Catching Up

I haven’t posted for over a month. I’ve posted articles in other places, but nothing here on Fluid Imagination. Part of the reason had to do with my job. During the last month, I wrote, built, and launched a new website for my school, and before that, I spent most of my free time developing the second-quarter schedule for all of our staff and students. You see, along with teaching, I’m also an administrator and marketing person, so things can get a little busy.

But a lot of things have been happening over the last month: sexual predators facing the music, President Trump’s administration circling the drain, Congressional Republicans stealing trillions of dollars from the future, the potential loss of Internet freedom, and so much more. Here’s a quick recap of what I’ve missed.

First and foremost is the continued outing of powerful sexual predators, assaulters, and harassers. While we can all applaud the takedown of powerful sleaze bags, in my own life, I’ve seen the #metoo movement help individuals come out against their not-so-famous assaulters. Several months ago, a person I know had fallen victim to a sexual predator, but with all of the shame around the issue, they had not gone to the police about it. Following  the publicity around these other cases though, and the way the predators have actually seen some consequences from their actions, the person I know gained the confidence to press charges against her perpetrator. What we’ve seen on the news is just a drop in the bucket, but if the (apparently) changing perceptions of assault victims continues towards belief rather than doubt, the world might actually improve a little bit.

Next, of course, is the way Comrade Trump’s administration continues to flounder in light of the Russia investigation. Without a doubt, the best explainer of all this stuff has been the Twitter feed of a professor of law and journalism at the University of New Hampshire, Seth Abramson.

If you’re not following Abramson on Twitter, get on it. The guy deserves a Pulitzer for the work he’s been doing.

Then, of course, there’s the incredible distribution of wealth from the 99% to the 1%, also known as H.R. 1: Tax Cuts & Jobs Act, which according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office will increase the deficit by $1.437 trillion over the next 10 years. The Senate snuck this thing through in the most ridiculous and cynical manner possible, and every relatively moderate Republican ought to be ashamed of themselves (the other Republicans are long past the ability to actually feel shame).

Along with reporting on that increase in the deficit, the CBO reports that “it is not practicable for a macroeconomic analysis to incorporate the full effects of all of the provisions in the bill…within the very short time available between completion of the bill and the filing of the committee report.” In other words, this bill is not only messed up from a content perspective, but from a process perspective too. By now, you’ve heard that this 400+ page bill was passed before anyone had the time to read it, and that the bill itself still contained handwritten amendments since they wouldn’t take the time to print out the changes.

Next, there’s the announcement from the chairman of the FCC that they’d like to repeal the rules that protect net neutrality. This is an incredibly colossal mistake, putting the freedom of the Internet into the corrupt and greedy hands of Comcast, Verizon, and others.

One member of the FCC, who posted in Op-Ed in the LA Times under the headline, “I’m on the FCC. Please stop us from killing net neutrality,” writes, “There is something not right about a few unelected FCC officials making such vast determinations about the future of the internet…Before my fellow FCC members vote to dismantle net neutrality, they need to get out from behind their desks and computers and speak to the public directly…When they do this, they will likely find that, outside of a cadre of high-paid lobbyists and lawyers in Washington, there isn’t a constituency that likes this proposal.”

Nobody but the telecoms want this bill. No real human being has complained about having an open internet that allows low-income individuals to access the same websites as high-income individuals, and mom-and-pop and startup organizations to access the same audience as multinational corporations such as Microsoft and Google.

No one wants this policy change. But because the FCC is run by a former Verizon employee, the policy change is going forward. And that sucks.

So…that should bring us up today. Hopefully, my next post won’t be another month from now.

Hunt the Right Rabbit

I’m trying to understand the conspiracy of all this.

Yesterday, a friend of mine on Facebook continued to spread (in a forceful and angry manner) the debunked theory (see Snopes’ debunking article and Politifact’s explainer article) that Secretary Clinton sold 20% of the United States’ uranium to Russia for $145 million and she laundered the money through her and her husband’s non-profit Clinton Foundation.

In reality, Russia’s state-controlled nuclear agency purchased a 51% stake in a Canadian-based mining company that had originally been owned by South African interests. The Obama Administration, of which Secretary Clinton was part, needed to evaluate the purchase because U.S.-based subsidiaries of the Canadian company managed a significant portion of the U.S.’s uranium stock. Though her department had a place on the nine-member evaluation board (as did several other agencies), Secretary Clinton did not partake in the meetings, and even if she had, she had no say as to whether the deal went through or not.

