The Election: My Late Thoughts (In Case You Care)
My original intention was to do a long post about what exactly went wrong for Democrats, with bullet points and the like laid out and organized appropriately. But then I realized that doing that would mean this post would be extraordinarily long, and unnecessarily so. Besides, if you want to see some interesting opinions on the election, Scalzi has fairly detailed ones here. But I do want to throw out my two cents, in contracted form, for those that actually care about my political opinions. Considering the outcome, I am not surprised. Democrats got exactly what they deserved. I hate saying it, but it’s true. That’s not to say that they haven’t done anything good since taking control of the Presidency, the House, and the Senate. They have, albeit not to the extent many of us had hoped, but they’ve also taken an extraordinary amount of power and squandered it by trying to appease an opposition who publicly declared that they were essentially going to be the party of obstruction (anything Obama was pretty much not a-ok with them). Democrats allowed Republicans and Tea Baggers to control the dialogue and turn public opinion around based on false information and half-truths, and the result was exactly what I thought would happen: Democrats would lose power. At the same time, though, the election didn’t go as poorly as I had thought it would. Democrats barely control the Senate, which means that even if a Republican were our President, hardly any major Republican policies woiuld make it through (assuming the remaining blue senators have the spine to stand up for Americans over corporate interests). There’s a glimmer of hope there, and maybe Democrats will have learned a lesson about what happens when you don’t control the dialogue and point out your opposition’s lies. So, on the one hand, I’m disappointed. Despite pulling in over 800,000 jobs this year (paltry as it may be compared to the 8 million lost) and the announcement that the recession is actually over (which is different than saying that the economy has fully recovered), people decided that the party that claimed to want to change things was better than the party that said the same thing two years before with an actual plan of change, but who didn’t do that at all. The fact that Republicans are essentially running on an economic platform that prizes trickle-down economics hasn’t registered with many voters, perhaps because we constantly hear about how great the system is without also paying attention to the fact that it doesn’t work. It sucks, but I also understand it. There’s good news, though. Several Tea Bagger crazies lost their races (like O’Donnell, who lost by 17% to Coons). Amendment 62 in Colorado was shot down something awful (71% against) and almost 75% supported providing tax benefits for military service men and women in Florida, which is pretty damn awesome in my book. The one thing the election reminded me of is that there are things that we can agree on (like benefits for soldiers, etc.). So, it’s not all bad, and you better bet that I’m going to latch onto the good as things go quickly into the toilet. So, that’s how I view the election. What about you?
The “Bully” That Therefore I Am: Final Thoughts on Fail-ty and Social Activism
The last week or so has been somewhat illuminating. First, I stumbled upon Lavid Tidhar’s coverage of the Elizabeth Moon Islamaphobic rant (a.k.a. the Moon Fiasco, which sounds suspiciously like a silly children’s detective story); when I say I stumbled, I mean that with the utmost sincerity, as I had not been looking for it, nor had I known about the incident until said stumbling. Then K. Tempest Bradford talked briefly about scare quotes and, as a subtitle of sorts, the distracting nature of others attempting to label social activists as some derivation of “fail” (fail fandom, fail community, fail Nazi, and so on), specifically in relation to the Manifesto of No-Consequence that I linked to here. And then it happened: I got called a bully by an anonymous individual in the comments located here. Why? Because apparently if you post something on your blog that offers a critical view of another viewpoint (or comment on another blog posting about an incident related to it, or both), and then defend yourself in your comment thread against individuals who haven’t the courage to even say who they are, that makes you a bully. Oh, and it gets worse. If that something you’re pointing to happens to be a counter-boycott to a hardly-organized, but public cry for a boycott against an author who says something pretty much everyone agrees is deplorable, and you decide to take the counter-boycott-ers to task for what amounts to a hypocritical position (first briefly in a post, and then at length in the comments on your blog–the italics will become important at the end, hang in there), then that really makes you a bully. At least, that’s the logic I’m being presented with. And, of course, it gets worse, because what the pronouncement of the “bully” title amounts to is a deflection of what clearly are legitimate critiques of a position that contradicts itself in the saying (even before the saying). Heaven forbid that one should actually address the hypocrisy or the contradictions inherent in one’s position. But let’s get specific. When I linked to S. F. Murphy’s post several days ago, I made the argument that I considered his counter-boycott hypocritical, intellectually vacuous, and fallacious. Strong words? You bet. I also said that Murphy and I have agreed on things in the past (which isn’t a lie; I have). Murphy isn’t alone, though, and it would be fair to say that I understand his frustration (and others like him) with the reactions that have occurred in the past with regards to seemingly less problematic