The hypocrisy of intolerance.

Recently, I've had the pleasure of being more introspective about the goings on in the United States. Specifically, the Chick-Fil-A crisis and the incensed atmosphere it engendered. For those of you who were living under a rock, or dealing with your own tragedies, here's a cursory review:

Dan Cathy, CEO of Chick-Fil-A, made a statement about his company supporting the "Biblical definition of Marriage." The mainstream media (MSM) declared that by default, CFA must not support Marriage Equality. The ME movement announced a boycott of the facility. The people then filed in with their respective ideological camps and the fight began. Good Ol' Mike Huckabee declared a day of support for CFA, in which good, God-fearing Christians should show up at their local CFA and have lunch. The Equality camp staged a "Kiss in," for gay couples to commit some PDA's, and then to support Starbucks. The arguments began. For the conservatives, it was right back to the archaic "stop persecuting our beliefs" line that quickly became tired. The liberals lashed out, characterizing Dan Cathy as an intolerant bigot and so was his company.

That was the firestorm that has raged across the country in the last couple weeks, and it stirred the debate when Liberals were being lambasted as hypocrites for courting tolerance of their views while being intolerant of others'.

1. What does this all mean?
2. Is it really hypocritical to clamor for tolerance and condemn other perspectives?
3. What does a boycott do for a company?
4. Is Dan Cathy truly a bigot?

1. To me, it means that there's a lot of hatred in the world and it resides in both camps. Let me give a little information about myself. I come from a family that proudly represents its community, gay and straight. I myself have taken part in demonstrations opposed to those that were actively working to restrict the freedoms of gay people, some of which are members of my family. I see myself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. So, yes, this is going to be opinionated.

2. If I support a position that is crucial to me, and someone else supports the opposite position on the issue, declaring my intolerance for that person is missing the mark. If two people can't agree to disagree on a subject, the argument has already gone too far. But let's take it beyond mere ideology.

Suppose that you support a pacifist stance. You do not like weapons or fighting or war at all. But you really like that restaurant down the street. And you suddenly find out that restaurant has been donating money to charities that invest in industries that build weapons and ships them to nations that plan to use them, for whatever purpose. How would you feel about continuing to eat there?

I would stop. But beyond that, I would also take up the burden of informing those I feel to be like-minded on the issue of war about it. I would hope that, by informing them, they would do as I have done and stop frequenting that establishment as well.

Technically, it is what the Equality movement did. Dan Cathy's statements were just the latest salvo in understanding the struggle that has been going on for a couple years. If you didn't click the link, you missed the discovery that CFA has donated money to its charity branch, WinShare, which in turn donates millions of dollars a year to groups that actively work to ban gay marriage.

It sounds like a lot of work. Going to all that trouble just to make sure that gay people can't be as miserable as us straight, wedded folk. (That reminds me, I have to make dinner before the missus gets home and make sure the massage table is ready. She's had a hard day. Like she does everyday. Wait a minute...)

3. Boycotts can work when they target the source of a controversy. However, doing so disrupts the local economy in the sense that local workers depending on the pay of said boycotted establishment will find themselves working fewer hours. Boycotting a large establishment hurts many local workers. If other businesses sympathetic to the boycott, and of a virtuous nature, open their doors to the struggling former-employees, then it might mean something. If customers migrated their business to local markets, in which they knew and trusted and the individuals working there, then local matters would take precedent on the national scene and electing a president would amount to deciding who would represent our interests abroad. Imagine being able to wake up in a place that wasn't just a house, but a home and a community in which its citizens pulled together at all times, not just when terrorists slam aircraft into buildings.

4. Is Dan Cathy a bigot? According to Mirriam Webster, bigotry is defined as "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially: one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance." Yes, that was copied an pasted. But this definition would seem to define a lot of people I know and cherish, including myself. There are movements for which I might call myself bigoted - My fervent devotion to valuing education and public awareness over apathy and distraction is quite passionate. But I suppose the active word there is 'intolerantly.' Seeing that CFA stopped donating money to those charities in light of the protests over them, it may seem that Cathy isn't as intolerant of opposing positions as thought. Is there anything you would be intolerant to accept? Gays marrying, a one world government, lifetime abstinence, or infidelity? Then, congratulations, you have a bigoted opinion toward individuals who might engage in pursuing such practices. But I won't hold it against you. I hope the same can be said of you.

