Seizing the Symbolic High Ground - in a number of ways...
I want to offer some unusual thoughts on Barack Obama's speech about race in America.
But first a note about a jiu jitsu move to use against neocons and “red” hypocrites, who scream that “liberals will spend America into poverty.”
Yes, it's mind-boggling that they can still keep at this dead horse. Bill Clinton paid down debt and GW impoverished our grandchildren. Still, the art of polemic is often less about reason and more about symbolic surprises that let you trip or stun your opponent. Too bad. Still, I’ve collected quite a number of political judo throws, and this one is a favorite.
Every tax year, after filling out my IRS forms - with professional help - (ask, some time, about “Brin’s surefire way to get tax-simplification without kooky gimmicks or Congressional stalemates!) -- I always seal the envelope... and then prepare another, addressed to a tiny bureau in West Virginia.
Then I slip in a check for $100 as an extra contribution to my country, to be applied against the National Debt.
(Actually, I’ve increased it a bit, in time of war. Like it or not, we all should.)
No, it’s not much. But it is in addition to my normal tax obligation as a citizen, so it goes directly to buying down the red ink just a bit, taking one small feather weight off the back of the camel... or our kids. Moreover, I have been doing it since 1979. Indeed, I have more than got my money’s worth! Not only in a dollop of patriotic feelings, but also in looks on the faces of holier-than-thou flag-wearers, who rant and preen, but would never think of actually “supporting the troops” in such a way.
(I do in other ways, too. Last year I donated more than a thousand dollars in books to service unit libraries, for men and women in the field.)
Here, the amount you send in to the Bureau of Public Dept is less important than consistency. Doing it every year, as a matter of principle. As a gesture of solidarity with our nation and between generations. And it sure puts the kibosh on a whole lot of neocon slander, when you can ask: “Have YOU ever done that?”
You’ll get a nice (form) thank you note. File it. Let the file grow. If you are entirely noble of spirit, feel quietly proud and tell nobody. Or, if you need to, use the file as ammo.
===== BARACK’S BIG SPEECH AND, AND THE REVEREND WRIGHT IMBROGLIO =======
Sure, it was brilliant and insightful, calling upon the best of our natures and upon each individual to apply intelligence - actual thought - to a complex and vexing issue. Did any of the 24-hour “news” analysts actually discuss that content, as if they had the intelligence Obama was speaking-to? I did not see one, even one, turn attention to the content, only the melodrama, whether it would “play well.” Whence the insipid media? Our national energy problems would be solved by putting generator coils around the spinning in Edward Murrow’s grave.
Fortunately, my impression is that millions of people, especially the young, did listen for content. And did engage their minds. And, if Barack Obama ever built some momentum, actual thinkin - about complex issues - might become a national habit.
And yet, though I was largely inspired and re-assured, I did feel a bit let down by BHO. Yes, he spoke of Reverend Wright like that beloved Uncle Bob who is 90% goodness itself, always helping neighbors, volunteering as a crossing guard, mentoring youths... but who then rants about how the Apollo landings were faked and it’s all the fault of those #$#$! Albanians. It resonated. We all have uncles or aunts or cousins or neighbors like that. And Obama’s effort to depict Wright that way had some real plausibility.
But still, he evaded a crucial issue. Why, if he had heard such things (less awful, perhaps, but still cringeworthy) from his minister in the past... why did he not minister to the minister?
(Alert... actually, it was Cheryl who pointed all of this out to me. I may be the louder half, but she's the wiser.)
I feel this strongly, since it is what I’ve been urging, for years. That the way to undermine Rush Limbaugh and the horrible hate fest that’s drenched America, is to confront the nation’s self-righteousness plague, head-on, one “uncle Bob” at a time! (See my “Ostrich Manifesto” where I talk about weaning just one “decent conservative” out of Karl Rove’s big tent coalition is the greatest and most important task of any moderate/liberal/progressive person, at this point in our history. Or learn more about the Self-righteousness or Indignation Epidemic.)
Look, I am backing Barack Obama. He is our hope, despite my deep wish that we had more years to get to know this promising fellow, before hurtling him into the Oval Office. Nobody else other than BHO seems to have a clue, and he can motivate, big time! A whole new generation. Moreover, the second after he swears in, we’ll have allies again! A fact that will increase our safety and national security by leaps and bounds.
Indeed, this racism speech satisfied a few of my small doubts... and yet...
...and yet I’d be no good friend if I did not offer a small poke of CITOKATE. (Criticism Is The Only Known Antidote To Error), along with the praise. Barack, you should have spoken up, reached out, during (or shortly after) Reverend Wright’s rants. You owed it to all of us to use your eloquence on a small scale, as well as the large. To minister to your minister.
And if you feel regret that you hadn’t? Fine! Then share that with us! Let it be a lesson to all of us! That we should dig in our heels whenever we hear rants and apoplexy. Whenever we witness some neighbor or beloved fool indulging in America’s worst drug high -- self doped indignation -- which has poisoned every interest group and turned-rancid the American genius at negotiating with each other in goodwill.
Please accept this in good spirit. I agree with you that we need to end Culture War, and not stay mired in this artificial spat that’s ruining our country, red vs blue, city vs country... a war that (alas) Hillary Clinton may be able to fight well... but that she can never, ever win. I am backing you because I think and hope you can end culture war!
And yet, ironically, that’s going to take some militancy. For the enemy, the real foe, is not our misguided neighbors as much as it’s the self righteous high, itself! This dreadful form of addiction has become a fever of of outright lunacy on the far-right... but Revered Wright inllustrates that it can strike the left, as well, and occasionally transform decent, even pastoral human beings into Jeckyl/Hyde caricatures, screeching not reason or hope, but the spittle of hate.
We can only ease this madness among our “red” fellow citizens if we are first willing to recognize... and heal... the same disease when it strikes friends.
But first a note about a jiu jitsu move to use against neocons and “red” hypocrites, who scream that “liberals will spend America into poverty.”
Yes, it's mind-boggling that they can still keep at this dead horse. Bill Clinton paid down debt and GW impoverished our grandchildren. Still, the art of polemic is often less about reason and more about symbolic surprises that let you trip or stun your opponent. Too bad. Still, I’ve collected quite a number of political judo throws, and this one is a favorite.
Every tax year, after filling out my IRS forms - with professional help - (ask, some time, about “Brin’s surefire way to get tax-simplification without kooky gimmicks or Congressional stalemates!) -- I always seal the envelope... and then prepare another, addressed to a tiny bureau in West Virginia.
Then I slip in a check for $100 as an extra contribution to my country, to be applied against the National Debt.
(Actually, I’ve increased it a bit, in time of war. Like it or not, we all should.)
No, it’s not much. But it is in addition to my normal tax obligation as a citizen, so it goes directly to buying down the red ink just a bit, taking one small feather weight off the back of the camel... or our kids. Moreover, I have been doing it since 1979. Indeed, I have more than got my money’s worth! Not only in a dollop of patriotic feelings, but also in looks on the faces of holier-than-thou flag-wearers, who rant and preen, but would never think of actually “supporting the troops” in such a way.
(I do in other ways, too. Last year I donated more than a thousand dollars in books to service unit libraries, for men and women in the field.)
Here, the amount you send in to the Bureau of Public Dept is less important than consistency. Doing it every year, as a matter of principle. As a gesture of solidarity with our nation and between generations. And it sure puts the kibosh on a whole lot of neocon slander, when you can ask: “Have YOU ever done that?”
