Beck's Dichotomy

Well, Albany has become famous. We’ve been mentioned by Glenn Beck.

This takes a little explaining. Albany is a multi-college town, and we have some neighborhoods that are largely composed of college students renting row houses. A couple weekends ago, there was a big St. Patty’s day party (AKA Kegs and Eggs) that spilled into the streets. The partiers trashed some cars and did some other damage.

Now, I hear what you’re saying, “Vorjack, are you implying that a bunch of college kids got drunk and disorderly? I find that very hard to believe.”

Alas, it is true. We know this because some of these budding geniuses took video on their cell phone cameras, and uploaded them to youtube. Everybody is angry, disgusted or both, and a number of arrests have been made.

You can see some of the videos at All Over Albany. They’ve been on permanent loop on our local news, so I no longer want to look at them. All I can say is that they don’t look like the parties I remember from my college days (because everyone is clothed and no one has sparklers.)

You may have seen that Glenn Beck has been all over the map in his response to the earthquake and tsunami in Japan. He started by playing the apocalypse card, but recently he’s switched memes.

Now he wants to applaud the Japanese for their stoic response to the disaster. And for comparison, he brought up that wretched hive of scum and villainy, Albany, NY. It’s all part of a larger dichotomy between liberalism and … whatever it is that Beck is pushing.

So after lauding the Japanese for a bit, he shows one of the clips from Albany and makes his pitch:

“Look here’s the choice, gang. The world is changing [...] And we will be either this or that. But the time is now to make a choice, are we this or are we that. Which is it? One is in chaos. One destroys anything [...] And the other is based in love and compassion. Make the choice.”

(Here’s the video. Relevant portion is at the 6:00 mark.)

So there, in stark Manichean terms, is the choice. We can either be the Japanese recovering from an epic disaster, or we can be a bunch of drunken frat boys in Albany. I don’t know why it reduces down to those two options, but I’m clearly not capable of second guessing a genius like Beck.

UF: Equal Opportunity Critics

Folks, I’ve been thinking a bit about some of the posts that the UF team has brought you recently, and it seems to me that we might have inadvertantly implied that Christians, particularly Catholics priests, are the only people who could possibly claim moral and ethical superiority while simultaneously raping children. Well, I think it’s time to right that wrong.

Mohammed Hanif Khan - Child Rapist

Mohammed Hanif Khan - Child Rapist

Meet Mohammed Hanif Khan. Mister Khan has taken it upon himself to prove that Imams can be child rapists too. By raping children. You can read the full story on the BBC news site, but I want to comment on one aspect of it, specifically this quote from the judge, Justice Dobbs:

“Your actions have had a significant effect on the community. The boys have been reviled by the community for bringing shame on the community.”

Um. Just. But. Wow. The boys are the ones who’ve brought shame on the community?! In similar fashion to Catholics who fell over themselves to ostracise children who had been raped for the terrible crime of being raped and daring to object to being raped, the Muslim “community” of Stoke-On-Trent have, it seems, reacted to a well-respected rapist by blaming the victims. Religious folk really do have fantastic moral compasses, don’t they? I can’t decide whether the judge has been very clever or particularly obtuse by phrasing it that way: “You’ve harmed the community, but the community are being a bunch of assholes about it anyway”. Either way, I find it deeply disturbing that a Judge could imply (if imply is the right word, I actually think it’s a pretty unambiguous wording) that the victims of a rapist have brought shame on their community by being raped. Nobody who thinks that way (or who is too stupid to realise that what they’re saying makes it sound like they think that way) has got any business being a judge.

Atheist Feminists Reading Mormon Mommies

I’m trying to process Emily Matchar’s piece at Salon: Why I can’t stop reading Mormon housewife blogs.

I’m a young, feminist atheist who can’t bake a cupcake. Why am I addicted to the shiny, happy lives of these women?

The bottom line seems to be that some young women – and I guess it’s all only women – enjoy reading about the squeaky clean, 50′s sitcom lives that some Mormon housewives are living. It’s a break from their complicated professional and personal lives to read about women who accept a defined role in life and spend most of their days with kids games and handi-crafts.

It’s a fantasy, I guess, much like the romance novels some other women read. I don’t know too many women who really want to be abducted by Fabio in a pirate ship, but it’s tantalizing to read.

Matchar does realize that the reality doesn’t match the picture:

Of course, the larger question is, are these women’s lives really as sweet and simple as they appear? Blogs have always been a way to mediate and prettify your own life; you’d be a fool to compare your real self to someone else’s carefully arranged surface self. And Mormons are particularly famous for their “put on a happy face” attitude. The church teaches that the Gospel is the only authentic path to true happiness. So if you’re a faithful follower, you better be happy, right?

The phenomenon of the happier-than-thou Mormon housewife blogger is so well-recognized it’s even spawned a parody blog, Seriously So Blessed, whose fictional author brays things like “We have non-stop fun all the time and are LOVING married life!” and “Speaking of fall, I kind of sometimes want to start a non-profit to help moms who go all of fall without blogging pics of their kids in pumpkin patches, because it seriously breaks my heart!”

A hint as to what is required to keep up the facade comes from the LDS magazine Meridian, which ran a completely bowdlerized version of the Matchar article.

Tony Porter on gender socialisation.

The recent debates here about what is and is not offensive in the world of gender-based insults put me in mind of a talk on TED (specifically TED Women) from Tony Porter. I honestly think this talk made me grow and develop as a person, because it let me see just how many of the turns of phrase that I take for granted are loaded with hate and prejudice against people who I don’t hate and I don’t want to discriminate against. I will show this video to my own children if I ever have them and try to drum its message into them. Enjoy!

Edit: Sorry Daniel, we must have published simultaneously, I didn’t mean to tread on your toes!

The Contradiction of Christian Nationalism

I was writing a post on this, when I saw that Ed Brayton had posted a clip by David Cross which neatly – and amusingly – sums up the problem:

YouTube Preview Image