Incoherence or Dishonesty?

...

One of the hallmarks of the campaigns being run by candidates in the midterm elections is the utter refusal of the Republican candidates to put forward a governing agenda, or any specific policies or legislation they support.  Now you could certainly say, and it would not be inaccurate, that in the real world, none of their larger goals, from reducing the tax burden on the wealthy to eliminating regulation of business and industry to more aggressive wars is in any way popular with the vast majority of the electorate, but it also raises a larger question.  

The most fervent, vocal supporters of the most extreme right-wing candidates of this election cycle has been a movement that calls itself the tea parties.  One of their overarching themes, perhaps the one definitive theme that shapes all their other views and beliefs (at least if we take them at their word that their worldview is not driven primarily by racial and sectarian fear and hatred) is their dislike, distrust and fear of government.  Since Reagan, the conservative movement has sought to take political power because, they say, government is too powerful, too expensive and too deeply involved in the everyday lives of the people.

It is odd, then, that at the very same time they demand so much of government.  They want government to control the reproductive health of every woman in the country.  They want government to actively manage relationships, love, sex and marriage.  They want government to work harder to control who comes to America, what they do here, and to see that many are incarcerated and deported.  Strangely, they feel that occupational safety, food safety and integrity and the health care of America’s citizens are areas where the government has no positive role to play.   And if you ask them who might rebuild America’s tattered infrastructure or do the goundwork that will transition the US to a less oil-dependent future, the best they can offer is “the market”, even thought there is to this point no indication that the market has any interest in issue beyond next quarter’s profits.

But in terms of the elections, at least, there’s a much greater paradox even than this.  These vocal activists, who demand less government, lower taxes and less spending, indeed the very dismantlement of larges swaths of the existing bureaucracy from the Department of Education and Energy to the FDA are, without exception, supporting candidates who simply refuse to say what they’ll do if elected.  I don’t know about you, but if the basis for my political ideology was distrust for the government, a candidate who didn’t tell me clearly what he or she intended to do, specifically and with the price tag in plain view would not have earned the right to expect my vote.  The fact that they say they’re for lower taxes and smaller government would be somewhat less than reassuring to anyone who has seen the way the Republicans have governed in the past.  

While the more mainstream of the Republican candidates go on cable news and offer largely unchallenged platitudes, generalities and outright falsehoods, the more extreme Republican candidates, perhaps chastened by the Rand Paul post-victory debacle, simply refuse to answer questions or speak to news outlets they are uncertain aren’t significantly favorable, even partisan in their own ideology.  For someone already suspicious and disenchanted with the people and the processes of public policy-making, how this can be acceptable in a candidate, how that candidate might be trusted after all the rhetoric about the disingenuousness and outright criminality of government is beyond comprehension.  

As we have seen again and again, from Reagan to Clinton to Bush to Obama, ideology in a vacuum is meaningless, and the more important questions are specific ones about governing philosophy and specific agendas.  Every time I turn on my TV I see Meg Whitman, telling me what an incompetent lying louse Jerry Brown is.  Well, ok, but even if I’m convinced, what is Meg willing to tell me about herself?  Her commercials assure us that Meg “has a plan”.  Have you ever tried to find out what, exactly, that plan is?  Good luck.  On jobs, the plan is four targeted tax cuts and one tax credit to increase agricultural investment.  You know, of the five, I might even agree with two, but nobody seems willing to mention that the Governor does not have the power to enact taxation legislation and the legislature has been hopelessly deadlocked on tax issues for over a decade.  Her plan doesn’t mention how she plans to overcome this problem.

If the tea partiers were sincere, they would demand that candidates give them specific information about how they intend to meet the demands of this constituency.  In spending issues, particularly with a dogmatic across-the-board refusal to consider any tax increases as part of a revenue/spending package, they should insist that their candidates not only tell them what they’d cut, but how they plan on implementing those cuts.  And if that constituency is demanding smaller government, they should be unwilling to support a candidate who refuses to tell them what parts of government he or she would target for elimination.