issues. But that’s not a logical basis for the counter-boycott. Murphy certainly doesn’t agree with me, but what really acted as the catalyst for this post were the comments made by an anonymous individual who, similarly to Murphy, suggested I was a bully and, dissimilarly to Murphy, suggested that I was one of the individuals who “dog-piled” Moon’s blog, called for a boycott of her work, and tried to pressure the WisCon folks into revoking her Guest of Honor Status. Why? Frustration, on the one hand, and a general inability to see the fundamental contradiction that lies beneath the Manifesto of No-Consequence. It’s also a very clever attempt at confirmation bias (reality check: I didn’t post anything on Moon’s blog, I have only said that I won’t buy her work and that boycotts are reasonable and expected consequences for racist and ethnocentric behavior, and have no real opinion about WisCon except to say that it isn’t a convention I would likely go to anyway, so whether she is GoH or not is irrelevant to me personally–though I do have thoughts about it). But maybe this would be a good time to tear down a few fundamental flaws that seem to sit within the Manifesto of No-Consequence (within the terms presented to me by said anonymous commenter). The Manifesto of No-Consequence makes the following argument: I think what X did is deplorable, but I dislike the individuals who are reacting against her, and so I will continue to buy X’s stuff. OR When I ordered a copy of _The Deed of Paksenarrion_ a few minutes ago, it was because the *priority* of voting against this vilification was greater to me than the *priority* of disagreeing with her, which I feel too. (from my comment thread) OR So if I see a disproportionate response, e.g. a boycott or thousands of drive-by comments or an effort to have the woman’s con invitation revoked, there’s no contradiction in paying that down in my own slight way to lessen the personal consequences to someone who excites my sympathies for reasons outside of her politics. (from my comment thread) Notice that each one suggests that the speaker disagrees with X (or Moon)(in fact, one comment contained the following line about Moon’s position: “[it’s] ignorant, condescending, disrespectful, and full of bad in-group/out-group thinking”). But what it also suggests is a justification for the unwillingness to act. These are ideas that negate themselves. They enunciate disagreement while also suggesting that said disagreement is not strictly relevant, nor important enough to be valued equal to or greater than a presumably annoying, perhaps rude, social practice. se. But when one’s pronouncement of “disagreement at the level of deplorability” sits alongside a pronouncement of “support in counteraction to another group,” we’re presented an absolute contradiction. One cannot say “I disagree with your racist position” while also paying that individual for their words and have that first part mean anything whatsoever; so long as one claims to care about the dissolution of racism, these two positions are in contradiction. This is the same as saying that you do not support a company because it uses sweatshops, yet you continue to give money to that company. The justification might be “because I don’t like the protesters outside your door,” but the end result is still a negation of the “I don’t support sweatshops” position. This is what some people call “flapping your gums.” And this is
Polarized Politics and How Republicans Can Earn My Vote
If the title didn’t give it away, I’m stepping into politics again. Paying attention to the news makes one intimately aware of just how polarized the political process in the United States has become; this isn’t anything new, but it is something that I think we should be highlighting more and more when we try to talk about politics. We’re victims to it–the political process. Even when we attempt (by “we” I mean a good portion of “everyone”) to engage in “fair” politics, we inevitably are sucked into polarized rhetoric or thought processes: namely, the “us vs. them” mentality that so defines American politics today. But while I say the above with all seriousness, I do think there is a fundamental problem with viewing polarized politics as inherently negative. The problem in the U.S. isn’t necessarily that there is an unfair level of polarization which creates its two primary parties, but that the view of the political element here has been one that limits itself only to the “us vs. them” and not to the real question that needs to be asked: if we must choose a side, which side is the one offering a solution? Regardless of what we might think about the solutions proposed by Democrats, the fact of the matter is that they are offering a solution, one that is fairly concrete, if not difficult to understand due to the monumental nature of it. Democrats have, from fairly early on, offered solutions to the environment, the economy, healthcare, LGBT rights, and much more (immigration seems to be the next on the list). Republicans, however, seem to offer a platform based entirely on preventing their “opponents” from doing anything whatsoever. Where they have ideas, they are kernels, rather than full-fledged plans (though some plans have been suggested, and summarily executed by budget councils who pointed out that the “fiscally responsible” version of a bill will in fact prove to be more costly in the long run). With all of this in mind, I’d like to offer a list of things that Republicans can do to steal my vote away from the Democrats. Note that almost all of the following requests are, in some way, being countered by Republican lawmakers, lobbyists, and so on in this country: An economic policy that does not revolve around extending Bush-era tax cuts, but instead focuses on reasonable methods for creating