Voices: Of Delusion and Crusades

Pastafarianism is barely four months old but you’ve probably already heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster even if you haven’t personally been touched by “his noodly appendage.” In perhaps the sanest response yet to the nation’s intelligent design debate, Bobby Henderson demanded that if ID is allowed into the classroom, FSM must get equal time (see venganza.org).

As a Pennsylvanian, and perhaps more importantly as an agnostic, I’ve been holding my breath in anticipation of the results of the ongoing “Dover Panda Trial.” The case should easily be won by the plaintiffs — parents who insist the Dover School Board’s required alternative to evolution statement is a violation of the separation of church and state. The statement specifically and solely recommends the intelligent design resource Of Pandas and People to those students interested in alternative theories.

Book publisher The Foundation for Thought and Ethics has removed overt religious references from its organizational mission and its ID textbook — the second edition literally replaced “creationism” with “intelligent design”— for fear book sales might suffer. Translation: the better to brainwash you with, my dear. The FTE’s articles of incorporation state the organization’s primary purpose as one of religious education — specifically “making known the Christian gospel and understanding of the Bible and the light it sheds on the academic and social issues of our day.”

The case should be easily won by the plaintiffs. Referring students to an article of religious propaganda is an obvious violation. But the Dover Panda Trial decision will not be made by a jury. It will be made by one man — Judge John E. Jones III, appointed in 2002 by President George W. Bush a.k.a. the man appointed by the intelligent designer himself to lead the Christian crusade.

The Dover school district’s star witness of the week, biochemistry professor Michael Behe, pointed to students’ misconception of evolution as fact. Last I knew scientists were pretty open about Darwin’s THEORY of Evolution being a THEORY. Students who get to ninth grade without understanding what does and does not constitute a theory are evidence of a lousy educational system. They don’t need to be referred to Of Pandas and People; they need to take a few courses in critical thinking.

The primary purpose of science is the acquisition of knowledge. There’s no hidden agenda. Science never claimed to have all the answers. The whole idea has been to acquaint students with the knowledge we’ve amassed and to present them with the current prevailing theories so they can grow up to fill in the blanks. Science — unlike most religions — doesn’t hesitate to admit when it’s wrong. Astronomers weren’t embarrassed by the recent discovery that stars were born inside a black hole, previously thought only to consume. They were excited and couldn’t wait to tell everyone.

But then the Dover Panda Trial isn’t about education. Nor is it about training our children to think. It’s about politics and that’s not a theory, it’s a fact as plain as the eyeliner on Harriet Miers’ face. It’s about the Dover School Board trying to push its shared personal agenda in the backdoor. It’s about the crusade to save the children of the morally weak. The leaders of the FTE not only believe that the scientific curriculum is “hostile” to Christianity but also that public education undermines moral values. Two of them wrote in 1983, that “the current deplorable condition of our schools results in large part from denying the dignity of man created in God’s image.”

Conversely, for all the debate about Darwin’s theory, he can’t be accused of pushing a personal or political agenda. A self-proclaimed agnostic, the scientist personally believed that “the mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us.”

We may never know if the panda’s sixth finger (sometimes called a thumb though it’s not opposable like ours) was put in place by a Christian god or by evolution and natural selection or by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Our lack of knowledge is less important than what we do know — that the “thumb” just so happens to be the perfect tool for processing bamboo which just so happens to be the surprising sole source of food for these unlikely vegetarians. Our schools need to focus on passing that knowledge on to kids and inspiring them to learn more.

-- alicia grega-pikul, 20 October 2005.


Send email to: apikul@timesshamrock.com.

Voices: Free to Be You and Me

There's no price too high for freedom, so be careful where you tread. - Clint Black's "I Raq and Roll."

It's been two weeks since Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld announced that the Department of Defense would organize the first ever "America Supports You Freedom Walk."

Yet, other than the bewildered response of a handful of journalists and bloggers, very little has been said about the government's foray into a realm previously inhabited only by nonprofit fundraisers and protesting activists.

The purpose of the September 11 event is confusingly threefold. One - it aims to honor the victims of the 9/11 attacks. Two - it is a tribute to America's military personnel. Third - it is a celebration of freedom. The 2-mile walk will begin at the Pentagon, traverse Arlington Cemetery and the Potomac River and end at the National Mall where country star Clint Black will give a free concert.

