Hitler, Halal, and Hubris: The Extreme Ignorance Involved in Analyzing Islamic Terrorism

Tags

000 lashes, 1000 lashes, adultery, afghanistan, africa, Al Qaeda, America, analysis, anthropology, AQAP, Australia, authoritarian, authoritarian regimes, authoritarianism, Balkans, behead, beheading, Bill of Rights, blogger, blogging, Bobby Jindal, Boko Haram, Canada, cartoon, cartooning, cartoons, censorship, Charlie Hebdo, Charlie Hebdo magazine, china, chocolate, chocolate bar, Christanity, Christian, Christians, cnn, coward, cowards, crime punishment, democracy, democratic, disenfranchisement, dissemination, email, Emanuel Tanay, equality, execution, fairness, family, First Amendment, France, free press, free speech, freedom, Germany, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor Jindal, halal, hible, historical, history, Hitler, hoax, honor killing, hubris, human rights, idea, ideas, ideology, ignorance, iran, iraq, ISIS, Islam, Japan, Jewish, Jews, Jindal, Judaism, justice, knowledge, lashing, lashings, lasjes, law, Lithuania, Lithuanian, maim, maiming, marginalization, media, Mohammed, murder, Muslim, Muslims, Nazi, Nazis, Nazism, New Testament, news, news outlets, newspaper, newspapers, Nigeria, no go zones, Old Testament, opinion, othering, Pakistan, Paris attacks, Paris terrorist attacks, political, politics, Prophet, protest, protesting, protests, psychology, qu'ran, rape, religion, rwanda, safety, Saudi Arabia, security, sharia, sharia law, sociology, stoning, Syria, terrorism, terrorists, the Balkans, the United Kingdom, torture, U.K., U.S., U.S.A., UK, United Kingdom, united states, United States of America, US, USA, violence, wan, war, war zone, whipping, women, women's rights, World War 2, World War II, World War Two, WW2, WWII

I received an email from a family member entitled “A German’s View on Islam”. It’s a hoax email, but I didn’t know that until I did further research. If anyone is interested in the contents of the email that was sent to me, those contents can be found here:

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/t/Tanay-Merek-German-Islam.htm#.VL_rtIo8KnM

I put a lot of thought into the response I emailed to my family members, however, and thought I should post my thoughts here because the topic and subsequent discussions still seem relevant.

This is a slightly edited version of the email response I sent to my family members:

I, too, was disappointed when I read this email. I wouldn’t say I was “shocked” because I’ve heard a lot of this before. The “no go zones” stirred up a lot of controversy when Bobby Jindal talked about them, and then defended his statements on CNN. At the risk of getting into an all-out war with everyone, I’d like to share my thoughts. Please remain civil. Attacking each other is not going to help anything.

I read this a few minutes after it was sent out, and had an immediate reaction, but I was watching the State of the Union address, so I thought I’d wait to respond. Then I thought it might be best not to respond, but since I see others have already done so, I will.

I was immediately intrigued by a sociological examination of current Muslim terrorism. (To be clear, I’m in no way saying all Muslims are terrorists or that we should “kill” Muslims–or terrorists. Extrajudicial killing, though usually done for practical purposes, adds to the problem.) My first thought was that the timeline must be off. An aristocrat pre-Nazi power? The fact that this person would still be alive and writing articles is not impossible, but surprising. I understood this man as saying he was a well-established businessman by the 1930s. I would think this would make him at least 100 years old today. I didn’t do the research Robin did, so I can’t tell you who Emmanuel Tanya [as it appeared in the email–his real name was Emanuel Tanay] is, or who this story/email originates from.

[I later did do the research.]

I have no reason to doubt the idea that many Germans rallied behind a renewed German nationalism or that much of the population didn’t follow as close attention to politics as it should have. My issue comes with comparison of Nazi Germany to not only today’s situation of global terrorism, but to situations unrelated to either in recent history. It’s very sexy to compare any situation to Nazism. Heads of majority Muslim countries that support terrorist organizations within their own borders (and without) are not Hitler, just as terrorist cells are not comparable to the early Nazi party. I think it does a tremendous disservice to all of the victims of extreme violence, tribal warfare, ethnic cleansing, and genocide to lump them all together. There are unique causes and conditions that occurred in Rwanda, the Balkans, China, Japan, etc. The barest of similarities can be made with the rise of Nazism and the subsequent genocide that occurred in Germany. Yes, ethnic and religious hatreds exist around the world, unfathomable acts of barbarism are practiced in an effort to gain and maintain power, and runaway ideology used as a justification for almost anything did not end in Germany in 1945. If we conflate every conflict, we misunderstand history and have even less chance of effectively mitigating the worst situations. It is pure ignorance to say ISIS or Al Qaeda or Boko Haram or any large terrorist organization of the moment is tantamount to the Nazi party. I’m not trying to diminish their threat or barbarism, but there are so many differences that I don’t think it’s a useful or proper comparison.

That those who scream the loudest or instill the most fear often get the most attention is not something I will dispute. Have terrorists overwhelmed the “silent majority”? I would say this is not true in every case, but yes, they pose significant threats to the very lives of those who live near (or more unfortunately, under) them. Ask anyone who has escaped from ISIS-controlled territory. The idea that those around them, the “moderate Muslims”, or, in this case, “peace-loving Muslims” should call out the poisonous apples in their ranks is an attractive one. Wouldn’t that be wonderful if everyone said “not in my name” to the point that their civil views drowned out the hatred and suicide bombings and maiming and beheading and stoning executed by the extremists? 1. Try doing this in a country where blogging your dissent can get you 1,000 lashes. (This happens in Saudi Arabia, a U.S. ally, that practices its own form of extremism.) The new head of “Charlie Hebdo” was asked how he felt about the cartoons of Mohammed drawn by his magazine staff not being shown in much of Western media. He said that he very much understood the threat posed by those living under authoritarian regimes and in places where free speech is hindered and “insulting the Prophet” can result in death. He did not encourage people to “stand up” in the face of such retribution. He did say, however, that he believed those who live in so-called “democratic” countries with stronger free speech protections were cowards for not showing the cartoons. I mention this because whatever your view on this, the point I’m making is that we tend to assume it’s just as easy for people around the world to openly “stand up for what is right”. It’s not. Perhaps the author is arguing that those who were silent let things get to this point. I’m not sure that’s entirely fair either. 2. It’s a nice idea, but will the terrorists just decide that violent jihad is no longer a good idea because most people wag their fingers at them? It’s a nice sentiment, but I doubt there’s significant merit to it. 3. Why should every member of a group be responsible for the actions of every other member of that group? Are we not all individuals? (“The Daily Show” made this point very well about 2 weeks ago.)

I’m not a proponent of any religion. I think passages from the Qu’ran as well as passages from the New and Old Testaments are despicable. There are extremists who will follow these tomes to the letter, including many Muslims. This is real and it is dangerous. I don’t have a solution that will address all of the root causes of the upswell in Muslim terrorism and extremism.

I do not agree that this email calls for the killing of all Muslims. I know there have been several instances of controversy regarding the Lord’s Prayer being shafted in favor of Muslim prayers at major institutions. I can’t speak to the validity of this claim. While I would like separation of church and state to actually exist, religious freedom should be extended to all. No group should be favored and allowed to practice if another is not.

The email mentions the dangers of labeling food as halal. Does anyone care if it’s labeled kosher? These labels mean nearly the same thing. (Muslims shopped at the Jewish market that was recently attacked in Paris!) I suppose this is an attempt to warn Western nations of the infiltration of their societies by especially motivated and mobilized outsiders. Instead of looking at this development as one toward greater unity and understanding, there are those who see it as a threat to their very existence. I do not condone any system that treats women and minorities as lesser, that puts religion above the safety and wellbeing of others, whether this is a perversion of the religion by some or not. Ooh, an imam supervised the baking of a chocolate bar. That’s really symbolic. Forget real terrorism. Now we should all be cowed.

Advertisements

Progressives: Stop Being Petty and Polemical

Tags

advice, America, American politics, argument, arms race, barack obama, Citizens United, Citizens United decision, climate change, communication, communism, congress, conservative, conservatives, culture war, culture wars, debate, decision, decisions, discussion, division, divisiveness, egalitarian, egalitarianism, email, equality, fairness, frank luntz, freedom, freedoms, fundraising, Gilded Age, gun, guns, historical, history, Hobby Lobby, Hobby Lobby decision, idea, ideas, ideological, ideology, immigration, inalienable rights, Karl Rove, Koch brothers, law, laws, lawsuit, lawsuits, legislation, liberal, liberals, liberties, liberty, message, messaging, obama, political, political advice, political advice for progressives, politics, President Barack Obama, president obama, prisoner's dilemma, progress, progressive, Progressives, progressivism, rhetoric, rights, SCOTUS, Supreme Court, talking points, Tea Party, tone, U.S., U.S. politics, united states, United States of America, unity, US, US politics, zero sum, zero-sum game

In one of my very first blog posts, I talked about how I thought progressive groups have a branding problem. That feeling has only been strengthened with time.

