Digesting The Terrorism in Paris and Beirut

I fear this won't be as polished a post as I would normally put out, but that's because all of this stuff concerning the Paris attacks (and the lesser publicized Beirut attack) is still visceral and raw. I will address several complaints and concerns that have arisen nationally and internationally in bullet form.

·         The fact that the Paris attacks overshadowed the attacks in Lebanon

o   There was a horrific suicide bombing in Lebanon the day before the Paris attacks in which 250 people were either killed or wounded. This is as much a tragedy as when it happens anywhere else in the world – but we barely heard anything about it in the US, it was like a blip of a CNN headline. Then Friday all that shit went down in Paris and the Beirut bombing was basically forgotten – and the Lebanese people were fairly pissed off about that. I will say this – they have a right to feel forgotten. In the West, they basically were overlooked by the media. It is very depressing to assert this, but in the USA we are so used to awful acts of carnage happening in the Middle East that even something as large as this attack in Beirut is practically run-of-the-mill. It's the opposite of shocking. So while these poor people are suffering – and their losses are just as real and hard as those who are suffering in Paris – they're basically suffering on their own. However – Paris self-identifies as a cosmopolitan place and generally thought of as safe, even in light of the Charlie Hebdo killings earlier this year. So for this to happen - coordinated attacks in multiple locations – it's fairly shocking to the West because this sort of thing is NOT run-of-the-mill in France. Does that justify Paris getting all the press and Beirut getting barely any? No – but it does explain why it happened that way.

·         Leaders in the USA (and presumably other European nations) refusing to accept Syrian refugees

o   As of today 27 governors in the US have said they won't accept Syrian refugees in their states – BIG SURPRISE they're all (save one) Republican. World leaders in Europe have been resistant to accepting refuges before this terrorist attack happened so it's not a stretch to suppose that they will be using this example to justify their position and close their borders. On the one hand – I immediately understand why. The theory is at least one of the ISIS terrorists snuck into France by posing as a Syrian refugee with the intention of carrying out this attack. He got through 3 separate nations with a falsified identity. EXCEPT THAT GERMAN INTELLIGENCE NOW SUGGESTS THAT THE PASSPORT WAS FAKED AND THE TERRORIST ACTUALLY ENTERED FRANCE FROM GERMANY.  If this is true then ISIS really is trying to help scapegoat refugees as punishment for not joining them in their mad ideology. Sadly, though, the fear that there are ISIS agents posing as refugees is a real fear – it can happen and precautions should be taken when screening people, period.

o   That being said – it is my strong belief that by alienating and vilifying millions of people displaced by a brutal civil war, stuck between hostile factions in the Middle East and racist elitist nations in neighboring Europe – we are going to create a new version of ISIS. If we do not offer assistance to these people – most of whom were regular everyday people with jobs and families and hobbies and boring home-lives – we are going to breed a generation of men and women who are going to resent and hate the West for refusing them in their time of need. Even if we manage to come together and form an effective coalition with Russia and Iran and other NATO allies and do basically stomp out ISIS – years from now we will be dealing with a similar problem because we refused to help the Syrian expatriates abroad.

o   I don't pretend to be a brilliant politician or humanitarian, so I can't speak to logistics, but I think every nation belonging to the largely ineffective United Nations (that isn't in the midst of a civil war or other violent border dispute) should have to take in a minimum of 10,000 refugees. I think the refuges should be given designated areas in less populated regions to occupy and that they should be restricted in their movement  - no visits to crowded cities or access to mass transportation until it has been established that they aren't behaving suspiciously (via the internet or on cell phones or buying questionable materials). People who provide services to the refugee camps should all be screened themselves to make sure they aren't radicalized or enabling terrorism to turn a profit. I'm not suggesting the refugees be marked with yellow stars or monitored in a dystopian-fantasy novel sort of way, but security measures should be taken to prevent people getting lost in the shuffle.  All the while the children should be enrolled in camp schools, hopefully to be run by former Syrian educators as well as local teachers who can teach the lingua franca as well as national culture to familiarize the refugees with their new surroundings. Adults should be interviewed to assess their skill sets to match them up with roles they can provide in the camps and if relevant in local communities so they aren't sitting idly with their grief and anxiety.

