Top 5 reasons Glee has lost the magic

Last season's premiere of the musical series "Glee" came as a surprise smash hit. Even to musical snobs like myself and real dramatists, the show appealed greatly due to it's deep merits. This season, though very young, has already proved to be a great disappointment. The apple has fallen far from the tree. Even their launch into the perils of the second season was uninventive, destroying the unity of the season one finale with one fell swoop. Is the show redeemable? I would certainly like to think so, but not until they make some quick repairs to their format, because the flaws are pretty apparent. So here are the top 5 reasons I think Glee has lost the magic

5) Oversexing the teenagers. In the first season, Glee dealt with matters of sexuality intelligently and appropriately. Notably, Finn's development and Kurt's coming out were both plausible and realistic, and made interesting statements about high school sexuality. Now, the choreography is disgustingly and inappropriately provocative, the characters toss around sex far too lightly, and the writers' respect for the age of their characters has waned greatly.

4) Inconsistency. Glee walks the difficult line of an ensemble cast. There are too many characters to give each a plot line in every episode, but the volume of characters allows for a high variety of plots and developments. But at the end of the first season and the advent of the second, we seem to be faced every two minutes with a character acting differently than they did in the previous episode, or even a mere scene ago. I believe this is due to characters being protagonists in their own plot, and then supporting cast members to others. The result is that the players do not stay the same from moment to moment, so they cannot grow as time goes on.

Along this same vein, we see plot lines disappear quite suddenly and without warning. (What happened to Quinn's baby? Did she ever get let back in the house? Where's Tanaka? Is Mr. Hummel still dating Finn's mom? Etc.) Likewise, the show has stepped outside the bounds of realism for high school. How many times can a guy join and quit the football team?

3) The musical numbers. The writers and the musical directors don't seem to be communicating, because there is no connection between the plot and what music is performed. Each musical number is just dropped in as desired, whether relevant to the plot or not. We don't even get the benefit of having characters sing in context anymore. If I wanted to watch a series of music videos, I'd watch TRL. The arrangements are unimaginative, the ensemble too subservient to the soloist, the choreography is not motivated by character or music, and the whole thing simply washes by in a mess of sound and expensive costumes. All in all, it's exactly what is wrong with most glee clubs.

2) Stereotypes. The reason I was so pleased with Glee to begin with was their intelligent handling of high school stereotypes. They built up an ensemble of characters--the slut, the blonde, the jock, the diva, the cheerleader, the gay, the black, etc--and in subsequent episodes they allowed these characters to grow beyond. All in all, it exposed the prejudices of high school and explored what lay beneath all these stereotypes.

Case in point, Quinn. She was depicted in advertisements and the premiere as the villain, but slowly the writers revealed her to be an intelligent young woman who was no more or less noble than her peers. She was the victim of circumstance and the rejected refuse of high school: the pregnant teen. In my opinion, she was the true protagonist of the season, allowing us to witness her transformation from villain to redeemed mother.

Now, the majority of characters have been reduced back to their original stereotypes, bereft of any development they once had. Rachel is the diva, Santana is the slut, Brittany is the fool, Kurt's homosexuality seems to define every action, and Puck is back to being an asshole jock. Are we expected to just repeat the cycle every season? Or have the characters settled into the worst versions of themselves?

1) The show has lost its heart. Remember the AcaFellas episode? Remember when the show was full of good natured characters who strove to make beautiful music? Remember when it was about a glee club? We met Will Schuster, a man tired of monotony and a lack of creativity, looking to find joy in performing music. The menagerie of misfits he assembled, looking for new directions, reflected the essence of high school: we are all misfits, and we must rise above the illusion of the perceived norm. Then, there was a purpose: to rise above our stereotypes. There was a method: we can make music together. Because we can cease being the villainous cheerleader and emerge as the vindicated hero.

Or...we could get high and dance to an irrelevant Brittany Spears song.

Let's Call this What it Is

As children, we are taught about the civil rights movement and Martin Luther King Jr. It’s fair to say we are too young to fully grasp all the nuance of such turbulent times, and such atrocities as segregation are only conceivable as some distant past. But somewhere along the line I—as a child—realized that this happened in the 1950s and 60s and ergo my parents lived through it. They had been children, albeit, but they had lived through it. That was probably when the most important question occurred to me: how could people allow this to happen?