Here’s the address:
Bureau of Public Debt
Department of the Treasury
Box 2188
Parkersburg, WV 26106-2188
You’ll get a nice (form) thank you note. File it. Let the file grow. If you are entirely noble of spirit, feel quietly proud and tell nobody. Or, if you need to, use the file as ammo.
===== BARACK’S BIG SPEECH AND, AND THE REVEREND WRIGHT IMBROGLIO =======
Sure, it was brilliant and insightful, calling upon the best of our natures and upon each individual to apply intelligence - actual thought - to a complex and vexing issue. Did any of the 24-hour “news” analysts actually discuss that content, as if they had the intelligence Obama was speaking-to? I did not see one, even one, turn attention to the content, only the melodrama, whether it would “play well.” Whence the insipid media? Our national energy problems would be solved by putting generator coils around the spinning in Edward Murrow’s grave.
Fortunately, my impression is that millions of people, especially the young, did listen for content. And did engage their minds. And, if Barack Obama ever built some momentum, actual thinkin - about complex issues - might become a national habit.
And yet, though I was largely inspired and re-assured, I did feel a bit let down by BHO. Yes, he spoke of Reverend Wright like that beloved Uncle Bob who is 90% goodness itself, always helping neighbors, volunteering as a crossing guard, mentoring youths... but who then rants about how the Apollo landings were faked and it’s all the fault of those #$#$! Albanians. It resonated. We all have uncles or aunts or cousins or neighbors like that. And Obama’s effort to depict Wright that way had some real plausibility.
But still, he evaded a crucial issue. Why, if he had heard such things (less awful, perhaps, but still cringeworthy) from his minister in the past... why did he not minister to the minister?
(Alert... actually, it was Cheryl who pointed all of this out to me. I may be the louder half, but she's the wiser.)
I feel this strongly, since it is what I’ve been urging, for years. That the way to undermine Rush Limbaugh and the horrible hate fest that’s drenched America, is to confront the nation’s self-righteousness plague, head-on, one “uncle Bob” at a time! (See my “Ostrich Manifesto” where I talk about weaning just one “decent conservative” out of Karl Rove’s big tent coalition is the greatest and most important task of any moderate/liberal/progressive person, at this point in our history. Or learn more about the Self-righteousness or Indignation Epidemic.)
Look, I am backing Barack Obama. He is our hope, despite my deep wish that we had more years to get to know this promising fellow, before hurtling him into the Oval Office. Nobody else other than BHO seems to have a clue, and he can motivate, big time! A whole new generation. Moreover, the second after he swears in, we’ll have allies again! A fact that will increase our safety and national security by leaps and bounds.
Indeed, this racism speech satisfied a few of my small doubts... and yet...
...and yet I’d be no good friend if I did not offer a small poke of CITOKATE. (Criticism Is The Only Known Antidote To Error), along with the praise. Barack, you should have spoken up, reached out, during (or shortly after) Reverend Wright’s rants. You owed it to all of us to use your eloquence on a small scale, as well as the large. To minister to your minister.
And if you feel regret that you hadn’t? Fine! Then share that with us! Let it be a lesson to all of us! That we should dig in our heels whenever we hear rants and apoplexy. Whenever we witness some neighbor or beloved fool indulging in America’s worst drug high -- self doped indignation -- which has poisoned every interest group and turned-rancid the American genius at negotiating with each other in goodwill.
Please accept this in good spirit. I agree with you that we need to end Culture War, and not stay mired in this artificial spat that’s ruining our country, red vs blue, city vs country... a war that (alas) Hillary Clinton may be able to fight well... but that she can never, ever win. I am backing you because I think and hope you can end culture war!
And yet, ironically, that’s going to take some militancy. For the enemy, the real foe, is not our misguided neighbors as much as it’s the self righteous high, itself! This dreadful form of addiction has become a fever of of outright lunacy on the far-right... but Revered Wright inllustrates that it can strike the left, as well, and occasionally transform decent, even pastoral human beings into Jeckyl/Hyde caricatures, screeching not reason or hope, but the spittle of hate.
We can only ease this madness among our “red” fellow citizens if we are first willing to recognize... and heal... the same disease when it strikes friends.
posted by David Brin at 4:29 PM
132 Comments:
He's conspicuously not a 24-hour newsman, but Jon Stewart put it well when he said in closing "At 11 am on (date), a politician spoke to America about race like we were adults."
I refuse to fault Wright for a single word.
That stuff had a context from which it was ripped, and I have to ask:
Is it *false* to say that America's largest corporations and institutions are owned and run by rich white people? Has it ever been anything but true, in the main?
Is it any surprise, then, really, that an elderly Black man, having lived through decades of the American racial divide, should come to believe what he does about the state of the American Union with respect to its minorities?
Is it false to claim that only in the current rising generation does the idea of judging someone by his race seem insensible?
For good or ill (and I think it's mostly good), Reverend Wright is an audacious, flawed American. Like me. His rhetoric is something I'd desperately love to transcend. I think our young people are already there, for the most part. I certainly know that as a seven year old, I never gave a second thought to the color of my school-age friends. I only know the difference in hindsight since that time.
Was the Wright stuff really hate speech, though? I really don't know--I avoided listening to those reports. I figured they would be distorted, out of context. I wondered if what Wright was expressing was more anger than hate. You see, I think Barack Obama is saying anger is true, and there are reasons for it. The reason he didn't 'minister to the minister' or tell him the error of his ways, is because you can't tell someone to stop expressing anger they truly feel. That's why there's such a sigh of relief among people who listened to the speech--he accepts and understands black anger, he accepts and understands white resentment. It's okay, you're not bad people, you're coming from where you're coming from, but we can move beyond that now.
I grew up in the 60's attending a mainstream Protestant church (white) that was fairly liberal, religiously speaking. It was very common for sermons to contain something challenging, something shocking, something to startle you and make you think. I can specifically remember a sermon when I was in high school about poverty that said something like we are all guilty if one child goes hungry, etc. It was powerful and dramatic and (as an impressionable young person) tore me apart. I'm sure this included specific criticism of US government policies. I'll bet if you had video of that it would look like it was crossing some line.
Well, from the minister's Christian point of view, this is what Jesus wants--he wants us to take responsibility for each other, and he wants anger expressed when it's called for--throwing the money changers out of the temple, etc. He doesn't want the rich comforted.
Personally, I'm not religious. But I still agree with this viewpoint, and I understand the "teaching" process that a minister or rabbi uses in raising questions that make their audience uncomfortable.
link to transcript of the speech
Reading over the speech I found a few points of what seems to be what you call "political Ju-Jitsu", and thought them rather clever.
The first was taking one of President Clinton's best quotes ("There is nothing wrong with America which can't be fixed by what is right with America") , and pointing out that the converse of it was wrong.
"Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America"
Second, he turned Ferraro's comments back around, asking people not to oversimplify her on one (or a few) statements any more than reverend Wright.
"I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias."
And finally, pointing out that much of his pastor's focus was on a value which is generally associated with conservatism - and one that often makes a fair amount of sense - that of self-reliance.
"Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change."
Anyway, I very much agree with the 'adults' comment by Stewart (and relayed by dewhirst). The polarized name calling which has become all too common in politics has too much in common with pro wrestling for my liking. Obama's willingness to engage in introspection and consider the subtleties of human behavior have generally impressed me.
Several of the New York Times columnists and analysts have been drooling over the speech too...although they're not 24-hour newsmen either, really.
It seems that the professional commentators have really been enjoying a speech with content for a change.
By the way, isn't part of what initially made Obama so likeable the fact that he isn't perfect? The childhood, flirtations with drug use, the quest to find himself...he's flawed and human, and comes from a melting-pot ethnic background. In short, he's a real example of an American
I did enjoy that speech.
