honor of eating in their dining room off the good china. Americans - regular Americans - Real Americans - don't like that kind of elitist snob-knobbery - unless, of course, it involves The Gays.
The reason it's so easy for people to vote against gay rights is because either you are or you aren't gay - and if you aren't, you're safe. It doesn't matter if gays are denied the rights and privileges afforded to straight people, because more than likely straight people are still going to be straight tomorrow and for many years to come. The chances of turning gay and regretting tomorrow the vote they cast today is slim to none.
Now, it would be very different if there was an initiative to take away the rights of - I don't know - let's say philanderers. After all, you can be pretty sure you wouldn't cheat on your spouse, but what if... ? Would you be willing to take away rights now that you may want to have later? Even conservative moralists - see Jim Bakker, Gov. Sanford, et al. - can get caught up in forbidden passion. And they know it. And because of that, I can guarantee you that you won't see any ballot initiatives on morality - EXCEPT where that 'morality' concerns homosexuality and the rights of those most immoral of creatures - gay people.
Let's look at some of the groups that have more rights than gays and lesbians when it comes to marriage:Murderers, drug dealers, pedophiles, Michael Vick, hookers and pimps, rapists, terrorists, tax cheats, Bernie Madoff, politicians and other miscellaneous crooks and liars, degenerate gamblers, mafia hitmen...
I may be straight - but I'm a white woman married to an Asian man, and within my lifetime it was a crime for me to marry my husband because of his skin color. The same arguments were posited then against interracial marriage as they are now against gay marriage... and it's a shame and mindboggling that people are still there... I mean, duh!
My hope is that sooner than later, we as a country can remove the stain of this continuing societal sin and give our gay citizens the rights they deserve as humans, let alone Americans. I mean, seriously people - what makes us so much better than other countries when we vote to keep our brothers and sisters second-class citizens?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-alvear/what-thomas-jefferson-wou_b_342300.htmlThere is only one thing worse than voting to deny somebody their rights: Voting to give it to them.
Mar 7, 2009
Bombastic Versus
So the big faux story lately - Is Rush Limbaugh the head/face/torso/massive ass of the GOP?The verdict isn't in yet. But there's a similarity in Rush's populist power and that of another charismatic and immensely popular guy amongst social conservatives - the Ayatollah Khomeini.
A silly comparison that bears no consideration? Maybe not...
Khomeini was the face of social conservative, religious right Islam in the Western culture, and Limbaugh is the face of that same group here in America today.
More importantly, the Ayatollah didn't like apostates, and neither does Rush. If you are a Republican and you dare criticize his ideology, you can expect a fatwa. Rush may not call for your actual death (as Khomeini called for the death of Salman Rushdie after 'Satanic Verses'), but Limbaugh will call for your political demise.
Look out a little wider to see the resemblance between Dittoheads and Islam's Wahhabist movement.
Dittoheads/Wahhabists are fundamentalist believers in the ideology of strictly defined Christian/Islamic social conservatism. One says 'Jesus', the other says 'Allah', but both want to lead us backward in time to a place where they believe society was better - either the Reagan years of the 1980s, or the Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab years of the 1780s.
Those pesky Wahhabic/Dittohead movements want to purify Islam/GOP by returning Muslims/Republicans to what al-Wahhab/El Rushbo believed were the original principles of Islam/GOP, as typified by the Salaf/Social Conservatism (righteous ancestors, e.g., al-Wahhab/Reagan) and rejecting what they regard as corruptions introduced by Bid'ah/New Ideas (innovation) and Shirk/Solutions besides tax breaks (polytheism, or more than one method to solve our problems).
When I hear conservative drive-by diatribes on the radio, I hear echoes of other times, other places, and I wonder - What will the American Social Conservative burkha look like, and can I wear jeans under it on Casual Fridays?
You might say I'm just borrowing trouble. But just in case I think we should start practicing now the chant of the next Republican convention... Limbaugh Akbar!
A silly comparison that bears no consideration? Maybe not...
Khomeini was the face of social conservative, religious right Islam in the Western culture, and Limbaugh is the face of that same group here in America today.
More importantly, the Ayatollah didn't like apostates, and neither does Rush. If you are a Republican and you dare criticize his ideology, you can expect a fatwa. Rush may not call for your actual death (as Khomeini called for the death of Salman Rushdie after 'Satanic Verses'), but Limbaugh will call for your political demise.