How, in an era so recent, could we legalize prejudice? The concept of a racist person was never foreign to me, but I couldn’t understand how the government—supposedly out to protect the people—could institutionalize segregation. How could Jim Crow laws ever come into effect, let alone survive into the 20^th century? There are legislators still alive today who continuously voted in favor of segregation. Still, I wonder, how could this happen?

Then I see the rights of homosexuals oppressed, and I see what it must have been like to live in a world of Jim Crow.

There is no morally ambiguous area when it comes to civil rights and racism. No politician is going to come out and say, “Respectfully, Mr. President, you need to sit at the back of the bus” and no legislation is going to put forth any such requirement. If one did, we’d denounce it for what it is: bigoted. Why can we not do the same for gay rights?

I tend to be hot headed and closed-minded. When someone disagrees with my political beliefs, it is a challenge for me to remind myself that dissent is good and we must learn to work together. I must remind myself that I am just one opinion, and that—as strongly as I feel—other answers are also viable. But there is one area where I feel am right to be unmoving. Gay rights. This is not an issue where we ‘agree to disagree’ like health care, taxes, immigration, and economic policy. This is not a time for politicians to shake hands, smile, and say “Well I feel differently, let’s come to a compromise.” With gay marriage still up for debate, and with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell still in place, it’s time to call this mess what it is.

You see, another character flaw of mine is that I make absolutes. Even though I tell myself that I don’t believe in absolutes, I make all encompassing statements that often get me into trouble, and I have to scale back. That being said, I do not believe I am doing that right now. I think it’s perfectly fair—necessary, in fact—to strike down the Jim Crow laws of the 21^st century. Because opposing gay rights is bigoted.

Politicians and lawmakers who oppose gay rights need to be called out for what they are: bigoted. Laws decrying gays and lesbians as second-class citizens need to be called what they are: bigoted. Yes, you are free to believe whatever religious creed you like, but the time has come to stop kowtowing to the ignorant, bigoted, prejudiced and selfish people of the country. You can make all the arguments you want, but let's not forget that Strom Thurmond managed to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for over 24 hours. The time has come for intelligent people to stop humoring the unintelligent.

In summary, I can agree to disagree with you on many subjects (or at least try). I understand that I am radically left. But it was not radically left to let African American students into Little Rock Central High School in 1957. It is not radically left to allow gays to serve openly in the military, or let them marry whom they love. It’s a civil right. So it’s not radically left to support gay rights. It’s bigoted to oppose them.

Queer Culture and the Gaga Episode of Glee

(please note that this is a cold write, a first draft with very little editing)

Bad Romance: An essay exploring the queer themes exposed in "The Gaga Episode"

Because TV’s Glee is seeped in theatricality and musical theater, it is only natural that the plots involve discourse and exploration of queer topics. Largely, these have focused on the show’s gay representative, Kurt Hummel, and deal with literarily trite but relevant events such as his coming out, and pitting the queer glee club culture against the masculine jock athletics. More recently however, in the “Gaga episode” entitled “Theatricality,” an important matter has arisen for debate. Normally, homosexual culture is the oppressed and the morals of the show revolve around accepting Kurt (and thus homosexuality as an entity) as he is. The Gaga episode was no different, but finally begs the question: is this always correct?

Here is the assumption: any backlash against gay culture is bigoted and wrong. Here is my rebuttal: in the battle to accept (not tolerate, accept) queer culture, heterosexual culture is not bigoted to maintain its sense of sexual identity.

I think some groundwork of the battle between queer culture and open-minded heterosexual culture is in order first. There is often a fallacy that to be critical of queer mores is to be a part of the oppression. Since we’re dealing with a TV show, I’ll stick with that medium. I point to a famous Seinfeld episode involving gay characters, where the straight characters must constantly clarify “…not that there’s anything wrong with it…” or else be labeled a bigot for noting something about a homosexual character. In a similar circumstance, Arrested Development features (as a minor character) an overly flamboyant individual who purposefully incites sexual harassment for the purpose of winning legal cases. What I see in these examples is the fear straight people have of seeming bigoted. But society shouldn’t be separated into classes of “oppressed” and “oppressor.” Among straight culture, there are allies. But being an ally should allow for a sense of sexual identity as a heterosexual. And that sense of identity need not be synonymous with oppression.

