ThomStratton.com

“Every Frame a Painting” is a YouTube series that takes a look at filmmaking from various angles and directors. In this episode our host, who was raised in Vancouver, B.C., takes a look at how his city becomes just about every other city in the world–but almost never itself.

I recently read a post from someone whose blog I’ve followed with mixed feelings, and I’ve decided (again) not to follow this person any more. I try to expose myself to contrary points of view on occasion–often enough I can feel smugly superior in my open-mindedness, anyway–but I really am rather picky in how those points of view should be expressed.

Rule #1: The only group you should really compare to the Nazis or ISIS are, respectively, the Nazis and ISIS.

As tempting as it may be, insisting that Kim Davis is analogous to ISIS is not going to sit well with me, for example. To the best of my knowledge, she has never publicly beheaded gays who came to her for a marriage license. To my knowledge she has never tried to blow up Mount Vernon. And I don’t think (I may be wrong here) she ever threatened her assistant clerks with death if they didn’t convert to her way of thinking.

I’m not saying I agree with the way she’s handled her position, mind you. I just feel that equating her with ISIS is going a little overboard and does not bolster a blogger’s credibility in my eyes. I’m also not prepared to accept equating Planned Parenthood, Barack Obama, or Feminists with ISIS, either. There. I’ve alienated both sides. But if you’re going to go there with the analogies, you’ve alienated me first.

I’m not sure where along the road we stopped teaching argumentative writing. Good argument does not consist of finding the worst thing you can think of and then equating your opponent to that. Ask some of the millions of refugees fleeing ISIS’ violence which they would rather deal with, ISIS fighters or bigoted county clerks, and I suspect they’d look at you like you were asking what they would prefer for dinner; spicy curry or broken glass with thumbtacks and acid sauce.

Somewhere along the line we decided that clever invective trumps reason and persuasion. Why bother thinking of appeals to logic when you can really zing the opposition with a good sound bite? Why waste time looking at the other side’s arguments, even to devise counter-arguments, when you can just settle the matter once and for all by calling them Nazis? Heck, these days about the only people we would hesitate to call Nazis would probably be…Nazis.

Bonus Rule: It really doesn’t help your case with me to insist you are a long-time member of the group you’re criticizing (and equating with ISIS) and still to this day maintain your membership, and then spend the majority of your posts insisting that group is the source of all evil in the world. My thoughts would be, “Really? You think that poorly of them, and yet you’re still a member?! What is wrong with you? Clearly your judgment is lacking and I shouldn’t listen to you.”

Every now and then I end up in a political discussion with a certain person at work, and their arguments always seem to come back to the same thing: religious people should keep their religion out of their politics. Naturally, being a religious person, this doesn’t sit well with me. Granted I’m biased, but there also seem to be some very fundamental things wrong with that argument that should bother more than just religious people.

For one, based on our discussions and the evidence I see around me every day, what they really want is for religious people to keep their religion out of politics only when it disagrees with their own. The number of people I see regularly who normally think Catholics are out of touch, if not downright evil, but who gush and fawn over the Pope whenever he says something that agrees with their beliefs is stunning. It’s a bizarre case of “This broken clock is right only twice a day, but when it’s right, I intend to hold it up as the source of all wisdom.” This really only shows that it’s not that some people use religion to drive their political beliefs, it’s that their religion takes them in a different direction than the one they support. They just don’t like it that people disagree with them, and religion is a convenient scapegoat.

Secondly, the people who want to exclude religion as a valid foundation for public opinion seem to begin from the premise that religion is incorrect, and the people who believe it are uninformed, misguided, and misplacing their faith. And yet as often as not, these same people, when directed to discuss specific examples or cases, will often admit they haven’t been paying attention–or simply refuse to accept that counter-arguments could have any validity. They usually seem frightfully under-informed on basic concepts of economics, sociology, the scientific method, and history. They seem more than willing to repeatedly place their faith in government authority, or government programs, or political parties based on little to no real evidence that these are effective, and sometimes over direct evidence to the contrary.

So which is really worse, allowing religious people who are uninformed, misguided, and with misplaced faith to have a say in public policy, or allowing secular people who are uniformed, misguided, and with misplaced faith to have a say? It sounds to me the only real difference is what they claim to worship.