In email after email that I receive from different progressive political groups, I’m assaulted with the same type of message: a call to action against “the right-wing nut jobs”, “the gun nuts”, “Karl Rove, the Koch brothers, and the dangerous Tea Party”. Sometimes the writers get really creative, leading one to believe they spend hours sitting in front of their laptops or tablets, experimenting with extreme alliterations and potential apocalyptic scenarios. The whole “the world as we know it is about to end…if you don’t donate $3 or more by this CRITICAL fundraising deadline” schtick is so old that I barely open these emails anymore.

Progressive talking points generally seem to follow the same pattern. Maybe someone decided to dumb it down a bit, deciding that pithy slogans and fear mongering were easier and sexier than winning an argument based on sound policy. Why inform the people when you can take a shortcut?

Sure, hate and ignorance will cohere the torch-wielding mobs (temporarily), but there are multiple problems with this strategy. Perhaps the most worrying is that engaging in this kind of dialogue–and I use that term as loosely as possible–necessitates an arms race of vitriolic rhetoric. Nearly everyone complains about how divided the country is. Let’s just divide it more, shall we? “But they did it first! We have to fight back!” And so it goes…
Besides selling citizens short, this approach dilutes the argument and dissolves credibility. If the other side is so bad, what makes your side better? When spokespeople bury their legitimate points in screeds against others, it’s very difficult to separate out the noise.

Another thing progressives don’t seem to understand is that the conservatives they so loathe at least pretend to stand for something. Of course, being “the party of no”, voting against bringing even the barest of legislation to the congressional floor, shutting down the government, and bringing lawsuit upon lawsuit against nearly everyone and everything to promote their self-described “culture war” should stand on its own as abhorrent behavior. Obviously, many of these people are “against” much more than what they are “for”.

There is a caveat, however. Decisions like the Hobby Lobby decision handed down by the Supreme Court are cloaked in the nebulous, but always-appealing brand of “freedom”. Personal liberty, historic imagery, and inalienable rights are so ingrained in the psyches of Americans since kindergarten that these tropes are difficult to argue against. Sure, there are nuanced polemics about “whose freedom is really being protected” and true (but often long winded and depressing) anecdotes about how many groups faced and continue to face discrimination throughout American history. Most of us know that “the good old days” weren’t really that great and that all of American history has been a kind of gilded age fight for the furthering of freedom.

For a brief stint, progressives followed President Obama’s line in repeating the ethic of equality. This idea should be compelling, but like scissors cutting paper in Rock, Paper, Scissors, “equality” is often no match for the far stronger sentiments evoked by “freedom”. This paper-thin concept that we should live a more egalitarian life is not something most people care about. Besides being fraught with the historically anathema association to communism, equality is more of a communitarian idea. If someone else getting more means that I lose some, why should I give that up? People are not persuaded by the idea of less for themselves; they are stirred by the possibility of more for themselves.

What should really be put forward is something along the line of fairness. If progressives can argue for fairness for specific groups or, especially, tailor this idea to individuals, I think they would be more successful. Framing an argument is important. Just as people are grabbed by headlines, the thesis and tone of an argument are what will stick in people’s minds more effectively than slews of statistics. This is not to say that arguments–both written and spoken–should skimp on content. I am instead promoting the idea that a measured, but consistent approach be taken when presenting issues of concern.

The idea of paycheck fairness is difficult to argue against. The main argument I heard by those against passing concrete legislation that sought to make it more difficult to discriminate against women in the workplace was that it simply wasn’t happening. That is a negation of the premise, but not an outright rebuttal.

If hot button issues like climate change and immigration are proving difficult to advance on, try changing tactics. There are always going to be ideological differences and “bridging the divide” is much easier said than done. It only serves to exacerbate the wound when you either aren’t really trying or have lost the argument before you’ve even started.

The Hobby Lobby and Citizens United decisions aren’t fair to most people, plain and simple. Even if we accept the premise that the rights of a few (those in charge of companies) are being impeded, what about the millions of workers and millions of voters impacted by such decisions? What laws like this state is that those who have money and power are worth more than the vast majority who have less. If you own a company or you have lots of money and friends in high places, you are legally entitled to a greater say in the workings of what is supposed to be a democratic country. The rights of a few (whose rights I would contend are not really being infringed) bump up against the rights of the much less powerful many. This is a corporatocracy that caters to vested, ideological (and often very misinformed) beliefs that simply is not fair.

Show people why THEIR rights are being restricted. Be FOR something instead of solely against something. Live up to your name, progressives, and be truly progressive. Maybe then we’d have a slightly better shot at mobilizing people. People want to do what’s in their interest. I believe that people would rather get something for themselves than hurt others. As long as politics operate in a zero-sum fashion (which they don’t have to, but they tend to), make people want to win. That is almost always more persuasive than making the other side lose.

Susan Rice and Obama and Republicans–Oh, My!

Tags

2012, 2012 election, 2013, ACA, ACORN, affordable care act, America, anthrax, barack obama, Benghazi, bills, Bush, Bush administration, Chuck Hagel, Condoleezza Rice, congress, controversy, Donilon, election 2012, fox news, Hagel, intelligence, iraq, Iraq War, John Kerry, john mccain, Libya, Maddow, mccain, mitt romney, money, national security, National Security Adviser, news, obama, Obama administration, obamacare, policy, politics, President Barack Obama, President Mitt Romney, president obama, President Romney, presidential election 2012, rachel maddow, Rice, romney, scandal, scandals, Secrekerry, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State John Kerry, Secretary of State Kerry, senate, Senate confirmation hearing, Senate confirmation hearings, Senator John Kerry, senator john mccain, Senator Kerry, Senator McCain, Susan Rice, taxpayer money, taxpayers, The Wizard of Oz, Tom Donilon, UN, united states, United States Ambassador to the United Nations, US Ambassador to the UN, US embassy, white house, Wizard of Oz, WMD

Susan Rice is being tapped as Obama’s new National Security Adviser to replace Tom Donilon. Undoubtedly, there will be uproar from Republicans at this after the much hyped-up (much ado about nothing) Secretary of State debacle of a few months ago. In case you forgot, many Republicans (both senators and media) personalities waged an all-out war against Susan Rice, the then-likely next Secretary of State, tarnishing her name after, as then US Ambassador to the UN, she reported what was later found out to be false information on the September 11, 2012 US embassy attack in Benghazi, Libya. Republicans vowed not to vote for her, bullying her into stepping out of the running. Voila! Now we have Secrekerry aka Secretary of State John Kerry, a person senators such as John McCain respect and feel comfortable with in the position–despite Kerry being a Democrat. The Susan Rice witch hunt can be viewed as a prelude to the Chuck Hagel–a person John McCain did not much respect or feel comfortable with in the position despite his being a Republican and co-chair of McCain’s 2000 Presidential campaign–witch hunt. (Crazy Republicans, tricks are for kids!) Somehow, miraculously, Chuck Hagel passed grueling confirmation hearings to become the current Secretary of Defense.

Anyway, getting back to the original story: the prospect of Susan Rice as National Security Adviser is bound to cause strife after the Susan-Rice-as-Secretary-of-State-debacle. I think this strategy to make her National Security Adviser is brilliant, however, from a political standpoint. If Republicans decide to wage unreasonable opposition yet again, Democrats–and the White House–can remind them of another Rice in the position of National Security Adviser. That Rice, Condoleezza, propagated tons of false and skewed intelligence information that led the United States into an almost 9 year war with Iraq. Oops. Thousands of US lives were lost and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis are dead. But 4 dead Americans in Benghazi, you say! What about the 13 embassy bombings under Bush’s watch? What about all the innocent people who died due to a drawn out war that we KNOW was a mistake? We’re not supposed to talk about that.

Anyway, the post of National Security Adviser does not require Senate Confirmation. There may be a lot of bellyaching from Republicans, but they’ll have to suck it up. I take issue with Susan Rice for other reasons, but the way Republicans used her for target practice in their crazed spree/politicization of the Benghazi terror attack is more than unbecoming. It is shameful. Good for Obama. Good for Rice. Perhaps bad for the country in the short term as the media whips a non-story into the next (non) controversy with wall-to-wall coverage. It will be fun to see Fox News in a tizzy, though. You almost can’t blame many of these politicians and their talking heads–when your “policy” initiatives in the Congress include such recent actions as voting to repeal “Obamacare” for the 37th time and defunding the now 3 years-defunct ACORN, using taxpayer money to do so–you need flashy distractions. Without the illusion of the Great Oz, all you have is a scared, deceptive man behind a curtain.

Susan Rice will be the next National Security Adviser. The Republicans will whine and stamp their feet. They’d do better to focus on actual policy. Didn’t they learn the lesson of 2012? Had enough Americans responded to their childish tactics, and voted for Mitt Romney as president, they wouldn’t be in this position today.