(Let’s return to Glee to get a good example of what I mean. This essay mostly assumes that the reader is familiar with the series, and is meant as an introspective, not a critique.)

In the episode of note, Kurt and the female members of glee club take some heavy flack for dressing up as Lady Gaga, and Kurt fires back at the jocks, declaring his independence. Similarly, Finn is harassed for his own theatricality. He, however, is less adept at rebuking his oppressors and takes out his anger on Kurt, with whom he now shares a room. When Finn expresses his frustration over Kurt’s refusal to blend into society, it is fair to give Kurt the moral victory, but points must be awarded to Finn for his honesty. When challenged, he admits that it would make life a lot easier on him because, truthfully, they are not in New York or San Francisco and every deviation from normality is felt by the community that much more. Still, through this point the show rightfully maintains the established format: ignorant heterosexuality oppresses the valiant and courageous queer culture; queer culture turns the other cheek.

Where the true conflict—and my qualm with the episode—lies, however, is in the giant soapbox confrontation between Mr. Hummel and Quinn. To his (and the writers’) credit, Kurt’s father has an excellent speech in which he pits the old generation of ignorance against the new generation which is supposed to be more accepting. And yet, I found myself waiting for Finn’s rightful rebuttal. Why? Because, although Finn was less than sensitive to Kurt, and although he used deplorable language, he is the one who has been sexually violated, not Kurt.

One should take note that Finn does not once attack Kurt or his sexuality. He instead expresses his frustration at being thrust into queer culture and being robbed of his own sexual identity. Kurt, motivated by his unreciprocated crush on Finn, has compelled their parents to move in together. Kurt finds himself sharing a room with his crush, while Finn finds himself literally removed from his own identity. Finn comes home to find any trace of himself or his sexual identity absolutely removed. Who is the oppressor here? Finally, Finn confronts Kurt and speaks honestly: how can he be expected to feel comfortable—to sleep and get undressed—in the same space where he is being coveted? It is not a question of tolerance or acceptance, but rather one of sexual identity and privacy.

This amounts to a sort of psychological rape. If it is wrong to force Kurt to blend in, then isn’t it also wrong to force Finn to live in this situation? I turn to Judith Halberstam’s model of “the bathroom problem.” Public toilets offer us two options, male or female, but what of those individuals who feel they deviate from the norm? Should there be a third “queer” bathroom? In this instance, the answer is no. But Kurt isn’t asking Finn to be allowed into the men’s room. He isn’t even asking permission to go use the women’s room. He is instead forcing Finn to begin using the third Queer room, when Finn has already stated his commitment to the men’s room. Finn crosses the line when he calls the decorations “faggy,” but that does not mean he is wholly morally wrong. So when Mr. Hummel enters and berates Finn for insensitivity, I did not see the oppressive heterosexual superiority getting it’s comeuppance. I saw a heterosexual man being erased by queer culture. Again, in this situation, who is the oppressor, and who is the oppressed?

In this example, we can see where accepting queer culture can lead to the oppression of heterosexual identity. I shouldn’t need to clarify, but I find I sound bigoted if I don’t, so I will: this does not mean that homosexuality is wrong or that queer culture is not usually being oppressed. What it does mean is that in conjunction with heterosexual culture learning to accept and appreciate expressions of queer culture, members of queer culture should also be mindful of their affect on individuals of heterosexual culture.

For clarification, let’s look at the conclusion of the show, where I take real issue. Instead of diving into the issues of Finn’s identity, we find the same tired plot device and moral of the straight character coming to defend the gay character in a moment of epiphany. But in this instance, Finn shows up in make up and a dress to express solidarity with Kurt as he protects him from the jocks. This is where the true eradication of Finn’s identity comes. Although he has expressed his own trepidation over theatricality, and faced this in his own way by impersonating Kiss, we find he is not allowed to defend Kurt as himself. He must choose a new identity, don the red dress, and then go to the aid of the oppressed homosexual. What does that say about heterosexual culture, if we are not allowed to maintain our own identity while sticking up for equality?