Now, one of the previous investors in the Canadian company — a person who at the time of the deal no longer owned any stock in the company — had made a $131 million donation to the Clinton Foundation, but he made it over a year prior to Secretary Clinton even becoming Secretary of State and three years prior to the deal between the Russians and the Canadian-based company even being made. Around $4 million of the donations to the Clinton Foundation, however, were donated by other members involved at the time of the deal, but those members deny accusations of a quid pro quo exchange with Secretary Clinton, claiming that their donations to the Foundation were offered in good faith.

If the exchange was a quid-pro-quo offer, it was made with incredible foresight while also being very poorly managed, seeing that it first required Hilary Clinton to be elected President (which did not happen), and then it required the main investor to own stock in the Canadian company when the deal went through (which also did not happen). If the quid pro quo was about Russia being able to steal our uranium, it was also very poorly managed, seeing as the U.S.-based subsidiary that manages the uranium is not licensed to export it. When the story was first debunked by Snopes & Politifact, they both rated the story “False” or “Mostly False.”

The story came up again recently when The Hill reported on an active case at the Department of Justice involving Russian nuclear officials, Russian donations to the Clinton Foundation, Russian corruption of the U.S. uranium market, and a coverup in the Obama Administration (including by then-FBI Director Robert Mueller, who is the man now most responsible for investigating President Trump’s Russian connections).

The Hill‘s new findings on this many-years-old story are indeed concerning. Essentially, The Hill‘s reporting implies (though does not assert) that the Obama Administration covered up a story that clearly demonstrates Russia’s attempts to manipulate various aspects of our economy and our national security. The story also implies (though does not assert) that Secretary Clinton supported Russia’s efforts in exchange for millions of dollars. It also implies (though does not assert) that the man now responsible for investigating President Trump’s alleged collusion with Russia also played a part in the coverup.

I’m not going to agree or disagree with the facts as reported by both Snopes, Politifact, or The Hill. I believe all of the articles are reported in good faith and provide the facts as they are understood by the writers of those articles.

What I want to do is try to understand the conspiracy here.

Let’s say that high-ranking officials in the Obama Administration actively colluded with Russian agents to provide access to the United States’ uranium. The facts as they’ve been reported do not support the theory that Russians have smuggled, are smuggling, or will smuggle enriched uranium out of the borders of the United States.

They do support the theory, however, that Russians have influenced and may still influence the movement of that uranium within our borders. They also support the theory that a lot of individuals, both Russian and American, received a lot of dirty money in the process. And finally, they support the theory that some of those Americans may have been high-ranking officials in the Obama Administration.

But there are a few other facts we have to deal with too.

Like the fact that high-ranking officials in the Trump campaign and the Trump Administration also received a lot of dirty money in connection with Russian agents, starting with Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, and extending to Trump’s former National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn (Ret.).

Like the fact that the Trump Campaign expressed an interest in colluding with Russian agents to take down Secretary Clinton during the election.

Like the fact that President Trump has significant financial relationships with known friends of President Putin.

Like the fact that President Trump’s Secretary of Commerce is (was?) the major stockholder of a Cyprus bank where Russian oligarchs are known to launder the money they steal from the Russian people.

Like the fact that U.S. intelligence agencies have reached a positive consensus as to whether Russian agents attempted to manipulate the 2016 presidential election in favor of Donald Trump.

Like the fact that President Trump’s continued belligerence towards North Korea, Iran, undocumented workers, and others redirects American anger away from Russia and towards virtually anyone else.

In short, there’s a lot of facts we have to consider, and those facts imply (though do not assert) wrongdoing by high-ranking officials in both the Obama and the Trump Administrations. I’m interested in the conspiracy that connects all these reported facts together.

What’s the common thread here? It’s not Left vs. Right. It’s not Democrat vs. Republican. It’s not Black vs. White or Socialist vs. Capitalist. And with Hilary involved, it’s not even Men vs. Women. It’s what then? What’s the common thread?

Oh yeah. They’re all fucking rich.

Know your enemy people. It’s not who all the rich people on TV tell you it is. It’s not Mexican farmers or Russian cab drivers or Iranian students. It’s not the peasants in North Korea or the poor people in Pakistan. It’s not the people starving through the civil war in Syria or the people surrendering to Iraqi forces in Hawija. It’s not hurricane victims in Puerto Rico or redneck loggers in Montana. It’s not the fishermen who stab the dolphins or the college students who save the whales.

It’s one thing and one thing only.

It’s the fucking rich people. And they’re all in it together.