Alas, they are not sincere.  It is clear what they are, just as it is clear what they are not.   They are a fearful, hateful, shrinking portion of the American demographic, increasingly geographically isolated and only one more generation from irrelevance.  They are lying to us, to each other, and most egregiously of all, to themselves.  They don’t care about the things they say they want.  They just want to feel safe and powerful again, unthreatened in their supremacy, safe in their social constructs and free to live their lives of public piety, demanding others conform to their outdated social model and bizarre cultural norms.

Peace Through Capitulation?

...

People tend to agree that the group led by Immam Rauf in New York has every right under American law and within American values to build their community center in lower Manhattan.  They understand that America grants equal rights and equal protections, does not treat different religions and beliefs any differently, regardless of size or popularity, and as such there exists no legal or political methodology to block the project from going forward.  

However, they say, frowning gravely, eyes sparkling with emotion, it would be best if those Muslims would choose to relocate their project some arbitrary distance from the former World Trade Center site we now, in our uniquely American vernacular call “Ground Zero”.  They don’t explain how Muslims, simply by BEING Muslims are offensive to anyone, or how far away the Community Center would have to be before it didn’t cause this psychic pain.  But merely agreeing to surrender their basic American rights would bring the issue to an end, it would cause people to have warmer feelings about their American Muslim neighbors, indeed, a compromise would allow us to come together as a people and a culture, respecting each other’s sensitivities and deepest emotional scars.  

Except it won’t.  Think about it like this.  Iran is suspected of developing nuclear weapons.  Israel and the US continually threaten her with military attack, while other nations come together in discussions of sanctions and other ways they might “punish” Tehran, refusing to hear Iran’s claims of peaceful nuclear development and the IAEA inspectors inability to detect any evidence of a weapons program.  Some might suggest that if Iran would simply accede to international demands, despite her rights under international law and the NPT, then the threats would end and we could all begin to work out our remaining differences.  Does anyone actually believe that Israel and the West would allow Iran to simply surrender her way out?  Is there any historical evidence that suggests that an enemy, once demonized and mis-trusted, can end the hostilities by agreeing to the first set of demands?  Or the second?  Of course not.

The US was attacked by al-Quaeda in 2001 for specific reasons.  Whether you agree that these reasons had a basis in fact or not, and recognizing that there is no actual justification for mass murder, there is no doubt that bin Laden and his acolytes had a list of grievances, historical wrongs and injustices that they wanted to see put right.  Could the US simply agree to these demands, and then sit down to peaceful negotiations to end the war between bin Laden style extremists and the USA?  Even as we know no such capitulation would ever be considered, we don’t believe for one second that it would be effective if it WAS tried. The disagreements that lead to the hatred exist completely outside the justifications that are offered, and the hatred is a product of a fear that is artificially manufactured to serve a political agenda.

Many Americans have decided to hate Muslims.  This is a time of economic trouble, weakness and insecurity, and people want someone to lash out at, to scapegoat, to serve as an accessible stand-in for all those other problems, before which we are impotent and powerless.  Additionally, Americans have grown highly sensitized to racial animus.  Slurs and insults are generally not permitted, and that has fostered a whole new set of codewords and dogwhistles.  But this is something vastly less familiar to modern Americans - Sectarian hatred.  Common around the globe, and well grounded in American history, we have, in our most recent generations, been generally comfortable with people of all faiths.  As a result, we are less attuned to this kind of bigotry, so unlike racism, it is much more acceptable to practice sectarian hatred in the open.  So Americans, made afraid by years of political demagoguery and media manipulation can feel a certain tribal comfort in lashing out against something so different, so unfamiliar, so foreign.  