Overall, I think that Glee has dealt with queer topics in a very accessible and realistic (within the paradigm of the show) way, but this time their tired format has exposed a fallacy in queer theory. Jasbir K. Puar expressed concern over an American sense of “sexual superiority” that heterosexuality can exhibit over queer culture. But in fighting off this sexual superiority, and moving towards true equality, we must make sure not to establish a reverse discrimination of sorts, forcing heterosexuality to become queer to accept and defend queer culture. Although it is wrong to call the blanket “faggy,” We must not be forced to don the red dress.

An Apology

An Apology

On behalf of those who have inconvenienced you

I would like to issue an apology to those people who have been affected by national health care reform, economic reform and other socially beneficial legislation and policies of the current administration.

I, the poor and sickly child of out of work lower class families, would like to apologize for your inconvenience. As I understand it, you had to change doctors because your current provider no longer wishes to accept Medicare. My family’s taxes have been paying for your socialized medicine, so although now I am finally able to remain safe under this same umbrella, you have to find a new doctor or handle your own reimbursement. Although I am now allowed to live despite my poverty, you must do a little bit of tedious paperwork. I am sorry to inconvenience you.

I, the very nearly homeless unemployed worker, would like to apologize for your inconvenience. When the economy crumbled, and the banks had to be bailed out, I understand that this cost a handful of your tax dollars, along with the rest of the country. This bailout has kept me from losing my house (as I would have because of terrible corporate fraud which traded away my investments) but I understand that in this economic climate you are no longer able to buy that 52 inch plasma screen TV you wanted. I am sorry to inconvenience you.

I, your great-great-great grandchild, would like to apologize for your inconvenience. The reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, the advent of hybrid cars, the restructuring of our industrial system, the commitment to green energy and green technology, the modest tax increases, and the sense of responsibility have made it possible for me to breathe oxygen in the future, because they have slowly stopped the effects of global warming. I’m sorry the science confused you, I am sorry that it snowed in Washington D.C., and I am sorry it cost a more tax dollars. I am able to live, but you were not able to buy that gas guzzling and offensively impractical Hummer. I am sorry to inconvenience you.

I, the child of war-torn countries across the globe, would like to apologize for your inconvenience. Current administrations in both the United States and Russia have reached peace agreements and treaties to reduce the arsenals of nuclear weapons, which will allow me to sleep a little easier at night. There is less of a chance of nuclear holocaust, although you have lost a little bit of your sense of superiority. I am sorry to inconvenience you.

I, the homosexual, would like to apologize for your inconvenience. The love of my life and I would like to get married. I understand this causes you disquiet. So although we will enjoy freedoms and rights that every pair of consenting adults should be entitled to, and although you will not be forced to come to our wedding, bring us gifts, allow us to wed in your church, or acknowledge us in any other way other than as a legally wedded couple, I understand that this gives you “the ooglies.” I am sorry to inconvenience you.

I, the homosexual soldier, would like to apologize for your inconvenience. My sexual preference makes you, my fellow soldiers, uncomfortable and creeps you out when we go into battle together. So although the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” will allow me to serve openly and freely, indicating that this is indeed a free country where every upstanding citizen is valued, every soldier is honored, and every man is created equal, you will now have to face your own homophobia and abandon your reliance on emasculation as a tool for superiority. I am sorry to inconvenience you.

I, the incredibly destitute, unemployed and bankrupt American, would like to apologize for your inconvenience. Your company has undergone financial scrutiny and will be facing legislation which prevents you from raping the lower and middle classes. Small businesses will now suffer because the government is protecting investors like me from bankers like you. I am not sure if I’ll be able to put dinner on the table next week, but this legislation makes me slightly more optimistic. Still, I understand that your multi-million dollar bonus was not as big this quarter as it was last quarter. I am sorry to inconvenience you.

In summary, on behalf of all the afflicted, oppressed and poor in this country, I would like to apologize to you, the wealthy, well off, closed minded and selfish community, for your minor inconvenience. The afflicted are being granted basic standards of living and liberties while you must sacrifice a few tax dollars and your draconic view of society. I am sorry for the inconvenience; it truly is not a fair trade.