Oh, did the video of the "Big Dog" robot get posted here?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww#xWcp2if-z-Q
It is awesome. It's a quadraped that walks over assorted terrain. What really impressed me was when the guy kicked it to show how quickly and well it righted itself.
I think you are wrong on this one; you may be a bit blinded a bit by your bent towards technocracy. The kind of flaming incendiary passion that Wright expressed is an integral part of the human experience, and has to be accepted much more than ministered to. Besides which, the problem seems to be not that Wright was saying anything wrong* per se, but rather in how he said it.
My only disappointment with the speech (and a wonderful thing it was, perhaps not so much in being great, as in glaringly showed how let down we have been for so long by our politicians) was that Obama did not stand up more strongly for the content of Wright's thinking and character, as opposed to the colour of his rhetoric.
*Except for the loony HIV conspiracy theory thing, but then it has a good basis in the African American experience, and Dr. Brin should be the last one to criticize anyone for slightly loony slightly conspiracy based thinking....)
Orv
I found a couple interesting news articles about Wright.
One comments about similar sentiments stated among religious leaders on the Right.
Another, which I can't find now (unfortunately) stated that Wright's statements were being taken out of context and that there is a cultural aspect as to how this type of church will ofte use this type of passion in its speeches.
Last, and this one is rather interesting, Huckabee came to the defense of Obama and Wright, stating that "Sermons, after all, are rarely written word-for-word by pastors like Rev. Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you'd say, 'Well, I didn't mean to say it quite like that.'"
I suspect part of the reason for Huckabee's defense (and why McCain and other Republicans haven't jumped all over this) is because they want it to die down and fade from people's consciousness because the Religious Right talks like this from time to time as well. Why drag this out and risk damaging their own base?
I am willing to suspect that in two weeks, this will have blown over and the voters will have mostly forgotten it.
Though I must admit considerable surprise that Clinton not only did not listen to the speech, but she didn't even read the transcript. Isn't this a bit of a slap in the face? And does this bode well that she ignores something so vital for her primary Democratic Presidential opponent? Maybe I'm overreacting. I found it a bit insulting though.
Robert A. Howard, Tangents Reviews
Said already and seconded, but I'll chime in with my voice as well.
The 'outrage' over Rev Wright's sermons/rants is really inane. More than half of the negative effect Obama has to contend with is that Wright is so 'black' in his fiery oratory style. This travesty of our culture is somewhat fitting since these 'damning' segments are condemned for style not substance.
Yeah, that oratory style with its copious use of hyperbole and shock-phrases is repulsive to me... but then again churches are generally repulsive to me.
For some of us, it may be time to learn a bit about the context of a 'social black church' (social/community institution as much as religious) and fire up your mirror neurons. Nothing I've seen necessitates repudiation. Hell, most of it is actually quite valid points to be making.
It is also notable that Wright's sermons were of and mostly to a generation preceding Obama's. Again, context isn't just the surrounding words.
As the lone white kid in a black church in 1989, attending after spending the night at a friends, I listened to two hours about how white bankers don't care about black folks (local scandal with a bank getting busted that week for discrimination in lending), or their concerns, and how the only way to change things was for some of the black kids in the audience to grow up to be bankers.
Well, ok, most of the sermon was about how important it was to go to college to be in a position to fight this sort of thing for ones own people.
After the sermon, the pastor came over, shook my hand (and threw an arm around my shoulder), asked if I went to school with my friend, where I lived...and then got a big smirk and said "Well, you know I wasn't saying NO white kids should grow up to be bankers, right?"
That's the life experience I see Wright through.
The comments on AIDS seem like a horrific thing to say...if you don't understand them in the light of Tuskegee. 400 black men, for nearly 40 years, were not told they had syphillis, or treated, as they infected their spouses and fathered children with congenital syphillis.
Nearly 30 years of this "experiment" occured AFTER pennicilin became cheaply and widely available.
Plenty of First Nations people believe that the handing out of smallpox infested blankets was official and widespread US policy for a hundred years.
Plenty of Dine still believe that the reason they weren't told the dangers of Uranium Mining was not mere greed, but an attempt to erradicate them.
That doesn't scare most white folks, though. The fear of the Angry Indian Male died out in popular culture a long time ago, and most Americans have accepted the reality of what this Country did to the First Nations. Most accept and understand why someone comming from that experience and that culture would believe these things.
Nearly a million died in Rwanda, and the US did literally nothing. By the time 3,500 were dead in the Balkans, we were bombing without UN approval.
We conquor Germany, we rebuild their country, and let them elect whoever they want. We repeatedly invade Haiti, we install and support dictators, and throw out anyone we don't like if they make the wrong choice in an election.
American foreign policy is overtly racist. Large elements of American domestic policy are racist.
In all of Wrights "hate speech", the only racial epithet he used was "nigger". He attacked the White Power Structure, not white people.
He presented far too many uncomfortable truths, such as the fact that the bible he was pounding does say that a nation that ignores the poor will be damned.
Repeatedly.
The truth that racism, and institutional racism, still exist in this country. Only recently, major financial institutions were cited for specifically targeting african-americans for extremely risky sub-prime loans, and found to charge African-Americans higher rates based on the same credit scores.
Anyone who spent the years of the crack wars in any of Americas inner cities, and is aware of the role the CIA played in facilitaiting cocaine running, does not find the idea of the US government devising a biological weapon to wipe out people of African descent to be "outlandish" or beyond consideration.
Like smallpox blankets, it happens not to be true, but like First Nations People, African-Americans are not insane, racist, or unstable for believing it to be.
The reaction to Wrights comments, far more than the comments themselves, illustrate why a frank, open, and fearless conversation about race is something this country desperately needs.
I'd like to point out, as well, that these comments were put together from nearly 200 hours of Wrights recorded sermons. Senator Obama likely didn't hear many of them.
"Almost half of all African-Americans believe that HIV, the virus that causes Aids, is man-made, more than a quarter believe it was produced in a government laboratory and one in eight think it was created and spread by the CIA, according to a study released by Rand Corporation and the University of Oregon."
______________________
"The study, which was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, also revealed a slight majority believe a cure for Aids is being withheld from the poor; 44% think the people who take the new medicines for HIV are being used as government guinea pigs, and 15% believe Aids is a form of genocide against black people. The responses barely fluctuated according to age, income, gender or education level."
I'm willing to bet that at least 80% of American Jews believe that the Nazis made soap from Jewish corpses, despite the fact that it never happened.
I don't think they're racists for believing that, in the light of what really did happen.
What really bugs me about the increasingly mainstream Wright/Obama narrative is this notion that Obama "sat through 20 years of hate-filled sermons". I've seen (repeatedly) a grand total of one clip of Wright saying, in more incendiary terms, that America has to get back to a bless-worthy track. Sure there may be more, but from a couple minutes you can't extrapolate 20 years, 52 sermons/year, 2 hours/sermon... 2080 hours of hate speech.
It's as silly as Doug Adams' simulated universe from a piece of sponge cake.
Unrelated to this "scandal", I have two Jiu-Jitsu-ish moves that Obama can make:
1) On the breach of his passport files - "I'm not worried, since I have nothing to hide. But this is an example of the unacceptable degradation of professionalism in the civil service under the Bush Administration, professionalism which I will restore."
2) How does picking Chuck Hagel as VP sound?