jobs, protecting middle and lower class individuals, punishing business owners and so on for poor behavior (such as the banks), and preventing the continued expansion of the gap between the rich and the not-so-rich. If trickle-down economics worked, then we would have seen it do so in the last twenty years. As it stands, the poverty level hasn’t dropped down to 25 million (where it was before Reagan) since the recession of the 1980s. No such platform exists. A rejection of all anti-gay rhetoric and an acknowledgement that homosexuals are a) not morally inferior people, and b) deserving of the same rights as myself (a straight man), even in a country dominated by Christians. Republicans need to acknowledge that gay people deserve the same protections as people of color, that denying marriage to them is a violation of their civil rights, and that a country that fights to prevent or destroy existing homosexual families is a country flirting with the edges of fascism. No such platform exists. An environmental policy that acknowledges that global warming, whether caused by humans, or accelerated by them, is a reality and that regardless of our beliefs, it is a signal that we need to restructure our entire transportation model so as to usher America into a future completely independent of oil, foreign or otherwise. It also must seek to protect, preserve, and maintain the pristine beauty of our various parks, ecosystems, waters, and so on. No such platform exists. A social policy that readily acknowledges that racism, sexism, colonialism, imperialism, and so on, in all their forms, have not ended, and that we still have much work to do to protect people from the wrongs other people would do to them. It must be a policy that seeks to mend the lingering social, economic, political, and emotional scars/echoes of a lost era. No such platform exists. A healthcare policy that offers detailed and reasonable solutions to our healthcare problems in this country, that finds ways to reduce the cost of healthcare so that everyone can afford it, and that does so without resorting to the rhetorically empty phrase “let the private sector take care of it.” Republicans need to acknowledge that the private sector is not a sea of morally or ethically sound individuals. No such platform exists. An educational policy that seeks to push us away from test-culture into a “hands-on” culture, that pays attention to and amends key issues in schools in regards to funding and race (i.e. schools with predominately non-white students are also often the poorest, or in the poorest areas, and, thus, are often under-served by the government), and that reasonably provides a flexible blueprint by which students can learn the necessary critical thinking skills that will foster mental growth and produce a generation of Americans ready to take America forward into a very competitive future. No such platform exists. An acknowledgement that science, however flawed, continues to provide us with wonderful advancements in all fields, that creationism is not science by any stretch of the imagination, and that it is absolutely crucial that we build up a generation of able-minded scientists in all fields to improve the intellectual and technological value of America. No such platform exists. A publicly stated refusal to support any bill, amendment, or public school district that seeks to violate the rights of its patrons and students by teaching religion as religion in public schools. Religion is and should remain private. No such platform exists. Finally, a public and private refusal, under any circumstances, to lie, misinform, misdirect, or otherwise lead astray Americans in any political/public engagement, and
How to Ruin Your Political Book: Making Obviously Fallacious Arguments
No, I’m not talking about Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly or Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity or their democratic equivalents (Keith Olberman, Rachel Maddow, et al.). In fact, this post is based on a book that is, I think, far less controversial than the usual fair from the authors I just mentioned–a book that, by all accounts, should be fairly easy to argue without being clouded by bias or political affiliation. I’m talking about Lies the Government Told You: Myth, Power, and Deception in American History by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano. It’s a book with an innocuous cover (friendly, might be the word–see the bottom of this post for more on the cover, which apparently comes in two versions) and a forward by Ron Paul, who, at least to me, is more reasonable than most politicians, especially if you base that only on the fact that he’s one of the few politicians to have publicly stated that he thinks the fiasco over the “9/11 Mosque” is based on an innate desire by some to paint Islam with a broad brush. The book’s cover synopsis even paints it as a book that might be of interest to anyone who wants to understand the extensive history of our political system and its persistence to lie, without clear ties to any particular political slant: What new crisis will the federal government manufacture in order to acquire more power over individuals? What new lies will it tell? Throughout our history, the federal government has lied to send our children off to war, lied to take our money, lied to steal our property, lied to gain our trust, and lied to enhance its power over us. Not only does the government lie to us, we lie to ourselves. We won’t admit that each time we let the government get away with misleading us, we are allowing it to increase in size and power and decrease our personal liberty. In acquiescing to the government’s continuous fraudulent behavior, we bear partial responsibility for the erosion of our individual liberties and the ever-expanding