Lost My Muchness, Have I? (Alice in Wonderland Review)

I will admit it: upon learning that Tim Burton and Johnny Depp had gotten their hands on Alice in Wonderland, my heart broke a little. The atrocities they committed to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory had been that severe. Burton's goals as an artist have always seemed skewed to me; his first goal seems to be to make a movie uncomfortably creepy. Only after this is achieved does he then strive to make the film good. Similarly, since he hit his stride with "Capt. Jack," Depp has failed to create truly creative performances, and merely resorts to recycling the tired traits that worked in previous roles. This being my rather sturdy mindset, I was decidedly wary going into Alice in Wonderland. Luckily, my fears that this would be another rape of literature committed by talented con artists went unfulfilled. Unfortunately, my hope that this would be a vivid and intelligent interpretation of Lewis Carroll's classic work was similarly disappointed.

First, let me say that I did actually enjoy the film, and that it had it's merits. I want to start with those, so that my compliments do not end up as afterthoughts to a tirade of criticisms.

All in all, this new envisioning of Wonderland was exciting and tangible. Like Avatar's Pandora, Wonderland seems absolutely accessible and real, as if this was a real place we have the privilege of viewing, but the misfortune not to visit in our lifetimes. From the sweeping grounds in the prologue, to the woods of Wonderland, to the battlefields and castles in the climactic scenes, Burton brings us a Wonderland which is appropriately dreamlike, definitively English, and absolutely believable.

The set design, though mostly animated, fulfilled every dreaming aspiration for Wonderland. Every facet of architecture and every stretch of wildlife carries with it a distinctive English flair. Wonderland’s terrain has the brilliance and delicacy of English gardens (Hampton Court comes to mind) as depicted in the original text. (You may remember that Alice’s original objective in the book was to get into the Queen’s garden.) Scenes with the Cheshire Cat and the Mad Tea party are comfortably familiar from the 1951 animation, yet highly original, with that same tangibility. Watching the film, one feels as if this footage was the source material for the cartoon versions of Wonderland. However, while each individual set carries these qualities and helps define the mood of the film at the moment, there is little cohesiveness tying Wonderland together. Even the cartoon carried with it a sense that all these locations were easily connected, but Burton’s landscape takes us from one beautiful locale to another, with no telling what lies between or how Alice got there.

The costuming of the film enjoyed the same success, but did not suffer the lack of cohesion. From Alice’s blue dress to the Hatter’s top hat, the costumes were familiar, yet original, English and yet Wonderlandish. Though stark in contrast, it seems natural that our first spat of real colored costumes is in Wonderland, while England is in drab shades of white. Also noteworthy is that, once in Wonderland, every clan Alice comes across tries to dress her. She loses her frock and goes about in her undergarments, then the Hatter creates a doll sized dress for her when she is small, the Queen of Hearts dresses her in red when she is tall again, and the White Queen has had armor crafted just for her. In this way, Wonderland is trying to create Alice as they envision her. The only problem being that Alice does not, in her moments of epiphany and triumph, ever clothe herself. The allegory would have been better fulfilled if, upon remembering her first trip to Wonderland, she dons a new outfit that is entirely Alice in nature. Yes, of course she must wear the armor into battle, but without something of her own, she is merely the pawn of the White Queen. In this way, Alice chooses her allegiance, she does not become her own woman.

Enjoying far less success than either costumes or sets, and with far less to contribute to the film, is the score. Far from memorable, the music failed in any aspect to add substance to any scene. No themes were used to indicate character growth, none to define the nature of wonderland, and none to encourage our sense of bewilderment. I can think of any number of directions the score might have been taken. It could have been reminiscent of the jazzy yet theatrical music from the Disney cartoon, it could have been a conglomeration of English styles, it could have been highly abstract, building on character themes and the idea of memory. None of this was done, however, and the score was simply something in the background making noise. To make matters worse, the credits rolled to some Avril tune. If there is a better way to undermine the film we’ve just seen, I don’t know it.