Most of what I intended to say has already been said, particularly regarding the context of what Wright said. It is also interesting to see that just about everyone in the chattering classes (apart from talk radio) were impressed by the speech. Even the National Review Online said it was the best speech on race in a generation.
I'm only seeing 2 criticisms gaining any traction: 1) the loony lefty elitists are saying that it was a wonderful speech but that the average American is too stupid to understand it (a sadly typical reaction). More telling is that the only criticism that Republican and right-wing radio commentators have been able to come up with is claiming that he "threw his grandmother under the bus." Seriously, "He was mean to his grandma." If that's the worst criticism they can find after a 40 minute speech on one of the most controversial topics in the country, then I think there is still reason to hope. He appears to be taking a hit in the polls at the moment, but the polling cycle hasn't caught up to the speech yet. He should start climbing again in the next couple of weeks.
Since I grew up in India (but have lived in the US for twenty plus years), I still don't think I get the race concept at all. When a colleague was talking about race (a while ago), I asked him what race I was and he seemed nonplussed by the question.
Because of this, I feel that it makes much more sense to transpose these terms; white -> mainstream, black, female, gay, Hispanic, etc. -> parochial and part of the multicultural stew. So, I think this is where black anger comes from. If you come across as excessively "black" or any other sub-culture for that matter including "female", then you face a glass ceiling.
This is a horrendous problem. To the extent that the dominant culture represses anything that it sees as alien and this could be "black" or any other sub-culture, this is going to generate tremendous anger and hostility. To the extent that the subculture actively holds back its members from becoming "mainstream", this blocks the more universal participation of subculture members in society. And on it goes...
Barack's recent speech did do one thing for me.
Up to this point, I had been viewing Barack Obama as the * candidate: he's everything you want him to be, because he doesn't have a solid position on anything. He very much struck me as the sort of politician that, whenever a crisis came along, would wet his finger and stick it into the air to see which way the political winds were blowing before he did anything.
This speech reveals a little more depth of character. A man who's loyal to his friends while not ignorant of their faults. A man who, perhaps, has principles rather than positions.
I am intrigued. Between Hillary, John, and Barack, he would now be my first choice.
To change the subject, you said you send your books to the troops. Please let me have an address and I will do the same when I have them.
Thanks,
Pat
Does it ever bore you to death that so many people write essays in your comments? Admittedly you're asking for it, but sometimes I gotta think you login and are just like... /sigh
Anyway, I just wanted to know why you didn't like Hillary Clinton - and to also let you know that Obama's spell doesn't necessarily affect everyone. He doesn't inspire me. None of the candidates do. Mine was Edwards ;)
Lizzie, I liked Edwards too. I believe Obama will be able to do more than Hillary, both in terms of public support and in terms of Congressional approval.
Rev. Wright's church sounds like one to visit, if you're ever in Chicago. Pro-women in the clergy, anti-homophobia, an evangelical megachurch in a predominantly mainline white denomination.
So he used a bit of hyperbole?
One of the talking heads in Pittsburgh local TV was saying that all pastors do things like that, just to keep people awake in the pews.
@NoOne -- When I hear about the historical treatment of the Dalit, and see the gloss that the movie "Lagaan" gave to the way people behaved at having one of them on a cricket team...
I think that approaches, very roughly, what the race issue has been for Americans in the last 50 years.
As an American, I can barely understand the gross features of the Indian caste system, let alone the nuances. I can barely discern between Dravidian and Aryan, fora that matter. Perhaps my experience vis a vis the distant Indian culture is analagous?
Hey, it occurs to me that in the spirit of proxy activism, perhaps a donation to the TUCC is not out of order...
...along with a donation to the Obama campaign?
I did not have a chance to hear the Obama speech. I was working a shift at one of those ERs with the long lines that he mentioned!
So far if anyone gets blame for digging this up it is the Clinton camp (Wrightly or Wrongly).
But if anyone bothers to ask McCain his opinion, here's what he should say:
"If Rev. Wright is being quoted correctly, and I have heard no denials from him, then he is expressing opinions at variance with most Americans, and opinions that I find in some instances both foolish and abhorrent."
"This is his right under the Constitution, and I strongly support that right for this and for all other individuals who hold unpopular opinions"
"If you feel Senator Obama should explain further which of Reverand Wright's opinions he endorses, and which he rejects, go ask him. It is his Constitutional right to answer or to decline to do so."
"There is really nothing more I can say on the matter, but I would ask that if you find instances where my friends and supporters are saying damn fool things, please bring them directly to my attention, and I will have much more to say at that time."
Tacitus2
To Rob: Yes, the moment we bring in caste and religion as categories, you get similar ugliness in the Indian scene. Race as a category is not that meaningful. Also, Indians are not that hung up about Aryan/Dravidian since that's primarily a language divide and not a race divide.
Naturally, Orv, I tend to feel that my “paranoid conspiracy theory” which happens to be consistent with every fact... though not PROVED by any facts...
...is slightly different than the Reverend Wright’s HIV conspiracy theory, which is consistent with almost no facts and is DISPROVED by a vast and myriad array of facts. Thus, it is not a matter of “my wingnut. crackpot notion against yours.” Indeed, find me one... one... widely-acknowledged fact that acts to disprove even the extreme version of the Manchurian scenario.
And, note, I don’t rant that it IS true. I merely rant that something so consistent ought to be less blithely dismissed.
As for Wright’s incendiary speech, it is simply and stark jibbering insane. At too many levels to even address.
First, he buys into the crappy and slanderous notion that a just God would actually punish an entire nation for a military/strategic decision that MAY have been excessive or criminal or immoral at the time (Hiroshima), but would then delay that punishment for decades and then deliver it in a totally ambiguous manner, two generations later, in such a way that only the prophet (Wright) is able to perceive cause and effect. Oh, and 9/11 was a slap on the wrist, compared to the atom bomb. But never mind.
This is exactly the BS we get from those right wing nutters who scream at military funerals that our soldiers’ deaths are punishment for tolerating gays. It’s like holding a grudge for an episode of bullying, when you were a kid, and hunting down and beating the former bully’s grandchildren, 50 years later. If A deity operated that way, he’d not deserve our respect.
Sure, I accept that the heat and momentum of sermonizing is heady and you can get carried away, especially in those frenetic and adrenalinic camp meeting style services. I know the feeling! But a drug high is a drug high, sanctioned or not, and you are responsible for what you say. And this “pastoral” fellow is clearly an out-of-control indignation junkie... like so many on the right... and like the imams of the mosques supported by the Wahhhabbi princes. We need and deserve better.
So does God.
Robert is correct. McCain has got problems of his own, having gladly accepted support from a thumper preacher who rails at catholics. Indeed, they are probably relieved.
Jester, you raise important points. Indeed, why do you think a majority of white Americans have gone along with the plague of gambling that now infests our states and communities? A genuine vice, especially when it is allowed to prey on addicts... but it lets America finally channel a type of reparations, in large enough amounts, toward (some!) of the First Nations, in a way that doesn’t cost most taxpayers much... because addictive gamblers and the numerically challenged either don’t vote or actually like their vices. So now the roads and schools and Jr Colleges and clinics are going into the reservations, at long last...
...and nobody seems willing or able to ask the obvious next question, for fear of seeming intolerant. But it is actually logical and neutral, simply obvious. What about the future? After the clinics are built and the college funds filled? Are we laying seeds for the next generation of a vice pandering ethnic mob? Shouldn’t there be, well, some kind of time limit?
For the record, I went to a 90% black high school, in the middle of the era of the Black Panthers and the Watts Riots. So I do not come to this with complete ignorance of a messy situation, nor do I lack experience with the wide varieties of racism and rationalization of hate.