Most seem to agree that the Pentagon has every right to commemorate 9/11 - it was one of the attacked sites, after all. But even families of the victims have accused the administration of shamelessly exploiting the day's horror and loss to bolster support for its increasingly unpopular war in Iraq. Rumsfeld's Freedom Walk announcement came only three days after Cindy Sheehan showed up in Crawford, TX and the mainstream media decided that perhaps the tide had changed. Supposedly realizing too late that the Freedom Walk was to be a support the troops rally as well as a memorial, The Washington Post yanked its sponsorship of the event (other sponsors include Lockheed Martin and Subway) and cited potential political controversy because it appeared the Bush administration was again trying to link 9/11 and Iraq. Other critics pointed with revulsion to Clint Black's jingoistic "I Raq and Roll," and the fact that AmericaSupportsYou.com violated civil liberties by requiring walkers to register their personal information via an online form no later than two days before the so-called Freedom Walk.

Personally, I'm just sick and tired of the administration's abuse of the word "freedom."

It's become the quack cure-all of political rhetoric and perhaps the most abused word of the 21st Century. Operation Enduring Freedom was followed by Operation Iraqi Freedom. In his second inaugural address, Bush used the words "free," "freedom" and "liberty" almost 50 times in 20 minutes. And it's not just the Bush administration anymore - I've recently heard two different local news anchors segue into a story about the region's active military personnel using the phrase "the fight for freedom." As in, "the soldiers are taking a short break in the "fight for freedom." Thanks guys - I hadn't realized that's how journalists were supposed to refer to the war now.

The best guess I can make for why the speechwriters haven't been sent to fetch a thesaurus is that the charm of the word freedom is conveniently open to interpretation. It means something different to everyone and yet remains unthreatening. Freeing the people of Iraq while simultaneously protecting the freedom of Americans -- that's the kind of double entendre dreams are made of. Do you think Bush has pondered the irony that "free" is a synonym for "liberal" as in his liberal enemies, who ironically are his enemies because they'd like more restrictions placed on corporate rights and would prefer fewer restrictions placed on individual freedoms? Yeah, he probably counts "freedoms" jumping the fence in order to fall asleep at night.

Because of the freedom that our soldiers are sacrificing their lives to protect, Bush implied earlier this week, it's Cindy Sheehan's right to protest. Not that having the right makes her right. In fact, according to Bush, she couldn't be more wrong. Ignoring the finding of the latest Gallup poll that 54 percent of the country thinks the war in Iraq was a mistake, he's taken the liberty of conducting his own research. The families of military personnel he's spoken to (everywhere, we can suppose, but at a funeral for one of the fallen) don't agree with Sheehan. OK, sure. Let's just hope the Defense Department's Freedom Walk doesn't become a freedom of speech exercise between mourning military families as pissed off as Sheehan about the freedom the Bush administration has taken in justifying the war, and those who plan to walk the two miles chanting the lyrics to "I Raq and Roll" in unison.


-- alicia grega-pikul, 25 August 2005


Send email to:apikul@timesshamrock.com.

Voices: Half-Full of It

(D)icky Santorum thinks devaluing working moms is going to get him reelected. Sen. Sherwood's fan club doesn't get how misrepresenting himself (a.k.a. hypocrisy) should subtract from the public's trust. Dove's recent ad campaign featuring normal-sized women's bodies has caused uproar of controversy.

Yes, the latest news has been bleak. The freedoms of the fairer sex are in greater danger than we ever imagined possible. The only sane reaction is to retreat into fantasy.

But wait - could the conservative vibes possibly infiltrate Hollywood's liberal propaganda machine? I decided to analyze the box office smash Wedding Crashers for signs.

OK, so maybe it did start as a desperate ploy to escape from the office last Thursday. It's not like Gene Padden is going to deconstruct the movie from a feminist perspective. Someone's got to be the watchdog. And if ec/dc doesn't wave a good pop culture analysis in front of your nose once in a while, well let's face it - you just might forget what it smells like.

Turns out the movie boasts an impressive and obviously calculated checklist of redeeming qualities that easily win over the most defensive female audience members.

* The movie's trite and outdated assumption that women are turned on by the mere notion of marriage is corrected when Claire Cleary (Rachel McAdams) breaks into giggles at her sister's ridiculously hokey wedding vows. Oh, how that moment melted the icy shield surrounding my cold feminist heart!