o   My ideas are all well-intentioned, but I admit to enact this will be impossibly difficult financially and socially (nearly the world over) because most governments and individual people are dysfunctional xenophobes, so hosting nations do face quite a burden. But come on – did you flee your home recently to escape religious and political extremists and daily drone bombings only to be met with cold rejection by a country that is much less fucked up than yours? Eleven million Syrians have done this recently – 11,000,000! That's like the entire population of NYC plus Nassau County up and leaving – it's a staggering amount of people. I have a strong case when I say by leaving these people out in the cold you're making a fictional narrative provided by an insane despot in the near-future sound really attractive to these refugees – it's better to provide relief now so that 10 years down the line we don't have wandering Syrian militias seeking vengeance on the decadent heartless West.

The Utter Bullshit That Is Starbucks' Cup Scandal

Yet again, we Americans find ourselves embroiled in another no-merit scandal involving the utterly false right-wing propagated "War on Christmas." This year, the "scandal" manifested in the Starbucks 2015 holiday cup design; they decided to forgo all imagery and chose a plain red cup with subtle ombre shading. So, the "scandal" is not what they have printed on the side of their cups – but what is NOT printed: any Christmas specific imagery. Blowhard Christian zealot Joshua Feuerstein took offense to a blank fucking cup, and began a social media campaign to shame Starbucks for inflicting religious oppression (by omission of Christmas-related symbols) and has riled other dimwitted Christians who self-identify as persecuted to fight back by tricking Starbucks employees into writing "Merry Christmas" on the side of their cups a la giving their names as "Merry Christmas" when taking their order.

I cannot stress this enough: if you are preoccupied or outraged by an inoffensive red coffee cup that Starbucks has chosen to dump your coffee into this winter, the logical conclusion is not "let me inform this corporate slave that my name is 'Merry Christmas' so I can effectively trick the company into showcasing the fact that I celebrate Christmas on the cup." It is don't fucking give Starbucks your money, you mental midget!

For the last few days I've Liked common-sense rebuttals to this sheer bullshit as I've seen them on Facebook and while I've nearly rolled my eyes enough to detach them from my sockets, I haven't been especially angry. Until I read this steaming pile of crap: http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/09/opinions/parini-starbucks-holiday-cups/index.html

For the record, I've read things by this CNN columnist before and have found him generally sensible and pragmatic for a self-proclaimed Christian – his opinions are usually measured and I have agreed with him in the past on several political and legal issues. But this opinion piece is so plainly wrong on so many levels I literally can't type my opposition fast enough to keep up with the fury in my mind.

First of all, read the article – it's only a few misguided paragraphs. Ok? Second of all: let me clarify that I think that Starbucks is a giant evil corporation that is absurdly overpriced and overrated. Parini writes this after summarizing Starbucks' description from their website: "[the design] is a 'blank canvas' on which customers can 'tell their Christmas stories in their own way.' The company appears to be giving in to some foolish idea about what is politically correct, somehow imagining this will make for a more 'inclusive' atmosphere in its coffee shops." He goes on to say that Starbucks is de facto full of it because they've let their PC-ness reach "an absurd level" when they  "removed even the most secular symbols of the holiday season, including reindeer and tree ornaments, from its paper cups. The company thinks that by getting rid of the offensive reindeer, they will somehow foster a 'culture of belonging, inclusion and diversity.'" No, asshat: the company thought that by avoiding any kind of design at all, they were saving money by not hiring a design team, and probably saving on printing costs, in addition to avoiding flak from annoying Christian zealots who were offended by the secular nature of their previous cup designs.

However, this marketing choice clearly backfired horribly for SB because asshole people like Joshua Ferenstein and Jay Parini think corporate decisions are made solely to keep from offending bullying non-Christian consumers – when really corporate decisions are made to reflect the economic bottom line. I can only assume Starbucks believed that by simply omitting religious and secular imagery from their seasonal cups they were saving money somewhere, in addition to hopefully avoiding a commentary from both angry Christians (for whom nothing has enough Jesus in it) and angry non-Christians (who justly feel like various institutions are forcing the agenda of one religion that they do not practice on the masses unfairly).

