May 2006 Archives

This is something I've noticed for a very long time and I'm a bit glad that my friends aren't of the tendency to engage too greatly in this stupid side-effect of the blogosphere. Whenever there's a news item that has any single sentence in it that can be used to make hay, the bloggers pounce on it and beat that little sentence to tiny bits. This is magnified when a whole article comes out that places certain issues or individuals in a bad light, particularly everyone's current least favorite President.

I'm not particularly pleased with President Bush myself, but to nit-pick everything he says and does because you don't like him is a little pathetic. A lot of conservatives did the same thing to President Clinton when he was in office (I may have even done it a bit myself), but that's no excuse.

This came up because I was looking through my Newsvine feeds and noticed an article pouncing on another article. The pouncer makes an inane comment trying to say that the economy must suck since the markets bounced because of a change in the Treasury Secretary—a "trivial event." I won't try to debunk that one because it's not my point, but I do think she's dead-wrong.

All one has to do is search for "George Bush" and the majority of the hits are either favorite pouncees or top pouncers. It'd be much nicer if such a search yielded substantive and informational hits rather than Bush-bashing. Bush/Clinton-bashing may be a fun hobby, but it doesn't really make for very interesting reading.

This is also not limited to just the President. News articles on anything scientific or mentions the term "intelligent design" usually gets an evolution pounce. The same goes for the separation of church-and-state, abortion, the war in Iraq, et. al.

While I'm not offering any real solutions to the issue, I will make a plug for sane discussion. The key is not to be passionless, but to back up everything with fact and to avoid any specious or emotional argument. If you want to say that the economy sucks and is evidenced by the dip in the markets during a change in the office of the Secretary of the Treasury, by all means say it, but back up the statement with fact and sources. Otherwise, you just add to the noise.

Cheers.

Some of my friends may know of how I have over the last year or so become somewhat attached to producing content for Wikipedia. However, my friend and coworker, Eric, (unfortunately his web site is EMPTY, so I can't really link to him) recently introduced me to Newsvine.

It basically just provides AP articles with the additionally ability to vote on these, add comments, create columns, and provide "seed" links to other news found on the net. I've popped over there a couple times and I've been very pleased with the experience so far. The community isn't superhuge yet and the site is still relatively immature (only a year old), but I see a lot of potential in how I've already been able to skip around the site to read articles, find related information, and discuss.

Anyway, I could see this being another place I hit whenever I need a break from the mundane at work. I could also see some of my political opinions being expressed there rather than on this blog. I have also added this to my list of sites to watch for new innovations in community development and we might consider using a few of the more interesting ideas in some of the community aspects of the new Boomer web site.

Cheers.

King Tut's Penis Rediscovered

I'm sure we're all breathing easier knowing that. That popped up in the "Snippets" line on my GMail account today while I was clearing the Inbox. Anyway, I think the discussion in #K-Slug said it all:

14:36:51 < zostay> btw, everyone can rest easy, king tut's penis has been found: 
    http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20060501/tutpnis_arc.html
14:37:33 < Ramereth> good, i was worried
14:38:39 < zostay> i was reading my gmail and i looked up at the snippet link and
    saw the headling "King Tut's Penis Rediscovered" and wondered, "what the hell
    is in my inbox that made google think that was relevant?"
14:39:56 < sgsax> must've been that email that said "is your prick shriveled up and
    petrified?"
14:40:05 < aeruder> zostay: i'm not sure we want to know if you figured that out
14:40:05 < sgsax> only spelled much worse
14:41:07 < ToeBee> wow.  so much in just the first paragraph
14:41:49 < aeruder> "King Tutankhamun's rediscovered penis could make the pharaoh
    stand out in the shrunken world of male mummies"
14:42:07 < aeruder> nice choice of words they have
14:42:40 < ToeBee> thats what I was thinking
14:46:49 < ToeBee> wow.  more than I ever wanted to know about penis mummification

Possibly white guilt's worst effect is that it does not permit whites--and nonwhites--to appreciate something extraordinary: the fact that whites in America, and even elsewhere in the West, have achieved a truly remarkable moral transformation. One is forbidden to speak thus, but it is simply true. There are no serious advocates of white supremacy in America today, because whites see this idea as morally repugnant. If there is still the odd white bigot out there surviving past his time, there are millions of whites who only feel goodwill toward minorities. — Shelby Steele, White Guilt and the Western Past, OpinionJournal

That's the next to last paragraph of an excellent article. Steele has explained, in straightforward terminology, the American and international political dilemma faced by western civilization today. Since World War II, the West has been wringing it's hands and wishing that the past few hundred years of bigotry had not happened. With the American Civil War and World War II, the West has come to realize, in utter horror, the depth of it's past mistakes in imperialism and western/racial supremecy.

However, there are many who aren't done feeling guilty yet for these sins. Expanding on Steele's point, I see this as a clearly spiritual issue. The western secularists have linked this white supremecy to Christianity. Most Americans say the words, "I'm a Christian," to mean "I'm a good person and try to do good things." That is, they are liars. "Christian" is not the same as "good," "Christian" is the same as, "I am a sinner, but God sought to pay for my sin anyway."

Most Americans are secular. Most would deny that what the Bible says is more important than all other things on any given subject. Well, they might agree to that statement, but if I were to link the Bible's statements on particular issues, most Americans would certainly take a stance apart from the Bible. For example, is genocide ever justified? The Bible says so. Was the earth created 10,000 years ago in just seven days? The Bible says so. Did Jesus rise from the dead? The Bible says so.

Thus, the west has placed itself in a position where forgiveness of this great sin is not even possible. What higher power is supposed to say to the West, "It's okay. You are forgiven?" The various cultures we sinned against? Certainly not. They stand everything to gain from a hand-wringing minimalistically powerful West. Some of them might, but how would we ask? Who is to represent them even if they were to forgive? The political leaders? Each individual? There will always be groups who hold this sin against us in the west. Even modern cultures today scorn and hold past cultures responsible for their great sins. As long as history remembers us, someone will hate us for our mistakes.

The answer is, of course, that the only way to forgiveness for this sin (or any other) is to seek such forgiveness from God. I recommend that the link between Christianity and white supremecy and imperialism be dissociated in our minds. Any link they could have is a false one because Christ certainly never advocated the primacy of race or the conquering of civilzations. He came to divide between God's people and the rest, which binds all nations together and declares that nationality is, at best, only a secondary division in the Kingdom of God.

Anyway, Steele's piece is excellent and I highly recommend reading it.

Cheers.