If there’s an actual conspiracy behind all of these reported facts, any single element that ties them all together, it can only involve the rich.

Is there any doubt that President Putin, President Trump, and Secretary Clinton are all rich?

Is there any doubt that their high-ranking officials are also rich?

Is there any doubt that the individuals who control corporate media are rich? That the individuals who control the military-industrial complex are rich?

Is there any doubt that the individuals who control the pharmaceutical giants, the energy companies, or the banks are rich?

Is there any doubt that the individuals who control the text book publishers are rich or that the ministers who control the megachurches are rich?

Draw any conspiracy you want — make it look like an Oilman’s plot, a Yankee plot, an Islamist plot, a Capitalist plot, a Vatican plot, a Jewish plot, a Hollywood plot, a Monsanto plot, a Banker’s plot, a Patriarchal plot, a White Power plot — draw it any way you like, and what you’ll find is that it only and always involves the rich.

Know your enemy people. And focus your anger thusly.

I Have A Daughter

One of my Facebook friends recently posted an image that read: “What if I don’t have daughters and therefore no way of knowing that women are people? Good news, all women are people all the time, not just when assholes have daughters.”

On HuffPost, one writer criticized “a couple of celebrity men [who] put out statements or gave interviews about [Harvey Weinstein’s repeated assaults on women]…emphasizing that as fathers of daughters, they found this behavior abhorrent.”

My Facebook friend and this writer are pissed off because “men see each other as humans. And a lot of men still don’t view girls or women that way.” The “I have a daughter” trope confirms this reality because it stands as “the flip side [to] sexual assault. In both situations, a woman is an object — to grope or protect from groping.”

I get their anger. But I don’t think they’re giving the “transformative” power of having daughters enough credit (even though the HuffPo writer links to that article in her post). I don’t know if they’re fully grasping what that transformation consists of.

The goal of every feminist is to reduce the level of ignorance, to bring those who are not yet capable of it to the realization that women are people too. I’m not sure we have the right to judge the ways in which an individual is brought out of that ignorance. To do so is to put the method ahead of the result.

The HuffPo writer makes an assumption that the men who make these comments do so to protect their daughters from being groped, and in some ways, I know that they do, but couldn’t they also be making these statements because they’ve grown as human beings? Not because they want to protect their daughters, but because they want to defend the rights of everyone to live their lives free from harassment and oppression?

It is a process to bring someone out of their ignorance, and it takes generations to do it on such a massive scale, but with each parent, teacher, and celebrity brought out of their ignorance, humanity gains one more person capable of providing those who are most easily influenced with earlier and earlier opportunities to be brought out of the systemic ignorance.

I appreciate the desire to critique the “I have a daughter” trope, but it seems as if it’s being done with too much judgement, almost as if we’re screaming at someone for not getting it earlier, when maybe we ought to appreciate that, given the society they continue to live in, they ever got it at all.

People only know what other people can teach them. Let’s not forget that children are often our greatest teachers.

A Communist Sympathizer

I mentioned a few weeks ago that I’m currently teaching a class on Communism & Socialism. That crazy left-wing teacher that the Republican right seems so afraid of? Yeah, that’s me. I literally spend my days teaching high-school-age students about the ins and outs of communism (as best as I understand them).

But I’m not sure if I’m a communist. I definitely have communist sympathies, which is to say, I try to sympathize with those who are oppressed, and through my daily teaching, strive to prevent the next several generations from being as oppressive as the previous ones.

I don’t do this to make money. It’s true, I make money doing it, but like most Americans, I struggle to make the money I need to keep my creditors at bay (among whom are my employers: everyday, I owe them my lunch money, and even that debt is creeping up).

This is why I am not a capitalist: I don’t have enough money to be. In order to be a capitalist, one must spend money in order to make money. In other words, your goal must be to make money.

It’s true that money is only a method of exchange, so if one wants to engage in a specific kind of exchange with another person, one must somehow acquire money. But I’m not talking about that. What a capitalist does is engage in an exchange where the goal of the exchange is for the capitalist to end up with more money — not more goods, not more services, but more money.

The economic purpose of the capitalist, then, is to make money; unfortunately, in an economy based entirely on debt, money is always in demand. Where the economic purpose of a clockmaker is to make just as many clocks as the market demands, when it comes to money, the market only demands.

Think of the economic crisis of 2008. When all that money disappeared, where did it go? It’s not like it existed in the real world (money no longer equals gold, remember); it literally must have went poof! and disappeared, like an icon you delete off your laptop. When virtually all the capitalists say they lost their money, they were not being metaphorical: they lost it — they literally could no longer find it; their wealth on the screen kept going down, and there was nothing they could do to stop it.