The Power of the Vote

Tags

90 percent, 90%, 91 percent, 91%, advocate, advocates, America, American politics, Americans for Responsible Solutions, Arizona, background check, background checks, barack obama, biden, Blumenthal, congress, Connecticut, constituents, Constitution, D.C., DC, expanded background checks, family, friends, Gabby Giffords, Gabrielle Giffords, gallery, Giffords, gun, gun control, gun show, gun show loophole, gun shows, gun violence, guns, Harry Reid, internet, joe biden, Kelly, LaPierre, lies, lobbyist, lobbyists, lying, Mark Kelly, murder, N.R.A., N.R.A. lies, National Rifle Association, NRA, NRA lies, obama, Orwell, Orwellian, P.A.C., PAC, political, politics, polling, polls, President Barack Obama, president obama, press conference, Reid, Richard Blumenthal, Sandy Hook, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Sandy Hook School, school shooting, school shootings, second amendment, senate, Senate Gallery, Senate Majority Leader Reid, senator, Senator Blumenthal, Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Richard Blumenthal, senators, shooting, shooting spree, shooting sprees, shootings, Tucson, U.S., U.S. politics, U.S.A., united states, United States of America, United States politics, universal background checks, US, US politics, USA, vice president biden, Vice President Joe Biden, victim, victims, violence, vote, voting, Washington, Washington DC, Wayne LaPierre, white house

Yesterday, the best hope for any real progress in protecting Americans from gun violence was shot down.

The Senate voted on an expansion of the background check system for those seeking to buy guns. It’s important to note that this bill was a watered-down version of previously proposed bills on the expansion of background checks. The bill called for background checks to be performed at gun shows and prior to Internet sales. Because the bill expressly exempted background checks from being required for sales from gun owners to relatives and friends, it fell far short of the “universal background check” threshold. The bill was expressly written in such a way both to alleviate fears of too much government incursion in private sales, and as an attempt to make it more palatable to senators who fear the lobbying and economic power of the NRA. It’s also important to note that the bill contained a very specific provision AGAINST the creation of a national gun registry. Because some paranoid people think that the US government actually wants to keep lists of these people in an effort to confiscate their guns, efforts were made to assuage even those most ardent opposers. To think the government a. has their shit together enough to accomplish such a mass undertaking, and b. has the time and money to do so, reveals a tremendous faith in our system. (These are some of the same people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. Which is it: powerful, Orwellian overreach, or staggering ineptitude? Make up your mind.)

I get it, though. There’s a fear that the government lies. Well, the NRA has demonstrably lied on a huge scale in order to push its pro-guns for everyone, everywhere agenda. The NRA is financed by gun manufacturers. Therefore, the NRA does the bidding of the gun manufacturers and represents their desires above those of actual NRA members. Of course gun manufacturers want as few restrictions as possible on gun sales. Gun sales are how they make their money. It’s not difficult to connect the dots. In fact, it’s a much easier connection than those reached by conspiracy theorists. Gun manufacturers have a vested interest in ginning up fear among the populace by distorting the facts, and telling people that “the government is going to take your guns away”, which translates into “Better get them while their hot–you never know when they’ll be gone for good!” This also leads to the idea that people need as much protection as possible against a “tyrannical” government comprised of SWAT teams and Special Forces soldiers who will kick down their doors in an effort to forcefully, physically “steal” their Cobstitutionally-protected firearms. Scary image, right? That’s why fear mongering is effective. And, in this case, it’s particularly potent because it preys on people who are already especially vulnerable to this type of delusional mindset. Never mind the fact that several Supreme Court cases as well as the Constitution itself is on the side of gun owners. These people who possess deadly weapons are defenseless against the Leviathan, didn’t you know? In their minds, their guns are the only things standing between them and such ridiculous and dangerous notions as state-run concentration camp style FEMA camps used to imprison citizens. What do you bet these people don’t even know that there are countries like Russia and North Korea who, right now, send political prisoners to ACTUAL work/slave camps?

Anyway, efforts were made to try to convince these people that their worst fears would never be realized. The government actually catered to THEM.

While the compromise bill was not as far-reaching as many would have liked, it was hailed as a historic and positive step. Its bipartisan nature was touted. It was drafted by Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, two conservative senators who represent areas densely populated by gun owners. It was often mentioned how credibility was gained by the fact that both senators had “A” ratings from the NRA.

In a myriad of polls, at least 90% of the American people supported expanded background checks. Some polls said 91%. More than 80% of Americans supported universal background checks.

Even NRA head and soulless shell of a person Wayne LaPierre called for universal background checks in a widely-circulated video showing him testifying before Congress in 1999 on behalf of the NRA and its powerful lobbyists.

It was thought that in the wake of the Sandy Hook School massacre and the accumulated horror of all the mass shootings and smaller scale, but ubiquitous, gun violence, that it was finally possible to attempt to make the country just a little safer. As both Biden and Obama have said, if the life of one child, one person, or a hundred, or a thousand, is saved by keeping guns out of the hands of more convicted felons, domestic abusers, and those with severe mental illnesses, don’t we have an obligation to try?

As the families and friends of those who died and suffered grievous injuries in shootings looked on from the Senate gallery (at the very senators they had summoned the strength to share their stories with in an effort to prevent others from going through the same unimaginable pain in the future), the Senate killed the bill. The vote was 54-46, with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid joining the 46 and voting no once it became clear the bill wouldn’t pass in order to be able to bring it up for another vote in the future. Two of the women directly affected by gun violence shouted “shame on you” to those senators who voted no, from the Senate gallery. Former Representative Gabby Giffords, herself a famous example of gun violence, echoed this statement in an op-ed for “The New York Times” published today. As she explained how she has been robbed of the ability to speak easily since being shot in the head in Tucson in January 2011, she expressed being “furious” at the outcome of the vote. She is not only a former Congresswoman, a very visible victim of gun violence, and still, a gun owner, but she also co-founded Americans for Responsible Solutions, a PAC that aims to counter the incredible lobbying power of the NRA, with her former astronaut husband, Mark Kelly.

President Obama was very angry at a press conference he gave less than an hour after the Senate vote. He said that while “90 percent of Democrats voted for the bill, 90 percent of Republicans voted against it”. Obama explicitly called the NRA out on its lies to people.

The NRA erroneously claimed that a universal gun registry was to be created, and that it would be used to punish lawful gun owners. The NRA LIED ON PURPOSE–and, as Obama said, it worked. Unfortunately, enough of a “vocal minority” called their senators, and sufficiently scared them into voting against the bill. Members of Congress are so worried about being primaried in their next elections that they don’t represent the majority of people. As Obama resignedly asked, who are they representing?

Senior Senator from Connecticut Richard Blumenthal called yesterday the “saddest day of [his] public life”. He has been a tireless advocate for gun control legislation since the Sandy Hook massacre rocked his state in December. Yesterday was especially disappointing for millions of Americans, myself included. There are eight more gun control-related bills that are going to the Senate floor in the coming days. They are not expected to pass. As one resolute father of a six-year-old boy who was brutally murdered by gun violence at Sandy Hook Elementary School said, this is just the beginning. They knew it would be a long road, and they (all those related to victims of gun violence) aren’t going anywhere because they have no choice.

It’s difficult to be optimistic, but there are no other options but to give up. Progress often takes time. I’m hoping at least some of these senators are voted out next election cycle, and replaced by more progressive counterparts. Let them feel the power of votes firsthand.

The Bungled Media Response to the Boston Marathon Bombing

Tags

act of terror, advice, Al Qaeda, AP, Associated Press, barack obama, biden, bomb, bombing, bombs, Boston, Boston Marathon, casualties, cnn, compassion, coverage, deaths, Dr. Fegan, explosions, Fegan, first responders, George Zimmerman, god, injuries, joe biden, journalism, Marathon, Massachusetts, media, Newtown, obama, Patriots Day, photos, pictures, political, politicization, politics, President Barack Obama, president obama, religion, Sandy Hook, saturation, shooting, sympathy, terror, terrorism, terrorist, Trayvon Martin, vice president biden, Vice President Joe Biden, victims, VP Biden, websites

Yesterday, an act of pure malice occurred. At around 2:50 pm, 2 bombs (and a little later, an unrelated explosion), exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The current casualty count is 3 deaths (including an 8 year old boy) and 144 injuries, many of which are amputations caused by the nearby bombs.

I was on the phone with my friend in California when my mom told me to turn on the TV. When I first saw the early coverage a few minutes after the bombs detonated, I said to my friend and to my mom, “This looks like a coordinated attack”. Police and other officials were very careful in the first few hours about calling the event any kind of attack or concerted effort. When Vice President Biden used the term
“act of terror”–which is what this was–the media went crazy about the significance of this term. All kinds of national security phrases like “post-9/11 world” were repeated ad nauseum by frenzied reporters and anchors who freely admitted they didn’t really know what was going on. When President Obama spoke almost four hours later about what had by then been clearly defined as an attack, the media noted that he did not use the words “terror” or “terrorist”. A quick lesson in semantics: Anyone who makes a deliberate effort to attack a group of people with the intention of inciting fear in the public is a terrorist. A terrorist is one who performs acts of terror, aiming to terrorize the populace. This is very simple. One need not be a member of Al Qaeda or a related group to qualify as a terrorist. In fact, there are plenty of types of terror that don’t fit this mold. Eco-terrorism is one example.

My point in writing this blog post is to criticize the media response in the immediate aftermath of this horrible event.

My main criticisms are that:

1. Reporters should not worry about nuance and policy wonkery, and they should call a spade a spade. Of course people are terrified (the very hallmark of an act of terror), and of course they’re sad. Our collective conscience has been shocked. Many of the racers and bystanders admitted that they were still in shock. The media owes everyone a clear explanation.