federal regulation of private behavior. This book attacks the culture in government that facilitates lying, and it challenges readers to recognize that culture, to confront it, and to be rid of it. You might say that the book isn’t really saying anything we didn’t already know. After all, our politicians routinely lie to us and to their colleagues on all manner of issues, so much so that it’s often hard to discern what is and is not the truth. But then you open the book and read the first couple of pages of the introduction, in which Judge Napolitano says as an example of his argument: [A] male drug dealer with a heavy foreign accent and minimal understanding of English stupidly tells his FBI agent that his name is Nancy Reagan, and he is arrested, prosecuted, and jailed for lying to the government. Another FBI agent tells the cultural guru Martha Stewart, in an informal conversation in the presence of others, that she is not a target of a federal criminal probe, and she replies that she did not sell a certain stock on a certain day. They both lied, but she went to jail and the FBI agent kept his job. If you didn’t do a double-take when reading this paragraph, then you might have missed the logical problems here. There are two primary issues: In the first example, the FBI agent hasn’t committed any crime, nor committed a moral crime, which you might attach to the ethics of lying. In fact, the drug dealer is the one committing the crime, and while his inability to speak English might be a product of his ignorance of the law, he is still to be held accountable for the laws he is breaking–in this case, there are two: selling drugs and lying to a federal officer (which, correct me if I’m wrong, is similar to committing perjury on the witness stand).In the second example, one should be questioning why Martha Stewart would tell an FBI agent anything to do with the crime she says she hasn’t committed, which speaks more about her intelligence in the above situation than about the ethical or moral qualities of the agent or the government. It doesn’t really matter if the FBI agent lied in this case, since she should have reasonably assumed that anything she might have said in the presence of said agent might have been used against her in some future case. He is a witness to the lie, regardless of his part in the acquisition of said lie. The drug dealer and Martha Stewart have both committed crimes punishable by the law, and while there are ethical implications for the actions of the FBI agents, the fact still remains that the FBI agents aren’t lying about something they shouldn’t be doing. FBI agents investigate things, and are expected to do so for the sake of the country (though, understandably, they don’t always do a good job). The author seems to be implying that Martha Stewart’s lie and subsequent punishment are somehow unjust in the face of the FBI agent’s lie, as if somehow two wrongs make a right. Martha Stewart in this logic, then, shouldn’t have been held accountable for violating economic laws, and the same seems to apply to the drug dealer.(Note: In no way am I suggesting that lying on the part of the FBI agent is an appropriate action. That’s an entirely different issue than the one I’m trying to raise here.) It’s at this point that I stopped reading. I don’t generally read political books, but if you’re going to write one, you should at least make arguments that have some sense to them (and perhaps that’s a mistaken hope on my part). Having an obviously fallacious argument in the first few pages of the book is a great way to toss away any credibility you might have received from everything else that preceded
In Response to Sarah Palin’s Questions to the President
I don’t generally get into politics on this blog–at least, not the non-literature kind–but I feel compelled to go there this time around primarily because Sarah Palin’s recent Facebook note is too problematic to ignore. Palin’s note is a series of questions to Barack Obama about his recent “endorsement” for the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero in New York. I put “endorsement” in quotes intentionally, because the President never said he was “for” the mosque, nor that he “approved” or “disapproved” or anything of that nature. He simply said, as he rightly should have, that the Muslims have every right to build a mosque on private land. But we’ll get into that with my response to Palin’s questions: Mr. President, should they or should they not build a mosque steps away from where radical Islamists killed 3000 people? Please tell us your position. We all know that they have the right to do it, but should they? And, no, this is not above your pay grade. It doesn’t actually matter what he thinks. They have a right to build it. The President can’t deny that. You can’t deny that, Mrs. Palin. Not to mention that the President seems to very clearly support the U.S. Constitution on a foundational level, which means that he, as the head of this country, is likely not interested in playing religious games when the Constitution is so clearly against it. This also explains why he is so careful in his speeches to point out that we are a nation of many faiths (or non-faiths). Why? Because we are. That’s America, kid. That’s the nation we built for ourselves. The day the President starts telling religious people that they shouldn’t do something that is within their legal right to do is the day we start losing that freedom. If those who wish to build this Ground Zero mosque are sincerely interested in encouraging positive “cross-cultural engagement” and dialogue to show a moderate and tolerant face of Islam, then why haven’t they recognized that the decision to build a mosque at this particular location is doing just the opposite? They’re building a mosque and Islamic