Saved by the Bell: A Short Story

On the last day of school before the Christmas break, the school was tense.  No one had seen Screech all day, and at Bayside High, no one ever missed school unless it was serious.  Zack had been on his phone all morning.  In Chemistry class he had teamed up with a nameless nerd who was sure to get all of the work got done while he called everyone he knew.  By lunch he hadn’t heard anything, and as he headed into The Max, his feet followed the familiar path, but his mind was somewhere else.

                He hadn’t seen Kelly yet that day, which was disconcerting, but then again she had been avoiding him a lot the last couple of weeks.  For at least the last week she was often sick in the mornings, and would spend her first period – volleyball – in the girl’s bathroom.  Self-absorbed as he was, Zack wasn’t blind to what was happening; he recognized the symptoms for what they were, though he had said nothing.  Kelly was pregnant, he knew it.  And he knew this much, too: it wasn’t his.

                As he sat down at a booth, fellow students in bright denim talking animatedly to one another all around the restaurant, he realized he hadn’t really seen any of his friends this morning.  He had been so busy trying to find out about Screech that he hadn’t wondered where Slater and Jesse were.  Or Lisa, he thought with a pang of guilt.  He thought he knew why Lisa hadn’t been coming around him, especially after last weekend’s party.  He hadn’t meant for anything to happen; she had just been so drunk.  And so had he.  And in that state, it had been easy to act on what he had over the years often wanted to act on.  He wouldn’t blame Lisa for how she felt, he just wondered what exactly she felt.  Was it anger?  Fear?  Confusion?  He hoped it was confusion, because that’s sure what he felt.  Did he love her?  And more importantly, did she love him?

                Just then Slater walked in, looking lethargic.  He had a glazed over look: the hundred-yard stare, as Mr. Belding would have called it.  Zack knew why without asking, but he cleared his throat and braced himself anyway, prepared to talk about it.  Slater sat down without a word on the other side of the booth, his hands in his sweatshirt pockets.  Even though he was wearing his workout clothes, he appeared impeccably clean, from his glowing black curls right down to his polished white sneakers.  His skin seemed to pulse with a kind of bronze glow, and Zack again admitted silently to himself that, without a doubt, Slater was the best looking guy in the senior class.  He cleared his throat.

                “What’s up Slater?”  And tentatively he added, “Where’s Jesse?”

                Slater looked up suddenly, his eyes watery, before looking away again.  The noise and chatter in The Max was a din at that moment.  Why was everyone so happy?

                Slater cleared his throat and shifted in the seat.  “She’s not feeling well.”  He rolled his head around as if his neck was stiff.  “I don’t think she’s coming to school again.”

                Zack gritted his teeth.  He wanted to be sympathetic, but damn it, why did Slater have to be so somber about it?  It was Jesse’s fault, after all.  Zack love Jesse, had been her close friend since they were kids, but he didn’t think he could put up with this any longer.  If she wanted to ruin her life with No Doze, that was her choice, but she shouldn’t be allowed to bring everyone else down, too.  Zack plucked up his courage suddenly, and the words were out of his mouth before he knew it.

                “Slater, we’ve got to tell somebody, anybody.  Mr. Belding even.  Slater, she’s addicted.”

                Slater flinched, and hung his head.  Somewhere a tray of food dropped, but the noise was mixed with the conversation around them.  Zack gritted his teeth again.  “It’s not use, A. C.  I can’t keep faking it.  Everything’s falling apart.”

                Slater looked up, looked in Zack’s eyes, and there were definitely tears there now.  And they seemed to exchange an understanding.  A conversation was held in that shared look; in that moment they said everything there was to say about everything that had happened to them the last several years.  Their rivalry, their friendship; the romances and heartbreaks; the adventures, the crackpot schemes, the hijinks; the lessons, the wisdom; and the finality of what was coming at the end of the next semester.  That is what they were both thinking, Zack knew it.  They were both thinking, What would happen after high school?  What would happen to their group of friends?

