Okay, I’ve spent a post singing our great nation’s praises. Now the gloves are off, and I’m ready to start mudslinging. Let’s see what sucks about the amber waves of grain and purple mountains’ majesty, shall we?
5) Our Work Week
Okay, maybe I’m just spoiled by living in France, or the fact that my work week is only 12 hours (below even the stellarly lazy French standards), but I’m inclined to believe that American work habits are slightly excessive. I talked to two high school friends this summer who work for investment banking firms, and they said they work, and I kid you not, 80 to 100 hours a week! To be fair, one of them works in Hong Kong, so it seems like Americans aren’t the only ones predisposed to this kind of back-breaking pace. My brother is finishing up med school, and I know that when he does his rounds, goes on call, etc., his work week often exceeds 80 hours. One of my friends in high school was a lifeguard during the summer, and he told me about weeks where he pushed his total to 99 hours. I mean, there are benefits to our system, like everything in America stays open later and for more days of the week than in France, and people can earn good money working those kind of hours, but goodness gracious I can’t imagine how I would handle the stress of working 90 hours a week on a consistent basis. I’m not even sure I’d want to work 60 hours a week regularly, which seems to be pretty standard in America (at least among my recently graduated friends). Give me the good old 40, or better yet, the French 35 (with 5 weeks paid vacation, might I add). I have a lot to talk about this week, so let’s move on.
4) Fat People
Jason Stotts, a philosophy major at Denison, wrote an essay entitled something like “Why Obesity is Immoral”, and while I never read it, I certainly wanted to. As a student who has studied abroad, and having many friends who have also studied abroad, I can claim with some authority that one thing study-abroad students tend to notice during their “reverse culture schock” phase is the preponderance of fat people in America. Having lived in France twice, I can claim with some authority that the stereotypical image of an American in the average French person’s mind is a fat, SUV-driving, television-watching workaholic. Now I am by no means a statistical expert, but I can pose with little or no authority the following question: Didn’t I read somewhere once that America is the fattest nation on the planet? I know I read somewhere that our obesity numbers are somewhere over 30%, which is kinda scary. Perhaps I’m being mean, and to any fat people out there who I’m offending by listing you in my top 5, I’m sorry, but I really think that something must be done. Now, when I say “fat people”, I’m not talking about the girls who say, “Oh, I put on 5 lbs over christmas, I’m so fat”. I’m talking about people for whom their fat-ness could cause them serious health problems. So really, obese people, but people who are 25% overweight should consider taking steps to remedy their situation as well. Some might say I’m picking on fat people unnecessarily, and that fat people can’t help the way they are, but I beg to differ. I’m no diet expert, but one thing everyone can do to work on their weight (and something that I’m sure most Americans don’t do enough of) is excercise. I mean, it’s so good for you in so many ways. Even if it just means taking a brisk walk for 30 minutes a day, do something.
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in America today. Wanna know the two leading causes of heart disease? Stress, and being a big fatass. So, really, my number 4 and 5 on this list are really a public service announcement. I’m trying to keep more Americans alive for longer, by telling them to work less (relieving stress), and do something about their weight (reducing cholestorol, blood pressure, etc). I’m really only trying to help.
3) The South
This, again, might cause people to stir or be upset. I realize this. If you live in the South, hold your pants on, I’m probably not talking to you if you’re reading this blog. I often criticize “the South” because of the very specific faults of specific people, but that doesn’t mean I hate the whole South. There are general trends which I find interesting, however. If you look at a map of the last presidential election results, do you notice where almost all of the Red states are concentrated? Of the 13 states that inscribed gay marraige bans into their state constitutions, where were the vast majority of these states located? (to be fair, two of these states were Ohio and Oregon). Where is Dr. Phil from? Okay, maybe that’s a specific detail, and not a general trend, but you get my point. Anyway, in an effort to stop being so politically incorrect and to avoid blanket criticisms, I intend to delineate (in bulleted list form) the very specific things in the South for which I have disdain:
- the KKK still exists, and their strongest remaining holds are concentrated in the South (in Mississippi if I’m not mistaken)
- I have met people my own age in the South who are still racist against black people (to be fair, they were obnoxious frat boys from ECU, and I even knew people at Denison who were racist against Mexicans, so maybe my perception that racism is more prevalent in the South is unfounded, but this blog is about my perceptions, so there you are).
- People in the South eat grits. On the other hand, I do love fried chicken. I’m kind of a fence-sitter on sweet tea.
- Toby Keith is from the South. I hate that guy. “We’ll put a boot up your ass, it’s the American way”? Come on, what kind of song lyric is that?
- The South was the undisputedly largest source of electoral votes for George W. Bush in the 2004 election (although, again, Ohio was the swing state that ultimately mattered. Damn. Can southern Ohio count as “the South”, just for purposes of this blog?)