In fact, I have to tell you what I feel may be the worst aspect of the whole discrimination problem, from the perspective of many African Americans. Now that immense progress has been made in most of the overt areas(though the rates of imprisonment make up a terrible scandal) , at least for the growing black middle class, it isn’t as much the overt stuff as the residual racism that simmers and just won’t go away. Take - for example - “wince” and “evaluation.”
Say you do your part, get educated, speak well, make something of yourself, even become a doctor. A real Sidney Poitier type. Lots of doors are open. Some of the big ones. Marry a blonde? No problemo.
And yet... there is still this moment, many times a day, when some white sees you approach and blinks, or winces, then tries to hide it. Pupils dilate and you can see them DECIDE whether to be worried. And even if they clearly decide not to be, even if they do seem to be trying to overcome the wince and even (guiltily) hurry to be friendly, even if they evaluate and quickly reclassify you as a guy whose other traits are much more interesting and important than being black (and many whites do this, especially with well-spoken people like Obama), that moment of surprise, transition, guilt, and hurried re-evaluation is something that a lot of African Americans have to see happen again and again, day after day, year after year. Minute after minute.
No wonder, even if we elect a half African president, they will continue to assert, with some truth, that racism is still alive and kicking.
Hey, I am an empathic guy who lived in a stewpot neighborhood and talked endlessly with pals of all backgrounds. And I have suffered some samples of bigotry. And nearly all of my third and fourth cousins died of it.
But still, I gotta tell you, I cannot fully grasp what it would do to my soul to have such a relentless series of micro bigotries grind away at you, hour after hour... without even the solace of righteous resentment, since, indeed, most of the whites doing it genuinely are trying! You can see it in their eyes, as they fumble about and try to overcompensate or act too-friiendly, just making things worse, of course. When all you really want is to get your cup of coffee or the directions to the concert or talk about the game.
I imagine it’s like have a piece of grit in your eye, all the time. No wonder people self-segregate so much. No wonder black culture is often self referential, self-reinforcing, even at a time when more Americans are willing to see polychrome and put all of this behind us. No wonder some tumble into the sick-sweet allure of indignant martyrdom... just like you hear from the worst of the white pulpits. Leaving the moderates, yet again, standing in the middle saying “what did I do?”
Pat, it turns out that getting books to the troops is harder than pulling your own teeth. The donation web sites that work one year don’t work the next. Few units maintain decent libraries. I thought Navy ships would. But my local naval base LOST several hundre books I gave them! It is a struggle every year.
Lizzie! A Hillary supporter! Please stay and enlighten us!
For the record, I will support her if she is the nominee. And I have made clear my objection to her. If she wins in November, she will just BARELY win. That is not what we need. We need a blowout. Obama can deliver that, as he is delivering several million fresh young voters who will be permanently active, that’s a gift.
Flash request! Anybody know a rich dude or foundation who might offer a travel grant for a good cause? We need funds to send former senior US diplomat Michael Michaud to Paris to attend the Seti Institute's conference, where they plan to - yet again - whitewash the METI issue and provide cover for those very few arrogant types who want to shout (on our behalf) into the cosmos.
see
http://lifeboat.com/ex/shouting.at.the.cosmos
Seems worth asking.
Speaking as a former sailor at the other end of the get the books, I can honestly say that I don't know where they come from... once a month, we recieved a box of books, and I was required to put it on the shelves, making space as needed. Occassionally, there was a letter in the box, saying who donated. If it had a return address, I would send them a letter to say thank you.
CITOKATE
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
It appears Reverend Wright was quoting the Ambassador to Iraq, Edward Peck.
I'm glad someone's reporting on the real story.
And yes, the AIDS comment has been disproven -- but when was it said? I haven't seen anything about that... Less than twenty years after Tuskegee was exposed (forty years of institutionalized suffering), can they be blamed for thinking something like that got loose?
I hate that they're even saying some of the stuff about aids, because some proportion of the black community still believes that, and I think they need some more education (and maybe some hope in their fellow man).
I remember Dr. Brin commenting on the need for a more contemporary song rewrite for Senator Obama. Well, a Twisted Sister song has been redone for Obama, though the band is officially split on who they support. I've not heard the song yet, mind you, so I don't know how good or contemporary it is. For that matter, I'm not exactly the best judge of character on what is "contemporary." Still, it should be amusing to hear the rewrite.
Rob H.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/
03/21/the-full-story-behind
-rev-jeremiah-wrights-911-sermon/
err... this was the link.
sorry!
More reasons for optimism:
Faux News continues to come unglued, with their own anchors walking off the set and railing against the network for its "anti-Oabama bias."
Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh now the focus of voter fraud investigations.
He won't get indicted, but it destroys his credibilty -- after all, if his beliefs are so obviously correct, why does he need to stoop to fraud to help his side win?
And Warren Buffett buys up railroads because new technology has made them extremely energy-efficient.
Once upon a time, most transcontinental most American goods got shipped by railroad. Then we switched to trucks after WW II. Now we'll switch back to trains. Nobody suffered hardships because they had to wait a little longer in the early 1900s to get manufactured goods shipped by freight train, and people won't suffer when we move back to shipping by train today. We'll just have to wait a litle longer to get what we order on the internet. No more of this wasteful "get it 4 days after you order it" nonsense.
And for transoceanic shipping, there's this kite-assisted cargo freighter that just made its first successful test voyage.
Actually, I'm not convinced rail shipping will result in (much) longer wait times for goods.
Various European nations are experimenting with underground electric monorail freight delivery, automated conveyorbelt systems, etc... they'll reduce road congestion, be more energy efficient, and maintain/reduce delivery times... because while the conveyors/monorails may move more slowly, they'll do so at a constant speed without getting caught up in traffic jams.
Zorgon, "Rush Limbaugh" and "Credibility" don't go in the same sentence. He hasn't had credibility since February of 1992, when he sold out conservatives to support Bush Sr. His lack of credibility hasn't hurt his ratings any, and until it does...
Rush had credibility hw could lose?
The article about Buffett buying railroads. Cool. The artiucle mentioned that the turnaround bgan in 1980 with deregulation of the industry. What they don’t mention is that it was done by... Jimmy Carter and the democrats. Look across the last 40 years. The dems have done vastly more industry degregulation and red tape cutting! Especially if you exclude “deregulations” that were setups for grand larceny, like the savings and loan and energy industries. And um, which party handled THOSE deregs?
Why does our political dialogue never look at any of this? Or the fact that dems protect the borders bettwer while goppers cripple the Border Patrol? Or that the Stock Market and economy do better, always? Or the whol;e budget deficit thing? It seems that cognitive dissonance prevents people from even noticing when the polemic is diametrically opposite to truth.
On the Wright topic... I must concede that the HIV conspiracy thing is stupid, dangerous, and wrong. That is a good example of when the 'nephew' needs to step up and correct the 'uncle'. Many (probably in the 10's to 100's of thousands if not millions) have died due to this and closely related 'theories'.
On trains... cool news, thanks.
I've been having various ideas regarding innovations in rail systems rattling around in my head for a good long time now. Stuff like how we might just use elevated track (minimizing footprint and allowing more control over grade and curvature)... Of course, there are maglev, wide gauge, electrified track, and all sorts of other options out there.
Driving along I5 in CA it is hard not to wonder why the hell there isn't a lot more shipping by rail. But maybe the most interesting part is that rail has a lot of capacity for further technological and systems engineering improvements.
PS: I wonder what sort of rail system we could build and maintain if it had the same levels of funding as the Interstate Highways?