                Just then the door of The Max burst open.  There in the doorway, framed by the bright Southern California sun behind him, stood Mr. Belding, his gray suit glimmering silkily, his bald pate shining, his thick smile beaming.  He walked toward them, and following behind was Screech.  Schreech!  His giant goofy grin lighting up the place.  And then Lisa, and Kelly, and Jesse.  And there was Miss Bliss!  And behind here came in a whole cast of characters, people Zack knew by face but not by name.  And he knew then that it would be okay, that they would make it.  He knew then that, against all odds, like a school child on the verge of failure, he had been saved, saved by the bell.

The Decline of Evangelical America

   The title is from an op-ed piece in the New York Times, seen here.  John Dickerson, the author and a pastor of a relatively small church, is onto something important, although his most important point, which I'll mention below, is muddied by his insistence on perpetuating an "evangelical culture."  I part ways with him on several points, including the notion that we (Believers) can or should "refashion [our]selves."  The idea that we can fashion or refashion ourselves implies that Belivers exist as some kind of entity, like Focus on the Family or the Southern Baptist Convention.  The very existence and prominence of these two groups, and of many others, is very much a part of the problem of "evangelical culture."  In fact, the notion of "evangelical culture" is itself a problem.
   Believers should not have a marketing problem; we are not selling ourselves.  I can tell you that Jesus does not have a marketing problem, and even if we think he does, he doesn't care.  God is accepted on His merits, not on ours.  That does not mean that we shouldn't embody His merits - in fact, the whole pursuit of the Christian life is to be more like Jesus.  What it means is that Evangelicals don't save people, God does.  Jesus does.  What we do is carry His glory around, display it, walk in His power, and love everyone we possibly can.  He has called us to love, and so that is the only way we need to "fashion" ourselves.
   Mr. Dickerson reaches a proper conclusion when he writes:

"For me, the deterioration and disarray of the movement is a source of hope: hope that churches will stop angling for human power and start proclaiming the power of Christ."

   However, it is apparent from his essay that he still holds out for a movement of some kind; that he still finds an "evangelical culture" desirable.  The problem with his view - and with the view of most American evangelicals - is that we can't control the "movement" any more than we can control the Holy Spirit.  The movement of God's People is nothing unless it is His movement.  He is and has been moving, long before this election or any other one, and the imperative for all Believers is to move when, where, and how The Lord is moving.  That, my friends, is A Real Movement.