Ultimately and surprisingly: STARBUCKS IS FOR ONCE NOT THE VILLAIN IN THIS STORY. The villain in this made up scandal is overly sensitive Christians who are angry that Christmas no longer has the monopoly on end-of-the-year marketing in corporate America. This does not constitute a "War" on Christmas – it constitutes a recognition by corporations that Christmas time is a consumer frenzy that they can manipulate for profit, but there are other religions that have holidays that coincide with the Christmas season and they can increase profits by not alienating Jews, Muslims, and practitioners of other religious beliefs by dialing back Christian-religious imagery in their ads. 

Parini suspects a non-economic motive; he writes: "the truth is that Christmas has become largely a secular holiday, one most often represented by Rudolf with his bright red nose, reindeer, and green or red ornaments hanging on pine trees that have nothing to do with Christianity, and indeed hark back to a variety of ancient myths, including ones that invoke pagan and Norse traditions. It's downright nutty to think that reindeer and ornaments exclude anyone."

This is the part of the article that sparked my outrage. Basically this moron is stating that most of the things we associate with Christmas aren't even Christian in origin, so it's wrong of people to think of those symbols as being exclusionary to non-Christians. Let me dumb this down even more: THIS HYPOCRITE IS UPSET THAT COMPANIES ARE LEAVING OUT IMAGERY FROM THEIR CHRISTMAS-TIME MARKETING THAT HAVE NO ORIGIN IN CHRISTIANITY!!!! He's making the argument that reindeer and tree ornaments – two items Jesus never ever ever ever encountered historically nor mentions in any biblical context – can't be considered offensive to non-Christians because they aren't JudeoChristian concepts, they became associated with the holiday after Christianity was introduced in pagan Europe. He then gives background on the pagan and Christian traditions that manifest in our modern celebration of Christmas and says "Christmas is a story that has both religious and pagan origins, and to ignore its power is to ignore the power of myth -- those symbols and legends that help us to ground our lives."

Assclown: "pagan" and "religious" are not mutually exclusive concepts – what you mean to say is Christmas is a holiday that has traditional celebratory elements from biblical legends and medieval pagan religious practices. Mangers and wise men are from the Jesus origin story, jolly fat men and reindeer and conifer trees are pagan in origin. All aforementioned images are recognizably symbolic of Christmas to modern Americans. I will agree that Rudolf the Red-nosed Reindeer and Frosty the Snowman and mistletoe are very innocuous (and non-biblical in origin) and aren't overtly offensive to Jewish or Hindu practitioners; nor do I think many of them were ever offended by depictions of reindeer or tree ornaments on their megachain coffee cups. But if you think that by omitting these kinds of decorative elements from a coffee cup a corporation is, as Parini puts it: "an attempt to peel away even the secular side of Christmas -- to strip all texture and mythic potential from contemporary life" – you are a fucking imbecile.

Starbucks is not ignoring the supposed "grounding" symbols of Christmas – Starbucks trying to capitalize on anything that will bring more sheeple into locations to buy their over-priced coffee. They made a calculated decision to skip out on a design on their cups altogether this year and guessed wrong that it was the least controversial option.

The thing that drives me absolutely crazy is this entitled idea that zealot Christians have that representations of their religious holiday need to be pronounced on any and all consumer packaging in order for them to feel validated that the nation and various corporations aren't persecuting them for their beliefs. It's completely antithetical to the biblical teachings of their savior, Jesus Christ. If the Jesus from 2000 years ago was exposed to the modern, commercially exploitative holiday that celebrates his birth, he'd say something akin to “Father, forgive them for they know not know what they are doing!" According to the Bible, which for zealot Christians is the literal word of God, Jesus preached humbleness and asceticism, he preached the abandonment of material wealth and the building of loving human relationships – he didn't give a rat's ass about the drawings that may or may not have decorated the drinking cups at the damn inn! If they insist that Christmas is under siege, they should be shaming corporations for usurping the spiritual teachings of Christ by inflicting capitalist pressure on the general public to buy buy buy gifts – not accusing corporate stooges for diminishing their Christmas experience by caving in to the "PC Police" by choosing not to put corny images on the cups that hold their drinks.

