doughyatt.org

Welcome to my personal web site! I am Doug Hyatt, an aspiring writer living in East Tennessee, as well as an expert in the field of bioinformatics (biology meets computers). Tired of the straitjacket nature of blogging software, I have finally decided to design my own pages. Instead of struggling to make sense of a single 'harmoniously confused' blog, my humble readers may now select which of my varied jumble of interests they wish to learn more about. Each mini-site features its own static content as well as a running blog detailing my latest exploits related to its subject. Enjoy!

I just got done watching the season finale of Real Time with Bill Maher. This has, since its arrival on HBO, become the pre-eminent show for political discussion on TV. By minimizing the number of actors on the show to 2 (and often just 1), and by conducting long interviews with politicians, newspaper columnists, and other important figures from both sides of the fence, Maher has finally achieved a legitimacy (as Jon Stewart has) that he could never obtain on Politically Incorrect. His program is also damn funny. Despite its incredible bias to the left, the show nonetheless manages to capture many of the important issues of our times. This is primarily due to the courageous conservatives who agree to come on, despite the boos of the California crowd. These folks have my sincerest appreciation, for it is in the expression of views that are different from the Hollywood norm that I at least begin to understand the other side.

Tonight on Bill Maher, they discussed why the Democrats lost the presidential election. Andrew Sullivan, the gay Republican super blogger (who happened to vote for Kerry, but he was defending the so-called Red states vigorously and well), raised many good points about why we (the Dems) lost. First, he said that you can't demonize the other side or treat them with condescencion and expect them to vote for you. As examples of this demonization, he pointed out how liberals inevitably treat with contempt anyone who mentions God or Jesus, and that it is the arrogance and assumption that someone religious must somehow be defective in reasoning skills or unable to participate in political discussion that the Christians who voted for Bush found so offensive. On the flip side, he argued that it was incredibly presumptuous of the Right to assume that those in the secular portion of the population are somehow lacking in moral values. Sullivan argued that any time you demonize the other side, you invalidate any sort of discussion or dialogue you might have with them. In order to talk about an issue, you have to give the other person some respect to begin with.

He also made the point that, while it is one thing to criticize the United States, many liberals have gone so far as to label the U.S. or George Bush as evil (Noam Chomsky, in the very same show, said the U.S. should be prosecuted for war crimes for what they did in Iraq, that it was an invasion pure and simple; Sullivan countered with the tidbit that Chomsky gets paid millions to bash America around the world, and is a figure that should be held in contempt by all Americans. As usual, the real truth probably lies somewhere in between those two extremes). I believe personally that some of the acts committed by the U.S. and its leaders could be considered "evil"; however, I would never consider the U.S. itself to be "evil". Incidentally, Sullivan himself writes an interesting article on how the word "evil" is misapplied to both candidates in his endorsement of John Kerry for president.

Really a good point, the demonization one of Sullivan's, and I am trying to take it to heart in the wake of the election. It really isn't productive for me to use words like "brainwashing" to describe Christians (at the very least, I should make clear that I don't think everyone who voted for Bush was distracted/brainwashed; I give many the benefit of the doubt to have voted for him for "real" reasons, and despite the fact my friends who voted for Bush may get pissed off at my blog, they are not who I mean when I talk about the voters who decided this election. This doesn't change my beliefs, however; I *do* still believe Rove ran a campaign based on fear, bigotry, and lies. I *do* believe he took advantage of a particular weakness inherent in a radical segment of the Christian Right, and I *would* label this as brainwashing). It is inflammatory (but let's face it, I can't just change my beliefs... it might still be true) of me to call Bush/Cheney "evil", as "evil" should be a word reserved for the *really* bad guys. On the other hand, I can't honestly sit here and tell you that I don't think Bush and Cheney are more evil than good.

Sullivan is right, that you can't tell people they're stupid then expect them to vote for you. But, I also don't think you can hide from the truth any longer, either, with the stakes of the nation's situation now so high. I used to just ignore the subjects of politics and religion altogether, as common sense dictates, so that I could get along with everyone. But. when stem cell research is threatened, and Roe v. Wade, and our country is conducting wars I view to be unjust, I can't just sit back and *not* express my views loudly and vigorously. I really do believe opposition to stem cell research, in particular, is simply a position based on unfamiliarity (see? I am being good! I did not use the more inflammatory word 'ignorance' as I would have yesterday! Although the two mean the same thing, one is contemptuous; the other implies more intelligence but simply lack of having perused the facts, which is closer to what I actually intend to say) with the science. I encourage people to read my blog on the subject from a few months ago in which (I believe) I expose the vast improbability of the view that "ensoulment" occurs at conception. My identical twin brother and I are the living refutation of this argument (see my blog for further details).

Part of the problem with avoiding demonizing the opponent is that each side gets swept up in the tides of its own anger. And the end result is that instead of simply laying out arguments logically, the rhetoric gets the best of the reason... You wind up with exactly what Sullivan was talking about. So, while not arguing any less vigorously for "my team", I am going to struggle (but I won't always promise to succeed; reigning in is tough!) to fashion my points without belittling others' views.