A Quick Case for Debate

   I would like to make a quick case for debate.  Specifically I would like to make the case for debating ideas that are considered Conventional Wisdom, also known as Common Knowledge.  The Danger of this idea of Conventional Wisdom is that once and idea becomes Conventional Wisdom, it isn't really open for debate.  It's settled, so don't question it.  Get over it.  The opposite danger is my very proposition of debating Conventional Wisdom, which often manifests itself as paranoia and conspiracy theory.  But in general I believe that the latter danger is insignificant when compared to the former, so debate we must.
   In order to make this case, let's use an example of Conventional Wisdom.  I will choose one of my favorites: vaccination.  It is Conventional Wisdom that vaccinations are good.  They are touted as safe, effective, and important.  They are regimented into our lives through doctors, schools, and especially large-scale public health agencies: the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), and many others.  Perhaps most effectively and importantly, they are described in terms that are meant to frighten those who would question their use.
  Now why would someone debate vaccinations, given the widespread support for their use?  Conventional Wisdom says we shouldn't, that we should trust the experts, their studies, their proof.  And Conventional Wisdom also dismisses many of our points of debate or argument, essentially claiming that this issue is settled and should not be open for debate.  But there are questions worth asking, even about something so widely accepted.  For example: what are the ingredients in vaccines, and what do they do?  What happens to viruses as large populations are immunized against them: do they mutate into something more insidious?  What are the secondary and tertiary effects on immunized populations, i.e. what are the unintended consequences?
   In my mind, this last question is the only reason we really need to continue to debate Conventional Wisdom: what are the unintended consequences?  Because there are always unintended consequences.  Sometimes they are innocuous.  Oftentimes they seem innocuous, only to prove significant, if not downright dangerous.  And because there are always unintended consequences, it is irresponsible to stymie debate of Conventional Wisdom.  Neither is it ever acceptable, in my mind, to stymie debate by way of fear.  In the example offered here, the experts usually do just that, especially by raising the specter of an outbreak of pandemic disease.  People assuredly respond to fear, but rarely if ever in constructive ways.
   For me, it comes down to liberty: the freedom to make a choice.  Conventional Wisdom discounts Personal Choice by establishing the Right Choice - or the Only Choice.  Debate provides the opportunity to tease out the pros and cons and discover what other choices there may be.  In the example of vaccinations, the problem is a social or corporate one, but the choice is a private or personal one.  The proofs and arguements for the Conventional Wisdom in this case are cold, impersonal, statistical.  The debates against the Conventional Wisdom are heated, sincere, and personal.  Conventional Wisdom, when it dismisses Personal Choice, runs the risk of sacrificing its legitimacy for the sake of establishing its proof.  And Personal Choice runs the risk of sacrificing legitimacey for the sake of argument.  The danger is greater for Conventional Wisdom, by virtue of the very fact that it is Conventional; legitimacy is everything.
   I did not intend to argue a specific point here, but rather make the case I stated initially, in favor of debate.  I will add one important point: debate requires us to be informed.  We don't have to be experts to debate; in many cases being an Expert is a liability.  The Experts have limited vision by virtue of their knowledge of the debate.  Again, Conventional Wisdom.  So let's keep the debates alive.

What Would Jesus Dis?

   Okay, so the title of this post was meant simply to grab your attention.  I don't claim to know what Jesus would dis, and I'm not speaking for him, I'm speaking for me.  But what follows is a list of "Christian" things I think fail to stack up against Jesus's message of the Kingdom of God.  To be fair, even the messed up stuff can still be a part of the Kingdom, even when it doesn't match the spirit or goals of the Kingdom.

So without further ado...

1. The "Religious Right"

   I hate this phrase for a couple of reasons.  First, I don't care for the word "religion" and it's practice.  Religion, to me, is what we do instead of going after God.  It is the stuff we feel obligated to do: ritual and routine, works and legalism.  Religion is made by man, not by God.
   I also hate the implications that A) all "religious" folks share a political ideology, and 2) that ideology is on the right (directional) end of the spectrum, or "conservative" as we often describe it.  Have you ever heard of the "Religious Left"?  Me neither, but the truth is that even people who are not into religion are usually still religious.  We all have dogmas, rituals, and obligatory activity borne out of our guilt.  To use some stereotypes, a religious lefty would be someone who supports conservation because they feel guilty about destroying the planet.  They drive a Prius and observe Meatless Mondays.  How is their legalism any better or worse than the religious righty piously voting for the candidate who stridently "supports life"?  Both are misguided; not necessarily wrong, but misguided.

2. Christian Music

   I like what Norman Barnes, an English preacher, says: "There is no such thing as secular music and Christian music.  There is only good music and bad music."  From my experience, most "Christian" music falls into the bad category.  Thanks a lot K-LUV.

3. Focus on the Family, and Dr. James Dobson

   See item 1 for a synopsis.  I just want non-Christians everywhere to know this about James Dobson and his organization: they don't speak for me.  Sometimes we may agree, but generally I don't want this group and this guy to be representative of Christianity.  Way too political.

4. Dave Ramsey

   I don't think Jesus has a beef with this guy, it's just me.  But if I hear one more person say they are "Doing the Dave Ramsey" I might flip out.  From what I've gathered, "Doing the Dave Ramsey" means you have a budget and you follow it.  News flash: Dave Ramsey did not invent budgeting, he just popularized it.  And on Fox News no less.  That alone is reason enough for him to make this list, and is a great segue into...