I bought railroad stocks a few years back, and they've done quite well, earning me dividends and going up in price.
If stocks dip precipitously I'll buy more.
Here's the way I look at it:
Obama's not perfect. Maybe he should have talked to Wright about statements like this, but I feel that it's understandable that he didn't.
If people weren't hammering him about this, they'd be hammering him about something else. At least this way, he got a chance to speak candidly about race in America, and acknowledge that there are still a lot of negative feelings on everybody's part. Acknowledging the elephant in the room, as it were.
Also, thanks for the Bureau of Public Debt address. I'll have to see if I can scrounge something up for them.
As a "typical white person" who sees Obama's supporters channeling Bennett Marko ("Barack Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life"), I refer you to The Bard with regard to "The Speech":
Out, out, brief candle!
[The campaign's] but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by [a Chicago pol], full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Heh! I love the riff from "The Manchurian Candidate." I thought I was the only guy who remembered Sinatra's best moment.
Still, sir, methinks you doth pro-teth't too muth."
I got me a corner that's wary of BHO and will keep an eye on him.
But EVERY topic he deliberately raises is one that I - and we modernists - desperately want to see raised.
Sure, the best and the brightest let us down before - e.g. JFK, who did more good as a martyr than as a leader. Still...
I think it's time to try bright guys again. They can't do worse than the morons have.
"I think it's time to try bright guys again. They can't do worse than the morons have."
Sure they can, because they are of the opinion that they are so much brighter than the unwashed masses who need to be guided by elected and appointed philosopher-kings.
However, the "best and brightest" tend to forget fundamental realities such as "TANSTAAFL", the "Law of Unintended Consequences", and the notion of "Primum non nocere" (First do no harm).
They are the people Thomas Sowell referred to in “The Vision of the Anointed”.
Mitch, I hope you appreciate how telling it is that I have no idea whether you are talking about the Republicans or Democrats when you say that.
"Mitch, I hope you appreciate how telling it is that I have no idea whether you are talking about the Republicans or Democrats when you say that."
Generally, Democrats, although while Republicans tend to favor markets, as well as individual liberty and responsibility, politicians generally advocate that which will get them reelected. If that means raiding the Treasury, or promoting laws that violate the "laws" previously noted, well, a pox on both their houses.
I just don’t buy into the Obama hype. He is, first and foremost, a politician who effectively uses language to obfuscate and lull listeners into buying into his “vision”. He is the consumate salesman - a better "Bill Clinton" than Bill Clinton.
To borrow another quote - "God darnit, Sen. Obama, you use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore.” (Apologies to Mel Brooks and Slim Pickens)
Mitch, you cite THE main rationalization for the plague of know-nothing egghead hating in this country. Whenever you point out that everybody in this country with 5 years or more of college hates the kakistocracy that's ruled us since 1994...
...the answer is that "book-smarts don't always accompany common sense."
Yes, true enough. And though JFK et al did or pushed for many good things, they also illustrated the perils of arrogance.
Alas, the whole argument falls apart because:
1) Red america considers wisdom to be INVERSELY correlated with brans and knowledge. Now that is just plain stupid.
2) You say that smart guys may assume they are smart? Hm. By all means let's keep things open, with lots of reciprocal criticism. We know (in theory) the solution. It is to sic MORE smart guys on the smart guys! (See The Transparent Society.)
3) But how is today's situation better? Today we have horrendously stupid guys who arrogantly assume they are super smart!
4) Worse, today's super dumb guys have filled society with secrecy so that we CAN'T sic smart guys on them.
No, that won't fly here. If we're to have any hope, we need to find out WHICH brains correlate with wisdom... and keep those smart guys humble and always under scrutiny and accountable.
But I proudly prefer to have smart people at the top. Smart, curious, undogmatic, open, tolerant, fascinated, optimistic... rather than being ruled by the opposite in every single way.
> 1) Red america considers wisdom to be INVERSELY
> correlated with brans and knowledge. Now that is just
> plain stupid.
Oh, you mean “typical whte people”? What an arrogant statement. I live in a Red State, tend to vote libertarian or Republican, have a graduate degree and value education. I do know I’m not smart enough to run the lives of others, and wouldn’t presume to do so.
> 2) You say that smart guys may assume they are smart?
> Hm. By all means let's keep things open, with lots of
> reciprocal criticism. We know (in theory) the solution.
> It is to sic MORE smart guys on the smart guys! (See The
> Transparent Society.)
Good book - enjoyed it along with your SciFi.
> 3) But how is today's situation better? Today we have
> horrendously stupid guys who arrogantly assume they are
> super smart!
For purposes of clarity, please define “Stupid”
> 4) Worse, today's super dumb guys have filled society
> with secrecy so that we CAN'T sic smart guys on them.
>
And you think that newly elected Smart Blue Guys will change that. Give me a break. You are much too intelligent to believe that.
>
> No, that won't fly here. If we're to have any hope, we
> need to find out WHICH brains correlate with wisdom...
> and keep those smart guys humble and always under
> scrutiny and accountable.
>
> But I proudly prefer to have smart people at the top.
> Smart, curious, undogmatic, open, tolerant, fascinated,
> optimistic... rather than being ruled by the opposite in
> every single way.
That’s the difference -you want to be “ruled”. I want to be left alone
@David, yes, Limbaugh has credibility to lose. In his most lucid moments you might even catch him naming is premises and reasoning from them.
He's not an idiot, and underestimating him is not to the good.
um...
"Republicans tend to favor markets, as well as individual liberty and responsibility"
Where on God's green Earth do you get THIS?
Do we live in Bizarro land, now?
Oh, I can see the party line. Nearly all of the GOP politicians prove to be corrupt, pork-swilling, secrecy-spreading, accountability avoiding, freedom-suppressing, market-ruining, cheaters...
...but that has nothing to do with their being republicans! It's "politicians." I get it.
...but the line is that it is "because they are politicians" not because they are republicans.
Oh, as for Obama being another politician. Well, could be. But he'll enter office with the fewest IOUs of any in our memory. Since you like movie quotes, here's one by Sean Connery in THE UNTOUCHABLES.
"If you want an apple that's not rotten, pluck it off the tree, before it spends too much time in the barrel"
That... like brains... seems worth trying for a change.
Mitch, go back over your response to my "smart vs stupid" riff.
Notice that not a single one of your responses was actually about the actual matter at question.
(Though a couple of your asides were flattering, thanks! ;-)
Hey man, I gave a keynote at a Libertarian National Convention. I've written extensively about libertarianism, and I can tell which side is presently, right now, most threatening our freedom.
And while I remain wary of nutso-statist lefty twerps, they are presently utterly pathetic... there is no question that the attempted coup taking place right now isn't their doing.
Go back and read Adam Smith. Read him carefully. If he were walking around today, he would be seething and a Democrat.
REMINDER! Anyone with Independent or DECENT Republican friends in Pennsylvania... (not Limbaughites) ... remind em they have till the 24th to re-register to vote in the primary.
"Go back and read Adam Smith. Read him carefully. If he were walking around today, he would be seething and a Democrat."
No, Smith would be an Objectivist. The Dems and Reps are as corrupt as they come, and have rigged the game at the state level vis-a-vis ballot access for third parties. Just ask Ralph Nader.
Your wish that once gaining all three branches of government that the Democrats would do anything different than Republicans strikes me as odd, coming from one trained as a scientist and used to dealing with empirical evidence. Tax, spend, regulate, and control. Oh, and let's not forget speech codes, sensitivity training, and affirmative action based upon race and gender. That is the modus operandi of today's Democrat, and with no restraint on them, the Dems would go to town. If anything, I would think you'd be working towards divided government and gridlock to stop the bastards cold.