So what did they do? They convinced our government to give them money for free. The government reduced the interest rate on money to zero, and let anyone who understood how to ask for it, receive it. I’m not talking about the loans Pres. Obama executed to the motor industry; roughly 90% of the money loaned out through that program has been paid back.

I’m talking about the banks who “bought money” from the government when it was being offered at zero cost, but who then turned around to the rest of the economy and sold it at significant interest and with a robberbarons’ wealth of fees attached; and when they didn’t do that, they hoarded it to themselves. As Matt Taibbi explained for Rolling Stone:

“Banks used their hundreds of billions for almost every purpose under the sun – everything, that is, but lending to the homeowners and small businesses and cities they had destroyed. And one of the most disgusting uses they found for all their billions in free government money was to help them earn even more free government money [through interest on their reserves].”

In other words, during the economic crisis of 2008, the government of the people, for the people, and by the people voluntarily, through their elected representatives, chose to power our entire economy through an increase in the weight of our debt to the banks.

Debt is a struggle, a weight on our backs. We all of us crawl hunched over, moving from experience to experience with the weight of all our bad decisions as a country on our back, our economic dependence on slavery being foremost among them, but also our continued decision to channel the majority of our energy into an aggressively postured and aggressively acting military, itself the equivalent of a scared and angry child stealing the oxygen out of a seemingly held-hostage classroom, crying out for all the world to “Look at me! Look at me! Look at me!”

We see it everywhere: the economic cost of our “independence.” We see it in the size of our student loan debt. We see it in the size of our credit card debt. We see it in our past due notices and in our healthcare debt. We see it in the increase in our incarceration rates.

Someone has to carry all of our debt. It started with slavery. While it’s true you had to be rich to own a slave, everyone who wanted to get rich had to, sooner or later, become dependent on a slave. The economic engine that drove everything was and still is slavery, oppression, and exploitation.

It’s just now, we slave for something called wages. As David Graeber explains:

“Throughout most of recorded history, the only people who actually did wage labor were slaves. It was a way of renting your slave to someone else; they got half the money, and the rest of the money went to the master. Even in the South, a lot of slaves actually worked in jobs and they just had to pay the profits to the guy who owned them. It’s only now that we think of wage labor and slavery as opposite to one another. For a lot of history, they were considered kind of variations of the same thing.”

The wages we earn today don’t release us from our debts to our masters. If we work hard enough on whatever it is they tell us to work on, we might be able to postpone our deaths for at least another week, and maybe even a few months if we’re lucky. But it’s still the same thing as slavery. We work for our masters in order to, literally, survive.

When I say “the masters,” I’m not talking about the small business owners. Those motherfuckers work as hard or harder than everyone else, and they earn every penny. Most of them carry even more debt than the rest of us, but they’re able to carry it in a different way — small business owners are not only hard workers, but they’re pretty damn good at managing a balancing act.

No, when I say “the masters,” what I’m talking about are the financial investors. The capitalists. The ones to whom the small business owners are also indebted.

This group is the bourgeoisie that the communists keep talking about, the ones who literally have no economic masters above them. These are the fuckers who make the rest of us carry them around on our backs so that their goddamned golden feet don’t have to touch the dirty, dirty ground. They are a class of human beings who just seem to be getting bigger and bigger and bigger, and who just keep stuffing themselves with more and more food, and more and more oxygen, and more and more clean water, and more, and more, and more, until finally, the weight of them is so goddamned heavy that the rest of us have no choice but to have our knees buckle with each and every step we struggle to take, knowing that at any moment, and through no real fault of our own, it could all come crashing down on us — the entire system just too fucking big for anyone living under it to survive.

That’s what the communists are talking about. They’re trying to get everyone to realize that all of that weight — all of it, the entire weight of our history — has found its apotheosis in the capitalist.

Apotheosis literally means the turning into of a god, as in, the process of deification, the making of a deity.

The communists are trying to show us that all of human history — all of the wealth that has ever been created from the time before we were cave men until now — has been created through an act of oppression; our history begins — and it will end — on the question of oppression: who oppresses who, how long will the oppressed be able to take it, and what will be the manner of its revolution (how and when will all of those oppressed people turn the tables on their oppressors).

The communists imagine that there must be a better way to survive. They mean this on both an individual and an international level.

There must be a better way to survive the daily struggles of human experience, a way where the struggle at least seems more worthwhile, a way where all of us can be as creative as we’re able without worrying about whether we can put food on our plates or roofs over our heads.