Cheers,
Admiral Jay

Ascendio!

I've been thinking about it for a long time and I think everybody's ready for a dose of real, homegrown, disgruntled American citizen reality:

Damn are we ever in a tight spot.


For close to 200 years, the United States set the example for empire building. Right at the beginning, we flipped England the bird and fought for the chance to do it our way, right away. We tripled our territory in less than a hundred years after that. We flipped England the bird again in 1812 while the White House was burning and then did it to 500,000 of our fathers and brothers 50 years later. At the dawn of the 20th century, we were setting ourselves up to be what many consider us today: The big bully holding all the guns and forcing dissenters to embrace freedom. In the Great War (World War I) we came in late, emerging from an overlong period of dealing with the fallout from the Civil War, and cleaned up a raging European battle in a single year. We lost more people to the flu than we did to combat. 23 years later, we were compelled into another conflict by a devastatingly bold attack on our sovereignty in the Pacific theater: Pearl Harbor. World War II marked the second highest American death toll in combat ever.

But something happened after that. Things got worse.


In the 50's we got involved in Korea and in the 60's Vietnam. Sometime in the 70's, we became focused on the Middle East and we haven't stopped fussing about it since. Maybe somebody put out a report that American oil reserves were lower than previously realized, which led to rapid inflation of gas prices and consumer outcry. Fertile petroleum deposits were available in the ME, and we began a campaign to secure them. All kinds of weird things happened over there in the eighties: the Iran Contra Affair, American CIA training Al Qaida operatives to counter the Russian incursion in Afghanistan, Desert Storm. Suddenly in the 90's we were up in arms about Rwanda and Kosovo, but the 2001 attacks on American soil got our attention again and we have since been engaged in continuous military efforts to democratize the region and eliminate criminal insurgents.

And now Iran is in the picture. Again.


Before I continue, let me explain a few personal things. Firstly, I refuse to refer to Al Qaida as a 'terrorist' organization. It's a misnomer designed to freak people out. Terror-this, terror-that. The word has lost almost all of it's meaning. The leadership here will certainly find a new word in the next decade to describe the same things. Terrorism is the use of violence against non-combatants to inspire fear within a region. plain and simple. So, Al Qaida has many terrorist tactics, but don't we all? Playground bullies beat up children so the other kids on the playground keep their distance and acquiesce to their whims. Parents tell their kids to eat there vegetables or the won't get any desert. The American upbringing is an acclimation of terrorist and extortionist policies. No wonder we have so many mental disorders and the highest ratio of inmates in our prisons per capita.

Secondly, I completely and wholly understand that while I may not be wholly aware of the impact the American colonization had on the indigenous populations of native tribal peoples, I want to try my best to sympathize with my readers. I acknowledge the empire-building on this continent has had a tragic and jaw-dropping impact on their culture, history, and genetics. I myself claim blood from three separate tribes. Sometimes I like to think that Columbus had failed to survive the trip or that the natives hadn't listened to tribal leaders that told them not to attack European regimes. But this post focuses on the American lifestyle and interventionist policies in the world today. If I get enough feedback about how poorly I portray the treatment of the First Nations, I'll go into what Andrew Jackson really did. But that's later.

So, terrorism. The use of violence against non-combatants, which is another term for civilians. Michael Walzer responded to a reply to his 2002 essay titled "After 9/11: Five Questions About Terrorism" that
"(t)here is also state terrorism, commonly used by authoritarian and totalitarian governments against their own people, to spread fear and make political opposition impossible[.]"


Occupy Wall Street, anyone?


There's a movement in the United States, seen or not seen but definitely intentional, to reduce opposition and create confusion, misdirection, and spread stupidity. It's a collusion between our representatives in Congress, the media, and corporations.

They want us dumb and submissive.


Welcome to the New Democratic Fascist Republic.


[If you happen to see a few white bars above, just highlight and scroll over them. Methinks I'm being censored somehow...]