In a shocking turn of events, George W. Bush has won a second term as president of the United States. I was deeply saddened by the American people on the night of November 2nd, 2004. On that fateful night, they legitimized the reign of a tyrannical warmonger; the people of our once great nation succumbed to Karl Rove's cleverly run campaign of fear, terror, and brainwashing. As Jon Stewart of the Daily Show wryly observed, the issues of the war, the economy, and terrorism were all "apparently trumped by the thought of two dudes kissing". Truer words have never been spoken.

I, and most of the non-U.S. portion of the world, expected Kerry to win. Bush was behind in the polls on so many issues, including the economy (which pundits say decides elections singlehandedly, but you can throw that theory out the window with this one). His approval rating had fallen below fifty percent. A vigorous consensus had been formed across the airwaves; our televisions flooded with the clamor of the angry and the disenfranchised, decrying Bush in a near-unanimous voice. Everywhere I turned, another rock musician, another writer, another comedian, or another Hollywood personality would emerge from the woodwork to condemn the president and to urge young people to get to the polls. Almost all of my friends voted for Kerry; a great percentage of them early voted.

The creeping power of the religious Right in this country will not now nor ever again be underestimated as it was in this election. The Christian masses proved to be the perfect target for Rove's ideologies. The simple message: appeal to fear. And it worked. Fear that their churches would be forced to conduct gay marriages (irrational, no church is forced to do anything, but that's the way these people think). Fear that terrorists would attack such great landmarks as the Corn Palace in South Dakota or Nebraska's Carhenge (as lampooned on the Daily Show, and, yes, there really is a Stonehenge somewhere in middle America built entirely out of cars). Fear that Democrats would run through the streets aborting fetuses and harvesting stem cells from their still warm pulsating little bodies (while laughing diabolically). Fear. Or, as my friend Todd Muldrew put it:

Another of my friends, Ian Watkins, wrote that Bush winning reelection is actually good for the country. While at first I recoiled in horror at the notion, I have since thought about it and am inclined to agree. Bush's legacy will be his incompetence. The quagmire he will find himself in, with a deficit spiralling out of control, madness run rampant in Iraq, the skewing of the Supreme Court to the extreme right, these will all come back to haunt him. I read a wonderful article on this subject in the London Times, titled Kerry Should Be Glad He Lost. The article draws numerous analogies between the incompetence of John Major and George Bush, and of how Major's incompetence galvanized the Tory party to produce a strong leader in Tony Blair.

The best article on anything related to the election that I have read so far, however, is also from the London Times: The Inevitable Triumph of God, Guns, and Apple Pie. I pretty much agree with everything the author writes in this article. And, finally, if you only have time to read one columnist, treat yourself to the acerbic wit of Maureen Dowd: The Red Zone is her wonderful article today. The scariest thing in this article is the description of some of the radical conservatives that got elected to Congress, hatemongers so conservative they make Bush seem like a liberal. Yes, we Dems lie at George Bush's feet, as she writes (actually she writes John Kerry's feet, but anyway), "in little blue puddles". But, like the T-1000, we will coalesce, re-form, and never stop stalking our enemies... If the country can survive four years of Dubya, by that time, it will be clear that he has been the worst president in my lifetime, and one of the worst presidents in American history. By that time, it will be clear not just to those of us who actually use our brains, but to the other half of the country as well. For even the brainwashed, if kicked in the shins enough damn times, will begin to realize "Hey... that hurts...."

My blog has fallen strangely silent these last few months. Truth be told, I find myself with little to say on the subject of Bush vs. Kerry that has not already been written/spoken/blogged about. I am ready to turn my attention and my blog to other subjects. The primary dividing line for these two candidates is, simply, RELIGION, and that is pretty much the end of it. Those of us who are not religious find Bush's very presence offensive. He is simply a disease that has infected the country and must be isolated and sent packing back to quarantine in Crawford, Texas. Christians, on the other hand, are not innately offended by Bush's existence or his views. This indifference to the religious/social issues enables them to focus more clearly on other differences between the two candidates. I've come to respect this opposing view; there is not much I can do to argue against it. When I ignore Bush's positions on prayer in schools, flag burning, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc etc. the list goes on, I find that, really, I don't favor Kerry by that large a margin. It's just all the Christian-Right-infused issues that press my buttons and get me so riled up that I can't even consider voting for Bush. Since religion is the key dividing line, what is there, really, to say? I can't even relate to the idea of the son of God taking mortal form, walking among people, and dying for our sins and all that. Given such a vast gulf in worldview between myself and someone who believes in all that stuff, what could possibly be done to bridge the gap? If I actually bought into the whole Judeo-Christian belief system, I'd probably be voting for Bush myself. So, I am done. I live in a country where most of the people do not believe what I believe. I just have to accept I am in the vast minority as an agnostic and move along. I guess there is just a part of me that wants to understand religion, and how people come to believe in a single, particular one, at the expense of all other belief systems. (I don't even claim that Christianity is incorrect; hell, I'm an agnostic... I just don't know, and that's that.) Regardless, that is what this election boils down to. In order to win, Kerry is going to have to garner a fairly large percentage of Christian voters. That will be a real challenge. We'll see if he can succeed come November.