Author: mrboma

I originally posted this diary with a different intro on the Daily Kos a few months ago. As I introduce myself to this community, I thought a good way for people to get to know a little about me would be to repost a few diaries I am proud of. This one seemed pertinent given the recent uproar over Cookie Monster going healthy and the info that has come out this month about the chair of the CPB being a partisan wing-nut hack (see Media Matters).

I have spoken to many people lately about how we should define and spread our liberal values, especially in the face of the right wing controlled media. How do we teach our values to the next generation, while those values are under fire? As with anything, you have to start young. A great resource already exists that is helping us in spreading our values not only here in America, but across the globe:

The longest street in the world:

We all know the right is targeting children’s shows and characters — an effort spearheaded by James Dobson’s Focus on the Family. SpongeBob has gotten the most attention, but he is certainly not the only one. Education Secretary Margaret Spelling recently prevented PBS from showing an episode of the children’s show Postcards from Buster in which the cartoon rabbit Buster visits two farms run by lesbian couples, even though the show never mentions the sexuality of the women. Nor was SpongeBob the only character attacked by Dobson for the “We are Family” video. That video included Big Bird and others.

This attack on children’s characters is part of the “Culture Wars” the right has begun against liberal values. I know there are those here who don’t believe there are culture wars underway, but those on the other side certainly do. I have a wacko, over-the-top religious brother who refused to come to my wedding because it wasn’t in a Catholic Church performed by a Catholic priest. He didn’t want to set a bad example for his kids by “celebrating a blasphemous union.” Around Christmas time, he sent out one of those “Year in Review” letters that some people are so fond of sending. In it, he talked about his ongoing struggle to raise his kids in the midst of the culture wars — yes, he actually used the phrase “the culture wars”. Included with the letter was a list by each of his children of the top 10 things he or she was greatful for in 2004. All 7 included Bush winning the election because of his values. The youngest, a 4 year old, had it as #2 on her list. “My God,” I thought to myself, “even the 4 year old is totally brainwashed.” He and his wife homeschool the kids to keep them away from “bad influences”. The only movies the children are allowed to see are religiously themed movies like the Veggie Tales or The Passion of the Christ (which also made it onto most of the kids’ lists). They aren’t allowed to watch but a select few TV programs. Sesame Street is not one of them.

Why? What is so dangerous about Sesame Street?

Read the caption below the Ernie and Bert pic. Sesame Street is a tool for political and social change? Yes. But not by promoting gay marriage. Anyone who has actually seen Sesame Street knows Ernie and Bert are not gay. They are actually the Odd Couple, in Muppet form. One is a shoot from the hip slob, the other is anal retentive and very proper. In spite of their differences, they have a respectful, loving friendship. Ernie and Bert are being twisted. They are an easy target simply because they live together. But if they weren’t on Sesame Street, the right would still be going after the program because it is chock full of liberal values.

What Liberal Values?

This is why the right is after children’s characters: they fear characters that are teaching the next generation liberal values. Respect for differences, diversity, community, a sense of global citizenship, these are dangerous ideas when your goal is perpetual warfare.  You need a citizenry in fear to get people to surrender their rights and vote against their own best interests. You need an enemy to rally people and get them to sacrifice their children to the government military machine.

Those are also dangerous ideas if you want global economic dominance. You need servile people around the globe so our corporations can take advantage of them. But, as the above quote (from a Sesame Workshop fundraising letter) suggests, Sesame Street doesn’t just promote those liberal values to children here in the United States. Sesame Workshop (formerly the Children’s Television Workshop) works with educators and filmmakers in more than 20 countries to create regional versions of the Street and other programs. The regional shows are tailored to meet the needs of the children in each area and take into account the history and culture of the region. The shows not only teach basic skills, but are designed to foster cross-cultural understanding and respect. The Workshop’s programs are seen in over 120 countries.

The fundraising letter highlights some of the great lessons Sesame Street is trying to bring to the rest of the world:

 In Egypt, where female literacy is very low, a four year old female Muppet named Khokha has a passion for learning which shows girls that education is not just for boys.