2. Do not tell people how to make homemade bombs on national television. An “expert” on CNN began talking about the various compositions of bombs, naming chemicals such as C4, and then detailing other, easier ways to make homemade bombs since stores are now on the lookout for people who buy large amounts of fertilizer at one time. Thank you for that information. I sure hope the wrong people don’t use that. Would it inspire anyone watching? Of course not. What a silly idea.

3. If you are going to show pictures, make an effort to preserve the privacy and the dignity of those who are severely injured. It’s an incredible understatement to say that showing people with blown off limbs and people who are lying, bleeding in the streets and unmoving as they’re carted onto ambulances adds unnecessary insult to injury. Aren’t there editors who are paid to make such executive decisions? There are always going to be those disgusting people who post pictures of the most gruesome injuries on websites devoted to such things. This is obviously disgraceful. Associated Press and CNN, however, don’t have to follow suit. All I’m urging is discretion in coverage. We don’t see flag-draped coffins of soldiers who died in war on TV, but we can see potential corpses of civilians?

4. Stop trying to argue political significance. We know, you’re as confused and upset as everyone. And that’s ok. That’s human, and that’s understandable. You do, however, have an audience of millions of people who come to you to find out what’s happening. You have an obligation to take the responsibility of journalism seriously. I know, you’re so used to pundits “debating” each other for countless empty hours, you may find it difficult to escape that ethos. It’s fine that it’s Patriots’ Day. No one has school in Massachusetts on Patriots’ Day. Therefore, there are more potential (and likely) victims because more people (including a large number of children) will be on the streets of Boston, possibly watching the Marathon. Even if these people are not watching the Marathon, they might just be in downtown Boston. Fine. Please do not speculate on the significance of Patriots’ Day to the attack. Do not enter conspiracy theory territory to fill airtime. It’s unbecoming, not to mention a disservice to your viewers, readers, and listeners. Wall to wall coverage does not a credible journalistic institution make. Speaking of credibility, I want to hear things like “There were no threats deemed credible prior to the race”. This is real news. Thank you. More of that, please.

5. Twitter may be a source of misinformation. As you claimed, a lot of early reports can turn out to be wrong. CNN, you, especially should know this lesson well. (Remember that not so little slip up you made when you reported that the Supreme Court struck down the Affordable Care Act aka the disdainfully mocked “Obamacare” plan? Yeah. Oops. Rick Perry understands your embarrassment.)
Because of the ephemeral and near instantaneous nature of tweets combined with the echo chamber effect of the network, secondhand citizen journalists are bound to get key details wrong. I know for a fact that, even hours later, people were tweeting incorrect facts on Twitter. I saw it myself. Just remember: Twitter is often not an authoritative source.

6. Do not kill the story. I don’t know where the line is, and obviously, the Boston Marathon bombings are a huge story. There are, however, many other stories in the country, and especially, the world. It’s ok to report on those too. If you keep showing the same pictures and build an entire cottage industry out of a story, not only are you being exploitative, but you are numbing people to the significance of the event by bombarding them with it, uninterrupted, for days on end. Unfortunately, this is what occurred with the Sandy Hooking shooting spree story and the Trayvon Martin shooting (and subsequent obsession with shooter George Zimmerman).

Terror is terror. If you’re so careful about your phrasing of something like that, you should be careful of many other things.

One other quick note. Everyone immediately offers their “thoughts and prayers” to the victims of any tragic event. I’m sure most people’s intentions are harmless, and they genuinely feel badly about what occurred. People want to express sympathy and compassion in the face of something whose horror they can’t reconcile. The “prayer” part of that statement, especially, irks me. Obviously, one’s prayers are not going to undo the horror. No one can turn back time. What I think is truly insensitive is the people who claim that god saved them–or that god bless and protect the souls of those so callously murdered or maimed. I will be very blunt. It is unbelievably selfish to think you were spared when others weren’t. Maybe these people don’t realize this, but they should. Maybe they have survivor’s guilt. I’m not sure. Whether this slight is unintentional or not, no one needs this fact rubbed in his or her face–that you’re ok, and he or she is not; all but for the grace of god, of course. That brings me to another quite glaring logical fallacy. What kind of merciful, omnipotent,omnibenevolent god would allow for such carnage? If the answer is that people have free will, god is not doing a very good job of intervening to “protect” the innocent.

The terrorist attack that happened in Boston was unexpected and horrific. I feel terrible for everyone involved, and it scares me that authorities didn’t pick up on something so significant before a major event like the Boston Marathon which welcomes people from all over the world. I’m somewhat surprised that they don’t have any suspects at this time. I’m also floored by the incredible grace, calmness, and patience dislayed by the first responders, the officials tasked with holding press conferences, and surgeons such as Dr. Fegan of Massachusetts General Hospital, who took time off his break to talk to the press. He gave general details in a tactful way, without betraying anyone’s privacy.

An event like this is difficult enough. I just wish people–especially members of the media–would make an effort not to make these mistakes when events like this occur.

Happy Birthday!

Tags

anniversary, arab spring, assad, bashar al assad, Benghazi, biden, Birthday, blog, Chavez, china, climate change, dadt, domestic, don't ask don't tell, dream act, economy, election 2012, Europe, eurozone, gay, global warming, happy birthday, human rights, immigration, international, lesbian, Libya, Mauritius, military, obama, politics, president obama, Putin, romney, Ryan, Syria, terrorism, Venezuela, war on women, women, WordPress

Today (well, October 27, so technically, it’s yesterday) it’s been a year since I started my blog. Happy birthday to the little blog that could! I’d like to look at how things changed (or didn’t) in a year, both domestically and internationally.

To begin with, we’re no longer in Republican primary season–the U.S.
election is only 10 days away. (My second blog post, in October 2011, was about Hermain Cain, who was, unbelievably, leading the polls in the Republican primary at the time.)

The situation in Syria has gotten much worse. With estimates of over 30,000 killed, and many more detained, tortured, and missing, the Syrian crisis has deteriorated since its beginning in March of 2011. Bashar al Assad has remained in power longer than anyone predicted, and it doesn’t appear that “his days are numbered”, as everyone has said since the situation in Syria has gotten so horrific that it could no longer be ignored.

The narrative about Europe and the Eurozone crisis has largely remained the same. Temporary stability has been achieved due to (mostly German-based) bailouts of struggling countries like Greece.

There have been no global climate change agreements to which the US has been a party. This is, perhaps, one of the most disappointing and frightening modes of inaction to occur in the last year. We will surely pay the price for ignoring the effects we have on the climate. The common argument is that during an economic crisis, you can’t think long term. Wrong. You HAVE to think long term. Even if we can’t do everything overnight, let’s attempt to make substantial progress. Not doing anything is a cop out, and it will be fatal. We must begin, and I’m hoping that Congress passes actual legislation, and the second term of the Obama administration makes this a priority. In addition, green jobs are real jobs.

The Keystone XL pipeline legislation was not passed, and there is support by the Obama administration for alternative energy, but no legislation on the effects of climate change has passed. President Obama owes environmentalists, progressives, and the future of humanity.

The fiscal cliff (as a result of the budget deal) looms ever larger. This debt ceiling deal was, and continues to be, a terrible Hobbesian choice that never should have come up for a vote. The fact that ignorant and reckless Tea Party economic terrorists held the government and the economy hostage makes me seethe. The fact that the House will likely still retain a Republican majority of the very same (and maybe even more conservative and ignorant members) because people vote against their interests is even more upsetting.

President Obama expressed support for same sex marriage…after Joe Biden preempted his announcement. I love Joe, though. As he said in the Vice Presidential Debate against Paul Ryan, he always says what he means, and means what he says, and people know that about him.

“Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was repealed on September 20, 2011, but was implemented in the months following the passage if the act. And guess what? No one died–directly from gays and lesbians serving in the military, anyway.

President Obama passed a first step toward Dream Act-style legislation.

Elections changed leadership in France, Italy, and other places (including Arab Spring elections), while oppression and allegations of voter fraud prevailed in places like Russia, Mauritius, and Venezuela led to new terms for Putin, Chavez, and the arrest of Mauritius’s previously ousted democratically-elected leader.

On September 11, 2012, the now infamous Benghazi terrorist attack occurred, killing four Americans, including the American ambassador to Libya. It was terribly tragic, and while an investigation is rightfully taking place, this event should not be politicized. Those who have politicized it should be ashamed.

In China, Bo Xilai’s corruption (and his wife’s murder of a British journalist), as well as the FoxConn disgrace, suicides, and strikes of workers living in inhumane conditions was revealed to the world. Even economic tigers have problems.

The “War on Women” has continued. I could write an entire blog post on this alone.

The world was stunned when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot. There have been several deadly shootings since then.

A No Labels candidate (the magical figure who was supposed to save us from the ever-increasing chasm of partisan divide) has not materialized. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, whose party and candidacy might be the most viable electoral alternative, was not invited to the debates. Neither were any of the other candidates from outside of the two main parties.

The War in Iraq officially ended. As per President Obama’s campaign promise, the War in Afghanistan is set to end–whatever that means, exactly–in 2014.

An unprecedented amount of money (much by outside groups) has been spent on elections this season. Over $2 billion has been spent on the presidential election alone. Think of all the other things that money could’ve been spent on.