And goodness knows that there has to be a better way to survive internationally than simply waving our nuclear-missile dicks in everyone’s faces, telling them that if they don’t contribute to an International Monetary Fund that only our best friends have access to, then there’s a damn good chance we’re gonna shove our bullets and bombs down their throats.

From what I’ve been able to gather in my limited readings, Marx wasn’t a communist in the sense that he gave us a clear vision of what communism would look like; he was a communist in the sense that he wanted something better for humanity than what he had found.

He saw the system for what it actually was (and what it continues to be). He didn’t blame anything on God. He looked at what humanity had wrought over its time on Earth, and he judged it not worthy of us. He saw in us something better, something grander, something worth more than the relentless pursuit of money, driven by a minority of masters riding on the backs of a majority of slaves, every clean dollar acquired at the top spit out brown and nasty from below, leaving in our wake a cesspool of dirty money.

When humanity is gone, Marx asked us, what will we have left behind? What will be materially different thanks to us?

Where capitalists have made an idol of money, communists make humanity their golden god. They don’t want humanity’s story to be dictated by the production of money; they want it to be dictated by the goal of improving humanity, both in a material and in a moral sense.

Communists look at the problems facing the Earth right now and acknowledge that humanity is overcrowding the rest of the Earth’s population, and they see in that a form of oppression: humanity’s oppression of the rest of Earth’s creatures. This is what leads them to the legalization of birth control, and eventually, to strict regulations on the possible number of births. This is not radical; it’s the basic reality of whatever future humanity wishes to exist in. The only question is, what is the acceptable limit? Unfortunately, if we go over a certain point, the Earth will no longer negotiate with us, and it will rain down a hellfire the likes of which we can only read about in our Bibles.

But regulating the number of births does not mean abolishing them altogether. It means respecting life in all its forms, and only wishing for it to continue (the question as to where life begins, of course, being among the most tricky of the ones still facing us).

This is not harsh ideology. It’s basic math. We can quibble over the methods we use to get from the problem to the solution, but the solution will always remain the same: we have to control the rate of our births. The Earth is a finite resource, measured in soil, water, and oxygen, so we have to limit the number of people putting pressure on that resource.

Okay, the communists say, so we reduce and/or abolish the ways in which we oppress the other creatures on planet Earth. Then what?

The answer is to reduce the incarceration rate. Those who finds themselves inside of a prison are often there through no real fault of their own. Something within the existing system failed them. Because they do not actually belong in  a prison, we ought to re-imagine the system that placed them there.

I’m not talking about jails right now. While we absolutely have to reduce the incarceration rates of our people — jails are the toilet bowls of our current economic system, filled with dark bodies that just spin around and around and around until they finally disappear — I’m not talking about that right now.

What I’m talking about is an entire system that depends on the oppression of a majority by the strength and weight of an ever-increasing and ever-more oppressive minority, where the majority is made up of those of us struggle to survive on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis, and the minority are the rich men who just won’t ever seem to go away and who are constantly poking at us through the tiny little holes we leave open in our front doors, and who are calling us up at all times of the day and night to harrass us, and who sing to us on the stage of our living rooms about the lives we could be leading if we were only someone else, somewhere else, with someone else, a dream they’re willing to sell us a simulacrum of for the low, low price of a never-ending series of easy monthly installments, a simulacrum that can only be created through a series of exchanges that ultimately end in someone else’s oppression (e.g.), someone other than, but no different from, you.

How do you reduce the incarceration rates? It’s simple. You provide adequate education and healthcare, and you treat every social ill as a disease that can only be cured with better education and better healthcare. You ensure healthcare includes concepts for both birth control and mental health, and you ensure that educators act as an early warning defense system, giving them the training they actually need to do their jobs well and the microphone to sound the alarm whenever it seems an individual’s humanity is at risk. You create a nimble and effective task force that is both large enough and supported enough to address each individual case as it arises, and you address it with wraparound measures that work to support the individual at home, in school, and eventually into whatever style of meanginful life they are capable of both creating and enjoying on their own. You look at abuse as a systemic issue and not as a moral one. You stop it when it happens, and you offer to help everyone involved, including the abuser, who (after all) is almost always a victim of abuse, the prevelance of which is symptomatic of the system, which is itself based entirely on the ever-present and ever-growing weight of the rich men’s continuous abuse of the rest of us.

