On a much different note, today is International Save Tookie Day.

Stanley "Tookie" Williams is scheduled to be put to death in the gas chamber of California's San Quentin prison. Williams was convicted of killing 4 people in a series of 1979 robberies. Williams also has the dubious distinction of being the founder of the Crips. However, since his incarceration, Williams has been nominated 5 times for the Nobel Peace Prize. These nominations were due in large part to Williams' work to keep children from joining gangs like the one he founded. He is best-known for his children's literature with a strong anti-gang message.

There is an ongoing effort to lobby Gov. Schwarzenegger to grant Williams clemency and change his death sentence to life without parole. Those who want to see Tookie's life spared include many politicians, well-known actors, and other luminaries, but also include grassroots activists. They argue that Tookie is more valuable to our society alive. If his life is spared, he can continue his work to keep children out of gangs and serve as a powerful reminder of the good that can be done after someone makes a mistake. Some also argue that Williams' murder trial was flawed and racially biased.

Okay, that was a semi-brief statement of the facts. It was probably common knowledge to most people, but I wanted to get them out there. Most sources giving details on Tookie Williams have an axe to grind or are firmly entrenched on one side of the debate. That's why I'm bringing this up today. I am totally bewildered by this case. I wish I had strong convictions about whether Tookie should live or die, but I don't envy Arnold on this one. He's going to anger a big segment of California whether he grants clemency or not.

I tend to lean left on many social issues. I believe in a woman's right to choose and I really wish I could say that I'm totally against the death penalty, but I just can't. Maybe someone can explain things to me in a way that will make me understand why a quadruple murderer shouldn't pay the ultimate price. Tookie Williams has done so much good in this world. He has undergone a powerful and positive transformation and that is admirable. He will probably do more for our country and our citizens than I ever will, but the fact remains that I never killed 4 people. I'll never willingly take four innocent people from the earth. No number of children's books will ever bring back the people that those families lost.

I know that a life sentence will still be a stiff penalty for Williams. Nobody (as far as I know) is advocating for Tookie to be set free. He should be in jail forever, but should he die? Killing Tookie sends a mixed message to our citizens who know that murder is illegal. It sends a mixed message to our citizens who believe in the ten commandments, but who already see images of innocent people laying in a Baghdad bomb crater. We don't need to kill someone who has so many more positive things to give to our world, but that's what the sentence was.

Tookie was not the man he is now when he was sentenced to death in 1981. He was a man who deserved to pay the ultimate price for his crimes. What I can't figure out is what that ultimate price should be. We are one of the few developed nations to still have a death penalty. Generally, I think we should follow Western Europe in our social legislation. The death penalty is no different. It seems clear that having a death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. If you're not scared of spending your life in jail, you're probably not scared of spending 15 years on death row. So the death penalty is antiquated and ineffective, but if our red states keep it on the books, I don't think we can undercut ourselves and show leniency. Will we have criminals contemplating a murder who shrug their shoulders and say, "Oh well, I guess I'll have to write a few children's books for this one [BLAM]." I know that's a bit farfetched and it's hyperbolic. This is just a deeply troubling issue and I wish I could categorically rule out the death penalty for Tookie. I just keep coming back to how I would feel if one of Williams' 4 victims had been a member of my family.

Please help me with any insight on this issue.

Today is International Buy Nothing Day.

Propping up the economy by filling up the garages, attics, and basements of our loved ones with more stuff that they don't need is not the American way. The terrorists don't win if we stay home from the mall. In fact, since plastic is a petroleum product (and since much of our holiday shopping is heavy on plastic), we might be dealing them a small blow.

Global Climate Changing of the Guard

It's been a long time since Rolling Stone was relevant as a music magazine. It probably hasn't been relevant the entire time that I've been reading. Gone are its days of being on the vanguard of rock reporting, gonzo journalism, and the counter-culture. However, somewhere between the Ashley Simpson and the Good Charlotte you can still find little nuggets of insightful political reporting. I used to skip the articles by P.J. O'Rourke and Matt Taibbi when I was a kid, but that was probably a poor choice. If those articles were anything like the ones in Issue #987, then I really missed out.

The November 17th issue of RS has a fantastic series of articles on what they call, "The Planetary Emergency." It really cuts to the crux of this environmental crisis that I've been discussing. Are there more reputable sources for this information? Probably so, but the collection of articles here are a pretty valuable resource for anyone who wants to educate themselves about this vital issue. There's even a discussion of the major players involved in the effort to mislead the public and downplay the serious impact of global climate change that is already being felt in many areas of the world.