5. Fox News

   Way too many Christians watch this channel, for reasons outlined in Item 1.  I can't understand what is probably the most widely held justification for watching Fox News, that since the rest of the Media are liberally biased, a conservatively biased channel is necessary.  This is a conspiratorial and self-defeating perspective.  If what you really want is unbiased news, don't turn the channel to Fox, go find a good news source.  But then again, most on the "Religious Right" believe every other news source to be "liberally biased."  Catch 22 I guess.
   What I really hate about Fox News is the that Fox News hates so many people.  It is just full of hateful talking heads.  I absolutely fail to see how anything on this channel promotes the Kingdom of God.  And also I find the formats, camerawork, design, graphics, and personalities to be objectionable, if not downright obnoxious.  But the other 24-hour news networks do not get a free pass; my beef is with the form itself.  Fox just happens to be the most objectionable of the form.

6. The Republican Party

   See item 1 again.

7. The Democratic Party

   See item 1, but substitute "Left" for "Right" and "god" for "God".  I'm joking, sort of.

8. America, the "Christian Nation"

   This notion that America is or ever was a "Christian nation" should horrify believers everywhere.  No matter how much good citizens of this country have done at any point in history, to think that our country somehow represented or represents God is to totally demean who God is.  The last thing I want people to associate the United States of America with is my God, because if they did they would believe the lie that God is vengeful and destructive and constantly visits wrath on people who don't obey Him.
   The only evidence we have of any nation representing God is in the Bible, and that nation is the Nation of Israel.  And man did they screw up time and again, even with God so intimately involved in their affairs.  Last time I checked, Thomas Jefferson was a Deist and our constitution prohibits the State from establishing a religion.  That is all the evidence I need to understand that we are not a Christian nation.
   I think what people are trying to say when they adamantly defend this notion is that our nation was founded on principles agreeable with the faith of Christianity.  This is still specious, but somewhat legitimate.  However, it principally fails to establish fact in the argument that we are a nominally Christian country.  And thank God we're not!  It would be worse than you think!

9. Eschatology

   While Jesus probably has no issue with eschatology, which is the study of the "End Times", I do, mostly because it becomes an obsession with people.  Why are so many Christians scared of Armageddon?  Why has there been so much of an uproar over President Obama, as if he is the Antichrist?  If Armageddon comes, if the end of the world happens tomorrow, it's a win-win for Christians.  What is there to fear for a believer in death?  Nothing!  What is there to fear for a believer in life?  Nothing!  So what's the problem?  And why are so many Christians crazy?
   I just want to assure everyone that we are indeed living in the End Times.  And if humanity makes it another 6,000 years on this planet (or on another one, for that matter), they will be living in the End Times, too.  Because, signs or no signs, no one knows when the End is coming.  So get over it and enjoy today, because "this is the day that the Lord has made."

10. WWJD

   Besides the fact that this acronym and idea have become cultural tropes; besides the fact that the whole fad of WWJD makes Christians look plain silly; and besides the fact that people actually wore bracelets or T-shirts of bumper stickers that said "WWJD", it's a stupid question because it implies that there is a list somewhere of what Jesus would in fact do.  Now, I know that the scripture makes clear that Jesus experienced life on earth and was still perfect, and so he knows what we're going through (temptation, emotions, spiritual warfare, etc.).  But my beef with this WWJD nonsense is that it further engenders an image of Jesus as a lowly, meager, barefooted pacifist who never hurt anybody's feelings.  The whole thing is so Beaver Cleaver-ish it makes me kind of nauseous.  At it's root the idea of asking Jesus what he would do is a good one.  But does it need to become a pop idea?  The slang-ification and popularization of this cheesy slogan just diminishes the real strength and power of Christianity.  It turns Jesus into one of the Hanson brothers.  Remember Hanson?  Exactly.

   Got anything to add to the list?