If the vast majority of incarcerated individuals are victims of a systematic abuse that stretches back in their family tree for generations and generations, where every person’s father and/or mother and/or guardian was not only an abuser but also the victim of abuse, an individual who received from a very young age the historic blows of whatever representative of humanity happened to be in charge of them and who had pounded into them from the start a low sense of human worth, often by a family member but always, at the end of the chain, by their economic master — if such a vast majority of those people end up incarcerated in the prison of their own sociopathic ignorance, then wouldn’t it make sense to invest our energy in eradicating the channels through which abuse continues to be generated, the ultimate source of which can be traced back to the minority’s oppressive need for the majority to live in debt, usury being the world’s most lucrative form of abuse?

I don’t know if I am communist, but it seems to me that Marx’s interpretation of all the ills of society finding their ultimate origin in humanity’s economic dependence on slavery and oppression is correct. It’s the origin of our healthcare crisis, our education crisis, the crises within our families, and the crises that effect us on an international level.

The entire system requires us to live our lives with our backs broken by the weight of humanity’s debts, but until we recognize that those debts are held not by a God or by ancestor, but by a living and active class of capitalists whose desire to rape and pillage the Earth and all of its inhabitants seems to know no bounds, until we recognize that they are the actual, material cause of all of our troubles, then we will never be able to find the solution.

On Faith

A friend of mine (the same friend as before, for those of you keeping track) publishes a regular column in our regional newspaper called “On Faith.” He knows that, as someone writing for Vermonters, many in his audience, at the very least, doubt the existence of God, so instead of writing from a place of faith, he writes from a place of reason (such as it is).

His columns are not sermons; they do not enrich his reader’s experience of faith. Instead, they seem intended to convince the unconvinced using the enlightenment languages of logic, evidence, and numbers.

In one article, he used data published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal to argue that a global prejudice against atheists demonstrates an objective understanding arrived at by the human species — just as most of humanity can agree that the world is round, so does most of humanity agree that atheism is wrong. His argument deeply misconstrued the ethical principles motivating the scientists’ analysis of the data, but that’s neither here nor there at the moment.

In another article, he highlighted “a major process-execution problem for the neo-Darwinian model” of the origin of life, arguing that while the young-Earth creationism espoused by fundamentalist Christians is obviously hokum, the idea that life evolved at random is also seriously doubted by current science. Referring to the findings of physicists over the past 25 years, he explains that “the odds against [the highly sophisticated language code employed in DNA] happening by accident are so high that the probability of unguided occurrence is zero, even with a stretch of time of trillions of years.” Seeing this as a reason for legitimate doubt, he wonders if the evolutionary origin of life should maybe not be taught in schools, not because the scientists are wrong, but because  the scientists are right: we don’t, in fact, have a standard model for the origin of life. He thinks to teach our students otherwise is to do them, science, and society a disservice. He has an interesting point, but at least one scientist would argue that my friend’s understanding of the maths involved are “naive”.

I don’t want to argue with my friend at the moment though. Instead, I want to ask why he seems to feel the need to convince me and his other readers to place our faith in God.

My friends seems genuinely bothered by the idea that atheists  don’t share his need to have faith in God. It’s as if he imagines that, as an atheist, I experience a great lack in my life, and that this lack can only be filled by God. But I don’t experience that lack. Instead, I feel what amounts to life’s joyful exuberance (an exuberance that makes itself manifest in this overabundance of words).

My friend’s favorite author is Samuel Beckett (talk about someone who had an overabundance of words!). I love Beckett too (thanks, in part, to this friend), but Beckett wasn’t always right. Yes, life can be a darkly comic tragedy, but one doesn’t have to spend one’s life waiting for the arrival of an absent (and possibly non-existent) God. One can also, with Tom Robbins and Robert Anton Wilson, experience the free-wheeling tilt-a-whirl of life, that ever-spinning chaos whose name we’ve come to know as freedom. Life need not be an unnamed disease, something to be suffered in the silence of our solitary confinement; it can also be art and poetry and love, and the bountiful experience of a graceful dance. As John Coltrane showed us, chaos need not be called chaos; it can also be called music.

My friend seems to believe that atheism needs to be a dark and angry thing. But my atheism did not drag itself through the ashes of World War II, nor does it demand in a self-righteous tone that religion atone for its sins. My atheism is joyful and compassionate. It understands that life is tough and that all of us find our own strategies to deal with it. While some turn to the Heavens, others turn to poetry; while some turn to opiates, others turn to gun-wielding slaughter. My atheism does not judge.

In that, my atheism shares a fundamental principle with most religions: thou shalt not judge. The only difference is that, at the end of the day, I don’t think anyone shall be judged. And my atheism is okay with that.