Sure, there’s a lot to be disillusioned about, but a lot of things need to change. We don’t exactly have many other options. I’m optimistic about progress. We’ll see where we are a year from today.

The Media and the Ministry of Truth

Tags

1984, America, audacity, barack obama, Bashir, biden, campaign, campaign 2012, candidates, Citizens United, class warfare, classism, cold war, courage, Dana Milbank, debate, debates, deceit, deceitful, deceitfulness, deception, democrat, dishonesty, division, divisiveness, Election, election 2012, elections, elite, elitism, exclusive, exclusivity, fact check, facts, fantasy, focus group, focus groups, frank luntz, George Orwell, history, honesty, inclusive, inclusiveness, integrity, international, joe biden, Karl Rove, liars, lie, lies, Luntz, Lyin' Ryan, lying, MAD, Martin Bashir, mendacity, Milbank, Ministry of Truth, MiniTrue, Mitt lies, mitt romney, Mitt Romney lies, morality, morals, MSNBC, Mutually Assured Destruction, national, nuclear weapons, nuke, nukes, obama, objectivity, Orwell, paul ryan, Paul Ryan lies, Paul Ryan's lies, politicians, politics, polling, polls, president obama, presidential debate, prisoner's dilemma, reality, republican, romney, Romney lies, Romney's lies, Rove, Ryan, spin, subjectivity, The Washington Post, truth, universal, vice presidential debate, vote, voting, VP debate, Washington Post

I’m writing this with the perspective of having seen both the first presidential debate and the vice presidential debate.  I’d like to comment on the veracity of both.

I hope that anyone who reads this post will watch tomorrow night’s debate through a pretty straightforward lens.  My main criterion is very simple: Support the candidate who tells you the truth.  I know, it seems like a tall order.  It shouldn’t, though.  If both major party candidates lie tomorrow night, both should be admonished.  While the candidates—and every politician—is ultimately responsible for what he or she says, the environment should not exist in which certain behavior (e.g., lying) is not only expected, but encouraged.

For some time, there has been a not so tacit acceptance that politicians lie.  For at least as long as there have been politicians, the cynical belief that you can’t trust someone who seeks to attain and maintain power has been stubbornly cemented into the collective consciousness.  To an extent, this ethic may be true.  It is a logical extension of human nature, and has certainly been borne out by empirical observation.

The idea that a politician can lie to get ahead, that a person can—and should—lie to the very people he or she hopes to serve is not ok.

It is not the world of 1984.  There is no (official) Ministry of Truth, passing off falsehoods as fact.  Politicians and members of the media are responsible for disseminating true statements, not self-serving lies.

On October 4, Dana Milbank, widely read columnist for The Washington Post, said something shocking on Martin Bashir’s show on MSNBC.  Bashir asked Milbank to explain an article he had written, defending Romney’s debate performance.  Milbank ended up admitting that, yes, Romney did lie on countless occasions during the debate.  He had no reason to believe that these lies were not deliberate deceptions intended to win the debate.  Essentially, facts be damned.  When pressed further by Bashir on the major ethical issues of running for the highest office in the country, and how such action certainly undercuts legitimacy, Milbank said that Obama “let him lie”, and that that’s how you play the game.  Milbank said that after he watched over 20 Republican primary debates, he didn’t see how “you would expect anything different”.  Milbank maintained that lying is fine and, in Romney’s case was an advantageous move.  He thinks Romney owes the country nothing, and basically said that the ball is in Obama’s court to disprove Romney’s lies.  Both Bashir and Milbank agreed on Romney’s “litany of lies”.  Milbank saw no problem with these lies.  Not only was he complicit in this disgusting system; he praised Romney in both a widely circulated newspaper editorial and on national television. 

People should be very upset.  The onus, however, should not be on every person to fact check every statement.  Everyone should be informed, and people like me do fact check political statements, but no one should have to expect that lies are the default position.  What are journalists for?  Where is the media?  Oh, right, certain members—the Dana Milbanks of the media—are not doing their jobs.  I don’t care if this was an opinion piece.  Dana Milbank should be ashamed for encouraging such behavior, and then for doubling down on his encouragement.  Like Mitt Romney, “no apologies”, it seems. 

Paul Ryan also lied in his debate with Joe Biden.  Ryan has a habit of disavowing the truth.  The moniker “Lyin’ Ryan” didn’t come from nowhere. 

Yes, I’ve been picking on Romney and Ryan.  I’m putting them under the microscope because they represent very vivid and pretty indisputable examples.  This is not a purely partisan issue, and I don’t seek to be discredited by acting as if it is.  Lying, no matter what person, party, or persuasion, is not acceptable.  It is not how you win debates, and it shouldn’t be how you win votes.

Aren’t the candidates supposed to love and laud “the American people”?  To politicians everywhere: what a tremendous slap in the face to the citizens you expect to vote for you.  You’re supposed to be a public servant.

To be completely clear about why such lying is problematic at best and morally bankrupt at worst, I will list five reasons why the electorate should not passively accept those who seek to lead us deceiving us.

1. An “anything goes” downward spiral: The first excuse given by anyone seeking to apologize for a politician’s lies are “but the other side does it!”, as if this excuse somehow absolves their candidate of responsibility for wrongdoing.  If evasive tactics haven’t worked (further compounding the lie into an often unmanageable, tangled web of more and more lies), and the candidate is stuck with “blueberry pie on [his or her] face”, as Al Sharpton likes to say, then the act of lying is used as a defense mechanism.  We, the voters, are reminded that our candidate has to “fight back” against the barrage of lies being told about him or her by his or her opponent.  We are to believe that every race is an arms race and that each campaign degenerates into a prisoner’s dilemma.  Of course, it would be nice if the candidates each just highlighted their own records and didn’t have to lie, but unfortunately, once the “other side” does it, “our side” has no choice.  We are made to believe that the only thing that can neutralize lying is more lying, whether or not the “other side” even lied in the first place.  There is so much deliberate fabrication and spin, especially by outside groups (yes, I’m calling you out, Frank Luntz and Karl Rove), that it seems chaos is created intentionally to justify further lying.  At least in the Cold War, the idea of mutually assured destruction prevented each side from nuking the other because everyone realized it was in their best interest not to bring us all down.  Politicians and their enablers would do well to learn a lesson from history.

2. The No Responsibility Ethic: If a politician is encouraged to lie (and takes the bait), in a debate, let’s say, then we can be assured that person has little in the way of scruples.  This person is unlikely to take responsibility for lying, or for any of the consequences of his or her misinformation or disinformation.  The candidate has a reputation to uphold!  How dare you question his or her character?  Do you really want someone in office, representing you, who does not take responsibility for his or her actions?  The rest of the country is constantly reminded of the fact that we are supposed to take “responsibility for our lives” (here’s looking at you, Mitt Romney; yet, it’s more than alright for Romney to lie?)—I sense a disconnect here.

3. Unethical Conduct and the Trust Factor:  This is very clear cut.  Lying is unethical.  Most people would agree on this point.  Ask any focus group or perform any poll, and I can almost guarantee you that when presented with the idea of outright lying, this practice would be nearly universally panned by almost any panel.  This idea cuts at the heart of our instinctive drive to trust others who have proven they are trustworthy.  If someone will lie to you, how can you trust him or her?  And should you trust him or her?  Pick any point in human history.  One person’s lie could have led to an early human version of you being eaten by a wild animal, or a seventeenth century version of you being burned at the stake.  Trust is crucial to survival.  Trust is earned and can be broken.  Betrayal is devastating, even if it doesn’t result in one’s immediate demise.  That is why we put such a premium on it.  If someone betrays you, especially repeatedly, how can you trust this person?

4. Abuse of Power and a Sense of Elite Entitlement: We hear a lot about the divisiveness of politics, about how it’s wrong to separate people.  From accusations of “class warfare” to charges of exclusion, we like to pretend America is one big, happy family, and that “united we stand; divided we fall” is an ethic to live by—until it’s not.  This is only a categorical imperative for the lowly, the lesser.  If politicians are allowed to lie, it sends the message that the rest of society is somehow not entitled to the same privilege, that an exception is made for the politician.  Somehow, the view has been turned upside down.  Instead of those who tell the truth being placed above those who lie, lying engenders a dividing line.  Those who can lie with relative impunity live in the VIP room of society.  They end up thinking they are allowed to act in a way contrary to the behavior expected of the general population, and how is this normally abhorrent behavior justified?  Well, they must be special, or their circumstances are special.  Either way, they are patricians to the rest of the American plebeians.  They—the politicians—are the elite who must pay lip service to everyone else.  This leads to the cordoning off of certain sections of society, like politicians, who are allowed to act in a way normally viewed as unbecoming for the rest of us.  It leads to politicians thinking they are special, therefore, further separating themselves from being “one of the people”.  One cannot expect to be accurately represented by such a person.