Sign of the (End) Times

From the Amarillo Globe News, and article about a guy in Amarillo who teaches eschatology (study of the "End Times") each week.  Read the full article here.  A snippet for your edification:

“We are living, in my opinion, in the End Times,” Phillips said.  “Prophecy is being fulfilled exponentially, even little verses people don’t ever think about.”

   As long as I've lived, which admittedly is not very long (32 years), this has been the refrain in certain circles of Christianity: We are living in the "End Times".  I would make the argument that we have been living in the "End Times" ever since Jesus ascended to heaven.  So that means that, as of today, we are indeed closer to "the End".
   Why do so many Christians insist on searching out the final hour?  The scriptures say more than once that it will come "like a thief in the night," i.e. unexpectedly and unknown to us.  Meanwhile our time is spent dissecting the prophecies as if knowing what they mean will help them to be fulfilled.  News flash: God's prophecies are always fulfilled, whether we know about them or not.
   I hate eschatology, I hate the phrase "End Times", and I hate hearing how we're in them.  By all means study the Bible, but remember that there's more important stuff in there than eschatological material.  Some of us need the word of God more for understanding the present than for predicting the future.

A Reasonable Assesment of the President

This article from Slate is not very long, nor incredibly in depth, but I think it is reasonable.  It's still surprising to me how widespread the rhetoric is about how Mr. Obama is a socialist.  While I agree with very little of what's going on in America, it has very little to do with the policies of this Administration, and more to do with our cultural system(s) in general.  But still, hardly socialism.

It's 2004 All Over Again

   I have read, heard, and seen a lot about this year's election over the past 12-18 months, but not once have I read, heard, or seen anyone say how obviously similar this election was to that of 2004.  If you'll remember, that year also saw a close race between a mildly unpopular incumbent and a wealthy East Coast politician who was swept into the race by the crowning characteristic of not being the other guy.  In 2004 the Democrats wanted anybody but Bush.  In 2012, the Republicans wanted anybody but Obama.
   I viewed this as a fallacy of the Republican party from the beginning, but I never did see where anyone else thought it was a problem.  Mitt Romney may be a nice guy with a history of success, but he seriously lacks any kind of "wow" factor.  He may have a "golly gee" factor, but that won't win an election.
   This observation isn't meant as a slight to the loser or a pat on the back to the winner.  I am just curious why the comparison wasn't widely made during this campaign season.  It may be easy to say now, but I knew a few months ago that Obama would win, because I saw this scenario play out in 2004.  Maybe now that it's deja-vu all over again (albeit in the reverse, politically), we'll read, hear, or see someone agree with this observation.

UPDATE: I guess someone was paying attention, at least at the Washington Post.

Okay, and maybe these guys.  So I'm not the smartest, most observant guy in the country...I can live with that.

One interesting thing to note vis-a-vis the 2004 election is this insistence by Republicans that the "liberal media" killed Mitt Romney's chances of being elected.  I would argue that this same media killed it for Kerry in 2004.  Maybe they've grown more liberal since then?

Go Vote...or Don't

   Here is a graph that details the reasons people don't vote.  I'm not posting this because I think you should vote.  Choosing not to vote is as important and significant a statement as voting.  For example, if you live in Texas, Mitt Romney has alread won your state's electoral votes, so not voting in that state is a good way to state your objection to several things, including 1) the electoral college system, 2) the Republican party, 3) the cult of voting and politics, 4) and so on.
   Failing to vote is one of the cardinal sins for an American, alongside not appreciating the Troops or not putting your hand over your heart during the National Anthem.  It is often said that if you don't vote, don't complain, as if in such a thing as a presidential election, you are earning your right to bitch about the government by voting.  And maybe that's what most people want anyway: a solid excuse to bitch about the government.  Let me tell you something: I don't plan to vote today, but I suspect I will have many, many solid reasons to bitch about the government.  The difference is I don't care if you think I've earned the right to bitch.
   Remember that this is the beauty of living in a political system like ours, that we don't have to vote, but if we want to we still can.  I am grateful for a democratic system like ours, but I don't believe the hackneyed notions that people have died so that I can vote, or that my voting somehow enhances my freedom.  Presidential elections do not guarantee my freedom, God does; I am "endowed by my Creator" with my freedom, and all the government does is enforce a system to protect my freedom.  Even if I don't vote.