Thirdly, America is based on the ideas of majority rule and enfranchisement. The history of America has been one of increasing the variety of people who get a say in government, not decreasing it. And that’s a good thing. In a democracy the more opportunity for everyone to get a say, the better. But at the end of the day, we still operate on majority rule from as large a population based as possible. One of the basic, foundational disagreements we had to overcome in forming this country was over who was allowed to have a say. Some only wanted the majority of educated landowners to decide things. Others argued against that as encouraging yet another form of tyranny, as people inevitably vote to advance their own self-interests. Can you imagine the riots we would have today if we tried to step things back to where only well-educated white men who owned land could vote? In spite what some people think, no one would choose that today.

Similarly, there has been no “belief test” to determine who can vote. You can believe that a log talks to you and tells you what to do, and there is nothing in the law to stop you from voting. There is nothing in the law to force you to vote. You can be a self- and openly-avowed misanthrope and anarchist, determined to bring down the entire system, and so long as you abide by the laws, there is nothing to stop you from voting. Nor should there be. Any government that imposes laws on what you can believe is open to abuse and tyranny.

Fourthly, not all religions are the same. Not all religious adherents are the same. It is bigotry and prejudice to assume they are all alike, and all seeking the same goal of imposing their religion on everyone else. While it’s true that some are and do, it’s the sign of an unsophisticated, un-nuanced mind to assume all do (see point #1). Just like it would be a mistake to claim my co-worker is a typical liberal (she holds some very strong conservative views in other areas), it would be an error to assume that all religious people think and believe and vote the same way. Quite frankly, it’s prejudice, approaching bigotry.

Fifthly, any time you would limit or remove the rights of someone else you set precedent to have the same done to you. Suppose it really was possible to exclude people from applying their religious beliefs to their political thinking? Does that not, then, set the precedent for some other group to exclude people from applying unscientific or unmathematical beliefs to their political thinking? Suppose there was a law in place that says you can’t push for anything that can’t be scientifically or mathemetically proven will work.

The funny thing is, I’m a religious white male–the bane of Western Civilization. And I don’t care what you believe. You should never be excluded or discouraged from being able to vote for and lobby for what you believe. It is your right as a citizen of this amazing country, no matter how much I may disagree or agree with you. I believe that whole-heartedly. I also believe, however, that unless your beliefs become the majority, you should not get your way. Only if a majority of the governed believe or want the same thing should that ever become the law.

And do you know where I get that idea? From my religious beliefs. It’s spelled out quite plainly in several of my cherished religious texts, and continually reinforced through modern scripture and revelation. My particular religion believes very strongly in the right of every person to choose for themselves, and for a key role of government to be to protect that right. I’d like to think I’d react just as strongly if someone told me that atheists should not be allowed to let their atheism inform their political thinking. Everyone who is governed by our laws should have a say in those laws, no matter what their beliefs or motives may be, or how educated and well-informed they may or may not be.

There’s no denying that this opens–and has opened–our system of government to inefficiency and corruption. But it’s still the best game in town. I’ve yet to see any other system work as well for as long as ours has. As someone has said, Democracy is the worst form of government–after everything else.

FOOTNOTE: Call it morbid coincidence, but the day most of the commentary occurred we also got this: Oregon gunman singled out Christians during rampage. (Headline not entirely correct. He shot non-Christians, too, just in the legs instead of in the head.)

…but I can’t imagine it making it into the Animaniacs theme song.

Carly Fiorina, visiting with Jimmy Fallon on the Tonight Show, sang a song she made up about one of her dogs. When I read the description I nearly avoided it, fearing a train-wreck:

https://youtu.be/1TOFdWGToKQ

Surprise! She actually has a pretty good voice, and can hold a key. And considering how animated her face becomes, it seems like there may be a bit of a performer in there. And she makes up songs (okay, granted she stole the melody)!

Okay, this is hardly fitting criteria for choosing a leader of the free world, I admit. But her likability factor keeps going up for me. If only I weren’t a religious conservative male determined to keep women in the dark ages, I’d consider voting for her. If… only… *sigh* </sarcasm>

Evidently it’s not as inevitable as some thought. According to the New York Times, e-book sales are experiencing a decline.