5. It’s Disingenuous: What’s real?:  This is an important point: I’m not saying all politicians lie, and I’m not saying they do it all the time.  If it happens even once in a presidential debate, however, that is one time too many.  It’s unbelievable to me that there actually exists an adviser to the Romney campaign who claims that the campaign is not beholden to fact checkers.  This statement is viewed by some as heroic.  Really?  Facts don’t matter?  What else do we have?  Suddenly, a campaign can create its own reality.  Well, not only is that unfair, and the other candidates do not even stand a chance if fictional versions of themselves are presented to the public, but it’s pretty irrational and scary, not to mention incredibly arrogant.  Facts do matter.  Unbiased data is essential.  Voters have the right to make informed decisions based on real evidence.  No one should be allowed to cheat.

When you watch the debate tomorrow night, judge the candidate’s integrity.  This is important. You deserve to be told the truth, and not to be manipulated.  Demand a basic level of decency and honesty from politicians.  Your vote matters.  They are there to serve you, and lying about their records or their opponents in an effort to get ahead or pull one over on voters should be a disqualifier.  Think about it: it would be in almost any other position or area of life.  Those who make the climate comfortable for liars are equally responsible.  Honesty and integrity are basic tenets.  Telling the truth is the least people can do.

Democrats: Democracy? Not So Much

Tags

99%, America, American, American politics, Antonio Villaraigosa, barack obama, boo, booing, boos, delegates, democrat, Democratic National Convention, Democratic Party, Democratic Party platform, democrats, dissent, diversity, DNC, Election, election 2012, enthusiasm, enthusiasm gap, favorablitily, fox news, freedom, god, gods, Governor Romney, inclusion, israel, Jerusalem, labels, liberty, mitt romney, movement, nancy pelosi, obama, omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, Palestine, pandering, party platform, pelosi, politics, polls, president obama, progress, progressive, Progressives, relatablility, religion, republican, Republican National Convention, republicans, rights, RNC, romney, separation of church and state, Strickland, Tea Party, Ted Strickland, Villaraigosa, voice vote, voter ID, voter ID laws, voting, voting rights, woman, women, young, youth vote

In the days following last week’s Democratic National Convention, there’s been a lot of buzz about the “significant” bounce President Obama received nationally. A litany of polls point to the fact that both the president and Democrats alike have higher favorability ratings and are seen as more trustworthy and relatable on key issues to voters—as compared to Mitt Romney and Republicans. Pollsters and pundits like to attribute this bounce to the “nearly flawless” Convention the Democrats put on. For all the talk of the “enthusiasm gap” among Democrats leading up to the Convention, it seemed the Republicans–with their bland speakers, non-detail specific plans, and most searing, visually, the lackluster crowd—comprised the party with the “enthusiasm gap”. The contrasts between the rousing call to action speeches, actual facts (which former present and all-around charmer Bill Clinton called “arithmetic”), and the diverse and engaged crowd, as compared to the Republican National Convention, couldn’t be starker.

Except that the Democratic National Convention wasn’t nearly flawless. Venue changes and speech scheduling issues aside, the “God and Jerusalem” issue of last Wednesday night is one that I would call a major flaw. Of course Democrats want to brush over it. One need only watch an obviously annoyed Nancy Pelosi repeatedly explain “it’s over” when asked about the event to know Democrats don’t want to talk about it. I bring this up not to taint the Democrats or the Convention. I want nothing more than for Barack Obama to beat Mitt Romney on November 6^th. This event should not be swept under the rug, though. I want to feel proud of my party and I don’t want to think that it stands for fundamental unfairness and oligarchy, which is the conclusion I’ve drawn from the votes I saw and the (sham) presentation at the Convention regarding proposed changes to the platform. Besides the fact that I fundamentally disagree with the idea of including mentions of God in an American political party platform and I think the idea of declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel is an abhorrent display of pandering at best and possible racism at worst, the fact that DNC organizers completely ignored the will of the people is irrefutably shameful and unacceptable. We should all be up in arms about the fact that this can happen in the United States—and on TV, no less!

Some background first:

The original Democratic Party platform contained no mention of the word “God”, and it did not include the idea that Jerusalem is the official capital of Israel. There were some murmurs about the alleged God snubbing part. I was very excited about this part at the time. I felt like, perhaps, real progress had been made. Perhaps the self-professed “party of inclusion” had finally made an effort to include atheists like me. After all, Obama was the first president to mention “non-believers” in his Inaugural Address. That freezing January day on the National Mall, I was there, and I felt hope. For the first time, I really felt included. This was not to be, however. It was reported that President Obama himself was outraged at the exclusion of God in the party platform and personally—and firmly—requested that it be included. Including the term “God” in the party platform is not just an affront to me—or to atheists. It is often argued that “God” is a generic term; unlike Jesus, it doesn’t denote any specific religion. Rather, it is argued, God is a stand in for a kind of civic religion, an American spirituality. In short, however, it is a belief in some sort of “higher power”, some sort of vague “spirituality”. Even if we were to accept this idea, there are plenty of religious people who don’t believe in the concept of one god, or even the omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God referred to in speech after speech by speakers at the DNC, and certainly the one referred to in the revised platform. Sure, this concept of a monotheistic God more or less covers the big three: Jews, Christians, and Muslims. The concept of this specific God does, however, leave atheists, agnostics, secularists, polytheists, and others, out in the cold.

The original Democratic Party platform also did not contain the explicit statement of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. (more on that in a minute)

At the opening of the Convention on Day 2 (or Wednesday, September 5^th), some top Democrats seemed to have changed their minds about the content of their party’s platform. Perhaps they bowed to pressure (especially by Fox News, who, I’m sure, sought to discredit Democrats in any way they could), or they suddenly became alerted to their now-unacceptable omissions. Whatever the case, a voice vote was held. Former governor of Ohio and head of the Democratic Platform Drafting Committee, Ted Strickland, was introduced on stage by the Democratic National Committee Chairman (and current governor of Los Angeles) Antonio Villaraigosa. After Strickland talked about how he was an ordained minister and God’s very important to him and to the “American narrative” and how Jerusalem is, of course, the capital of Israel (though he didn’t mention anything about Israelis, Palestinians, or any reason that such a statement should be so important), Villaraigosa put the platform changes up to a vote from those in the audience. After the first vote, the “nays” seemed equal to the “yeas”. Villaraigosa tried again. The same thing happened, this time with the “nays” being shouted even louder. After hesitation and momentary panic—and after a woman on the side of the stage who we can only assume was another Party official said, “I think we’re just gonna have to let them do what they wanna do”—Villaraigosa tried one last time—with (surprise, surprise!) the same result. He then decided that, in his opinion, “two-thirds of the crowd voted in the affirmative”, and the changes were adopted. After this, very audible booing occurred from the audience. This, of course, was ignored, and what was done was done. Music was played in an attempt to drown out the prolonged booing from the audience, and the next speaker was rushed out in an effort to make a seamless transition into the rest of the Convention.

What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans in the United States? Many things, each party would have you believe, chief among them, each party’s differing views on how to move the country forward. This basically amounts to ideological differences in the role, scope, and aims of the federal government, led by either the overwhelming guiding principle of self reliance (Republicans) or the communitarian “we’re stronger together and all help one another” spirit of cooperation (Democrats). But, of course, we are all Americans, and each party will say that we are all united by basic American principles. These principles include that nebulous, but all important concept of “freedom” and that we are united by the shared belief and understanding of inalienable truths–one of those being the near sycophantic undying support for Israel. And, oh, by the way, if you even dare question Israel’s motives or say one critical word about Romney BFF “Bibi” Netanyahu, then you are anti-semitic (never mind the fact that the Semites include Palestinians as well as the Jews of the region), and are dishonoring the victims of the Holocaust. You will be cast out into the political hinterlands like one Jimmy Carter, never mind the fact that he won the Nobel Peace Prize. Oh, but so did another US president, Barack Obama. So many similarities! No wonder our poor president felt such pressure to cave. The Republicans might try to weaken him. …Except that Republicans have already questioned Obama’s commitment to Israel (in detestable terms), and will continue to do so. The Romney campaign has blatantly told the public it’s not above lying (the famous phrase by Romney’s campaign that it “will not be beholden to fact checkers”), and campaign operatives know that vitriolic rhetoric plays well with racist, ignorant members of the Republican base.

This is part of what I wrote immediately after the incident at the Convention last Wednesday:

Obama wanted control of the message. Perhaps this will all blow over in the next few days, overcome by a tsunami of enthusiasm following the president’s acceptance speech tonight. I’m sure the Obama campaign staff and the DNC inner circle are betting on the fact that this unfortunate incident will be forgotten as Democrats indulge in the inspiring, empowering speeches of Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton, Julian Castro, Ted Strickland…except that Ted Strickland was the person who came out on stage, claiming his history as an ordained Methodist minister and pressing for changes to the Democratic platform. He is the face that stared at the panicked Antonio Villaraigosa as Villaraigosa asked the DNC delegation three times if it would accept the changes to the platform. When he confirmed changes, boos rang out. The admiration and affinity I had acquired for Ted Strickland, after hearing his fantastic speech the night before, had evaporated in less than 24 hours. It was replaced by feelings of anger and betrayal. I wonder if this is what Tea Partiers feel like when they claim tyranny of the government. I waited to write this until I had time to let events settle in, and I can’t see it as anything but tyranny. I know I sound hyperbolic, but how else would these actions be explained?