How can I say that though, given the most recent massacre in Las Vegas? How can I not judge the shooter as a contemptible evil and damn him with all of my power to experience the torments of Hell?

My atheism doesn’t give me the comfort of that. It forces me to sit with the reality that one of my own committed this atrocious act. It compels me to admit that every single one of us is capable of this, and that maybe it’s only the thinnest veneer of civilization (including that aspect of civilization made manifest in organized religions) that prevents us from acting on our vilest impulses. I have to stare that realization in the face and acknowledge its truth. And then I have to be okay with that.

My faith gives me the strength to do that, faith not in an ever-present and all-powerful God, but faith in one thing and one thing only: you.

I have faith that you — yes, you…not someone else, but you — will not kill me today (and God ain’t got nothing to do with it). You don’t need to have faith in God not to kill me, and you don’t need to not have faith in God not to kill me. All you need is to stay your hand.

My friend writes on topics of faith because he wants to convince the unconvinced that the Catholic understanding of God is right and true. I understand the impulse and choose to see it in a charitable light, namely, that this is the method of his calling.

But I write on topics of faith because I want you to understand and experience the rich, inner life of my atheism. I am not trying to convince you or anyone else that I am right. I am only trying to get you to see me.

His method results in argument. My method, I hope, results in love.

Take A Knee

When I played football as a young lad, anytime our coaches wanted to have a serious talk with us, they would say, “Take a knee.” If we leaned too far back on our ankles or if we sat down on our butts, they’d give us a look to let us know we needed to straighten our backs and give them our full, respectful attention.

Today, I’d like to ask you to take a knee.

As pretty much everybody knows by now, there’s quite the controversy going on around the decision of dozens of professional athletes to take a knee during the playing of the national anthem. They are following the lead of Colin Kaepernick, a former quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers, who explained in a statement to the NFL that he “would not stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

He made the decision in August 2016 and followed through on his promise throughout the rest of the year. Each week, more and more athletes followed his lead, with the story seeming to come to a head this weekend when President Trump decided to weigh in on the controversy, saying during a political rally that NFL owners whose players disrespect the flag should “get that son of a bitch off the field right now; he’s fired!” Trump followed his statement with a series of tweets attacking the players for “disrespect[ing] our Great American Flag (or Country).”

In response, almost the entire NFL demonstrated their support for Kaepernick and the other kneeling players in a variety of ways. One team stayed in the locker room during the anthem; others locked arms to show their solidarity against Trump’s attacks; and still others kneeled for the first time. Owners from around the league, as well as the Commissioner of the NFL, put out statements supporting the players’ right to demonstrate during the anthem.

But in all of the controversy, several things seem to have been lost.

First, we must note that while Kaepernick began the protest movement by sitting on the bench during the anthem, he and the others who had joined him shifted their demonstration from sitting to kneeling. One of the players, Eric Reid, explained that, “after hours of careful consideration, and even a visit from Nate Boyer, a retired Green Beret and former N.F.L. player, we came to the conclusion that we should kneel, rather than sit…because [kneeling] is a respectful gesture. I remember thinking our posture was like a flag flown at half-mast to mark a tragedy.”

The form of their protest — kneeling during the playing of the national anthem — is meant to convey two things: respect for those who have defended our country and condemnation for a system that oppresses people of color.

Yet, the controversy that has erupted from their demonstration is not about whether America does or does not oppress people of color. Instead, it’s about what some people see as the athletes’ disrespect for the flag.

The critics are not angry because of the players’ disrespect for the cloth, but because they see the demonstrations as disrespect for the values they believe the cloth represents. As one commentator wrote on Facebook, “That flag stands for FREEDOM!” Another wrote on Fox News that the flag is “an eternal reminder of how blessed we are to be Americans.” When Kaepernick and the others take a knee in front of the flag, these commentators and others see the players as disrespecting the very idea of freedom and the very concept of America.

What’s more, they see it as disrespect for the men and women who have fought for the country, the service members who volunteered  to defend  the values they believe the country represents. According to these critics, when the athletes refuse to stand for the anthem, they are disrespecting the memory of those fine men and women.

If all that were true, their anger would be as righteous as they believe it is.

But the fact that the players actively sought out the advice of a veteran before conducting the demonstrations shows how incorrect that interpretation is, as does the fact that thousands of veterans across the country have come out in support of the athletes’ efforts.

The entire demonstration has nothing to do with the flag or the anthem or the veterans, and allowing it to be reframed that way is to allow oneself to be manipulated by those who benefit from dividing the people of this great country.