UPDATE 11/7/12: Read this comment from a reader on the New Yorker website.  See the original here.

The problem with living in an ultra religious culture is that everything eventually is either taboo or a god given right. Voting is not a god given right and was never intended to be by the founders. It is a Duty a Right and a Responsibility. If you are given that Right you have a Responsibility to become an informed voter. You then have a Duty to vote. It therefore ought to be Taboo to "Get Out The Vote." Democracy is not well served by coercing people to vote who ought not to.

A Call for Reasonableness

   Recently, I wrote a letter to the local paper (Amarillo Globe News, October 25th, 2012) in response to an article about the City of Amarillo's efforts to encourage water conservation.  The article described a program with a $25,000 budget to pay a company to "make efficiency assessments of irrigation systems at homes with high water bills” (‘An intervention’ on water usage in Amarillo: Amarillo takes proactive role in conservation, Oct. 13, amarillo .com).  My letter can be read here, but my argument was and is that it's stupid to spend money on a program like this that will A) benefit only a select few, and B) do nothing to curb excessive water use.
   I think this is a perfectly reasonable argument to make.  I also believe that watering restrictions are both reasonable and prudent, especially in semi-arid climates like the Texas panhandle.  But many in this part of the world do not, and one such lunatic wrote this in the "comments" section under the letter:

I do believe that when I pay for a product or a service in U.S. currency, it belongs to me. Water included. When it hits my meter and is recorded, it is charged to me and I pay the bill. I own that water at that point. I should be able to use it in whatever manner I deem necessary regardless of your opinion about how I should use it. And water resrictions as well as most environmental concerns are just another way to control people. But you feel the government is entitled to not only charge me for water, but prescribe the best use of it. Although you'd never admit it, the goal is not simply control over the water I use, but eventual control over the population through every product we might need or want. Totalitarianism and obsessive control of the citizen's environment go hand in claw. Historically, that level of control always leads to abuse of the citizenry. And the last time I checked, the Government worked for us, not the other way around. Maybe you ought to pick on agriculture, since they use 90 percent of the water that is pumped out of the aquifer. Or maybe you should just let us all live our lives free from your concept of utopia.

   If I'm not mistaken, this is a fine example of pathological, hysterical paranoia.  This fellow, in reading my complaint about a wasteful city program that will produce little to no hoped-for effect, figures I'm Ho Chi Minh, and that watering restrictions are the surest means to a communist takeover.  If you think I'm exaggerating at this guy's expense, read his comment again.
   This sort of response is a model of what is increasingly becoming a force to contend with in this part of the country, and it's frightening.  I know where this guy is coming from, even if he's a little crazy.  The premise of his argument is a libertarian perspective.  He, like his fellow libertarians, believes that any level of government regulation is suspect, hostile, dangerous.  Never mind the fact that, as he admits "the Government work[s] for us," they are still the problem, and their aim is to own and control us.  This is the argument I encounter time and again with my libertarian friends, and frankly it's unsettling.
   Now I want to say something that I hope you will sit with, regardless of your ideological ilk.  I trust an unfettered free market about as much as I trust an unfettered government.  That is to say, I look suspiciously upon both.  The principle reason I don't trust either extreme is because human beings are involved.  Trust me when I say that an absolutely libertarian society (which is itself Utopian) would be just as totalitarian as an absolutely centralized government.  When a single, focused, absolute ideal forms a society, don't expect varied outcomes, regardless of motive.  The problem with libertarians is the same problem with idealist liberals: they want what they can't have, and don't want anything in the middle.
   So I'm making a call for reasonableness.  I'm imploring us all to step back from our absolutist opinions and become willing, if only for a little while, to consider arguments on their merits, not on our paranoia of what the arguers are after, or upon the caricatures of our counterparts we've constructed.  And I'm imploring us all to consider the possibility that we are not mortal enemies simply because we differ in opinion.  Who knows, we might even like each other if we could stop insulting one another long enough to learn why someone would believe somethings we don't personally believe.