Look out a little wider to see the resemblance between Dittoheads and Islam's Wahhabist movement.
Dittoheads/Wahhabists are fundamentalist believers in the ideology of strictly defined Christian/Islamic social conservatism. One says 'Jesus', the other says 'Allah', but both want to lead us backward in time to a place where they believe society was better - either the Reagan years of the 1980s, or the Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab years of the 1780s.
Those pesky Wahhabic/Dittohead movements want to purify Islam/GOP by returning Muslims/Republicans to what al-Wahhab/El Rushbo believed were the original principles of Islam/GOP, as typified by the Salaf/Social Conservatism (righteous ancestors, e.g., al-Wahhab/Reagan) and rejecting what they regard as corruptions introduced by Bid'ah/New Ideas (innovation) and Shirk/Solutions besides tax breaks (polytheism, or more than one method to solve our problems).
When I hear conservative drive-by diatribes on the radio, I hear echoes of other times, other places, and I wonder - What will the American Social Conservative burkha look like, and can I wear jeans under it on Casual Fridays?
You might say I'm just borrowing trouble. But just in case I think we should start practicing now the chant of the next Republican convention... Limbaugh Akbar!
Feb 22, 2009
The Math of Angry Noise
Gotta love the post by Marc Ambinder on "The Outrage Industrial Complex." Yes, outrage is being overextended and likely headed for an eventual meltdown. But the best part of Marc's post had to do with the mathematics of how we decide, as a society, what things are important.
As a geek, I love mathematics. And here is what Marc postulates - that Pi = (Ci + O)*L. In lay language:
what we THINK is important (Pi - perceived importance)
equals...
ACTUAL importance (Ci - cosmic importance)
plus
expressed Outrage (O)
times
Loudness (L)
So solving for Pi (perceived importance), if you want to make something seem VERY important, express as much Outrage as you can, as Loudly as you can. If its actual importance (Ci) is small, you just have to put more Outrage into the formula and amp up the volume.
Brilliant!
Interestingly, the only 'fixed' or 'unchanging' value in the equation is the actual importance (Ci). We can't make something more important than it actually is. But in keeping the Loudness and Outrage variables low, the Perceived importance is also small. So sometimes, a thing that is actually really important will not be given the attention it deserves because there is not enough Outrage or Loudness attached to it.
A lesson for those of us who want to increase the media profile of a thing... take a lesson from Limbaugh - say it loud and with as much righteous indignation as possible. It doesn't matter if you make sense - sense is not part of the equation - just make an angry noise.
Read Marc's post here: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/_a_washington-based_journalist_and.php
As a geek, I love mathematics. And here is what Marc postulates - that Pi = (Ci + O)*L. In lay language:
what we THINK is important (Pi - perceived importance)
equals...
ACTUAL importance (Ci - cosmic importance)
plus
expressed Outrage (O)
times
Loudness (L)
So solving for Pi (perceived importance), if you want to make something seem VERY important, express as much Outrage as you can, as Loudly as you can. If its actual importance (Ci) is small, you just have to put more Outrage into the formula and amp up the volume.
Brilliant!
Interestingly, the only 'fixed' or 'unchanging' value in the equation is the actual importance (Ci). We can't make something more important than it actually is. But in keeping the Loudness and Outrage variables low, the Perceived importance is also small. So sometimes, a thing that is actually really important will not be given the attention it deserves because there is not enough Outrage or Loudness attached to it.
A lesson for those of us who want to increase the media profile of a thing... take a lesson from Limbaugh - say it loud and with as much righteous indignation as possible. It doesn't matter if you make sense - sense is not part of the equation - just make an angry noise.
Read Marc's post here: http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/02/_a_washington-based_journalist_and.php
Feb 21, 2009
Toes in...
Okay y'all - welcome to What the What?! It's a place for me to rant without incurring any phone charges or taking up friends' time. When something is on my mind and it's really bugging me, I can come and vent here. Now I won't interrupt my husband during a basketball game with my latest insight or peave, and I can reduce the number of e-mails to my favorite radio talk show - Armstrong and Getty. Plus, it's eco-friendly. It's a win/win/win.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