Aside from that, I guess the South is okay, but come on….Toby Keith….you’ve gotta give me number 3, based on Toby Keith alone. I must admit, Tennessee is the most beautiful state I’ve ever driven through, and Savannah Georgia is such a beautiful city I’d even consider living there. But grits? Anwyay, the South isn’t even close to my top 2 in terms of suckiness. Speaking of which….
Tie for Number 1: Neo-cons and the Christian Right
Ladies and Gentlement, for the first time in Top 5 history, we have a tie for first place. This is because I can’t find a logical way to figure out which of these two groups is more retarded, or damaging to our great country. It’s almost a chicken-egg situation. Let me phrase it this way: Which is worse, the war-mongering politicians currently running our country, or their largest, most impassioned voting base? Which is worse, the Christian fundamentalists who want to make our nation the United States of Jesus Christ, or the politicians who pander to them? Individually, either of these two groups is horrible enough to merit the top spot. But together, their “Suck” factor is multiplied, and they are working quickly and efficiently to ensure the downfall of what was once a great nation.
1a) Neo-cons
I’m not positive I’m using this term correctly in its most precise sense, but I assume that I am at least somewhat correct in asserting that “Neo-Conservativism” refers to the ideology of the modern-day Republican party, including their departure from fiscal conservativism and the renewed Cold-War-esque fervor to “make the world a safe place for democracy”. In my book, this group includes such stellar individuals as Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Condoleeza Rice, Tom Delay, Karl Rove and other such douchebags. Generally Bush gets all the credit for their shenanigans (reflected in both hatred for him abroad and his newly toilet-dwelling approval rating in the States), but really these people all work as a team — the Dream Team of Suck. Other important players on this team include media pundits, such as Tucker Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, and the entire Fox News Network. Tucker Carlson almost made my top 5 by himself. If there were a country called Douchebagland, he would be its tyrannical dictator. Don’t get me started on Tucker Carlson.
When I was young (fortunately too young to vote, I used to consider myself Republican. I still find some of the ideals of Republicanism enticing, such as low taxes, fiscal responsibility, and a tendency to shy away from “Big Government”. I share in the view that government can be inefficient (particularly our judicial system), and I definitely side with Republicans who want things such as tort reform. The problem with today’s Republicans is that they fail to hold to any of the ideals (except maybe low taxes). Aside from his offenses that ignite the tempers of the left (such as destroying the environment and the underfunded catastrophe that some call “No Child Left Behind”), he also is one of the biggest-spending and financially irresponsible presidents of all time. Granted, a great deal of his spending is funneled into our war efforts, but since I do not support the war I don’t consider that a valid excuse. Bush also created the department of Homeland Security. For those who advocate against Big Government, I don’t understand how creating a whole new government department that poorly allocates the taxpayers’ resources accomplishes this goal.
The problem with today’s conservative politicians is that in an effort to gain votes, they have strayed away from everything they used to stand for. Bush, in recent presidential elections, said he would support a national federal amendment banning gay marriage (marriage is a state issue, btw), again going overboard with legislation and “Big Government” to win votes from his rabid Christian voting base. On a larger scale, the Karl Rove political machine (otherwise known as the Republican party during election years) has spent so much energy brainwashing Americans in order to convince them that Republicans are the only ones who can keep them safe from terrorism that they’ve let their traditional domestic issues, things like balancing the budget, fall to the wayside. Oh, and with legislation like the Patriot Act, we’ve also let traditional domestic issues such as civil liberties be replaced with new and improved domestic issues such as racial profiling.
Perhaps a better name for Neo-Conservatives would be “Neo-McCarthyists”. The main difference is the McCarthyists’ enemies were communists, the Neo-Cons’ enemies are “everyone else”. Bush (and Team Suck, of course), have changed the rhetoric from “Reds, Communists and enemies of Democracy” to “Terrorists, Evil (and Axes therein), and enemies of Democracy”. Since terrorists can come from any country, and the only material links between our enemies such as Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden being that they are “evil” (more concisely, anti-America), we now have an amalgamous enemy group to contend with that spans almost the entire globe. The world is a scary place to live in under the authority of the Neo-Cons, almost as scary as the next group I’m about to tirade against.
1b) The Christian Right
For starters, I know that some of my readers are Christian, and I’m not aiming this against all of Christianity, so let me start with some qualifiers. The “Christian Right” as I call it refers to a specific group of Christians, the kind of Christians who would call George Bush “God’s Candidate”, and who are characterized by one or many of the following beliefs or political platforms:
- Denial of the principles of natural selection and the belief that Creationism and Evolution are “equally valid scientific theories”, and the desire to supplant Evolution with Creationism in science classes.
- A bigoted hatred of all things homosexual: More specifically, the desire to subordinate homosexual couples’ citizenship status by legally disregarding their coupled status, and the fear that homosexuality, like a disease, will be passed on to adopted children.
