Exercising intellectual independence

Sadly, political dialogue in the United States has long been reduced to a few very restrictive and oversimplified categories: liberal versus conservative, Democrat versus Republican, left versus right, the "two sides of the aisle." In everyday political banter, it's easy to slip into this mentality. I often have trouble avoiding it.

There are a couple culprits responsible for this. One are politicians like George W. Bush who gain from it. His administration has consistently tried to popularize an us-versus-them, black-and-white, right-and-wrong, for-or-against worldview. In 2004, he incessantly labeled John Kerry as a "liberal" senator from Massachusetts. And America's mass media has adopted the same technique. On Fox News, the talk show Hannity and Colmes features Sean Hannity, the "conservative" viewpoint, and Alan Colmes, the "liberal" perspective. Other networks like CNN and MSNBC routinely refer to "religious conservatives" and "left-leaning politicians."

This is a dangerous mentality, but one American culture can't seem to escape. The terms "liberal" and "conservative" are stereotypes in political debate used primarily to demonize and divide. They can only be very broadly defined and are of little use in dissecting complex social and political issues. If one senator favors capital punishment but also abortion rights, and if another supports school prayer along with environmental protection standards, which are they? Liberal? Conservative? Left-leaning? Right-leaning? A bit of both?

I wouldn't expect America's mainstream media to acknowledge the complexity of issues facing this nation, nor would I expect them to stop using such narrow-minded stereotypes in their reporting. Still, this is a primary catalyst behind America's polarized political climate. Our media, cultural icons, and leaders have implied that we all must take a side. Rather than thinking for ourselves and deciding each issue on its merits, we have to conform to a vaguely defined ideology and call ourselves Republicans or Democrats, conservative or left-of-center. Whatever happened to action driven by independent thought?

Ideally, we would see more respect for this in American culture -- people not automatically labeled "conservative" because they support gun rights, or "liberal" because they favor gay marriage. To do that is to insult the intelligence of the individual, and to suggest that America's problems can be solved entirely by clinging to one side or the other. The world just isn't that simple. We need to base our perspectives on challenges that are real, not stereotypes that are imagined.

Teach moderation and responsibility, not prohibition, to America's youth

America's alcohol policies have long been excessively permissive toward adults and puritanical toward youth. Typically, if an adult aged 21 or over is involved in a drunken driving accident, it may make a small blurb on the arrest blotter in the newspaper. If the driver is aged 20 or younger, it often creates bold headlines. In all fifty states, adults can legally drive intoxicated with a blood-alcohol content of up to 0.08; minors can be charged with driving under the influence if there is any detectable amount of alcohol present. And in most states (with a few noteworthy exceptions), persons under the legal age are prohibited from possessing, purchasing, or consuming alcoholic beverages under any circumstances, while adults are subject to relatively no regulation on imbibing.

These double standards, and America's attitude toward alcohol in general, are part of a larger culture of fear and scapegoating that sends the wrong message to young people whose lives are supposedly being "protected." This may seem to be the case, until you've lived in a Midwestern university town for a few years. Upon observing drunken college kids passed out on benches, vomiting on sidewalks, and having their stomachs pumped at the emergency room, the futility of America's draconian liquor laws become apparent. Nonetheless, organizations such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), whose funding and existence depends on the enforcement and expansion of these laws, flood the media with "data" touting the so-called success of age-based prohibition.

I don't buy it. I've been to Europe three times, and on each occasion, I've spoken with people there who ridicule America's iron-fist mentality against youth alcohol consumption. That's because, in places like Germany and France, drinking isn't the scary prospect it is here. It's simply part of the culture, not reserved exclusively for citizens who have met some arbitrary age. European children aren't taught that alcohol is a bad, sinful, dangerous substance the way Americans are; they're taught instead that it is a beverage to be enjoyed responsibly and in moderation. At age 14, I had a glass of wine with my parents at a restaurant in London. The waiter didn't raise an issue of it. In fact, he offered it to me without being asked.

I'm surely not contending that youth overseas never get drunk or behave stupidly as a result. I am saying that they aren't being killed off in massive numbers by liquor-induced stupors, as American media may like us to believe. Kids in this country question why their parents insist on how dangerous and harmful alcohol is, only to uncork a bottle of wine five minutes later. This doesn't work. Until American culture adopts a new approach, we'll continue to hear stories of adolescents who drink themselves into comas. They are like 16-year-olds handed keys to a car without spending a day in driver education.

Regarding the preceding post

I certainly didn't write a blog post about gun control without the expectation that it would generate some degree of controversy, but this one clearly went beyond what I envisioned. Typically, even when I comment on a contentious issue (this hasn't been the first, nor will it be the last), I'll get 2-4 responses at most. At the time I'm writing this, there have been 7 comments on the post below, most of which have strongly disagreed with my stance.

