Inception

I need a place to store ideas, and more importantly, a place in which I can sort out thoughts.  I have got some work to do if I intend to capably express myself in writing, so there's another purpose.  That's what, three so far?

Sooo, whilst avoiding innumerable obligations, I was headlong committed to a manual Stumble Upon tangent researching random garbage when I happened upon quite a find, documentaryheaven.com.  There are some classic, must-see docs across a wide range of subjects alongside some more obscure or even amateur films.  While I was nonplussed to see films profiling conspiracy theories even Alex Jones would balk at and also noticed Ben Stein's horrific "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (although it was rated at 2.8/10), the vast majority of the titles appear to be thought provoking and respectable.  I was excited to see many BBC programs and even Louis Theroux, harkening back (holy shit, two decades ago?) to a time when Bravo, along with so many cable channels up and down the guide, seemed to be invested in providing at least mildly informative, educational shows.

I ended up getting stuck in philosophy.  I have long been fascinated by what little I have been exposed to of the great minds, and I still intend to develop a better understanding of those individuals and concepts that provide the foundation for my beliefs and others of modern significance.  The BBC profiles of Heidegger, Sartre, and Nietzsche named "Human All Too Human" after one of Nietzsche's works were largely fluff and did less to illuminate existentialism and the focal concepts than it did follow the philosopher's personal journeys and reasons for significant shifts in thought.  Perhaps I will actually have to read the fuckers.

There are a number of docs (I suppose a great many of these films would not be considered documentaries under most definitions) concerning atheism, and I was reminded suddenly that I needed to check into an allegation made by Christopher Hedges against Sam Harris that Sam, essentially, advocated first-strike nuking Arab countries.  Now, I'm aware that Harris's political leanings may be questionable, and I understood that he was harder on Islam than other religions in his books and talks, but this sounded difficult to believe.  Immediately upon searching, Sam Harris's blog response response to Hedges was located, and in convincing fashion, Hedges was reduced to a lunatic with no debate skills, no valid arguments, and whose pertinent accusations were without merit.

This was unsettling because I, along with many anti-war journalists and others whose opinions I've taken to heart with regularity, respect Hedges a great deal.  He speaks more eloquently about our hegemonic aspirations and the causes of our societal decline than anyone, with the exposure to war and educational pedigree beyond question.  His religious sensibilities were those of a realist, not an evangelical, and never really bothered me.  But, given the tone of both parties in this disagreement, I considered that Hedges might be embedding unfounded jabs at Harris within his speeches out of petty resentment.  I haven't watched much of their debates, but the enmity harbored by both toward the other seems entirely authentic.  The blog response to Hedges' charges of racism, etc., seemed to reinforce the notion that Hedges' attacks were motivated by something other than legitimate critique - afterall, I don't think I'll ever side with Hedges against the dangers of the "secular fundamentalism".

However, upon closer look, Harris's condemnation of Hedges seemed overwrought and ad hominem.  I mean, at the end of the day, Harris does advocate the first-strike approach against an Islamic nation should it reach nuclear capability.  His reasoning for this is that martyrdom is just that much more attractive to a Muslim and that death doesn't serve as a deterrent for them.  And what of evangelicals (Bush was one)?  Is heaven not as attractive to them because they don't get as many virgins?  Should the first-strike nuclear approach EVER even be seriously considered?

Further explanations for Harris's peculiar beliefs can be found elsewhere.  Harris fought the Islamic community center proposed in Manhattan, has been quoted "It is time we admitted that we are not at war with terrorism.  We are at war with Islam.", and unbelievably condoned the Israeli attacks on Gaza.  In other words, the faith practiced by more than 1.5 billion people throughout the world can simply not be reconciled with modern morality.  Some of Sam Harris's concerns are warranted.  But these stances colored by his outright hatred (he says that his "antipathy" toward Islam could not be exaggerated) are not tenable.  They are as unhelpful as his reluctance to welcome moderated versions of religiosity, the only step possible for any of so many deeply entrenched religious cultures.  I've never heard him talk of the US foreign policy impact on Islamic fundamentalism, either.  I've never heard him mention the Mosedec coup, Mubarak, or past/current support for other unpopular dictators.  What about the other factors that contribute to suicide bombing or terrorism in general?  His problem is not so much a "secular fundamentalism" as is Islamophobia and rationalization of it.

Turns out, Sam Harris is an asshole.