Religion should be separate from politics, and the United States should not be as involved in Israeli policy. What happened to “freedom” (of thought, dissent, and self determination)?

Everyone is entitled to his or her views. THAT is precisely the point I’m trying to make. The part about God and the part about Jerusalem being the capital of Israel were not originally in the Democratic platform. While I believe these things should have no place in the platform, it’s not up to me–or Strickland or Villaraigosa or Obama–hence, the vote.

These people, who seemed to amass more than one-third of the audience so much so that Villaraigosa asked three times, freaked out, and rammed it through, amidst very audible boos, had a right to be heard, and to be taken seriously. People are right to feel outraged and betrayed.

It is a party convention. The platform must be affirmed and adopted by those delegates in attendance. In this case, a two-thirds majority was necessary, and that number didn’t seem to approve of these proposals being added.

The adoption of the changes to the platform was pre-scripted and passed despite a great amount of obvious objection. Those who take issue with the platform changes, and the way in which they were adopted have no recourse for complaint. These people, the delegates, are representatives of American citizens, and are our frontline of so-called democracy. They are the representatives of our “representative republic”. If their voices are silenced or ignored, what other conclusion is there to draw than the fact that the people don’t matter to the party, that the many at the bottom matter little to those at the top? The voice of the people was overridden. It never mattered in the first place.

This is all the more ironic since the Democratic Party points to the undemocratic practices of its counterpart the Republican Party in silencing people by making it increasingly difficult for them to vote. For all of the talk of people-powered change and the progressivism of the Democratic Party during the convention, when the extension of such ideals was exercised, it meant nothing.

I’m more than disappointed. I’m angry, and I feel disillusioned and betrayed. I feel stung by a party that wants my vote, by a party that will appeal to me as a woman, as a young person, as a 99 percenter, as any number of labels, but that takes away from me the definition of the most fundamental identity of all—that of an American.

An Uncivil Society: Twitter, Tom Morello, and Terrorism

Tags

abortion, America, American, Assange, bigotry, bipartisanship, campaign strategy, campaigns, Castle, character, china, civil, civility, climate change, common ground, commuication, congress, conservative, courtesy, culture, democrats, deregulation, Dick Lugar, Election, elections, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, extradition, feminism, gay rights, government, hate, hunger, huntsman, immigrants, incivility, inequality, israel, jon huntsman, Julian Assange, labor, law, laws, left, liberal, Lugar, Mike Castle, Molotov cocktails, Morello, other, Path to Prosperity, paul ryan, Paul Ryan's budget, political parties, politics, pollutants, pollution, poverty, primaries, primary, progress, progressive, protest, protests, rage, Rage Against the Machine, rape, rape culture, regulation, republicans, respect, rhetoric, right, Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone magazine, Ryan, sexism, Tea Party, terrorism, Tom Morello, tweets, twitter, uncivil, united states, United States of America, US Chamber of Commerce, violence, vitriol, Wikileaks, women

Decrying incivility in government is about as uncommon as a politician wearing a flag pin.  Everyone says there should be a return to civility, and many a politician has called for it at one point or another during his or her campaign.  The truth is that common courtesy and a basic respect for those with whom one disagrees are too often viewed as quaint relics.  These sentiments are often seen as losing strategies and can even be seen as traitorous since they might not do enough to galvanize one’s particular base.  I maintain that calling the hate and bigotry on the right end of the political spectrum as bad as the vitriol spewed from the left a false equivalency, but there is plenty of blame to go around. 

I’m not saying that everyone who subscribes to a certain political party or who promotes specific stances has an utter disregard for those with whom he or she disagrees.  As is the case with most things, unfortunately, it’s those who scream the loudest, say the nastiest things, and occupy the greatest attention (due to the constant media spotlight), who become our icons and our political rock stars.  Anyone who’s ever been in an elementary school class with those few kids whose bad behavior resulted in punishment for the whole class knows the drill.  Perhaps it’s sociology: as voyeurs and voracious consumers of entertainment as well as the need to feel a sense of belonging or group identity in an increasingly alienated world, we seek out these atrocious displays of animosity.  As people tear each other down, we cheer from the stands.  Again, not everyone delights in this spectacle, and not all the time.  Rome had its circuses, its great gladiatorial spectacles, but it also had its philosophers—and its statesmen.

It is these very statesmen (statespeople, really)—who take their positions seriously, and make the effort to solve problems and improve the human condition—who are often the ones ignored.  Worse, they are punished for their willingness to compromise, to assess from all angles, to stray from the flock.  Critical thinking is secondary to claiming and maintaining power, and this maintenance of power (as well as the attempts to attain it) is too often achieved by obliterating and dehumanizing the opposition.  Those in Congress who buck the trend—the Dick Lugars, the Mike Castles—are swiftly replaced as their courtesy and reaches “across the aisle” mark them as liabilities.  That a serious and accomplished presidential candidate such as Jon Huntsman was written off as soon as he announced his primary campaign is another testament to this climate.  When urged to slam his opponents with acerbic insults, Huntsman calmly shook his head and chose substance over superficiality.  The media soon got bored of his nuanced assessment of trade policy with China and his assertions that climate change is indeed real—and, gasp!, a result of human pollution and industry.

The primary system is also devised in such a way that skill or qualifications do not necessarily determine which candidate advances; rather, the one who can trip the rest of the competitors enough to come out ahead then faces his or her opponents, who have also, probably, clawed and bitten their way to the general election by emerging the most ideologically pure, the most willing to denigrate their primary opponents, and, are often the most monied people in their races.  Since the two major parties are so dominant in the American system—from local politics all the way up to the national stage—polarization is unsurprisingly prevalent.  The Tea Party has undoubtedly made Congressional polarization worse. 

This all serves as a backdrop to the kind of thing that hits closer to home.  As much as I would like everyone I encounter to be as politically engaged as I am, I realize that most people are not.  Most people don’t know about the “Oh, snap!” moments that occur daily in the hallowed halls of Congress, conveniently couched between the decorous language of “My distinguished colleague from such and such state…”, and how these insults diminish debate and waste incredible amounts of time.  Most people did not watch every Republican primary debate.  Most people did not even know who Paul Ryan was before last Saturday.  This level of ignorance is disheartening, but it’s not the subject of this blog post.  The point is that most people will interact with others who employ the same lack of civility.  They will also read what their idols write in magazines.  They may very well incorporate these ideas into their everyday lives and begin to hate the “other”—the enemy—among them. This, unlike conservative monetary policy, has a measurable trickle down effect.

These are the people I want to focus on.  The examples I provide are self-described progressives, proving that, unlike their limited conceptions that conservatives are the only purveyors of bigoted rhetoric, they, too, spread ignorance, disinformation and misinformation, and even incite violence toward those they malign. 

Let’s start with Exhibit A.  I’d like to begin with a woman on Twitter.  This woman was trying to make a point about “rape culture” and the fact that consent can be revoked by a woman even in the middle of sex.  Basically, even if the woman has said yes to the man, she can tell him to stop at any time (even while his penis is in her vagina), and if he doesn’t stop, the ensuing action is considered rape.  No argument from me here.  It was her subsequent tweets, however, which began to eclipse her initial point.  Her description of rape, which went a bit further, was tweeted within the context of her assessment of the Julian Assange extradition case.  I will not get into what may or may not have happened, and the fact that there are other political ramifications, whether Assange did or did not rape two women in Sweden.  Whether you’re an ardent Assange supporter or not—or you fall somewhere in the middle—you would likely be totally turned off to this woman’s points about rape and domination of women after reading her Twitter feed. 

I fancy myself a feminist, and I cringe when I see women malign the entire male gender and when they resort to ad hominem attacks and outright lies and generalizations about anyone who doesn’t agree with them.  Another note: dressing provocatively does not make you a traitor to women or a slut, and cringing when a girl starts talking about “eating pussy” in mixed company does not make you homophobic.  I can almost guarantee that if a male said the same thing, the female wouldn’t think twice about calling him disgusting and a chauvinist.  Both of the previous examples have occurred in my life, and I stand by the fact that I do not hold back women everywhere by wearing what I want, and not wanting to hear about anyone eating anyone out, thank you very much. 

Back to Twitter woman, though.  This woman’s succinct and important point was drowned out by an hours-long screed against pretty much anyone who dared debate her.  At a point, she decided she didn’t want to answer anyone anymore because she was bored and didn’t want to put the time in, and reasoned that she didn’t owe anyone anything.  She wrote things about groups of people she’d never even met, and passed them off as truth.  She had a point to make, and damn anyone who got in her way.  Not only is this uncivil and immature; it drowns out the point you’re trying to make and upsets anyone who might’ve been stirred by your first point.  The lesson: think for more than two seconds, and don’t be an asshole.  Two wrongs don’t make a right, and one asshole turn does not deserve another—not if you actually want to accomplish anything in the way of progress.

One more side note: Inevitably, people claim freedom of speech.  I don’t deny the validity of this claim.  People are free to say and write nearly anything they want.  My point is that a lot of these things are ultimately really bad for society.  They contribute to the dumbing down of society and the squinty-eyed suspicion of anyone who is remotely different than you.  Much is made of the wrongness of school-age bullying, but bullying occurs in all levels of society, and is actually encouraged in many arenas.