This is not a “love it or leave it” situation. As the great James Baldwin once wrote, “I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually.”

The message of those athletes who are kneeling is that America is “a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”

You can agree or disagree with that assertion. You can discuss it with your family, friends, and colleagues. You can keep an open mind and research it on the Internet. But what you shouldn’t do is allow the media to manipulate you into ignoring it.

It’s not about the flag. It’s not about the knee. It’s only ever been about our need to reflect on the state of our society. The powers that be don’t want you to think about that. Don’t be foolish enough to fall for it.

A Version of a Speech I Need to Give My Students Tomorrow

Okay guys, I’m floundering. I need your help.

About the only thing I know about this class is its frickin’ title: How to Combat Online Bullshit. When I came up with it, I had a whole idea about learning all about fake news — how it’s created, how it spreads, what kind of effects it can have — and then teaching you how to combat it.

The problem is, I don’t know if you care about fake news. I want you to feel a sense of righteous indignation toward it, but at least two of you don’t. I don’t really understand why, because my own righteous indignation is so close to the surface.

I make my living trying to get young people to understand and examine certain truths about the world, not truths that I necessarily have access to, but truths that I have received. One of those truths is that democracy is good; another is that democracy is hard; and another is that an enlightened electorate is the only weapon capable of of defending it. If that weapon gets any weaker, then the great experiment that is America will come to an ignoble end.

You two, the ones who are throwing me for a loop in this class, you two are still two or three years away from joining the electorate. But me and him, we’re already there.

And both of us are telling you that the information you find on the Internet is often completely fake, regardless of how real it may sound. I suspect (I hope) you already believe that, but I’m not entirely sure you understand the ramifications of it.

There’s something else I’m not sure about: I don’t know how much you read, or if you do, what kinds of things you might read.

When I conceived of this class, I made (and continue to make) an awful lot of assumptions about you, and I realize now that one of them is that you care (at least somewhat) about some of the events that are taking place beyond your own lives. That may have been a mistake.

Some basic knowledge of current events is necessary if I’m to rile up that righteous indignation I assumed you would already have. But if you don’t have this basic knowledge — if you don’t at least somewhat depend on the news to guide your understanding of reality — then you have no context from which to draw your anger from; you simply have no idea that we are currently being attack by an onslaught of verifiably intentionally-fake news.

Which means we need to go back to step one.

The purpose of a high-school education is, primarily, to prepare the future citizens of this country to continue the great experiment that we call democracy. Anything you learn above and beyond that in high school is just gravy.

But the key ingredient to democracy is, again, an enlightened electorate. And in order to cultivate that, I need you to become critical of everything you read, hear, and watch — I need you to become critical of media.

Because that’s where the battle is being fought now. It’s where democracy is currently being attacked. This is not hyperbole. This shit is actually going on.

Russia, that great enemy of my childhood, is literally attacking our country, and almost everyone has a reasonable suspicion that Russia may have even compromised the Chief Executive of our government, a possibility that is being diligently investigated by an incredibly powerful — and by all accounts, highly ethical — civil attorney, as well as by some of the more patriotic members of Congress. Reality is now literally a bad 80s movie that has been reboot for the 21st century, where the writers have replaced nuclear bombs with information bombs.

I shit you not.

My question to you is, “What character do you want to play in that movie?” Do you want to be someone shoveling your own shit in the background, or do you want to be someone driving the enemy all the way back to its capitol?

In the 21st century, heroes may not jump out of helicopters; they may work quietly and furiously on a laptop; but the dangers are just as real. The same menacing villain, a former high-ranking officer in the menacing KGB, is directing the same group of menacing bastards to train their sights on America. Behind it all stands a shadowy group of menacing rich bastards, luxuriating in the arrogance of their wealth, while in front of it all, the same innocent victims fall prey.

It’s up to somebody to stop them. Why shouldn’t that someone be you?

If it’s not, that means you’ve opted to become just another victim, and that  means America’s great experiment in democracy has failed.

I’ll say it again. Our democracy is really and truly under attack — not by some shadow terrorist, but by another sovereign nation whose military may not be as evolved as ours, but whose ability to engage in information warfare seems to be operating on a completely different level.

You’re both going to be 18 soon, which means, first, you’ll be eligible to participate in our democracy, and second, that you’ll be eligible to fight for it.

I want to teach you what the fight is actually about, and then teach you to defend yourself and throw a punch. I have the skills to do that.

But first, you have to show me what you know.