 In South Africa, the Workshop uses TV, radio, and outreach materials to reach remote urban and rural areas to teach basic skills that the children would not be learning otherwise. The program also features a 5 year old girl Muppet named Kami, who is HIV-Positive, and teaches age-appropriate lessons about HIV/AIDS.

 In Macedonia, the Workshop has targeted pre-teens with a dramatic series called Nashe Maalo (Our Neighborhood) that teaches tolerance and understanding between Albanian, Macedonian, Roma, and Turkish children and teens.

Sesame Workshop is now working on new projects in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Bangladesh, and Northern Ireland, all areas where ethnic, religious, or political conflict and violence has interrupted education and warped people’s shared sense of humanity.

There are those magic words: “more peaceful.” Want to win the war on terror? Instill liberal values in everyone; promote a sense of common humanity and global citizenship. Want to spread freedom and democracy? Spread the ideas of equality and respect for differences. Democracy is government by the people, so the people must be assured that they have the same value no matter what their station in society, no matter what the language they speak, the religion they practice, or the color of their skin (or fur if you’re a Muppet). These are the same reasons that the right attacks the UN: it promotes common humanity and global citizenship, which run counter to the neocon desire for US hegemony.

In a time when our government talks about freedom and democracy while engaging in illegal wars and bombing civilians to oblivion, Sesame Street is perhaps our best ambassador to the rest of the world. Since our administration wont spread real American values through a sane foreign policy, I am glad we have an organization like the Sesame Workshop that does.

While some may take issue with me suggesting we support a TV program, I think it is one of the best investments we can make. Some may say TV is used for nothing but selling, turning us all into consumers. TV hypnotizes us, turns us into zombies. Most of us probably watch more TV than we want, and allow our children to watch more than they should. So why shouldn’t our kids watch shows promoting liberal values? As a special education teacher, I can attest that TV is a very powerful tool for teaching children, perhaps because it is so hypnotizing. If our kids are going to want toys and dolls of characters they are familiar with, why shouldn’t they be characters that represent liberal values?

Ultimately, you say, parents teach their children values. But why, then, do we all rail against the RWCM? Because the media can be a very powerful tool for teaching or indoctrinating. Why does my brother homeschool his kids and monitor their TV viewing so closely? Because a parent is not the only input a child receives.  If a parent teaches a child one thing, but the world contradicts it, that can undermine the lesson or confuse the child. If parents can have their values echoed through the entertainment their child watches, it reinforces the lesson and lets the child know the parent is teaching them the truth. Sesame Street gives us that reinforcement in the MSM.

You can bet the Freepers know it, too:

(on a side note, look at the posters’ sigs… frightening!)

Why are we all drawn to liberal blogs, and why do so many of us listen to Air America? Because finding likeminded others gives us comfort; it reinforces our values and lets us know we are part of a community. Humans are social creatures by nature, after all; we long to belong. We want the world to confirm our beliefs and let us know we are normal, let us know we belong. Sesame Street lets our kids know that others share our values.

The fundraising letter states that production in some places (like the U.S.) is sustainable through merchandise sales, so look for Muppet merchandise with the Sesame Workshop logo (Sesame Workshop is a non-profit, but profit from Muppet merchandise without the Workshop logo will go to the for-profit Jim Henson Company). To maintain production in the poorest places, where the show may do the most good, the Workshop relies on contributions. Unfortunately, both government funding and corporate contributions are down, and the Workshop has turned to the general public for donations for the first time.

If you are interested in donating to Sesame Workshop, click here.

Full Disclosure: I am not now, nor have I ever been, affiliated with Sesame Workshop (I can do several Muppet voices, though).

I originally posted this over a Daily Kos and it died what I consider an all too quick death (hubris, perhaps?). As I introduce myself to this community, I thought that reposting a couple of diaries I am proud of would be a good way to let people here know a little about me.

This is a work in progress. I would be quite interested in hearing what you think. Let me know if I have any glaring errors. This is a historical primer, and not meant to reveal any new strategies or anything.