+++++++++
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe," warned Mark Twain, "while Congress is in session."
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." --PJ O'Rourke
"When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion - when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing - when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors - when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you - when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice - you may know that your society is doomed.." -- Ayn Rand
+++++++++
Obama has demonstrated his judgement through his alignment with Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. If anything, his denial of Wright's positions on issues after a 20 year relationship shows an appalling lack of judgement. Hell, even Oprah left that church. If Obama is that naive, and accepting of Black Liberation Theology, then who will he select as advisors as president?
When asked in an interview with Glenn Beck about the difference between the teachings/philosophy of Trinity United Church and the New Black Panthers, Malik Zulu Shabazz, it's current leader, indicated that there was no difference. That philosophy is decidedly anti-American.
I want a President that self-identifies as an American -not a Hyphenated-American. Obama is the latter.
I don't think Adam Smith would be an Objectivist. I think he would actually be more than capable of eviscerating Rand's philosophies and confounding her.
Besides, the statement conflates philosophical position with political position. This year I'm a Democrat (I've never been a Republican), but I don't simultaneously ascribe to every philosophy every Democrat espouses.
Check this out - from Slate's "Why did we get it wrong" series of articles on Liberal Hawks and the Iraq war.
http://www.slate.com/id/2187098/
From Andrew Sullivan - "But my biggest misreading was not about competence. Wars are often marked by incompetence. It was a fatal misjudgment of Bush's sense of morality. I had no idea he was so complacent—even glib—about the evil that good intentions can enable. I truly did not believe that Bush would use 9/11 to tear up the Geneva Conventions. When I first heard of abuses at Gitmo, I dismissed them as enemy propaganda. I certainly never believed that a conservative would embrace torture as the central thrust of an anti-terror strategy and lie about it, and scapegoat underlings for it, and give us the indelible stain of Bagram and Camp Cropper and Abu Ghraib and all the other secret torture and interrogation sites that Bush and Cheney created and oversaw. I certainly never believed that a war I supported for the sake of freedom would actually use as its central weapon the deepest antithesis of freedom—the destruction of human autonomy and dignity and will that is torture. To distort this by shredding the English language, by engaging in newspeak that I had long associated with totalitarian regimes, was a further insult. And for me, it was yet another epiphany about what American conservatism had come to mean."
Mitch, if 'stupid' is the low end of 'smart', then Ricardo Semler has a nice definition:
smartness = IQ + (any other Qs you care to define) - EGO
Does that make sense in the context of 'stupid guys who assume they are super smart'?
One of the functions of CITOKATE is to keep ego to a minimum.
...er denial of Wright's positions. Alignment with him? Were we reading the same speech?
Obama stated quite clearly that he did *not* align with the opinions that Wright spouted recently. He also stated quite clearly why he did not reject the man: because he knows him well, and because the *issues* that led to Wright's expression of his *opinion* are real issues to some people; and ones that it's high time America faced.
And one thing the speech demonstrated was a willingness to go beyond the 'he is not for me is against me' level of analysis (which is, quite literally, the assessment of a child)
Look, I'm seeing this little drama from half a world away. I'm no doubt missing a lot of subtle undercurrents and sub-texts in everyone's campaigning. However, Obama strikes me as very similar in outlook to Kevin Rudd. Fresh, intelligent, possessed of rational ideas, but untried, green. He will no doubt make mistakes. So? This is part of learning.
It's also fascinating how the option of not voting is used in tactics over there. (Australia has compulsory voting, so you may as well vote for someone)
'They're all corrupt' is an attitude of the cynic who has given up on the political process entirely. You want an American president? You have a choice of three at this point. Don't expect perfection. Do demand maturity (for *all* our sakes!).
Like it or lump it, rulers are what you are going to get. So can you expand on how you want to be 'left alone'?
Mitch, you should talk about objectivism? Good lord, are you really a follower of Rand?
I do not expect to sway you, then. Except to offer you my "introductory" libertarian article:
www.davidbrin.com/libertarianarticle1.html
And to say that she was just about the least objective person imaginable.
Please, you are committed to see what you are subjectively predisposed to see. And, since the GOP has betrayed every possible principle of reason or liberty, you must say "they're all the same." Except it is totally and demonstrably untrue.
The stock market, the economy, small business startups and entrepeneurship always do better under dems. And that's ALWAYS.
You want deregulation? Make a chart! Since WWII, a number of major industries were "deregulated," trucking, banking, telecommunications, airlines, toll roads, railroads, public utilities, savings and loans, energy and investment services. Can you tell me which of these deregulations happened under democrats and which under republicans?
You OUGHT TO KNOW, because this is supposedly what you want to see happen!
I'll give you a hint. Seven were done by one party and three by the other. Now divvy them up. And tell me which three were directly "deregulated" in ways that led to massive fraud, and the loss of hundreds of billions, stolen either directly from the taxpayer or from stockholders.
Go on. I'll wait right here.
Oh, but you'll answer with some quotations or some anecdote, comparing the guilt-by-association Wright and Rezko "scandals" to the massive ruination of our great nation and the demolition of THREE TRILLION DOLLARS of American value by a monstrous criminal gang.
"Their all the same" is a total cop out, friend. Our civilization is under assault. From 193e to 1945 it was fascism. From 1945 to 1991 it was communism (though lordy we had to fix our own souls.)
And from 1994 to now it was a frontal assault by proto-feudalists, who Adam Smith would INSTANTLY RECOGNIZe as the same "cronies" who destroyed free markets across history.
smartness = IQ + (any other Qs you care to define) - EGO
You could kill this whole blog with talk like that.
Anomalous said:
smartness = IQ + (any other Qs you care to define) - EGO
You could kill this whole blog with talk like that.
Aw now that hurts!
But let me offer an adjustment:
smartness = IQ - EGO + SEHQ*
*SEHQ = self-effacing humor quotient. I mean c'mon. Doesn't that help ease the sin of massive egotism? Please? If not, I have no hope of heav'n!
Yup.
(I did say 'plus any other Q you care to define'. It was a nice snark, too!)
On a different topic, this piece: Giving=Happiness has some interesting points.
"the pain of having less is stronger than the joy of having more."
The notion that it's nice to have someone to give to puts an interesting twist on regal largesse, too.
Hey Dr. Brin,
I just have to address this comment of yours:
"But still, I gotta tell you, I cannot fully grasp what it would do to my soul to have such a relentless series of micro bigotries grind away at you, hour after hour... without even the solace of righteous resentment, since, indeed, most of the whites doing it genuinely are trying! You can see it in their eyes, as they fumble about and try to overcompensate or act too-friendly, just making things worse, of course. When all you really want is to get your cup of coffee or the directions to the concert or talk about the game.
I imagine it’s like have a piece of grit in your eye, all the time. No wonder people self-segregate so much. No wonder black culture is often self referential, self-reinforcing, even at a time when more Americans are willing to see polychrome and put all of this behind us. No wonder some tumble into the sick-sweet allure of indignant martyrdom... just like you hear from the worst of the white pulpits. Leaving the moderates, yet again, standing in the middle saying 'what did I do?'"
It struck me, because you articulated very well something that has been bubbling in my subconscious but I could never express. To provide a bit of context, I am a 32 year-old black man, and I've encountered those "micro bigotries" many times from friends and strangers alike, and was always left feeling vaguely uncomfortable, but at the same time unsure how I should react.
