|
|
|
sympathy for the occupied
Monday, June 23 2003
The clouds cleared out and we had a day that could have passed for summer. Gretchen and I were starving around lunchtime and went to a low-rent stripmall along 9W to chow down on tempeh reubens at a new healthfood store she recently discovered.
The problem with religion, particularly where it interfaces with public policy, is that it is so unapologetically irrational. Religious concepts such as "faith" fall apart with even the most cursory analysis, and yet people use them to guide their lives. Individuals, of course, should be free to lead their lives based on anything they choose, but when it comes to governments, the greatest good is served by following the most rational policies possible. Policies should be given high levels of scientific scrutiny based on the latest data. To manufacture policy based on "gut reactions" or "faith" is to be willfully blind to the full picture of reality. This, of course, is one of the things that accounts for the unending series of embarassing policy failures authored by the present executive branch of the United States. Many of these would have gone nowhere without the anti-democratic manipulation of public opinion, and one can only hope that we'll eventually get to see how deep the rabbit hole goes.
Of perhaps more serious concern are policies that have the widespread blessing of the American population itself, even without any sustained program of deception and propaganda. Forgive me for my usual East Coast lefty elitism, but most of the problem with American democracy is rooted in medieval superstitions (particularly Christianity), wishful thinking (the American dream), and a pathological desire to preserve the innocence of children (won't somebody think of the children?). It's the job of our courts to restrain the occasional ignorant impulses of a superstitious democracy. This is why we have a Bill of Rights and why it applies to suspicious-looking brown people more than it does to uborn white kids equipped with gillslits and tails.
Again, though, our Supreme Court has let us down, allowing our government to require libraries to filter internet content as a condition for receiving federal funds. This policy is no doubt a popular one, due to the afforementioned reasons. In this case the Supreme Court should have looked at the evidence that internet filters simply don't work and decreed Congress's faith in them an irrational (and therefore untenable) subversion of First Amendment protection. Instead we're told that the ordeal of an adult asking to have the filters turned off is "not an excessive burden" when weighed against "the benefit to children." But what benefit? The filters do not work. And besides, adolescents - many of whom could be executed in Texas if they were to commit murder - are prohibited from real internet access in libraries and forced instead to play in the cloyingly pee-stained kiddie pool of secretly-filtered internet accesss. One could argue that this is no big deal - everyone had internet access at home these days. But this essentially denies the real (non-filtered) internet to anyone from a family too poor to afford access. Yet again, it's informational affirmative action for the wealthy. This comes on the heels of the recent XXX billion dollar divident tax cut. In their fantasies, pro-filtering zealots might imagine that the poor will somehow gain an advantage in our society by being shielded from easy-to-filter smut at their local library, but have you ever heard of anyone competing successfully because they had less information?
On the plus side, the federal government gives out so little money to libraries these days that many are able to forgo federal grants and keep their internet access unfiltered. Again, though, libraries with the ability to do this tend to be in wealthy areas. It's the folks going to libraries in poor neighborhoods who have to deal with imperfectly-filtered internet blocking their access to condom information and breast examination instructions.
If I was I was a citizen of Iraq right now, it's doubtful I'd be brave enough to shoot at any of those hearts & minds winning American soldiers occupying my country. But I'd sure as hell give mad props to anyone ballsy enough to do it. I'd have to be a sicko collaborator not to. I knew I'd feel this way by this point in the occupation; this is the main reason - the irrational gut reason - I thought war was a bad idea back before it happened.
For linking purposes this article's URL is:
http://asecular.com/blog.php?030623 feedback
previous | next |
