December 16, 2014

The right continually bleats about how exceptional America is or, as Fox’s Andrea Tantaros puts, how awesome we are. Rush Limbaugh worries that we do not emphasize American exceptionalism enough. Therefore, he has assumed the burden of properly indoctrinating our youth in that belief through a series of "Rush Revere" books. There are three so far, each subtitled "Time-Travel Adventures With Exceptional Americans." The notion of education of the young by Rush is a bit frightening, but he is indeed illustrating American exceptionalism; what other country would have, as a major political influence, anyone so aggressively, deliberately ignorant?

If one needed another example of our negative exceptionalism, consider torture. The Senate released a study of our record on that subject, which ought to give the right pause. Instead their reaction has been to defend the practices (Cheney would "do it again in a minute"), or complain that reporting on — and criticizing — a practice the whole world knows we indulged in is going to cause a backlash from terrorists, or claiming that it’s a plot to distract attention from Benghazi or the IRS or whatever the latest faux-scandal might be.

Sadly, a poll showed that over half the population approves of the "enhanced interrogation techniques," with only 30% disapproving. The column by Andy Borowitz [90] disclosing that Cheney will lead a "torture-pride" march slips from humor to near-reality.

How have we reached this state? One explanation is offered by Andrew Bacevich:

Since at least 1940, when serious preparations for entry into World War II began, the United States has been more or less continually engaged in actual war or in semi-war, intensively girding itself for the next active engagement, assumed to lie just around the corner. The imperatives of national security, always said to be in peril, have taken precedence over all other considerations. . . .

. . . The size, scope, and prerogatives accorded to the so-called intelligence community — along with the abuses detailed in the Senate report — provide only one example of the result. But so too is the popular deference accorded to those who claim to know exactly what national security requires, even as they evade responsibility for the last disaster to which expert advice gave rise.

. . . As long as the individuals and entities comprising that [national security] apparatus persist in their commitment to permanent war, little of substance will change. . . .[91]

There’s not much likelihood of a major alteration of governmental, political or popular attitudes toward the national security state. Even Mr. Obama’s diplomatic recognition of Cuba, a modest step away from the Cold War, has met with opposition. The Washington Post expressed disapproval because Cuba still isn’t living up to our standards which, in the current context, is more than a little tone-deaf.

________________

 

90. http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/cheney-lead-torture-pride-march 91.http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/12/09/torture-report-highlights-consequences-permanent-war/MdEpEx2ilVexZuECsJ88TN/story.html

December 6, 2014

Conservatives — and I use the word only as a contemporary political reference — pretend to be the strong ones in our society: aggressive, macho, stand-and-fight types. Why then are they afraid of so much? Ebola, ISIS, Iran, terrorists, immigrants (including children), liberals, progress, health care, the theory of evolution, all put them into panic mode; each of the above threatens the society if not our very lives. It’s amazing that they find the courage to go out of the house.

Of course there is one thing they are not afraid of: climate change. I don’t mean that they are unafraid of any discussion of the issue; that too causes panic. It’s the effects of climate change that they are sanguine about. Of all of the threats we allegedly face, the one which is supported by scientific research, by hard facts, is the only one which causes them no concern. That brave attitude soon will be underscored by the appointment of Senator James Inhofe as chairman of the Senate committee dealing with the environment. The committee which ought to be doing something about global warming will be headed by the author of The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. Our future is threatened by doing something about the major threat to our future; that’s conservative logic. 

Who is behind the "conspiracy"? Here’s an interview of Inhofe:

That's some hoax, I countered. But who has engineered such a scam? Hollywood liberals and extreme environmentalists, Inhofe replied. Really? I asked. Why would they conspire to scare all these smart people into believing a catastrophe was under way, when all was well? Inhofe didn't skip a beat: To advance their radical environmental agenda. I pressed on: Who in Hollywood is doing this? The whole liberal crowd, Inhofe said. But who? Barbra Streisand, he responded.[86]