The majority of the cast was as believable as the world, both in appearance and performance. Mia Wasikowska is expertly cast as our adult Alice, bringing a both sense of bewilderment, and yet the bravery and wisdom we expect of the character. Other notable characters include Helena Bonham Carter's satisfying portrayal of the villainous Queen of Hearts, the March Hare (who's insanity is just comedic enough not to tread on drug usage) and Bayard the Bloodhound. It is from Bayard that I think we get the majority of the heart in the film, played by the versatile Timothy Spall. Tweedledum and Tweedledee were a successful gimmick, and the Dormouse a cute character, but unfortunatly all three seemed to stray quite far from their origins in the book. Other characters--the talking flowers, the Dodo for example--were passed over almost entirely. Knowing how Burton treated Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, this came as no surprise.

In fact, the only surprise in Wonderland was that there were no surprises. At no point did I ask myself "I wonder where this is going next." From the purely exhibition prologue, through the adventures in Underland, to the painfully predictable conclusion, the thrill could only be found in the visual splendor of the piece, not in an suspense of what was to come. In fact, after the Caterpillar unrolls the Oraculem, predicting the events to come, we are given no reason to believe that the victory foretold will not come true. Tim Burton's history had led me to be expecting wild turns and deep character development (and bless his soul for sparing us the cruelty he bequeathed to Charlie and the Chocolate Factory), but there were no questions in this film. Without questions, there is no suspense. Without suspense, no story.

Meanwhile, as beautiful as Wonderland is, and as exciting as all it's inhabitants are, our journey with Alice is ripe with inconsistencies and inaccuracies. Not just the artistic liberty taken with the source material (which I think was generally appropriate), but within the story itself. Case in point, the Caterpillar informs our heroine that she is "Hardly" the Alice. And yet, we have seen her doing nothing but Alice-like things, pondering flight, refusing to wear stockings and a corset, suggesting painting roses, and diving down a rabbit hole on a whim. Later, when the Mad Hatter claims she has lost her "muchness," Alice sets out to prove him wrong. But this is the same Alice we've seen throughout the entire film, so why can't she remember Wonderland?

Along with this incongruence of Alice's character (a flaw of writing and direction, not of performance), Wonderland itself fails to develop. Our first four minutes in Wonderland tosses in all our favorite characters, as if to say "There. Familiar faces. Now let's get on with it," instead of introducing them organically with the story. We have in one fell swoop talking flowers, the tweedle bros., the Dodo, White Rabbit, Dormouse and Caterpillar...who are all quickly rounded up and removed without developing themselves or contributing to Alice's character development. I might add that we have a star studded cast...most of whom have less than ten lines. Michael Sheen's White Rabbit, Alan Rickman's Catterpillar, and Christopher Lee's Jabberwocky (a small mistake; the creature's rightful name in the book is the Jaberwock, without a 'y') all deserve more screen time than they are granted, leaving the grunt of the story to fall on Alice and the Mad Hatter.

Ah, at last we come to Mr. Depp. Contrary to my fears based on Depp's performances as Willy Wonka and Sweeny Todd, the Mad Hatter was not abused or over-performed. In fact, he was downright dull. Unfounded in the original text, Depp's Mad Hatter has a blind devotion to justice, a fear of being mad, and an unparalleled love for Alice. Depp fails to show reason or growth in these emotions, however; the Hatter is the same in the end of the film as he was when we met him: boring. He is Edward Scissorhands meets Captain Jack, and these two combined are surprisingly dull, with little to no place in Wonderland.

What all this points to, in my mind, is that although he was ahead of his time twenty years ago, Tim Burton has failed to evolve as a director. Alice in Wonderland is beautiful, but in today's arena is far from original. Painfully linear, tired and predictable, and weird without justification, Burton's direction did nothing to elevate the script or bring substance to Wonderland. Yes, the film is a gorgeous, fun, dreamlike soiree through what feels like an authentic world. But as an interpretation and re-imagining of one of the most iconic literary pieces for children and adults, Alice in Wonderland is merely adequate.

Facts: Open for Debate

It seems to me, that a fact used to be indisputable. Somewhere along the lines of political discourse in this country, this ceased to be the case. Politicians, experts, and personalities in the media manage not just to cast doubt upon facts and figures which should stand as axiomatic, but they also manage to substantiate claims and viewpoints which should be instantly discredited. Case in point: the global warming argument.