Now, there are signs that some e-book adopters are returning to print, or becoming hybrid readers, who juggle devices and paper. E-book sales fell by 10 percent in the first five months of this year, according to the Association of American Publishers, which collects data from nearly 1,200 publishers. Digital books accounted last year for around 20 percent of the market, roughly the same as they did a few years ago.

E-books’ declining popularity may signal that publishing, while not immune to technological upheaval, will weather the tidal wave of digital technology better than other forms of media, like music and television.

E-book subscription services, modeled on companies like Netflix and Pandora, have struggled to convert book lovers into digital binge readers, and some have shut down. Sales of dedicated e-reading devices have plunged as consumers migrated to tablets and smartphones. And according to some surveys, young readers who are digital natives still prefer reading on paper.

I suspect it’s too soon to be really sure what’s going on. Michaelbrent Collings, an independent author who sells primarily e-books, thinks the market for e-books may be diversifying–and moving away from Amazon. Depending on how well publishers monitor these other sales streams, that may account for the decline right there. Independents especially may be finding ways to sell directly to consumers.

Five months does not a trend make or break. Did physical book sales rise? If not, it may be that other forms of digital entertaiment are eroding the e-reader customer base. But according to some booksellers, customer are indeed returning to physical books:

At BookPeople, a bookstore founded in 1970 in Austin, Tex., sales are up nearly 11 percent this year over last, making 2015 the store’s most profitable year ever, said Steve Bercu, the co-owner. He credits the growth of his business, in part, to the stabilization of print and new practices in the publishing industry, such as Penguin Random House’s so-called rapid replenishment program to restock books quickly.

This could be good news, especially if independent booksellers are benefiting most. Time will tell, as it always does.

If you listen to the media these days you’d likely conclude America is a hotbed of racial tension and intolerance. But this may not be so, according to statistics compiled by some Swedish researchers and further developed by Max Fisher of the Washington Post. Placing his data into mapping software, we can see a different picture of how various countries of the world feel about having people of other races as neighbors:

Here’s what the data show:

• Anglo and Latin countries most tolerant. People in the survey were most likely to embrace a racially diverse neighbor in the United Kingdom and its Anglo former colonies (the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and in Latin America. The only real exceptions were oil-rich Venezuela, where income inequality sometimes breaks along racial lines, and the Dominican Republic, perhaps because of its adjacency to troubled Haiti. Scandinavian countries also scored high.

Look at the whole thing. I find Fisher’s analysis refreshing, in that he dares to question the assumptions of the survey and the connected data. Also, he is open to correction when someone was able to reveal some errors in the data. I don’t know (nor does he claim) that we can take this as a clear indicator of anything, but what it suggests is nonetheless worth some consideration. Perhaps we’re not as bad as some clearly enjoy thinking we are.

(Bill, just turn back now. You were warned.)

Just the other night my wife and I were attempting to introduce our kids to some of our favorite country music, to mixed success. But I think I just found an “in” with my daughter, at least. She really likes acapella music. And then I stumbled across this today:

“Seven Bridges Road” already had one of the greatest acapella openings of all time. These guys take it and run with it, and I rather like the results. Some of their videography is a little tongue-in-cheek, implying they don’t take either themselves or country music (or both) too seriously, or at least that they like to have some fun along the way. I mean, these guys are from Minneapolis, Minnesota after all. How “country” is that, really?

It turns out Home Free were recent winners of NBC’s “The Sing-Off”, but like most “overnight success stories”, they’ve been working at it for ten years now.

Anyhow, they got my attention. Then they delivered this mashup of Fishin’ in the Dark/Boondocks that makes it clear to me that regardless of their schtick, these are serious musicians. That’s some fine arranging.

Anyhow, in case anyone doubts their country bona fides, how about them teaming up with the Oak Ridge Boys for “Elvira”?

Okay, it’s probably nothing so dramatic as that, though it would solve the age-old question, “if you kill a mime, does he make a sound as he dies?” Except this is a silent movie, so…. Ah never mind!