* And then, she gets to play football. Not that she's any good at it. John (Owen Wilson) has to fix the game so she can score, but hey... we haven't come that long a way, baby.

* It's no wonder that as divorce attorneys, John and Jeremy (Vince Vaughn) might be a little disillusioned with conventional romance. Your grandparent's dating structure doesn't make much sense in today's world. Gee, give me a nervously calculated tier with ever-changing rules of etiquette or the breathtaking romance of spontaneity.

* Plus, these guys put some serious time and effort into the art of wooing a woman and showing her a magical time. I'll give them points for that. Hint: aloof equals boring.

* If you're not a size zero with implants, you have no right to be offended because there's no chance either one of these guys would try to pick you up anyway.

* The movie's definition of soul mate - "your soul's recognition of its counterpoint in another" - implies equality. That's all we ever asked for.

* I may have started out asking, "why is the redhead always the crazy one?" but I ended up fascinated that Jeremy turned the tables on tradition by not falling for Claire (Isla Fisher) until he finds out she's got a more promiscuous past than she initially let on.

* Champagne is the boys' drink of choice.

* Karma punishes the guy who has no conscience. As Jeremy is put through hell, the female audience is spoon-fed revenge against every womanizer who made her feel just as insignificantly anonymous as every other belt notch.

* The movie's most erotic line is "I'm going to tell her the truth."

* But in the 21st Century we would hope that women have come far enough a long to establish themselves as special without the endorsement of a man's commitment.

* The greatest love in this movie is between these two friends - Jeremy and John. The triumph isn't really that they get the girls; it's that they restore their friendship and evolve to the next level together. Because people can and do change and sometimes it's a scary thing, but it's not a bad thing. That's cool - men shouldn't be too macho to love each other.

* Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn may have looked old enough to be the fathers of their romantic interests, but on closer inspection it turns out that both Fisher and McAdams were born in '76, making them less than a decade younger than their co-stars. So they just look like teenagers.

* You couldn't blame McAdams or Fisher anyway. What actress in her right mind would turn down the opportunity to flesh out such a promising shell of a character? And both ladies really held up against their significantly better paid male co-stars.

Feminists relax. You can go see the movie and laugh just as loudly as everyone else.


-- alicia grega-pikul, 28 July 2005


Send email to: apikul@timesshamrock.com.

Voices: Veruca's Fault?

I've had Charlie and the Chocolate Factory on the brain since seeing the preview this weekend (prior to a movie I won't admit in print to having seen).

It will be weeks before critics decide if Tim Burton's remake has improved on the original, but the film's gluttonous storyline is surely more appropriate than ever.

An Associated Press story published in papers across the country this week defined American's twenty-somethings as the "entitlement generation." While I was at first tempted to agree, I've since decided that the kids are just a scapegoat - one symptom among many of a greater social illness.

If Veruca Salt's temper tantrums hadn't been entertained time and time again, would she still demand instant satisfaction of her every desire?

Of course not. Not unless she saw her parents acting that way. It's like the classic anti-drug commercial tried to tell us it would be. They learned if from watching you, OK.

The 21st Century is the age of medical malpractice lawsuits, prescription pills to cure every real and imagined ill, and people becoming famous for no good reason whatsoever.

ABC's latest reality smash hit Dancing with the Stars was teased with scandal last week when a telephone answering service complained it received votes for Seinfeld's J. Peterman (a.k.a. John O'Hurley). No one's been able to prove that ABC printed the wrong number, so it's understood that a whole bunch of excited viewers must have made the same dialing error. Accidents happen, right? Not according to Klein's Mount Pleasant Answering Service. The company's owner continues to complain, either actually expecting to be reimbursed for the $500 it lost because of the calls or just trying to maximize the free publicity.

Sometimes bad things happen. And sometimes they even happen to good people. And - I know this is shocking, but - sometimes there isn't anyone to blame. Suck it up and deal.Like parents used to say generations ago, "Nobody likes a crybaby."

If today's twenty-somethings believe getting something for nothing really is possible it's only because their elders forgot to include a course in reality among their lesson plans. Scranton has been plagued by an epic battle between pseudo-populists who insist free swimming is an inalienable right and those who say a small fee will instill swimmers with a sense of respect and responsibility. I won't pretend I don't have an opinion on the issue. I've decided to teach my kids that nothing is free and if they aren't willing to work, save and sacrfice to get it, they must not really want it that bad.