One side of the debate claims that the earth is warming as a result of carbon emissions and other aspects of human civilization. We can see this as evidenced by the rapid melting of polar ice and the increase of average temperature in congruence with industrialization. These are facts, substantiated by science. The other side argues that this winter has been very cold, it is snowing in Washington DC, and thus global warming is a hoax.

Any intelligent person should be able to see how bogus this is.

Imagine that, 100 years ago, there was a debate over whether the Earth revolved around the sun or vice versa. Rockets had not been invented yet, so we could not yet take pictures, and some group of idiots decided to challenge the heliocentric model of the universe, ignoring all the facts and data presented by astronomers. Would we entertain these misguided individuals? Or would we remind them of the facts and disregard their outlandish claims?

An intelligent mind, regardless of their position on the political spectrum, should be able to see which one of these two arguments is sound and which of them does not merit media attention, and yet the 'most trusted names in news' considers this matter open for debate. Instead, the conservative right has adopted these ideas, polarized them politically, and in doing so has tossed out any hope of intelligent discourse.

"Here are the facts that prove global warming."

"Nope. It's warm outside."

"Here are the facts that prove evolution, which effects only government and government run institutions."

"Nope. Bible says God did it. Gotta teach it in schools."

"Here is Obama's birth certificate, announcement in the local paper, and social security number."

"Nope. I'm pretty sure he was born in Kenya."

None of these debates should warrant discussion. You have the right to disagree with anything you please, you have the right to believe whatever you want and practice your religion however you please, but government should not entertain these false arguments. We should instead call them what they are: ignorant lies. Because when we don't, and we allow unsubstantiated claims to make their way into real discourse, we allow Congressmen to walk into the Capitol and lie. They lie about health care, they lie about WMDs, they lie about death panels, and they lie about the economy. And instead of calling them out, decrying their ignorance of facts and quelling their absurd arguments with one fell swoop, intelligence has no other option than to say, "With all respect, I disagree."

A Fable

The Bull

A Fable by Michael Brandon Morales

There was once a rich and prosperous land, whose wealth and prosperity was overseen by a powerful Demigod who took the shape of a Bull. The Demigod was great and terrible to behold, prone to mood swings, but essentially well meaning. There were many rich people in the land, and many poor people in the land, and many people who were just doing fine. This was the way the Bull had evidently allowed things to be, in their natural course. Wise and learned men would serve the Demigod and work closely beside him. They were the priests of the land, and they claimed that they were the ones who knew best how to please the Bull. Of course, no one could help but notice that these men were the richest in all the land, but perhaps that was just the way the Bull wanted it.

Now the poor people would come to the learned men and priests and say, “Tell the Bull to be kind to us, for life is so hard and we have so little.”

But the learned men would reply, “No. We must trust to the Invisible Hand to guide the way of things,” for they said that the Bull possessed an Invisible Hand which guided the market, and kept the balance. You could not see the Invisible Hand at work, and you could not feel it, but you must trust that it was there, guiding things as the Bull saw fit. So when the poor people asked how they could become very rich without seeing the Invisible Hand, the wise men responded, “You must work very hard to become very rich.” And although they said this, they were very rich but did not work very hard.

No, the learned men did not seem to realize it (or perhaps they were very good at lying about it) but they did very little work indeed other than whisper. They would whisper to each other how best to stay rich. They would whisper to the king about how they felt the land should be ruled, and they would whisper to the Demigod so as to guide his Invisible Hand as they willed it. And as they whispered, the rich grew richer, the poor continued to suffer, and the Bull did not say a word.

And then one day, suddenly and without warning—or so it seemed, though there may have been signs—the Bull became angry and his disposition to the land grew sour. He no longer granted them their bountiful harvest and prosperous business, and the land began to fall into disrepair. Some blamed the Demigod’s anger on faceless enemies from across the seas. Some of the rich people blamed those who were poor, and tried to get them to leave and plague some other land and some other people’s demigod with their poverty. Still, others said that this was merely one of the Bull’s more violent mood swings, and that everyone should simply trust to the Invisible Hand to guide them back to prosperity. But the Bull’s anger knew no brevity, and people continued to suffer. The middle classes began to disappear while the number of impoverished people in the land grew every day. And still, no one could help but notice that the rich people stayed fairly rich. In fact, many of them grew even more wealthy, despite the Bull’s apparent displeasure. But perhaps that’s just the way the Bull wanted it.