The one major problem with Rolling Stone's coverage of this issue is that the magazine persists in using the phrase "global warming." If there was one thing I could change about the majority of media coverage in support of environmental stewardship, it would be the use of "global warming." I hate that phrase because it is an oversimplification that makes environmental neglect and ignorance of greenhouse damage too easily defensible. Global climate change* is a much more accurate description of the looming environmental disaster.

What happens every summer when you have 3 or 4 really hot days in a row? Everyone starts talking about it being a sign of "global warming." The problem, according to the University of North Carolina's Dr. Sarah Nash, comes six months later when you have a record snowfall. "Everyone who was complaining in the summer now has a chance to scoff at the notion that our planet is actually getting warmer." Those that vowed to get a hybrid in July can enjoy another blissfully guilt-free winter in their Escalade. Using "global warming" (instead of global climate change) as the term for a very complicated series of events leaves out almost all of the consequences of continued ecological negligence.

This may sound strange, but the environmental movement needs to improve its marketing of global climate change to the American public. It's more than just semantics. "Warming" isn't menacing enough. Everybody likes to be warm. It's not the warming we should worry about. For some, global "warming" could actually trigger the onset of a new ice age. For others, warming could have catastrophic epidemiological consequences. Malaria will flourish in warmer weather. Global climate change will affect everyone, not just those in the way of the increasingly common Category 5 hurricanes. If people see global climate change as a real threat, they will begin to realize that George Bush is doing about as good a job keeping us safe from ecological disaster as he is keeping us safe from terror.

*Global climate change is the increasingly preferred academic term for the wide and varied effects of a buildup of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. I didn't want this to sound like I invented the phrase.

Global...something

Who knew that saving the world could be a stocking stuffer? I strongly urge anyone with even a slight interest in environmental causes to visit The Conservation Fund's website. Along with a number of interesting articles on current issues in land and water conservation, they have a new donation program called Go Zero. In short, this program gives you the opportunity to quickly and easily offset your total carbon dioxide emissions for this year. First you can calculate a rough estimate of your CO2 emissions as an individual or for your home or office. Then, based on this data, you are told how many adult trees it will take to absorb and sequester your CO2 emission. The final step in the process is to buy this requisite number of trees and pay the purchase and administrative price to The Conservation Fund as a donation. They will plant them and care for them on a part of the 5 million acres of land that they have been able to protect.

CO2 is the number one way that man has contributed to global climate change. The only practical and effective way to take harmful CO2 out of our atmosphere is through the carbon sequestration properties of trees. Forests act as a carbon sink where they absorb and trap the CO2 that we have carelessly pumped into our air through years of driving, flying, logging, heating/cooling our homes, or anything else that has come from the burning of fossil fuels. The Conservation Fund provides a great way to offset some of the damage that we've all done. Everybody on my holiday shopping list is getting bailed out of their CO2 bills this year. It sure beats another Swiss Army knife.

The only problem with carbon sequestration is that there aren't enough trees on earth to keep pace with the rate that we continue to release CO2. Donating to the Go Zero plan might help your conscience and your family's impact, but there are hundreds of SUV drivers getting electricity from your local coal-burning power plant that aren't participating. The long-term solution is to continue to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels and seek alternative energy sources. We as individuals can continue to make a difference through programs and organizations like those above, but another goal should be to end the eco-apathy of our politicians. Any gains made by environmental lobbyists and activist groups can be undercut and made irrelevant with the stroke of W's pen. I'm not placing the blame solely on W or the Republicans. The only time the Senate voted on the Kyoto Accord to limit greenhouse gases, the Accord was defeated 95-0. I know that there were fewer than 95 Republicans on the Senate at the time so both parties are culpable.

Unless the Green Party is able to make significant gains in the American political landscape, the outlook may be bleak. Why the overall health of the planet has not yet become a major political issue and a priority agenda item for this (and every) administration is exasperating to me. I'll take a breather and work on that next time.

Teaser:
The reasons behind it are partially explained by the ability of our government to turn a blind eye to overwhelming scientific data that proves we are destroying our planet. Another reason is the larger anti-intellectual, anti-scientific, and isolationist movement in our country.

SEED Magazine and those pesky stem cells.

SEED is a great magazine that has recently returned to newsstands after a long finance-related hiatus. Another blogger described it as "the Maxim of science magazines." I think that's a pretty good description although the bikinis and misogyny are replaced by insightful and extremely accessible discussions of current issues in science. I can't tell if the magazine is successful at making science cool because of its guerilla journalism and fantastic design or if it's just extremely secure with the widespread public misconception that its subject matter is nerdy. Either way, I'm impressed.