In conclusion: if you are more offended by Starbucks' plain red cups than you are by the fact that there are millions of people who cannot afford to buy a Starbucks coffee that is served in one of those plain red cups – you are what's wrong with the world. Fuck you.

An Open Letter To Today's Ignorant Customer

To the customer who just advised me to involve my child in a Christian Church:

Fool. Utter, thoughtless, tactless fool. I know in your oblivious mind you thought you were imparting wisdom to me by telling me you struggled when you were a young mom and ultimately this church helped your family and made your children "respectful and well-behaved." You were expressing a heartfelt sentiment to your friendly neighborhood bank teller, who surely also wants her child to be a model citizen. Fine – I can't be angry with you for thinking you were being helpful.

However: I can be angry with you for presuming that any conversation about religion was appropriate in a professional setting, and even less appropriate when offering it in unsolicited advice to a new parent. In your sheltered world a 20-something Caucasian mom must be open to God – especially of the nondenominational Christian variety. Well here's a newsflash, simpleton:  this is not an exclusively Christian nation. Seeing as we live on Long Island, there is a fairly high probability that I might practice Judaism, or Catholicism, or even –gasp – atheism. There is a very great possibility that I want nothing to do with your proselytization – and I absolutely do not. "God" talk doesn't belong in a bank, in an office building, in a school, or anyplace that isn't your property or a religious institution. You have a right to your beliefs, but I also have a right to not be forced to listen to them when in a public setting which happens to also be my place of work. I may be an atheist but my outrage is not exclusive to atheists – non-Christians of every variety are constantly bombarded with Christian rhetoric every day while they conduct themselves in business or as they shop or attend school or enjoy leisure activities. Why should any person who practices a religion without Jesus as its savior have to endure propaganda and unsolicited preaching as they walk down the street, eat in a restaurant, or (as in my case) provide customer service in a place of business? I regularly help employees of Christian Churches that bank with my employer and seldom have issues with them because they leave their beliefs out of the interaction, however pious they may be. Take a cue from these polite individuals who understand that a deposit at the bank is not the place to start preaching, even if that is their profession. This is a nation that has separation of church and state written into its Constitution for a reason – we are a nation where people of many faiths coexist, and the easiest way to guarantee the peace is to leave spiritual discourse for locations and spaces where that sort of thing is welcome – at home, or at church, or at an event being hosted by a religious institution.

Being accosted with religion in unwelcome places is an unfortunate consequence of living in a democracy that guarantees free speech – so be it. What really incensed me about your inconsiderate advice was the notion that a 'church' would help me raise "respectful and well-behaved" children. Perhaps the values of your church community were helpful to you as you figured out the way you wanted to raise your family, I won't argue with that. But I am perfectly capable of raising a respectful and well-behaved child without any assistance from a preacher, a parish, or a religious belief system. I don't need God to be a kind, compassionate, moral person. I don't need religious traditions or superstitions to coerce me into treating others with respect or kindness, or to do the right thing. And I most definitely don't need God to raise my child to be a good citizen and a well-adjusted human being. You may have been without conviction or a strong sense of values/discipline when you began raising your family – but I know exactly the sort of skills I want to provide my child with as he grows up. I want more for him than just to be "respectful and well-behaved" – even though I do want that. I want my son to be capable of complex critical thought and analytical of others' actions and motives, I want my son to question the status quo when it seems unfair, I want him to stand up for himself and for others when they are faced with adversity, I want him to accept and befriend people regardless of their gender/sexual orientation/race/ethnicity, and I want him to really appreciate that this life is the only life he'll get so he should make decisions carefully and with consideration for how his actions will impact others and the environment in addition to himself.

And for the record, I've assisted your teenage children at the bank and while they are generally respectful and well-behaved: they are also profoundly clueless and ignorant about anything having to do with their money or adult life. May be you should have spent more time teaching them how to budget and use common sense than teaching them how to be obedient. That's my advice to you going forward.

Sincerely,

An educated mother with no need for your useless religious advice