We on the left often use phrases like Social Darwinism to describe the right and Enlightenment to describe our own positions. The truth is, both left and right philosophies spring from the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was not all peace, love, and equality. In fact, ideas now commonly called Social Darwinism are actually Enlightenment ideas, reclassified as Darwinism by people trying to dress the ideas in scientific garb. Our own values grew from the Enlightenment into what might best be classified as Modern Humanism.

To trace the divergent paths of Enlightenment philosophies, read across the bump:
The Enlightenment was a time of pre-scientific focus on nature. Enlightenment thinkers looked to nature, rather than the Bible or religion, for ideas on the meaning and nature of life. It is out of the Enlightenment focus on nature that the scientific revolution sprung, but the Enlightenment itself was not scientific and retained many pre-scientific prejudices. Enlightenment thought followed two different paths, one which lead to the left and the optimistic belief in human abilities and equality, and one which lead to the right and a belief in a natural hierarchy within and between human societies.

Contrary to what Social Darwinists think, Darwin and science do not validate the right’s ideas of social structure, but rather elucidate why these ideas are wrong. That is why the right has found such a comfortable synergy with fundamentalist religion: because they both deny science. How ironic that the right has taken ideas that originated as a denial of God, and married them with religion.

Darwin has gotten much credit for things he did not do. Evolution, for instance, was not his idea, but can be traced back to ancient times in one form or another. Darwin only came up with the mechanism of natural selection, which he adapted from the works of social economists. He knew nothing of the patterns of inheritance, which Gregor Mendel first studied, and neither Mendel nor Darwin knew anything about DNA. Likewise, Darwin had nothing to do with the theories supporting bigotry, except that those theories were greatly boosted by the general and scientific acceptance of Darwinian natural selection, which was then misapplied to society.

Social Darwinism isn’t really Darwinism. The idea that the poor were unfit, and the phrase “survival of the fittest” actually predate Darwin’s publication of “On the Origin of Species” (1859). They are ideas from Enlightenment social economists. These economists’ social ideas inspired Darwin’s biological ideas, and not the other way around.

 From the Literary Encyclopedia:

Now who does that sound like? Republicans! 60+ years before Darwin published we have an almost perfect enunciation of the modern Republican philosophy. But the story goes on:

In America, early slaveholders often argued that Africans were not even human. Later slaveholders argued that slavery was the natural place for Africans in our society, where they would be the happiest and contribute the most. Even Enlightenment luminaries like Thomas Jefferson, who promoted the equality of man, thought this way (see my comment below for more on Jefferson’s attitude towards blacks). When they said man, they meant only white men. But, they made these arguments without benefit of a scientific theory on which to hang their hat.

Social economist Herbert Spencer is often credited with coining the phrase “survival of the fittest.” He published “Progress: Its Law and Causes” in 1857, just 2 years before Darwin (and Alfred Russell Wallace, lets not forget the Co-theorist) published “On the Origin of Species”. Spencer was a hugely vocal supporter of Darwin, because Spencer felt Darwinian natural selection could be used to support his own theories. Spencer believed that society was evolving toward increasing freedom for individuals, and so held that government intervention ought to be minimal in social and political life. He also felt that classes developed as a result of natural differentiation — that is, biologically superior people were more successful in society. He wrote in “Progress”:

So, while bigotry was not new, nor the argument that social class was a reflection of some natural order, the misapplication of Darwinian natural selection gave this bigotry the weight of science. Thus, the generally accepted term for the pseudo-science supporting bigotry is “Social Darwinism” not because Darwin came up with it or supported it, but because others relied on Darwinian thought to try and give their theories legitimacy.

Just look at the alternate title of “On the Origin of Species”: “The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” Darwin meant “races” in a biological sense, meaning something akin to subspecies or breed, but it didn’t stop people from applying it to human races (which are not even close to being distinct subspecies). Think of a Chihuahua versus a Saint Bernard for an example of what Darwin meant by “races”. They are both the same species, but far more different than a European is from an Asian or African. And this is where we see another irony: the Repubs reject evolution, thereby rejecting natural selection, yet they believe theories like The Bell Curve that purport to rely on Darwinian principals.