Ideological Cultures

   I was born and raised in Amarillo, Texas, the conservative center of a conservative state.  I moved away from here, but am here again now, so I am familiar with the culture of this place, and I can comfortably describe it as a conservative culture.  Some of the characteristics of conservative cultures include a preference for tradition over innovation; deeply held belief in the importance of private property, as opposed to public or shared property; and a distrust of the "out of place" or starkly different.  These are obviously generalizations, and there are many more examples of specific characteristics, but for the purposes of this essay, I'm going to focus on these.
   Liberal cultures also have characteristics which, to some extent, are opposite of those listed above.  Liberal cultures tend to prefer innovation over tradition, which is why the term "progressive" has grown in prominence among liberal groups.  Liberal cultures tend to embrace public or shared property more than conservative cultures, and value shared property more than private property.  And liberal cultures have a distrust of tradition, to the extent that a tradition can't reasonably defend itself.  These too are generalizations, and do not always apply, but by and large will hold up for the purposes of my argument.
   Here is a difference that I have found to be true about these types of cultures.  In a conservative culture you are guilty until proven innocent.  In a liberal culture you are innocent until proven guilty.
  What I mean is, in a conservative culture, if you are an outsider, either in appearance, lifestyle, or background, you have to earn your place in the culture.  You are suspect until you prove you are trustworthy.  This is especially true if you are "out of place" in appearance.  Appearance is important in conservative cultures because the "right" appearance indicates that you are a participant in the culture, that you understand how things are done.
   If you are an outsider in a liberal culture, you are less noticeable, because liberal cultures are more diverse.  Appearance is important in liberal cultures, because it's important in all cultures, but it isn't as important as it is in conservative cultures.  Liberal cultures are more open and inclusive, and so do not distrust new participants in any knee-jerk fashion.  While liberal cultures distrust exclusive or close-minded tendencies, they are almost always inclusive initially.
   In a conservative culture, if you don't fit in, you will be driven out.  If you don't fit into a liberal culture, you'll just be ignored.

   I have other complaints about conservative cultures.  Conservative cultures are more religious, which is never a good thing.  And don't hear what I'm not saying: liberal cultures are religious, too, but they are religious in a secular way, which means that Liberals will tend to blame other people for their ills instead of blaming God.  Conservatives are, however, religious in the sense of church, and so church becomes a smokescreen through which it's hard to see God.  Liberals are religious in their attachments to humanism or secular transcendence.  Again I am generalizing, but for Liberals their ideals are the smokescreen.
   Here is a very specific complaint I have about conservative cultures: they don't have very many breweries.  This sounds silly, but I find it to be indicative of the difference between conservative and liberal cultures.  Breweries, and in particular micro-breweries (especially brewpubs, places where you can drink and hang out), encourage coming together outside of the home.  They are shared spaces; while they are not legally public property, they certainly can feel like it.  They are intensely local, and this is what makes them seem shared and public.  Just like pubs are and always have been in England and other European countries, brewpubs in the States are homes away from home.  It's where you interact.  It's where you meet and make your friends.
   If you live in a conservative culture and this sounds odd to you, I completely understand.  Part of the problem is that so many Conservatives are teetotallers.  The conservative streak of the church that has demonized liquor and destroyed the pub as public gathering place, has also destroyed the cultural appreciation for public spaces in general.  Conservatives would rather sit on the porch than sit on a stool.  They survey the neighborhood from the confines of their properties, while the Liberals are down at the pub surveying their fellow citizens from the perch of a "public" stool.
   There isn't a substitute for this kind of space, so don't even try to defend the coffee shop as an alternative.  I don't know why exactly, but coffee shops will never rival pubs as the most important of shared spaces.  This probably has to do with the fact that pubs sell beer while coffee shops sell coffee.  The atmospheres are different because of the products purveyed.  Coffee shops are quieter, and are mostly filled with individuals absorbed in their own isolated activities: reading, studying, writing, and so on.  Pubs are noisier and filled with the hubbub of interaction.  Never go to a brewpub to study for your college finals, because isolation is not tolerated.  You won't tolerate it, and neither will your fellow drinkers.

