(Ir)religiosity

One of the unfortunate side effects of so-called “new” atheism (besides general intransigent arrogance and a lack of intellectual honesty) has been further (false) dichotomization of science and religion and rigid entrenchment into the reductionistic foxholes of scientism and religious fundamentalism.  Positivistic intellectuals like ‘Ditchkins’ and your run-of-the-mill, garden-variety Christianists like, say, Ken Ham or Carl Wieland are ready to hedge their bets on the misguided and myopic supposition that the discourses of science and religion fundamentally and foundationally incompatible.  The irony in all this is that both camps are both partially correct yet completely wrong in asserting complete epistemological superiority.  The similarities of the new atheists and religious fundamentalists has been well documented.  I don’t want to rehash that position except to take note of the core assertion:  that when it comes to matters of exclusivity, intolerance, and arrogance new atheism and religious fundamentalism more similar than they are different, functioning as mirror images of the core logic, shadow-boxers or ships passing in the night, one might say.  Which is why the vitriolic arguments are, at times, just as entertaining as they are tiresome.

This brings me to Jon Stewart’s great interview with Marilynne Robinson last night on The Daily Show promoting her new book Absence of Mind. See the video below after the jump: Read the rest of this entry »

Two things up front: 1.) I believe quality health care is a fundamental right that should be afforded to all persons regardless of _________, 2.) I believe governments have a moral responsibility to ensure that said care is provided to its citizens.  For me, these are non-negotiable.  Period.

Our country is the closest it has ever been to ensuring the most of its citizens have access to quality health care.  I will be outraged, not to mention deeply disappointed, if we fail to push it through.  At this point we’re our own worst enemy.  As Jon Stewart pointed out in a recent episode of The Daily Show, it wouldn’t be all the surprising if President Obama’s approval rating of the American people has plummeted over the last month or so.  The lack of civility and reasonableness in our public discourse on this issue would be disappointing if it weren’t so pathetic.

I’m continually perplexed at the various ways in which people either hear or see what they want to or intentionally caricature what is said by resorting to scare tactics (I’m looking at you Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck).  Most people simply aren’t working with the facts and if they are the choose to sideline them in favor of something that sounds controversial and may gain some shock value or media attention.¹

Health care is too important of an issue for us to play games.  I’m afraid if we keep screwing around we’re going to miss our chance.  Then we will be responsible for the lack of care and ensuring that the uninsured remain uninsured.  There won’t be any passing the buck.  The blame will rest squarely on our shoulders.

Yesterday President Obama published an op-ed in the New York Times that clearly and carefully articulates his position yet again.  You should stop right now and read the whole thing.  Here’s what I think is the nucleus.

This is what reform is about. If you don’t have health insurance, you will finally have quality, affordable options once we pass reform. If you have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need. If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan. You will not be waiting in any lines. This is not about putting the government in charge of your health insurance. I don’t believe anyone should be in charge of your health care decisions but you and your doctor — not government bureaucrats, not insurance companies.

But let’s make sure that we talk with one another, and not over one another. We are bound to disagree, but let’s disagree over issues that are real, and not wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that anyone has actually proposed. This is a complicated and critical issue, and it deserves a serious debate.

I read that and I simply don’t understand what the great end-of-the-world, apocalypse inaugurating problem is that I keep hearing about.  What is so wrong with providing a public option for those who can’t afford it?  Please tell me.  Or better yet, let’s tell those who currently can’t afford care why it is that they were just dealt the wrong hand and don’t have the right to the same quality care that the rest of us enjoy.

It is deeply disturbing, I think, when this idea is met with such anger and hate by people (mostly white people who can afford health care, by the way) at town hall meetings and not accepted with a sense of great urgency.  Perhaps the health care debate is what racism and classism looks like in the 21st century.  It looks more and more like Gordon Marino was right when he wrote that “the fact that a significant number of Americans do not feel any urgency to revamp a system that leaves millions of our sick without care is symptomatic of the fact that we must be suffering from a hardening of more than our arteries.”  Indeed, our irrational and childish behavior is demonstrative not only our compassion deficiency but our collective moral bankruptcy.

Perhaps the recent recession extends to more than our economy.

1. One of the best places to keep up with what is fact and what is fiction is http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ [↩]

I haven’t blogged much about politics since the election, mainly because I’ve lost some interest and grown a little tired, but I couldn’t help it after reading this.

Dick Cheney is now blaming former counter-terrorism chief Richard Clarke for the “failure” (seems more like suppression to me) in intelligence leading up to 9/11.  Here’s the exact quote: “You know, Dick Clarke. Dick Clarke, who was the head of the counterrorism program in the run-up to 9/11. He obviously missed it.”

That’s right.  This is the same Dick Clarke who issued at least seven memos earlier in 2001 to both the State Department and the White House, one coming less than a week before September 11, warning of potential and even imminent terrorist attacks.

When pushed about the memos Cheney tersely replied, “That’s not my recollection, but I haven’t read his [Clarke's] book.”

Seriously? Since the memos were a major part of the 9/11 Commission, an investigation under which Cheney was called to testify (and refused to do so under oath of course), I highly doubt that he “doesn’t recall” their subject matter.  Given their gravity that seems pretty ridiculous to me.

I just don’t get it.  Do they really think we are that stupid?  I am so sick of this passing-the-buck type mentality and I’m tired of career politicians placing blame on someone lower on the food chain in order to save their own asses (one of the many reasons why I don’t like food chains).  It’s disgusting.  And when it comes to something like 9/11 I find it particularly repugnant.

And, as usual, I agree with Jon Stewart‘s analysis (starts around 1:50):

Related articles by Zemanta

• Richard Clarke Reminds Cheney and Condi of Their Incompetence (emptywheel.firedoglake.com)
• Richard Clarke speaks the truth: ‘The Trauma of 9/11 Is No Excuse’ (crooksandliars.com)
• Richard Clarke Slams Cheney, Rice: “The Trauma Of 9/11 Is No Excuse” (huffingtonpost.com)

…but some things are worth breaking the silence for.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Jon Stewart vs Jim Cramer on Manipulating Apple Stock [Cnbc] (i.gizmodo.com)
• Jon Stewart slaughters crazy finance guy Jim Cramer — video (boingboing.net)
• Stewart Can’t Land Knockout Punch On Meek Cramer [Feuds] (gawker.com)

Ok, so not quite YouTube. Viacom won’t allow Comedy Central shows to but posted on YouTube so I had to go to another site. This whole clip is pretty funny albeit long. Fast forward to around 7:20 for an outrageously hilarious Zales commercial parody.

Thanks to Nick and Josh on and their podcast, the Nick and Josh podcast (which everyone should be subscribed to) I was able to read a chapter from Tony Jones’ new, forthcoming book The New Christians (which you can get now on amazon, go buy it. Do it now!). In chapter one Tony refers to an interview on CNN’s CrossFire were Jon Stewart called out the corporate media world and the pundits for “hurting America,” eventually leading to the cancellation of the show.

Now, as much as I love Tony, I my knee jerk was “no way!” So I did some research and Stewart’s interview was indeed the beginning of the end. And then of course, I had to find the interview and watch it. And oh, man. . .Jon owns them. Take a look:



~bh ><>