As I have stated previously, those theories misapply Darwinian and scientific knowledge. First, there is a huge difference in what Darwin meant by “fitness” and what Social Darwinists mean. For Darwin, the only important element of fitness is having offspring who have offspring who have offspring, thereby propagating an individual’s traits. In Social Darwinism, fitness typically means acquisition and control of resources. Ironically, those who expend their energy acquiring and controlling the most resources typically reproduce the LEAST. In a Darwinian sense, that makes them the least fit.

Early Social Darwinists recognized this conundrum and began promoting the idea that the reproduction of individuals in the lower classes should be regulated/restricted. The poor were thought to be poor because they are biologically inferior, so they should be prevented from reproducing and passing on inferior traits. Thus, eugenics was a major element of Social Darwinism until it became associated with the holocaust. Even people we now consider liberal pioneers supported eugenics. Margaret Sanger is lauded for pushing for legalized birth control, but one of her motivations was to limit the breeding of the inferior lower class. So here is yet another irony: the teaming of the Social Darwinists with the religious right, which is anti birth control.

Beyond the un-Darwinian application of the word “fitness”, Social Darwinists ignore a great deal of what science has revealed about the way nature works. Darwin recognized that there are “complex relations of all animals and plants throughout nature.” In short, we recognize that there is both competition and cooperation in nature. Two animals that work together are often more successful than even a very strong or fast animal of the same species working alone. Whether it is social animals that hunt or forage in packs or herds, or the little birds that pick stuck food from the teeth of hippos, animals rely on each other more than any of the Enlightenment social economists or today’s Social Darwinist theorists were/are willing to recognize or admit. Cooperation is, in fact, ubiquitous.

Humans are social animals. We form social groups out of a basic psychological/biological need/impulse. Because humans possess higher thought processes instead of relying on simple habit or instinct, our societies require organization. Religions are one way of organizing a society. Rule of law is another. In any case, organization means nothing without cooperation (or worse, it means tyranny to force cooperation). Even the free market relies on laws and rules and cooperation, though the right likes to pretend it is all about competition. Without regulation, the free market will become dominated by monopolies and then there is nothing free about it. The question that faces us now is where the balance should lie between competition and cooperation.

As I stated earlier, Enlightenment thought followed two disparate paths as our scientific knowledge grew. Each path has lead to a different answer to this question of cooperation versus competition. Out of the left leaning Enlightenment thought, which emphasized equality and freedom, emerged modern Humanism. The term Humanism has different meanings when applied to different historical periods, but in every case it has to do with celebrating human abilities. Modern Humanists, both secular and religious, see great potential within all individuals, and thus believe that compassion for our fellow humans is both natural and necessary and should be cultivated and encouraged. Humanists believe that all individuals have the same basic set of needs, and believe the best social structure should not only meet the needs of as many of its members as possible, but also enable as many as possible to achieve their potential. Humanists believe that all people belong to a global society beyond their local community, within a single global ecosystem that should be protected. Therefore, humanists believe the answer to the quandary above is that the appropriate balance between cooperation and competition is far more toward the cooperation end of the spectrum.

These basic principals lead to all of the many things we support: equal human rights, equal opportunity, justice and rule of law, full participatory democracy, global citizenship, free and equal public education, social programs, progressive taxation, environmental protection, regulation of industry, workers rights, and any other progressive principal that you can think of.

___

So, think twice before claiming we are the party of the Enlightenment, for the right can make the exact same claim and be just as accurate. In fact, they may be even more accurate in their claim, since they have maintained the Enlightenment’s bigoted ideas in spite of our current scientific knowledge.

(cross posted at Daily Kos)

If you are an Atheist, Agnostic, Secular Humanist, or other non-theistic or non-traditional believer, you have likely felt like the U.S. is on the verge of forming an Inquisition to come after you.