   When it comes down to it, I prefer liberal cultures, even though there are many characteristics of these cultures that would seem to exclude me.  I consider myself traditional on several fronts: I am a believer who values traditional marriage; my wife stays home and homeschools our kids; I consider myself the head of our house; and I value the will of God well above the will of the people.  But the fact remains that I am different than my friends in conservative Amarillo, and, although they love me and I love them, I am excluded to some extent.  This is not an effort to cast blame on anyone, it's simply an opinion and a preference.  But I do find it odd that liberal cultures are more inclusive and inviting.

Let's Start Thinking

   As a political science student in college, I took a class titled “Liberals and Conservatives,” which studied the philosophical foundations of these two ends of the ideological spectrum.  We looked at the various forms of government born of either end of the spectrum – Fascism on the Right, Communism on the Left – and read the big thinkers: John Stuart Mill, Thomas Hobbes, Edmund Burke, Voltaire.  We discussed liberal versus conservative positions on issues and discussed why someone of either persuasion would choose his or her position.  We learned how to think about issues and what drives our tendencies to form opinions on them.  We performed that great exercise that colleges and universities are supposed to promote: thinking.

   From the rhetoric of the day (which is not especially new or modern in its tone), I would be shocked to learn that anyone has any idea why they believe what they profess to believe.  We are toy boats on the sea of news, information, and opinion; the winds of change blow us mightily.  This is why someone like Newt Gingrich – who is a wealthy man by most modest standards – can decry the corrupting wealth of his fellow Republican Mitt Romney, and none of us really blinks.  This is why someone like President Obama can tout the benefits Government can provide for us as citizens, even while he pushes forward policies that hinder or injure citizens of the nation, and we’ll nod at the rhetoric.  To call the ways we think about our opinions Schizophrenic would be an understatement.  I think it’s more accurate to describe ourselves as crazy.

   So now we have self-described libertarians who essentially decry any effort Government makes, even if those efforts protect liberties.  And we have self-described progressives who are not progressive enough to let us exercise our freedom of speech without wagging a finger in our face if someone’s feelings get hurt.  Like I said, crazy.  We call ourselves either Liberal or Conservative, words that have become proxies for Democrat or Republican, even though these parties as bodies of policy positions are crazier than any of their constituent members.  Really, several hundred billion dollars for two simultaneous wars is conservative?  A federal health care program that stands to benefit private insurance companies to the tune of billions of dollars is liberal?  Nobody knows what he is, but we keep slinging the mud of labels that carry no meaning.  These terms have become epithets, not adjectives; they describe nothing.

   I’m tired of hearing politicians tout their conservative credentials, or lionize their liberal policy positions.  I’m tired of the talking-head-news-shows giving credence to two competing and inane voices that purport to tell “both sides of the story” as if there are only two positions on any issue.  I’m sick of the effort to push one guy right and another guy left, when meanwhile the people doing the pushing have no idea what their destination is.  I’m tired of a general public and citizenry that cares so little for the activity of thought.  If anything brings us down it will be this: we stopped thinking.  Because the folks who gave us such great things in human history – democracy, capitalism, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence – were first and foremost great thinkers.  We can implement their ideas as effectively as they developed them only if we continue to pursue that great and difficult (and tedious) process of thought that they did.  Labels and empty rhetoric fill a lot of air time, but they don’t move nations, they don’t solve problems, and they don’t improve lives.  Let’s get back to the business of thinking.  Let’s each of us get down to the bottom of what we believe.