So Imam Rauf and the Park 51 project can quit.  They can walk away from the mindless hatred and exploited fear.  Then can decide not to be the target in a shooting gallery that has the likes of the Anti Defamation League and even Democratic Political leaders terrified to offer them the support they should automatically receive for doing something so basically American as building a house of worship in their community.  They can decide to heed the lesson of persecuted minorities down through history and lower their profile, avert their eyes and keep silent.  But it won’t change anything.  The mob will simply turn to the next Muslim, the next Mosque, the next target for it’s rage and hatred.  Stay and build, or give up in the face of overwhelming opprobrium. Neither course of action would be “wrong”, but neither will either bring an end to this ugly tribal bigotry.  This genie is out of the bottle, and it’s hard to see how it ends without bloodshed.

Where's mikey?

...

For the first two weeks of August I will be Guestblogging for Spencer Ackerman at FireDogLake.

So you can't find me here.

You can find me here...

...

Stop it. Just FUCKING willyouplease STOP it!

__

White men.  White men in America in 2010.  There seems to be an outcry from the White Male Constituency that they are suffering from some kind of racial bias, and that, as victims of racism, they deserve some kind of alleviation or mitigation or something diametrically opposed to the kick in the groin I'd LIKE to give them.  I swear, we're only weeks away from hearing calls for affirmative action.  What will it take to put an end to this ugly, artificial and dishonest campaign?  Honestly, I can't even think about it without seeing the leering visage of Rush Limbaugh.  Liars, charlatans and bigots.  Ok, let's think it through.

The first question one has to ask is who, exactly, is doing this discriminating against white men?  Is it other white men?  Because overwhelmingly, the business owners and decision makers in America are white men, and historically they have actually quite blatantly favored other white men.  If it requires people of color being in a position to exercise racial prejudice against white males, as represented in the fear mongering that President Obama favors African Americans over whites, then the opportunity for real world expression of this racial animosity is tiny.

Which is not to say that there are no poor white men in America.  Of course there are, plenty of them.  But they are not poor because they are being discriminated against because they are white.  They are poor because, in post-Reagan American economy, opportunities for upward mobility have been reduced to effectively zero.  If you want to know if an American will be wealthy as an adult, you need merely look to see if he or she was wealthy as a child.  The greatest predictor of wealth in America is birth status.

Second, and more importantly, you have to wonder where is the evidence of this anti-white bigotry?  White men still seem to have the vast majority of the money and the power in the US.  They occupy overwhelming majorities in State Houses, Legislatures, Congress and the Judiciary, while blacks and Hispanics occupy overwhelming majorities in penitentiaries and inner city poverty.  The thing that makes each of these examples of anti-white racism so ridiculous is that each is a small anecdote out of day-to-day life, a conflict (remember Henry Louis Gates?) or the kinds of old resentments that America's ugly past has built into the family and community history of most of her citizens.  There is precisely NO evidence of the kind of widespread, systematic and institutionalized unfair treatment that we can, tragically, so easily document in the case of African Americans and other people of color.

As a final note, there is something else that needs to be mentioned when we are talking about race relations in America.  It seems that there are a lot of white people in America who have grown frustrated at a society that has been moving past it's own history of racial animosity for over fifty years.  Well represented by the teabaggers and their ilk, they seem desperate to be allowed to express public racial fear, resentment and hatred without being considered racists.  How that is even possible is unclear, but you see them constantly railing against being forced to speak in "PC Terms", when they'd like nothing more than to be able to use raw racial slurs in the discourse.  You see them finding it difficult in modern America to openly hate Black people, so they turn quickly to Latinos, who they can tar as "illegals".  It's odd that even though immigration is down due to the economy, deportations are up significantly and crime along the border is at the lowest levels in decades, the outcry against the so-called "illegals" gets louder and uglier.  I suppose we are not supposed to notice that it's actually a hatred for Hispanic people being couched in immigration terms.  Or perhaps we ARE supposed to notice - these white people seem to be trying to make their mindless hatred clear.  And the worst expression of this desire to go back to a white supremacist world where hatred of other races led to regular, open slurs and dehumanization, and incitement to violence is the treatment we're seeing of Muslims, both foreign and American.  The excuse, as inaccurate and deceitful as it is, is "they attacked us".  But it's become obvious - that's just another excuse for a large number of white American racists to vilify and discriminate against another group who is not like them.  It seems almost part of their DNA.