What? You have to study to get an "A?" Come on, since when?

Wanna lose weight and shape up? There's only one way to do it. No matter how many miracle fad diets and pills and machines they put on the market, there will always only be one real solution. And it's the same thing physicians have been telling us for decades - eat right and exercise. Yeah, it's hard work and it requires disicipline. How bad do you want it?

Last I checked, it wasn't the twenty-somethings among us supporting the $40 billion dollar a year diet industry.

My kids have already learned that if they buy it at the dollar store, it's probably going to break. They'd rather own a couple of quality items than a shopping cart full illusions.

In a world where wealth and status symbols have become more desirable than accomplishment and experience, we need to start choosing our priorities and battles a little more carefully. Is free swimming really the most crucial issue facing Scranton right now?

The reason people are making fun of Paula Abdul's manicure crusade is not because her sudden passion for sterile nail salons is the only one she's ever shared with us. It's because the severity of infection she claimed to get is so rare there's hardly a problem.

I want to have my cake and eat it too, daddy!

Who told Paula vanity was risk-free?


-- alicia grega-pikul, 30 June 2005


Send email to: apikul@timesshamrock.com.

Voices: Play Dates

Summer is traditionally thought of as an approved time to be lazy.

Take a summer job if you have to, but even better if you can kick back under the shade of a tree along a riverbank with no more ambition than to watch the waves roll by.

As a recovering workaholic, I've never had much use for laziness. I've come to accept that perfection is not the ideal, but I still swell with contempt at the thought of wasting time. I can't fathom why people would rather complain about a mess for longer than it takes to just clean it up and get rid of it. Because laziness is not a lack of energy. Being lazy isn't the same thing as being tired or being depressed or being bored - yet, it's somehow a combination of all three. Laziness is a lack of will. It's a lack of inspiration.

The comment used to be uttered so often in response to frolicking children it was cliché - "Boy, if you could bottle that energy, you'd make a fortune!"

These days children don't frolic. Well, they do until about age 9 or so when being cool becomes more important having fun. Not so coincidently, it's about the same time they start groaning when you ask them for a favor. When they start sleeping in on Saturday instead of waking you up at 7 a.m. When they start to see their younger siblings as embarrassments instead of playmates. When they stop going outside to play and start going out to "hang out."

You could blame technology for bringing on this premature discard of childhood joy. Or the shamefully small sums budgeted to school arts programs. Or the media's deification of pre-teen plastic pop idols. Blame corporations for brainwashing us into insatiable consumers if it makes you feel better. Because no matter who you pin the disease on, laziness is still just a symptom. Thankfully, the disease - let's call it "insufficient recreation syndrome" until someone comes up with a snazzier title - is completely manageable.

When all is said and done, laziness is the inevitable result of poor recreation habits. That's why it starts to display itself at the same time we stop playing. If you don't consciously replenish yourself with exciting and enriching experiences, you're eventually going to become discouraged and disillusioned.

An artist friend of mine recently lamented about what he considered a "gentrification of the art community."

"They feel like they have to act sophisticated instead of silly," he sadly observed.

When we start to devalue some experiences in pursuit of only hipper, trendier ones, we close our minds to a huge realm of unclassified experience. We stifle the instinct to explore the world around us and start asking questions like "Well, what is it?" "I don't get it?" and "Why should I?" We start looking over our shoulder to see if anyone's looking. We spend the evening "relaxing in front of the TV" and then wonder why it's so hard to get out of bed in the morning. Wait, why are we relaxing? You know where all those people who are always exercising all the time get all that energy? It's from exercising all the time! Their hearts still pound with adrenaline on a regular basis and they therefore feel invigorated.

But exercise alone is not play. Play demands that we unleash our inhibitions. It asks us to turn off our inner censor and bravely conceive of new and creative ways to interact with our environment. It insists that we sing loud even as we're still making up the words. In order to play we must succumb to silliness.

By all means lay back and work on your tan this summer, but this time, instead of just sticking your big toe in the water, think about how it would feel to spontaneously jump in and splash and scream like you used to do when you were eight years old. Before that older, cooler kid rolled his eyes, made fun of you for holding your nose and told you to grow up.

-- alicia grega-pikul, 2 june 2005


Send email to: apikul@timesshamrock.com.