So for a time, the people trusted that the Invisible Hand would one day save them, the Bull would forgive their trespasses—whatever they were—and all would be well in the land. But as time wore on, the people began to become desperate, and so they sought ways to appease the Bull and return themselves to his good graces, or at least to ease their suffering while he was upset. They gave the Bull burnt offerings, great sacrifices bought at the expense of the poor and middle classes, in hopes that he would take their generosity as a sign of good faith and return to them, but he did not. They appealed to the wise and learned men who said that they must have simply misunderstood the Bull and his divine intentions. The king lowered taxes in hopes that people would not be so poor, but the poor somehow stayed without money, the rich became a little richer, and the country continued to sink into disrepair. So they borrowed money from other lands and other demigods, but this only seemed to anger the Bull and dissuade him from any thoughts he had of returning. The wise and learned men and the sages of the land bound together with strange forms of voodoo magic designed to make gold from gold and have wealth multiply itself. While their smoke and mirrors did manufacture more wealth, none of this seemed to find it’s way into the hands of the poor. The sages simply congratulated themselves on their wisdom and poured each other glasses of fine wine. And meanwhile, the rich stayed rich, and the poor grew in number. And continued to suffer.

Without money, and with no end in sight to the Bull’s foul mood, the people became reclusive. After all, with the Bull in so foul a temper, they could only worry about themselves and their own families. That was hard enough. People would say things like, “Oh, I hope the Bull returns to his old self soon,” but this was just a polite way of saying “I wish I could be rich again.”

Finally, there arose in the land a great Knight. He was wise and brave, and even those who were not from his town adored him for the marvelous hope he inspired. He spoke to crowds about how they all deserved the chance to be in the Bull’s good graces again. And although much of what he said was truly wonderful, people did not seem to listen to what he said, merely to the fact that he was speaking. The Knight was so skilled in rhetoric, so brave and so full of life, that they said, “Let us make this man our king! Perhaps then the Bull will not be mad, and our land will be rich and prosperous again!”

And so it was. The Knight was crowned the new king of the land and promised he would do everything he could to appease the Bull. When he sat on his throne, and when the people were at last truly listening, he gathered the wise men, the poor men, the rich men, and all people in between to him. They asked him, “What can we do so that the Bull will be happy again? So that our harvest will be bountiful, our land prosperous, and our lives full?”

“It is quite simple,” the Knight said. “You must learn to help each other.”

Now this was strange advice, the people thought. What could he mean by that? “But what of the Invisible Hand?” the learned men asked the Knight who was now their king. “We have trusted it for years. We cannot turn our back on the Invisible Hand now. The Bull will be angry and never return!”

“There is no such thing as the Invisible Hand,” the Knight said sternly. “You have only been using it to make yourselves wealthy while letting every one else suffer.” Now, while these words had a ring of truth to them, the rich were upset for they had been accused of lying, and the poor were confused for the wise men had always taught them that these words are heresy. They all looked at the Knight with newfound skepticism.

“These are not new lessons I am telling you,” the Knight continued. “If you have two loaves of bread and your neighbor has none, you must share with him and his family. If a man asks for your shirt, be prepared to offer your cloak as well. In turn, you must learn to respect the people of other lands, and the demigods who watch over them. Then, they will be more inclined to loan you loaves of bread when you have none, and offer you their cloaks when you ask for a shirt. If you—nay, we—if we learn how to do these things, the Bull will not be angry for you are kind, your harvests will be bountiful for you are sharing, and your land will be prosperous for you are as well.”

It was then that the rich, who were so expertly skilled at whispering, leaned close into their new king’s ear and whispered, “But if we forget about the Invisible Hand, and do all the things you say, we will not be so rich anymore!”

“Ah, that is true,” the Knight said gravely. “But you will only be a little less rich. And the poor will be not be poor at all!”

That is when they decried the King as a heretic, and cut off his head.

The End