A Teachable Moment?

 __

So depending upon who or what you read, there is apparently a lesson to be learned from the whole Shirley Sherrod/NAACP debacle.  And to the extent that this entire incident has been greatly illustrative, they're right.  Where they go wrong is there are THREE lessons here, of equally desperate importance, each standing alone from the others, and each crying out for an end to the denial and delusion that surrounds it.

First, there is the speed of the so-called "news cycle".  Yes, in the age of cable TV, the internet and smart phones, it has gotten very close to instantaneous, and in this globalized society, there's always somebody awake somewhere, contributing to the tsunami of information, commentary and spin.  There's no doubt that this is utterly toxic to any possibility that the dialog will be thoughtful, considered and productive.  But when this 'unsafe at any speed' mindset bleeds over into policy-making, or even personnel decisions, then it's time to step back and reconsider the value of partial information.  In the specific case of the Obama administration, it seems as if they just haven't come to terms with the fact that they are going to be attacked no matter what they do, and while they will take hits in the media, in the long run if they take the time to gather all of the data and context and act in a measured, responsible way, they'll come off looking better than if they just react to anything anybody dumps on the White House lawn.

Second, this ridiculous and specious argument we find ourselves having about race.  No, not the REAL conversation about race, the one we sometimes come fairly close to having before we skitter away in fear and acrimony, or watch it deteriorate into a juvenile shouting match to see who can claim the mantle of the aggrieved party in the loudest and most obnoxious terms.  I mean this other argument about race, the offensive one being put forward by white men like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and Breitbart that somehow it is white men who are the victims of racism in America today.  The concept is laughable, except the consequences are deadly, and the future appears to be one of a nation at loggerheads over it's own growth and diversity.  It's time for the media and thoughtful people of all ideological stripes to acknowledge that white men are not oppressed in America today, and any fear that they might suffer from racial prejudice or bigotry is obviously false, and must be assumed to be manufactured to offset perfectly reasonable claims that there are white people in this country who are bigots.  There's just no way to take this discussion seriously, despite the willingness of the media to try.

Third, and actually most important, because it's turning out to be the hardest thing for other journalists to come out and say, it the willingness of activists and advocates to create false or misleading data that supports their political position and hand it off to the media as a viable story.  Whether this constitutes edited video, photoshopped images or counterfeit documents, it's very easy to create 'evidence' that proves whatever you want it to prove, and sometimes it's not as easy as it was in this case to get to the truth.  But now that ship has sailed, real journalists, out of self preservation if nothing else, need to come down hard on false, misleading or manufactured media events.  Anyone found purveying, producing or participating in stories that include artificially modified audio, video, images or documents needs to be summarily excommunicated from the business, never to be taken seriously again.  There should be a taint on all their stories forever.  It should be one strike and you're out.  Brietbart's been caught red-handed twice - why should anyone ever again assume he can be trusted with any bit of inflammatory or newsworthy media again?  He is left only to be mocked, and, for what it's worth, Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller should be on probation, on a very short leash.

If the other media sources allow lying, ideologically driven, blatantly dishonest outlets to occupy the same level of trust and credibility that they seek to represent, then they all lose.  And, of course, so do we...

Kashmir Conundrum

What is it about this place?

I understand that in most cases a sovereign nation is loathe to give up even one inch of territory, for in the final analysis a nation is nothing more than its land and its people.  And in most cases there are commpelling reasons for a nation to cling to it's territory, and even, when circumstances allow, to increase it.  Whether it's industry, tourism or nationalism, governments will fight seperatism and go to war over borders, even the most arbitrarily drawn.