community center, not a terrorist boot camp. They’re not a radical Islamic sect either. They’re just Muslims. The fact that radical Islamic terrorists blew up the towers is irrelevant here. Suggesting that sharing a religion in name is the same thing as sharing the beliefs is laughable. It would be equally ridiculous for me to suggest that just because the Ku Klux Klan and yourself share a religion in name, that you both must therefore share the same beliefs. Whatever crossovers might exist are just as irrelevant as the implied connection. Mr. President, why aren’t you encouraging the mosque developers to accept Governor Paterson’s generous offer of assistance in finding a new location for the mosque on state land if they move it away from Ground Zero? Because it’s Manhattan, not the bloody Midwest. If Paterson had an actual alternate site available, he might have suggested it along with offering his assistance. The problem? He likely doesn’t. Why? Because it’s Manhattan. Look at it on Google Maps. There isn’t all that much space left. Why are they apparently so set on building a mosque steps from what you have described, in agreement with me, as “hallowed ground”? Because they have a frakking right to. That’s why. The same damned reason you would be so adamant to protect your religious freedoms. And it’s 600 feet away. That’s not “steps.” That’s a little over 1/10th of a mile away. That’s over two blocks. Close? Sure, but so what? McDonald’s kills people, but you don’t see anyone suggesting that they shouldn’t be allowed to build new restaurants in our cities. I believe these are legitimate questions to ask. Not really, Mrs. Palin. Not really. I think Barack Obama summed it up well enough: “That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances. This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.” That’s really all that matters politically here. And for the record, Mrs. Palin, I do think that putting the mosque that close to Ground Zero is in poor taste. But I’m not going to use that as a basis for trying to stop them from doing what they have a right to do. The land they have is private property and they’re allowed to do as they please with it, so long as it is within the law to do so. The fact is that you don’t seem all that interested in protecting freedom; you say that they have the right, but you’re looking for an excuse to take that right away from them. I can see that, and it makes me glad that we don’t live in a world where you’re a heartbeat away from being President. We need politicians who do not waver on or look for ways to get around the Constitution. Barack Obama may not be the best President, but he’s got that going for him. He’s one of those Constitutional types. You’re clearly not. That is all.
I Know What Un-American Is
Do you? Well, if you don’t, maybe you should consider the following: 1. Sending U.S. soldiers into Iraq to die under the spoken claim that a) Iraq was a direct threat to the United States (false) and b) Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (also false). What exactly are they defending in Iraq? You should also consider whether or not there is such a thing as freedom in the forceful overthrow of an oppressive government and the forced installation of a supposedly free democracy, but, hey, no need to think back to the history of colonialism and imperialism.2. Worse still is the fact that injured Iraq and Afghanistan vets return home to find themselves deprived of what should be excellent and necessary medical aid to get them back on their feet so they can at least become productive members of society, rather than dissolve into the den of homelessness and internalized terror. Heaven forbid that our soldiers might want a little gratitude from us for not dying in battle.3. Disenfranchising tens of thousands of voters, over and over, who were either predominately black or Democrat by using illegal methods such as caging voters and the like, and then refusing to prosecute people caught doing such things, time and time again.4. Stopping the recount of votes some 170,000 short and ceasing all investigation into serious issues of voter fraud and illegal activities in key states, despite realistic concerns from voters and representatives about the vote itself.5. Stopping independent investigative committees from looking into the 9/11 terrorist attacks.6. Illegally wire-tapping hundreds, if not thousands, of Americans.7. Taking days to get significant quantities of support into New Orleans to evacuate thousands of people, some of which died of dehydration or other ailments as a result of being exposed to sewage, etc.8. Imprisoning hundreds of people in Guantanamo Bay for years, without being charged for any crimes or given trials.9. Torturing said people and then lying about doing it, and then, when the truth comes out, saying that it was for the best, despite being against the Geneva Convention, which we signed, and our own laws about the treatment of POWs, without any conscious thought about how such action might affect the treatment of our own soldiers in the future.10. Denying someone the right to be with their dying loved ones based on a prejudiced (and illegal) belief.11. Denying people of “opposite” races to marry because it might cause problems for their future children (also illegal, by the way).12. Denying people the right to marry someone of the same sex based on an unconstitutional inclusion of Biblical law. (To those five states with marriage for homosexuals: may you forever prosper above those states that trade in hatred.)13. Killing people based on a) sexual orientation, b) race, or c) political orientation. And that’s just a few of the un-american things that have happened in the last ten years. Imagine what this list would look like if I included the previous thirty… That is all.