I appreciate that. I've said from the beginning that the purpose of this blog is to generate dialogue on a broad spectrum of issues that are important to America and its culture. I'm under no illusion that everyone will concur with the ideas I offer, nor am I under the illusion that my perspective is the only feasible or accurate one. I present my opinions in this forum with the expectation, the hope, that they will be a launch pad for constructive discussion. I welcome disagreement and debate, provided that it is thoughtful and respectful of others.

With that said, thanks to everyone who has contributed to this dialogue. To those who disagreed with me, let me say that I believe we actually have more in common on this issue than you might think, based on the comments I read. Consider:

• we both clearly value the right of all citizens in this nation to live in peace and safety, without fear of violence or bodily harm to themselves or their loved ones;
• we abhor acts of violence such as those perpetrated last week at the shopping mall in Salt Lake City, and seek ways to prevent them from happening; and
• we take seriously the freedom to discuss issues of contention and express our views openly, whatever those views may be, without censorship. This, I believe, is the true genius behind our democracy.

Thus, although we may have fundamental disagreements, we also have fundamental commonalities, and we can use both to learn from one another. I consider myself better off for this.

Targeting America's gun problem

Every now and then, America experiences a tragedy that painfully illustrates the consequences of laws permitting free and easy access to firearms. On one occasion, it was two Colorado teenagers who shot to death more than a dozen of their classmates before turning the weapons on themselves. In several other instances, it was a disgruntled employee who vented his anger at the workplace by using bullets. This past week in particular, it was an 18-year-old who turned a Utah shopping mall into a firing range.

The saddest part about these types of incidents is that people always ask the obligatory questions: Where did the suspect get his gun? Who helped him perpetrate this atrocity? Why wasn't he stopped before it was too late? But after some time, the questions die down and everyone slips back into complacency over America's love affair with guns. Rarely is a concerted, long-term effort made to address this problem and the implications it will continue to have.

This is evident in our laws: At present, only two states explicitly ban the carrying of concealed weapons. One is my home state of Illinois, and the other, Wisconsin. Maybe this number shouldn't be too surprising. After all, very few politicians want to be labeled as going against a freedom that is protected in the Bill of Rights. And with the massive financial and political influence of organizations like the National Rifle Association, it is difficult for any concerned public official to make his or her voice heard on this issue.

Frankly, I don't support the Second Amendment. I know that if I ever run for a political office, this will be easy ammunition (no pun intended) to use against me, but I don't care. It's an obsolete amendment, precluding most laws that would help make America's streets safer, and it ensures that people who shouldn't have dangerous weapons can obtain access to them anyway. It should be repealed. There are many, many personal freedoms that need to be constitutionally protected, but "the right to bear arms" is surely not among them. I have no problem with hunters who use rifles for their hobby; I have a problem with the legality of carrying a handgun in your glove compartment or bookbag, out of sight but readily accessible if you lose your temper with someone else on the highway at rush hour.

I've heard the contention that restricting access to guns won't prevent them from ending up in the wrong hands. To an extent, this is a valid point. Someone bent on creating carnage will find a way to obtain a gun, no matter what. But "crimes of passion" can be equally destructive -- and avoided by better gun control. The driver on the expressway who is cut off by another car might be inclined to pull out his gun in the heat of the moment. If even a few of these types of situations can be prevented by way of tighter firearm regulation, it is worth implementing. In any case, America needs to tackle its gun obsession head-on and enact better laws, including, but not limited to: 1) no concealed weapons; 2) no handguns, except for law enforcement officials and other jobs that require them; 3) repeal of the Second Amendment; and 4) a uniform, nationwide system of weapon registration and waiting periods for purchases of them.

Thoughts on relationships

Over the years, I've made no secret of my disdain for Valentine's Day. Some, like myself, know it more commonly as Single Awareness Day (SAD). In my mind, it's always been a day when people in relationships celebrate and congratulate themselves on their blissful and privileged status. At the same time, single people feel even more hollow than normal over being, well, single. If you're a bachelor who's looking for a blow to your self-esteem, just wait until mid-February each year. It'll happen, especially if you have a lot of friends who devote this day to spend with their special someone.

It strikes me as exceedingly ironic that this country -- where at least half of marriages end in divorce (and to say nothing of pure puppy-love relationships, which never even make it that far) -- annually sets aside a day specifically for relationships and romance. So many Americans obviously don't have a clue about either. I've never been married -- or even dated anyone, for that matter -- but I've seen enough people fail at both to learn a thing or two. I've seen people elope clearly just because they don't want to be alone anymore. That rarely works. Neither do couples who are obviously together exclusively for the sex. Relationships founded solely on physical attraction almost never last, but this is a mistake people make all the time, because it's easy to confuse physical attraction with deeper chemistry. After all, if the mere sight of someone makes your heart rate increase, there must be more to it than just sexual desire, right?