For me, the highlight of the most recent issue is a fantastic explanation of stem cell research. The actual scientific processes behind this technology are explained in a comprehensible (at least for this layman) and aesthetically slick format. The writer does not shrink from the greater political debate surrounding stem cells either. There's a non-partisan discussion of the greater cultural, political, and religious crisis that this technology has spawned. Not every article is completely non-partisan. In fact, the general tone of the magazine advocates for greater support of science from the US government. This first issue has a fantastic article by Chris Mooney (author of The Intersection) about the attempts by Republicans to sabotage the advancement of science in America. Mooney recently released a book on this topic titled, "The Republican War on Science." It's available from Basic Books.

Okay, that's enough shilling for one day. Check out the aforementioned if you like. Either way, I'll still be poor. My greater purpose is to begin discussing the anti-intellectual culture being promoted by our government. The resources above are a start. I'll have more soon.

Bleeding Kansas Revisited

At some point I'll begin to tackle a more diverse array of issues, but I'd be remiss if I didn't once more address the grand imposition that is Evangelical Christianity. The news out of Kansas seems to dovetail too well with what I've been talking about recently. Now more than ever, we need to ask ourselves, "what would Flying Spaghetti Monster do?"

I've noticed a common theme running through my last few posts. Apparently I have consistently underestimated the power and influence of Evangelical Christianity in all aspects of American life. This was proven once again last night when we all heard the news that the Kansas school board had decided to embrace intelligent design. There is now undeniable proof that our society has begun to turn its back on logic and reason. My heart goes out to the rational people of Kansas who want a sound and secular science education for their children. The entire country should share in their embarrassment, but embarrassment alone is not enough. We need to be outraged and strong in our conviction that this was wrong.

Many of the proponents of faith-based education initiatives like intelligent design, abstinence-only sex education, and the distribution of Bibles rely on the same tired and fallacious arguments for support. At least one of these ignorant and poorly researched truisms shows up in every issue of my local paper's op-ed page. Rather than continue to pull out my hair and grieve for my misguided fellow citizens, I'd like to address a few of the greatest hits here.

1. The phrase "separation of church and state" isn't even in the US constitution.

Congratulations! You paid attention for 5 minutes in church or 9th grade civics class. That phrase was written by Jefferson, but in a letter to a Baptist convention in Virginia. However, a real separation of church and state comes in the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment. In addition to prohibiting the establishment of a national religion, the Supreme Court has interpreted and clarified the clause through decisions like Lee v. Weisman. The ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard went so far as to say that no school system may, "advance a particular religion", and that "[Creationism] did not serve the secular purpose of improved scientific education."

2. Why can't we have God in our schools? The founding fathers must not have minded because "In God We Trust" is on our money and "under God" is in the Pledge of Allegiance.

This is the "Stairway to Heaven" of overplayed arguments. The use of the phrases "In God We Trust" and "under God" are considered to be examples of "ceremonial deism" by the Supreme Court. That means they are considered to be secular. There's a good definition of "ceremonial deism" on wikipedia.

3. The founding fathers established this country so that they could escape religious persecution and have the freedom to practice their faith. Why does our government want to restrict that?

No, it was the Pilgrims who came here to escape religious persecution. They didn't really have much to do with our founding fathers. The founding fathers established this country to get out of paying taxes to King George (among other things).

4. People like you must hate (or feel scared/threatened by) religion.

Actually, I love learning about religion. I even love learning about Christianity. There are so many wonderful things to be gleaned from religion. As I said before, I grew up not going to church so there's plenty for me to learn. There's a time and a place for learning about religion though. A balanced discussion of all religions should take place in every public schools' history department. More specific study can take place outside of the school environment. My main concern is when specific religions try to muscle into science classes or are forced on non-believers through any level of government.

5. You are blindly following evolutionary theory just like the people who thought the earth was flat.

Evolution is certainly a theory. It hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of doubt. The Big Bang leaves a lot to be desired too. Plenty of Einstein's work has now been debunked. I'd love to hear another competing theory to evolution that was proven through intensive research and the scientific method. Intelligent design doesn't provide that. Putting everything on a higher being is such a cop-out. Giving up the quest for empirical data is not the message we want to send to science students in public school.

Okay, that's the last on this topic for a while. Tomorrow we'll be talking about how Britney lost all that baby weight, tonight's episode of "Lost", and we'll have composting tips for that rotten pumpkin on the front porch. Take care.

Agnostic Affront

So why is Evangelical Christianity sweeping the nation? Is it a sudden desire to achieve peace and harmony with our fellow humans through selfless acts? Or maybe it's a reaction to rampant materialism and the excesses of our modern world and a desire to return to the natural, sustainable existence of Biblical times? Maybe it's both of these and more, but I doubt it.