My nephew-in-law? neice’s husband? –ah heck, he’s family, in any case– is working on his senior project to graduate from film school, and is looking for some help with funding via Kickstarter. He’s the director on a short film about two mimes who find their livelihood threatened when a street magician sets up in their park. The film will be shot as a black and white silent movie, just to make things more challenging.

I’m in, of course, though they could have got more money out of me had they offered a level where you get lunch with the director. I’ve yet to really meet Peter (twenty seconds at the wedding dinner doesn’t really count), and I intend to tease my neice about this for some time yet.

Anyway, there’s more information in the video below and at the link above. If you can spare a few bucks to help out not just Peter and all the other students involved with this production it’d be appreciated.

On the other hand, as a free perk for my support they apparently have named their main characters after our cat and our previous dog.

I came across an interesting editorial in the Star Tribune in which a woman’s own experience with the law has changed her views toward trophy-hunting dentist Walter J. Palmer:

Then in mid-August an event rocked my world. Criminal allegations were made against me in connection with a minor traffic incident. As with Palmer’s situation, no charges have been filed, but there is an ongoing investigation.

I found out with excruciating firsthand experience that I like the American justice system — innocent until proven guilty. Thank God I live in a country where I trust that the legal system will sort things out. I am not afraid. I believe the law will treat me fairly.

But there is no “fairness” for Palmer. Though he has not been charged with a crime at this point, he has already been judged and has paid a terrible price for the accusation — which he has denied — that he knowingly killed Cecil after the lion was lured out of the park.

After becoming “an accused” myself, I suddenly have empathy for Palmer. I finally looked at the facts objectively, and I educated myself. This is what I know to be true:

Hunting is legal. Trophy hunting is also legal. Palmer is not the only person to have killed a lion. Hundreds of exotic trophy animals are brought into the U.S. every year. I still detest trophy hunting, and I believe it is only a matter of time before it will be outlawed.

I think this is why people prefer to try people in the court of public opinion. It’s easier to see “justice” done than actually working to get laws changed so that people might actually stop their offensive-but-legal practices. Slacktivism runs rampant these days, but actual work to change hearts and minds (and laws) is rare.

Did anyone notice besides me that yesterday was “International Day of Peace”? Did anyone currently not engaged in waging peace actually stop their fighting because of it? I’m sure it made someone feel good to get that on our calendars, but beyond that what good did it do? Do they imagine somehow that Kim Jong Un woke up yesterday, looked at his calendar, and thought, “Wow, cool idea. I think I’ll stop oppressing my people and threatening my neighbors today.”?

What was particularly heart-warming about this editorial is that the writer actually did something:

If you were accused, would you like to face an angry mob? Of course not. Can we please put aside the trial by media and public opinion and death threats? Is it too late to proceed in civilized fashion? I hope not.

I owe Palmer an apology. I initially reacted in anger when I was only focused on the suffering of Cecil. Now I see things differently, and I am sorry.

I spoke to Palmer recently. I simply told him I was glad he was back in practice and that he did not deserve what happened to him. I said a few more things. He really didn’t say anything at all. He just hugged me.

It was a brief conversation. I did not talk about trophy hunting, or the awful things I said about him in July. I hope to give him a full apology someday. And I hope that when he hears it, he will forgive me. I am truly sorry.

Who do you think is more likely to move Palmer to give up trophy hunting, the social media activists who made his life a living hell for several weeks, or this woman who decided whatever he did does not justify what she did, and is making an effort to make amends?

For the record, I’m against trophy hunting, too. I understand those who hunt for meat, but killing an animal just to say you did it is a lousy reason to end a life that did nothing to you. But Palmer broke no laws, and it’s difficult to disprove his claims that he didn’t know how his guides lured the lion for him to shoot. To quote the editorial:

In terms of this particular hunting trip, I don’t know what Palmer did or did not do, or what he knew or did not know. And neither do you.

Huh. Couldn’t have put it better myself. I keep hoping more people will wake up and realize that no amount of nastiness justifies your own nastiness. And changing people’s minds through nastiness is not only rare, but likely breeds only begrudging compliance, not a mind truly changed.