No, not really, but it's easy to understand why so many think this way. After all, the human sex drive is usually much stronger than the ability to rationalize and make sound decisions. Again, I'm probably the last person whose advise on relationships should carry any clout, but I do know what I've observed, and these are the conclusions I've drawn:

• Don't date just for the sake of dating. Won't work. And don't think about dating someone if it's clear from the beginning that it won't last. This will just lead to anguish later on for both of you.
• Don't consider marriage (or anything permanent), until you've observed your love interest in every element of his or her life: healthy, sick, awake, asleep, angry, happy, depressed, minty fresh breath, and morning breath. Only seeing the person at his or her best is not an accurate representation of who he or she is, and you'll probably learn that the hard way later on. Everyone smells bad sometimes.
• Don't rush. People who get too serious too quickly are on the path to failure. Some get married prematurely just so they can have sex without feeling guilty. Others do so just because they're convinced, no matter what, that they've found "the one." Don't assume so until you've experienced this person for a very long time.
• Most importantly, don't take this stupid day too seriously. At my age, the odds are very good that you won't even be spending Valentine's Day with the same person next year.

So, I'm starting to sound too much like a therapist, which means it's time to quit while I'm ahead. It also means to take this all with a grain of salt, because it's probably the last time you'll see me mention romance on this blog.

Faith in a box

Tonight I watched the documentary Jesus Camp, a film following the lifestyles of evangelical families in Missouri and a fundamentalist youth pastor who operates a church summer camp in North Dakota called "Kids on Fire." It also features the now-disgraced Ted Haggard, former president of the National Association of Evangelicals (the film was made before the scandal surfaced). Though immensely disturbing, this documentary is nevertheless very well done and worth the time.

It reminded me of a concept we've been discussing in the weekly discussion group held at our house every Wednesday. We're reading a book called "Velvet Elvis" by Rob Bell, the founding pastor of Mars Hill Church in Grandville, Michigan. In short, the book discusses an inherent need to test, explore, and question the Christian faith. It highlights the notion that God is just too huge and complex to simplify, that addressing one question about faith only leads to many more, and that we must be flexible in our faith-based views because our perceptions and circumstances are continuously changing. If we ever believe we've figured out everything about the Christian faith, and if we ever reach a point where we no longer feel compelled to voice our doubts and confusions, then our faith is likely on the verge of collapse. As Bell points out, "questions are not scary. What is scary is when people don't have any. What is tragic is faith that has no room for them."

This is what Jesus Camp provided a glimpse into: a faith-based culture that never doubts or questions anything, whose members appear convinced that they are correct about everything, that their narrow perspective alone is right, and that all issues pertaining to faith were resolved the day they were "saved." It also revealed a group of people -- including very young children -- living out of touch with reality and some of the most profound truths about this world. About this, Bell writes that "Jesus' intention was, and is, to call people to live in tune with reality. (He) was not making claims about one religion being better than all others. Rather, he was telling those following him that his way is the way to the depth of reality...Jesus exposes us to reality at its rawest." Reality includes more than 40 million Americans without access to health care. It includes homeless people who sleep under bridges in subzero temperatures, and a natural environment that is being exploited to the point of destruction. It includes all kinds of dirty, nasty truths that we would all like to ignore and deny the existence of.

I'm guilty of that on a massive scale. I routinely hide from some of the most awful realities about this world. I also routinely pretend that my viewpoint is correct and that all others are wrong. That's why I'm so convicted by this premise, and why I offer three suggestions to people of all faiths who might be reading this: 1) base your worldview on what you know to be true, what you know to be real, and not on ideological conformity; 2) keep that worldview flexible, because everyone who isn't God is continuously searching for truth and changing perspective accordingly until the day we die; and most importantly, 3) despite how assertively I express my opinion on this blog, do not believe that it is the only correct view. Like everyone else, I'm seeking truth and shaping my faith as I learn. Educate me.

Worthless resolutions abounding...

This week, Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are bickering over at least three different "non-binding" resolutions regarding Iraq, each of which carry about as much teeth as, say, the truth did when George W. Bush made up his mind to bomb Baghdad in 2003.

The main one, drafted by Sen. John Warner, R-Va., is a statement of simple disagreement with Bush's plan to send more than 21,000 more troops into the crossfire. An alternative proposal by Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., would express support for the troops and commit lawmakers to not "endanger" them by cutting off funds. Finally, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., proposes backing Bush's troop surge, but with the stipulation that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks to qualify for further American aid.