- Possible hypocrisy concerning the value of life — for example, being “Pro-life” in terms of abortion and stem cell research, but also supporting the Death Penalty and a war in Iraq that claims thousands of civilian lives on a monthly basis (note: I do not wish to start a debate about the morality of abortion; I rather wish to point out that the latter two items mentioned show a disregard for human life. Oh, and stem cell research is a no-brainer; fertility clinics have an overabundance of embryos and to not put this valuable scientific resource to use would be almost criminal).
For an example of the gay-hating that I mentioned before, go to www.godhatesfags.com, the official site of the Westboro Baptist church that came to protest in Granville, campaigning for the removal of a local baptist minister who happened to have a gay son. If you don’t find this site blatantly offensive and terrifying, then I might find you blatantly offensive and terrifying. Think about this: if you believe that gay people all burn in hell for all eternity, you are on some level identifying with this kind of thinking. I can’t imagine an all-loving God who would condemn people to burn in hell for all eternity simply for loving the wrong kind of person. On the gay marriage issue, all I have to say is this: regardless of your religious views, if the government wants to officially recognize gay couplehood, no church would be forced to accept or condone it. That is why we have separation of church and state in the first place. As a civil issue, I don’t believe our government should tell any group of citizens that they are less than any other group (as long as said group isn’t hurting anyone), and I feel that anti-gay legislation does just that.
To offer some insight into the Creationism issue, I offer this excerpt of a book review for Anne Coulter’s Godless. Anne Coulter is another woman who could have easily made this top 5 all by herself. The thing that I find particularly disturbing about Anne Coulter is that so many people actually agree with what she has to say. From what I can tell, Godless is a protest against public school secularism and a tome of political propaganda pressing for the replacement of Darwinian Evolution with Creationism in public school biology classes. Here’s what the book review says:
“Writing with a keen appreciation for genuine science, Coulter reveals that the so-called gaps in the theory of evolution are all there is—Darwinism is nothing but a gap. After 150 years of dedicated searching into the fossil record, evolution’s proponents have failed utterly to substantiate its claims. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous Piltdown Man to the “evolving” peppered moths of England, has been exposed as hoaxes. Still, liberals treat those who question evolution as religious heretics and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom? Liberals’ absolute devotion to Darwinism, Coulter shows, has nothing to do with evolution’s scientific validity and everything to do with its refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will brook no challenges to the official religion.” — taken from Amazon.com
Aside from the grammar mistake of “has been exposed as hoaxes”, This paragraph shows a blatant disregard for facts and the basic concepts of natural selection. Yes, one might be able to look at specific examples of archaeological or environmental findings related to evolution that were founded upon poor scientific methods, but that doesn’t disprove the theory as a whole. I believe that some Creationists are unaware of the amount of scientific evidence required to establish something as a scientific theory. Sure, natural selection is a “theory”, but so is gravity. And really, Darwin’s theory of natural selection does not directly contradict the biblical Creation story. Natural selection, paraphrased, runs as follows: 1) Organisms produce offspring. 2) Because of certain genetic and environmental factors, some organisms produce more offspring than others. 3) As genetic and environmental conditions change to favor certain organisms, those who are favored contribute more heavily to the gene pool, and thus the gene pool, and eventually species, change. Like I said, nothing in here directly contradictory to the existence of God or creation; nothing has been asserted thusfar about the origin of our planet or the life therein. However, if you deny that natural selection occurs, you are denying what can be verified by obervation and DNA evidence (if DNA evidence is good enough for our legal system, it’s good enough for me). Where evolution and Creationism run into problems is that evolutionists believe that evolution is the mechanism from whence derives all of life’s diversity on the planet Earth, and that theoretically we are probably all descended from a single celled-organism, which is problematic for those who believe the literal interpretation of the book of genesis, where God created the earth, put plants, animals, and us on it, and it was good, etc., all in the space of 7 days (in place of the hundreds of millions of years evolution would have taken to run its course). However, even the pope says not all stories in the bible should be taken literally, and there is no reason to say that the “7 days” in the bible don’t represent 7 extremely long periods of time in the Earth’s history where life was developing, or that Eve being a descendant of Adam’s rib couldn’t be a parable for the fact that human cells (e.g. eggs and sperm) do give rise to other human life. Anyway, I’m not trying to say there is no God, or that Atheism should be adopted as a school “religion”, as Anne Coulter would have you believe. I’m just saying that there is a reason things like natural selection are considered scientific theory, and religious creation stories simply don’t have the same kind of evidence backing them up. If we want to study the bible in a literature class, or in a “world religions” class, so be it. But teaching Christianity in a science class is like teaching gerund usage in math class — it simply doesn’t belong.
Well, that rounds out this week’s top 5. Thanks for bearing with me in this, my most verbose post yet. I hope I wasn’t too long-winded or pedantic (I probably was, I know). Enjoy your weekends, and what looks to be like an interesting Super Bowl this Sunday. Tootles.