If I spoke about these events to the mentors from the previous generation among my family and friends, many were quick to declare these incidents the unequivocal expression of overt racism from people who had hard biases against black people. But I couldn't reconcile that with the fact that these people, even the strangers, never really demonstrated overt, conscious bias, but rather succumbed to an unconscious initial reaction. How could I fault anyone for that? Like Obama said about his pastor, some of my mentors didn't realize that the world has changed for the better, even though their generation had a direct hand in effecting that change!
So hey, for what it's worth, you get a certified stamp of approval from a black guy that you "get it."
I do, however, have to give a little CITOKATE back to you in your criticism of Rev. Wright's comments. I've heard it reported from many different corners from the media and our beloved "punditocracy" that Wright was preaching and inciting hatred. You yourself said his speech was on par with that execrable Rev. Phelps and his clan who picket funerals. I completely agree that his conspiracy theories were wrong, loony, and offensive. But check the context of the 9/11 speech as linked by Anonymous. You cherry-picked his mention of the dropping the atomic bombs on Japan in his list of atrocities America has committed, when this was 7th down the list. And the full list seems to be more an indictment against all violence committed by the United States, regardless of their individual context or circumstances. He was wrong to lump WWII in with America's treatment of Native Americans and African Americans, but he seems to be railing against violence in general.
Furthermore, as others have said, all I've seen is these particular clips of 2-3 sermons played endlessly and then projected to claim that Wright has been preaching 20-30 years of hate. Doesn't this seem premature without any other sermons to go by? For example read Wright's sermon, "Audacity to Hope," from which Obama took the title of his most recent book. Does that sermon sound hateful? And what about all the positive community action the church has done over the years? Particularly Wright's support for the poor, HIV positive, and openly gay members of his church. Isn't it reasonable to assume that the messages of the majority of Wright's sermons will correlate with the church's very positive actions in the community and interaction with other churches? This doesn't excuse the bad sermons, but do those sermons invalidate everything else as 20 years of hate?
And finally, read this column by E.J. Dionne about another controversial black preacher whom you might have heard of.
Also, to lighten the mood, here's a breaking news story from The Onion: Black Guys Asks Nation for Change.
As someone who is probably guilty of expressing some of those micro-bigotries, I wonder if they are all, in fact, bigotries or whether they come down to the double-take arising from cognitive dissonance. The thought might not be 'what are you doing here?' as opposed to 'I didn't expect to see you here!'
Consider, if a group tends to clump together as a community for mutual self-support (understandaable if they are newcomers), then they won't be as likely to be seen in the general community. The occasions they are seen, they will be viewed as something unusual and will be given more than the usual passing glance.
Which suggests that clumped ethnic communities do not help this.
Of course, the issue is in the interpretation of those surreptitious glances as much as their intent.
Then again, cognitive dissonance might be another form of micro-bigotry, and the reason this blog doesn't implode is we're all too dumb to stop talking!
On that note, end of waffle.
Further mood-lightening: Novelists Strike Fails to Affect
Mitch says: "The Dems and Reps are as corrupt as they come, and have rigged the game at the state level vis-a-vis ballot access for third parties. Just ask Ralph Nader."
No doubt the parties have colluded some – there's been plenty of discussion here about jerrymandering for instance.
But really, the idea that third parties don't gain traction because of the two big parties is just a soothing conceit. The reality is that eighty percent of Americans fall somewhere in the spectrum covered by the two major parties, one soft left, the other (when it's not broken) soft right.
There just aren't enough Libertarians, Communists, and Greens to make these third parties work.
I mean really, Ralph Nader? You really think that but for major party obstructionism he actually had a chance?
In the main article Mr Brin states that minutes after Mr Obama is sworn in the USA will have allies again.
I'm in Slovakia (central Europe) and have friends from numerous backgrounds. Everyone has an opinion on the US elections. I know only one person who supports ANYONE other than Obama - and she's from Bible-Belt USA.
I know and work with people from all around the EU and "George Bush" jokes are the jokes of choice. That aside though there is serious anger at the current administration in the USA. European nations have a LOT to answer for as well - but let me talk about perceptions.
Among the more informed this is a well directed sense of betrayal. The US, despite its sometimes serious faults has stood as a bastion of freedom and democracy with a constitution that famously upholds the rights of the individual. After 911 the Stars and Stripes flew at half-mast across Europe. Beleive me - that day and in the weeks afterwards we were all brothers and sisters. Bush essentially raised a finger to international sympathy and proceeded to invade nations without international support, kidnap non-US citizens for torture, re-write the Geneva Convention while removing personal freedoms in the US to a scary degree. On top of that the Administration tried its utmost to block any attempt to unite the world to combat climate change. The US administration is now percieved by many to be the enemy of freedom, unity and democracy. Considering the almost unimaginable level of world sympathy Mr Bush started out with this is quite an achievement. As a non-US citizen I see this situation as BAD.
To the less well informed person they can't differentiate between the US administration and Americans as a people. Hatred of Americans is becoming a serious issue. I see Anti-American graffiti, I hear jokes about Americans and I hear children (obviously picking things up from parents) talking about how stupid/violent Americans are (American=stupid/blows things up). As a non-US citizen I see this situation as BAD BAD BAD.
The new President needs to correct this. S/he needs to put the USA back in it's rightful place as a leader, showing the way forward towards a bright future for all humanity.
A leader must be respected and one does not respect a leader who betrays his own values when threatened.
Mitch's wings just came off and his fuel tank exploded and now he's auguring in without a parachute. From here it looks like Brin 1, Knee-Jerk Far-Right Wingnut 0.
More reasons for optimism:
Republicans are abandoning their own party. In (d)Roves.
Unlike our friend Mitch, most Repubs realize they've been attacked by what Victor Gold calls "The Invasion of the Party Snatchers." And they're running from the flesh-eating Rove/Cheney/Grover Norquist zombies as fast and as far as they can.
With Obama as the nominee and a historic shift in voting patterns, this November will be a colossal landslide for the Demos.
I'm telling you guys -- now's the time to think about making reservations in a Washington D.C. hotel for the inaugual. This promises to be one of the best inaugural speeches ever given.
Oh, one minor point of disagreement with Dr. Brin -- he calls these kleptocrats "proto-feudalists." That's just not accurate. True feudal aristocrats recognized deep bonds of recipcrocal loyalty to their vassals. But the peculiar thing about the drunk-driving C student in the White House is his total lack of loyalty -- to anyone! His vassals are expected to have total loyalty to him, but the instant they become inconvenient, he throws them under the bus. That's not a feudal mindset, it's more like the modus operandi of a drug lord who doesn't hesitate to kill off his own henchmen the instant he suspects they might become a liability.
But even drawing the analogy with career criminals fails here, because drug lords try to make a profit. In however twisted a way, career criminals try to create a going concern, a business that generates income. The kakistocrats now running our government don't even seem to care about that! As far as I can tell, it's just fine with Cheney/Rove/Norquest et al. if the United States goes broke, if all the GIs in Iraq get electrocuted by faulty wiring installed by KBR, if all our soldiers die from cholera due to contaminated sh*t water supplied by Halliburton, if Wall Street collapses completely due to the rampant corruption and lack of regulation, if all our giant fabulously expensive superweapons built by trough-slurping pork barrel defense contractors break down and don't work in the field.
That's even worse than being a drug lord. I don't know what that is. It's as though a drug lord were to shoot all his cronies and underlings because they might betray him, then pile the drug stash into a boat built by a no-bid contractor that promptly sinks.
I don't know what that is, but it ain't feudalism. It's not even sane.