Which brings us to Kashmir.  When the British drew the line separating India from Pakistan, they did so primarily on the basis of religious and sectarian identification.  In Kashmir, they got it wrong.  The people of Kashmir don't want to be part of India.  The Pakistanis don't feel they SHOULD be part of India.  Only the Indians, guided by the logic of nationalism and supported by a historical line drawn by a foreigner for political reasons, want the land and people of Kashmir to remain part of India.

What, exactly, does India get out of the deal?  A restive population, a history of endless wars and low-level fighting, a tremendous cost to keep the border garrisoned and the population controlled, and now the threat of a sudden escalation that leads to a nuclear exchange.  There is no industry to speak of in Kashmir.  Remote and rugged, in a high valley between the Himalayas and the Pir Panjal, Kashmir's best and only hope of contributing to GDP would be tourism - if only it wasn't a heavily militarized war zone.  So it drains manpower and money, contributes to South Asian distrust and instability, and for all India's willingness to fight and bleed, contributes nothing but cost and risk.

Surely a deal might be struck between India and Pakistan whereby Kashmir reverts to Pakistan sovereignity and India is recompensed fairly for the transfer of land.  Certainly the world would not be changed in any significant way, except for a reduction in tension and nuclear threat.  India would still have all her power, prestige and even a little extra wealth.  Pakistan would have a piece of land at the top of the world populated by people who WANT to be Pakistanis.  The world would have one less looming conflict.

I'm sure there are strong Indian counter arguments.  I'm not an expert, so I'm certain I've oversimplified a great deal of the discussion here.  But at it's most fundamental level it's difficult to argue with the basic premise:  If, as a nation, you can reduce tensions, eliminate an ongoing headache and increase your national wealth, it seems that losing what amounts to nothing more than a tiny sliver of land supporting an unhappy population would be something to be considered favorably.

***BREAKING*** I Slept With Carly Fiorina AND Meg Whitman

Sadly, it is my civic duty to admit, at this time, that over the last two years, on many, many occasions, I have had inappropriate, intimate relations with Carly Fiorina.  Also, even more sadly, with Meg Whitman too.  Now you might be asking yourself at this point "mikey, what would constitute APPROPRIATE intimate relations with either Ms. Whitman or with Ms. Fiorina, but that just proves you're a hater and very likely a Looksist bigot.

The irony is I met Carly when I bid on a 'grab bag' of computer hardware and office supplies being auctioned on eBay.  My bid of $4.70 won, and when I went to Palo Alto to pick up the goods, I found it was Carly who held the auction.  The items in question were four good sized boxes containing laptops. staplers, paper clips, ball point pens and a couple thousand envelopes, all clearly labeled "Hewlett Packard".  She offered me a vodka as she explained that she had come across the boxes in a dumpster and, well, one thing led to another.  This afternoon of passion quickly developed into a sick, dysfunctional relationship where we would meet in a anonymous hotel room, drink the better part of a bottle of Vodka and we would play out the same scene.  I was the "Board of Directors",  and she was the "CEO".  I would fire her in very harsh terms, and as a tactic to retain her position as CEO she would sleep with me.  This apparently freed her to act the wanton slut, but I always felt dirty afterwards, and would have to take several showers.

A few months later I was contacted by eBay's private security firm.  They said they were investigating auctions of stolen office products and suggested it might be best if I came down to the office and answered their questions.  Completely intimidated and fearful, I acquiesced to their demands and drove immediately to the company headquarters in San Jose.  I told them everything about the auction and it's aftermath, whereupon Ms. Whitman burst in and demanded the detectives leave the room.  She took me to a sumptuous office where we smoked a bong.  She wandered around the office, becoming increasingly upset, muttering "that plastic floozy, I'll show HER".  Suddenly and without warning, she took off her dress, walked directly over to me and kissed me passionately.  Well, I had no power to resist, and another dysfunctional intimate relationship was born.

Now you may think I have political motives for making these statements now, but the honest truth is that I just can't live with the lies and deception any more.  I hope this announcement has no impact on the election outcome, and I hope you'll all just leave me alone.  Much like Tony Hayward, I just want my life back...