The good news is, you are not alone. I wrote a previous diary (at DKos) about the Secular Coalition for America, a new lobbying group representing the 30 million+ U.S. “brights” (anyone who holds a natural/non-theistic world view) and fighting to maintain the separation of Church and State.

Today, I discovered the Humanist Network News, the weekly ezine of the Institute for Humanist Studies. It is full of great info.

See across the bump for story summaries for the week of May 11, 2005.
Humanists out of the closet and in the House
Ron Reagan recently told Larry King that because he is an atheist he can’t get elected to anything. IHS Executive Director Matt Cherry writes, “Maybe Ron Reagan should move to Britain. In last week’s general election, during which Tony Blair’s Labour Party won with a reduced majority, 17 members of the Parliamentary Humanist Group were re-elected to the House of Commons.” MORE

Moderation on the far right?
President George W. Bush recently said, “The great thing about America is that you should be allowed to worship any way you want. And if you chose not to worship, you’re equally as patriotic as somebody who does worship…” Pat Robertson had what seemed to be a moment of tolerance and modernity, too. IHS Public Policy Director Tim Gordinier examines this issue. MORE

Atheists win big in Idaho
Conrad Goeringer of AANews reports: A U.S. District Court Judge ruled (on May 4) that the State of Idaho could not deny a permit to Atheists wishing to hold a “Day of Equality” rally on the steps of the state capitol building, and instead allow a National Day of Prayer event to take place even though the Atheists reserved the space first. MORE

IHS elects new directors
At its meeting on May 1, the Institute for Humanist Studies Board of Directors elected two new members: Roberta Armstrong and Sharon Fratepietro. MORE

IHS 2004 Annual Report now online
The 2004 Annual Report for the Institute for Humanist Studies is now available online as a  PDF. If you’re strictly an HNN reader, perusing this report is a great way to quickly familiarize yourself with the other facets of the Institute for Humanist Studies. MORE

IHS supports comprehensive sex ed in NYS
IHS Public Policy Director Tim Gordinier is working with Family Planning Advocates of New York to help see the Healthy Teens Act pass in the New York State Legislature. The Healthy Teens Act will ensure that New York’s public school teenagers receive medically accurate sex education rather than its dangerous and unscientific counterpart: faith-based, abstinence-only dogma. MORE

Humanist Events & Announcements
The IHEU will host its 16th WORLD CONGRESS in Paris from July 5 – 7. The Humanist Association of Canada will host its 2005 conference in Ottawa, from June 23 to 26. A new humanist book for children is slated for publication in June. And a group in Plattsburgh, N.Y. is working to combat Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church. MORE

Universal concern about dying
Canadian columnist Doug Thomas examines the issue of death and preparing a living will in Canada. As an agnostic humanist, he also ponders how he would like his theistic and spiritualistic family members to find comfort after he’s gone. MORE

Sweet Reason, how can high school atheists find equality?
Sweet Reason lends advice to a high school atheist who does not want to participate in mandatory religious services while on a trip with the school band. MORE

Book Review: Silent No More, Part 4
Kenneth W. Krause reviews the rhetoric of the Christian Right and Pastor Rod Parsley’s new book, Silent No More. Kenneth challenges the Pastor on abortion, homosexual union, race, education, poverty, and founder intentions. MORE

Film Review: The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy
Douglas Adams was a well-known humanist, so it should not come as a surprise that The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy can be seen as a humanist comedy. But it is also a humorous jaunt across time and space. See what HNN film reviewer Carolyn Braunius has to say about this film. MORE

Letters to the Editor
This week we have several excellent letters about spirituality and humanism… and one EGGcellent letter. MORE

Media Roundup
A roundup of news articles of interest to humanists and freethinkers. MORE

Strange Times
A roundup of quirky, eccentric and downright bizarre news stories of interests to skeptics, humanists and other freethinkers. MORE

Cathartic Comics
…an assortment of cartoons and comic strips about humanism, atheism, religion, science and freethought. MORE

Humanist Humor
This week’s joke is about a very precise method of dating dinosaur bones. MORE

Poll of the Week
When do you think you will see an openly non-religious U.S. president? LINK