Of course, the fine details of each resolution make no difference. What does is the fact that we are now dealing with one of the worst foreign policy disasters in all of American history, perpetrated by quite possibly the worst American president ever. If George W. Bush will not heed the opinion of nearly three-fourths of his constituents, he won't blink an eye at a purely symbolic gesture by Congress (which, by the way, is no longer even in his party's hands). The job of the legislative branch is to place a meaningful check on the executive branch's authority, which is precisely what is not happening. Even if one of these resolutions came up for debate and passed, it would bring us no closer to ending the mayhem in Iraq. None of them carries any weight.

There is no good solution for Bush's blunders, but more military force is the worst of them all. It simply has not and will not work. The president blasts Congress for opposing his plan and not offering any alternative; but until Congress forces him to explore non-military options by cutting off funds, he clearly will not. His proposed budget should be ample evidence of that. The Senate can debate as many non-binding resolutions as it has members, but so doing will not save one single life in Iraq. Nor will it convince the American people that the power shift they implemented in Congress last November made any difference. It's time to tell George W. Bush that the situation in Iraq can no longer be run on his terms alone. As we can see, that has been the case for far too long.

Da Bears...

Anyone who visits this site with any frequency will know that one topic notably void of any discussion here is sports. That's because, quite frankly, I don't usually give a rat's ass about sports. They don't interest me. So consider this post an exception to the rule. It seems necessary to comment on this weekend's big game.

Twenty-one years ago, in January of 1986, songs topping the charts included Dionne Warwick's "That's What Friends Are For," Dire Strait's "The Walk of Life," and, lest we forget, Eddie Murphy's "Party All The Time." However, another ballad making headlines at the time was the Chicago Bears' "Super Bowl Shuffle," a rap and music video featuring several members of the 1985 team -- including, but not limited to, Walter Payton, Jim McMahon, and Mike Singletary.

Granted, most people of my generation were too young at the time to have any clear recollection of this, but the song was a major component of the Bears hysteria that gripped Chicago during that era. Ironically, it was recorded more than a month before Mike Ditka and his team defeated the New England Patriots in Super Bowl XX, or, for that matter, before they even knew whether they were going to the Super Bowl. This naturally led to criticisms of arrogance on the part of the team, prompting some members to refuse to participate. In response, proceeds from the song and its video were given directly to charity. One lyric sung by Payton asserts that "we're not doing this because we're greedy; the Bears are doing it to feed the needy."

I bring this up, of course, because of tomorrow's big game against the Indianapolis Colts, which marks the Bears' first Super Bowl appearance in two decades. This year we won't see a team of burly football players jamming on stage, but the Shuffle will no doubt be a source of nostalgia and pride for fans who recall the 1986 game in New Orleans and the mania that led up to it.

And despite my indifferent attitude toward (and almost nonexistent knowledge of) professional football, I'll watch the game on Sunday and pretend like I know what the hell I'm talking about. Go Bears ... I think.

The jovial little birthday that was...

A tremendous thanks is in order to all friends and family members who helped make Wednesday so great. Between the greetings, gifts, and cards courtesy of those whom I see every week, as well as those whom I haven't seen in many months or years, this birthday will be one to remember. You are all fantastic, wonderful people. Thanks to everyone for thinking of me. There is truly no greater gift on one's birthday than a simple reminder of those who make your life the fabulous experience that it is.

My apologies in advance for the truncated nature of this post, but the events and activities of the past few days have left me with less time than normal. (As many are aware, my evenings typically consist of sitting at home by myself, brainstorming blog post ideas and interior decorating schemes.) Nonetheless, I couldn't possibly close this without a bulleted summary of January 31, 2007:

• Beer, beer, and more beer. A Belhaven St. Andrews Ale that substituted for the Bells Amber Ale I ordered at the restaurant; a St. Rogue Red Ale; Sierra Nevada Pale Ale; an August Schell sampler pack; Stone Mill Pale Ale, packaged by Coors Brewing Company of Golden, Colorado (inside joke); a special Belgian ale whose name I can't even pronounce and whose package writing is printed definitely not in English (this I have got to try). No, these weren't all consumed last night. Not even close. Don't worry, I saved some.
• A beautiful and delectable birthday cake with blue frosting. A slice of this is a small slice of heaven. Thank you, Jessica, you are awesome at baking cakes. Truly you are.
• A water-resistant, detailed map of Europe, coupled with a 'Wanderlust' travel journal. So when I'm at a beer garden in Munich, and I spill some on the map, I'll be able to simply wipe (or, more specifically, lick) it off. And then I'll record the experience in the journal. I love maps. I've memorized about a quarter of this one so far.
• Greeting cards regarding beer, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush. Did anyone ever think I'd mention the first item along with the second and third in the same phrase? I sure didn't.
• Old Chicago Pizza. This one's pretty self-explanatory.
• And much more that would make this post much longer than I intended it to be. Oops, too late. Thanks again, everyone.