The distressing thing that I've noticed about the new wave of American revivalism is that it seems to be primarily concerned with many things other than the central tenets of Christianity as I understand them. The rise of (get ready for the oxymoron of the century) "mainstream evangelism" in America seems to be fueled by a desire to inject conservative and, in some cases, reactionary beliefs into politics and society.

It's an ingenious plan really. What better way to bring the glory of Bible Belt politics to the more secular and liberal areas of the nation? By switching the national dialogue from a conflict of political ideology to a conflict of morality and faith-based values, you can re-frame any debate. You don't have to deny the civil rights of gays and lesbians because you're a close-minded, homophobic hatemonger. You can deny them civil rights because it's a moral and religious issue. Your religious beliefs say that homosexuality is wrong. Nobody can question you because you're just trying to get into hetero-heaven. You come off smelling like a rose and the queers can't get married. It's an ingenious plan. Really!

I'm not saying that every born-again Christian is insincere. There are probably many people who have recently felt a religious re-awakening and desire to live closer to the teachings of Christ. Certainly not everyone is latching on to this movement for political and economic gains. However, membership in a church has always been about more than just the religion. Church has always functioned as a community center and has always provided a social network for the congregation. It sounds great, but a social network is one thing and a spiritual country club is quite another. That's the dark underbelly of the social network created by these new revivalist mega-churches. That's the dark underbelly that has begun to rear its ugly head in my home town.

Using your church and religious affiliation to consolidate power in local government and forcing that religion into the secular world of public schools just don't seem like very Christian things to do.

Agnostic Front

Remember the days when everybody you knew hated going to church? I grew up in a relatively secular home and as a kid I always counted myself very lucky. My friends would complain about how they had to wake up early, put on nice clothes, and spend more than 2 hours of every precious weekend at a place that was apparently very boring and uncomfortable. I've only been to a few church services in my life and have never practiced any religion, so I can't really confirm or deny anything that my buddies told me, but at the time I was convinced that sleeping late and goofing off were way better uses of my time. Sure, I was just wasting time until my friends got home from church or until the Redskins game came on, but according to my friends, church was a waste of time too. If I'm gonna waste time, I'm gonna do it in pajamas.

This same overall message about church was consistently reinforced throughout the years. A very small percentage of people that I went to college with would have described themselves as religious. Even fewer actually went to a Christian church. In college and graduate school, church was expressly for the scant few evangelical Christians and devout Catholics. The cumulative experience of my youth led me to believe that religion in America was on a downswing. We were moving towards a more secular society. Someday a childhood like mine would not be an anomaly. Surely all of my friends who grew up hating church wouldn't subject their kids to the same thing. I'm not saying that this would have been a good or bad thing. I wasn't leading a campaign for sleeping late on Sunday, it just seemed like an increasingly antiquated practice.

I guess this experience is what led to my current consternation with our third Great Awakening. I never thought I'd live in a country that is becoming more religious. Again, I'm not saying that the spirituality aspect is a bad thing (there are plenty of other bad things that go along with it, but the spirituality is fine). I think a lot of people need a spiritual side, but I'm really surprised that it has taken the form of traditional Christian church. Sure, they have skateparks and bowling alleys and the youth group leader has tattoos (of Jesus), but they're still talking about accepting JC as your lord and savior. They're still trying to proselytize and carry out religious imperialism through their missionary work. It reminds me of those people who say that they're going to have a non-traditional wedding, but still end up being married in a church and subjecting their friends to 1st Corinthians for the millionth time in their lives. Those are still traditional weddings and this is still traditional church.

So now I'm wondering if I was misreading the status of religion in America all along. I grew up in an east-coast blue state where Christianity holds less sway than the rest of the country. Most colleges are not a representative cross-section of America either. Maybe I'm the only one who feels like this snuck up on them. Either way, religion is back and a lot of those kids who complained about church are now piling the family into the SUV and continuing the tradition. I don't know exactly what brought church (and the children who hated it) back, but I have some ideas. I'll start on those in my next post.

MY whiny liberal blog.

Hi, I'm your host and moderator for this evening. Tonight we'll be discussing a wide range of topics. If you'd like to comment, the phone lines are always open. You definitely don't have to agree with me to post, so jump in anytime. Just keep it concise and intelligent We'll focus on politics, society, and culture, but let's not tie ourselves down. We might just have to discuss soccer and the philistines in this country that deny its superiority. If that's what we need to do, we'll do it. Now that we've been introduced, let's get to it.

One more thing, political and philosophical labels are a bit cloying and counterproductive. I know I called this a liberal blog, but my political opinions are somewhat fluid. Any open-minded person's should be. What's the point of talking about this stuff if you can't change somebody's mind?