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.