The next example I include is Tom Morello, the singer for Rage Against the Machine.  He penned an op-ed piece in Rolling Stone in response to the revelation that newly-minted Vice Presidential candidate and fiscal and social conservative extraordinaire Paul Ryan has claimed Rage Against the Machine is his favorite band.  The fact that Paul Ryan listens to Rage Against the Machine is not news to everyone, but Tom Morello is apparently just now hearing about it, and he’s not happy. 

Ok, the fact that Paul Ryan listens to Rage Against the Machine is pretty paradoxical, and actually really funny.  It’s the kind of tidbit that gives me hope for the world, the kind of quirk that puts a smile on my face and makes me think that despite our differences, maybe we really can find common ground and appreciate each other’s artistic, stylistic, or intellectual merits, even if we don’t agree with the ideology or the message behind  them.  For instance, some of my favorite bands are considered Christian rock bands, and just because sometimes they explicitly sing about Jesus doesn’t mean I don’t like them.  They also haven’t succeeded in turning me Christian or religious or conservative.  I know of other people who listen to Bad Religion, another one of my favorite bands, who, conversely, are not at all in line with their strong atheist and progressive political themes, but who still enjoy listening. 

Anyway, Tom Morello writes about the fact that, obviously, Paul Ryan doesn’t get his band’s message.  He claims that “Paul Ryan is the embodiment of the type of person our music rages against”.  As if this isn’t enough, Morello goes on to say that Ryan must have a lot of pent up rage. 

He writes: “Don’t mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta “rage” in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment.  Basically the only thing he’s not raging against is the privileged elite he’s groveling in front of for campaign contributions.” 

Witty?  Not so much.  Morello’s trying to make a point, obviously.  It’s lost here, though.  Morello had an opportunity to spread a real message at a time when a lot of people were tuned in.  His article went viral and was read by millions on Twitter within hours of his publishing it.  If anything, he should probably thank Ryan for the free PR.  The rest of the article’s tone is just as scathing and perhaps even pettier.  When Morello calls Ryan an “extreme fringe right wing nut job”, he’s not doing himself any favors.  The side he’d like to convince is turned off completely.  Maybe he’s preaching to the choir, but he owes his audience more than that.  He just sounds stupid and petulant. 

Yes, Ryan does promote the view that abortions are not ok even if a woman is raped.  His legislation does advance policies that directly hit the poor and the hungry and disproportionately affect minorities.  Yes, he is in favor of deregulation and wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post in 2009, in which he declares that carbon monoxide is not a pollutant or a greenhouse gas.  He would dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency.  The list goes on.  There is no shortage of extreme stances to choose from, and Morello would do more to call Ryan out on the specifics with which he disagrees.  Instead, Morello comes across as an embarrassing caricature of “the angry, irrational leftist”, eschewing any class or tact.  I agree with most of Morello’s basic views, and I end up not liking him based on what he wrote.  He loses credibility in my book because I think, ew, how downright mean and nasty and unbecoming.

The article can be found here:  http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-20120816#ixzz23qZLNdUf

Incivility abounds.  And, as I said, it trickles down.  I knew people in college who were all for protesting what they saw as injustice, exploitation of labor, and institutionalized inequality.  So far, so good.  Their self-professed desire for anarchy was not very realistic, but freedom of assembly and political freedom are protected in the United States.  Peaceful protest has helped bring about great change in American history.  Several of the aforementioned people, however, advocated the use of Molotov cocktails in their protests, and even if they never had the opportunity to throw one themselves, gleefully cheered on those who did.  I know people who hate other groups so much that they see a necessity in terrorism.  It’s the whole “one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter” adage. 

Yes, people are oppressed, but those “fighting for freedom” are killing people.  Not only is this “by any means necessary” ethic morally wrong, but it undercuts efforts for real change.  I guess people are desperate or they don’t think things through enough.  You hate the US Chamber of Commerce, you hate Israel (I’m not even going to get into the fact that hating every citizen of a country is beyond reasoning), you hate those who disagree with you politically, and those who hold you back.  Fine.  You don’t riot and throw homemade bombs at people and shoot them and celebrate suicide bombers.

You don’t dehumanize your opposition to the point that these things seem ok.  You don’t listen to those who do to the point that you become desensitized, that you justify horrific actions to yourself as understandable or necessary.  These things are not ok.

I don’t like fear mongering, either.  I’m not attempting to fear monger here, but yes, I am drawing a connection between incivility and alienation, between harsh words and harsh actions.  Not only is progress almost certainly doomed, but everyone suffers—and sometimes the result of prolonged and festering incivility is irreparable damage.

Syria’s Weapons of Mass Deterrence?

Tags

Aleppo, America, armed terrorist thugs, armed thugs, assad, bashar al assad, Damascus, Free Syrian Army, freedom, homs, humanitarian intervention, idlib, international, international community, international relations, intervention, iran, iraq, justice, Libya, media, NNPT, NPT, nuclear, nuclear weapons, politics, Qaddafi, security, State Department, Syria, terror, terrorist, terrorists, threats, UN, united states, United States of America, US State Department, war, weapons of mass destruction, WMD, world

Here’s a worrying admission: Syrian officials have admitted to possessing “weapons of mass destruction”, though they claim they would “never use them on civilians…no matter how the crisis evolves”.  The weapons are reserved for “foreign” invaders.  Comforting? Not really.

“Weapons of mass destruction” is a loaded term to begin with.  While there are standard definitions for such weapons, has the Syrian government not already sanctioned the killing of its people on a “mass” scale?  Maybe nearly 20,000 lives violently extinguished over a 16 and a half month period is not massive enough.  I guess it all depends on how one defines the word “mass”, but semantics aside, it’s evident that tens of thousands of Syrians have died and many more have been injured by weapons, causing gut-wrenching destruction.

“WMD” or not, how is anyone–Syrian citizen or otherwise–supposed to trust Syrian authorities?  Enough have proven themselves untrustworthy and unreliable at best and extraordinarily cruel and willing to do anything to hold onto power at worst.  “Don’t worry.  We would never release this Ricin or drop these Anthrax-tipped bombs.  Your children will be safe.”  Tell that to the people of Homs, whose city has been shelled relentlessly since the beginning of the “crisis”.  Or tell that to the millions of residents of other areas of the country whose names appear in international news stories daily because of the constantly rising death toll.

The message is, then: We draw the line at using WMD on our citizens–or so we say–but conventional weapons are fine.  Of course, this scene-stealing story might very well be a strategic attempt to ward off would-be interventionist nations.  I’m not quite sure how that would work in the U.S. case since we all know the United States predicated its invasion of Iraq mainly on the premise of the existence of WMD there.  However nuanced the international relations considerations were in this decision (which I’d say were not very nuanced at all), the fact remains: The United States invaded Iraq, a country believed to have WMD, that ended up not even having WMD.  I think if anything seriously deters America from intervening in a humanitarian fashion in Syria, it won’t be the Syrian government’s claims of WMD.  These claims might even serve as a motivator.

The Syrian government can’t be trusted.  The world is supposed to take officials at their word when they claim they wouldn’t use weapons of mass destruction on their own people?  I don’t buy it, and I don’t think informed Syrians do, either.  Bashar al-Assad and members of his regime have continued to assert that Syria is under attack by “armed terrorist thugs”.  They have claimed foreign influence against the country before.  Why wouldn’t they attack these so-called enemies of the state?  Even if they don’t really believe what they’re saying, the government’s rhetoric underscores the very reasoning for why it could seek to justify future WMD attacks on its own civilians.

The calculation that strong enough weapons can insulate a country from a kind of breeching its borders foreign intervention is an understandable one since the United States has limited its actions in certain countries with known nuclear weapons, although even this assertion is not always true.  Drones in Pakistan, anyone?  Obviously, China and North Korea have much larger militaries and there are regional considerations, etc.  There are many variables.  Iran is an interesting case.  Regardless, when fewer than ten countries in the world have nuclear weapons, it is too small a sample to study in the case of the effect of interventionist policies on members of this exclusive club.  And even then…Syria does not have nuclear weapons, the crown jewel of fear-inducing weapons caches.

All in all, the existence of WMD in Syria is worrying.  The brazenness with which this information was announced is probably both a symbol of desperation and an attempt at showing strength, a last ditch defense mechanism.  The danger of such weapons is very real and duly frightening, but it shouldn’t deter the international community (whose “wait and see” ethic hasn’t worked very well) from doing more.  Far fewer people died in Libya than have already died in Syria.  In a strange moment of outreach to the “West”, Qaddafi relinquished his country’s nuclear weapons program in 2005, but WMD were still found in 2011, when he was overthrown and the humanitarian intervention was undertaken.  Again, comparing Syria to Libya brings up a host of other variables.  My point is that WMD need not be a disqualifier from further international action in Syria.

Who is the real armed terrorist thug, Assad?  If we are true to our ideals of defeating terrorism around the world–and this is not only state-sponsored terrorism, it is state-practiced terrorism—American government representatives would not turn the other way, issuing empty statements on how “Assad’s days are numbered”.  This is the official U.S. State Department line, by the way.  If we are committed to the rights of freedom and security for our fellow human beings, then Syria’s WMD tease should serve as a wake up call.