Conservatives’ insouciance regarding the fate of the planet is, of course, the product of another, their greatest, fear: the federal government, which might take away their freedoms. Of course, it’s the freedom of corporations to make money which they have in mind. Take Inhofe as an example; his state, Oklahoma, set a record for high temperature, and suffers from drought.[87]   However, here is his priority: "We must continue to work to increase exploration and production of natural gas and oil . . . .Unfortunately, however, many current environmental regulations are not grounded in science. [Oh, so we should, after all, rely on science? Never mind.] As a result, they usually do harm and put undue restrictions upon the freedoms of many Americans. . . .[88] 

Wikiquote has a collection of Senator Inhofe’s penetrating observations, including this one, xreferring to his book: "Well, actually the Genesis 8:22 that I use in there is that ‘as long as the earth remains there will be seed time and harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night,’ my point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."[89]  It will be comforting to reflect on that as the sea rises around us.

__________________


86. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/03/inhofe-barbra-streisand_n_6261874.html
87. http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/06/3125531/inhofe-winter-climate-change/ 

88. http://www.inhofe.senate.gov/issues/energy-environment

89. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Inhofe

December 1, 2014

A fatal shooting which occurred recently in Cleveland has received less attention than the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Twelve year old Tamir Rice was wandering around a park area carrying and sometimes pointing a toy gun. Someone nearby called 911 and reported that the boy was pointing the gun at people; the security video, which filmed the boy for an extended time, shows one such incident.[84]  The caller, although stating that he was frightened, said twice that the gun probably was "fake," and that the person holding it might be a juvenile. The dispatcher made a point of determining whether the person with the "gun" was black or white. After being asked three times, the caller said, quietly and reluctantly, "black."

The dispatcher sent a patrol car to the area, omitting the caller’s references to age and fake gun. The boy had been seated at a table in a gazebo but, just before the police car arrived, started to walk toward the street. He was alone, although the later police report claimed that he was with others. The video shows the police car driving up, at considerable speed, onto the park grass, in between the boy and the sidewalk, and as soon as it is at a stop, the passenger door opens and Tamir falls to the ground. Some news reports have stated that the officer fired within two seconds of opening the door; it looks to me like it was less than a second. The police report claimed that the boy was pulling the gun from his waistband. The video isn’t clear enough to determine whether that is true or not, but the story about others being present makes one suspicious, and so does the sequence.

The driver got out and the two cops wandered around the car, pointing their guns two handed, apparently afraid that the mortally wounded boy would jump up and attack. It was a ludicrous parody of a dangerous confrontation, something copied from TV. An FBI agent, on an unrelated case, came by and attempted first aid; the policemen had not. When one of them reported the incident and asked for medics, he described the twelve-year old as a "black male, maybe 20." Tamir died the next day.     

Under the circumstances, one could blame the boy for acting irresponsibly or the parents for allowing him to wander around with a gun which someone might think real, but many of us were out and about at that age with cap pistols or bb guns without being shot down. One could, more logically, blame the manufacturer and seller of the gun; it does look more real that the old cap pistols. More importantly, these are different times: we are in more danger from nervous police than before, so selling replica guns is inviting disaster.

Also in Ohio, a man who had picked up a pellet gun for sale at a Walmart, and then wandered around the store with it, was shot and killed by police after a 911 report claimed he had pointed the gun at shoppers. The surveillance video does not show that, but again shows police firing as soon as the man was encountered.[85]  Like Tamir, he was black. The store has removed such guns from its shelves. Better late than never.

_____________________

84. Reports and videos are here:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2014/nov/26/cleveland-video-tamir-rice-shooting-police;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdAYPQd1H1A

85. http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/sep/25/ohio-shooting-walmart-video;

http://www.whio.com/news/news/special-grand-jury-selected-john-crawford-case/nhRwM/

November 20, 2014

President Obama has been accused of being a socialist. Absurd as that charge is, it is part of a long tradition; any progressive initiative is sure to be called "socialist," implying something profoundly un-American. Despite the inanity of the charge, it works; as Edmund Wilson said, "The surest way to shake an American reformer and make him back down has always been to accuse him of socialism."[79]  It has been suggested that public opinion is changing in a way that would deprive the label of its sting, but this is based on the opinions of younger voters, so any effect may lie in the future.[80]

Bernie Sanders might run for the presidency. He is a socialist, and would face widespread denunciation and misrepresentation. However, if he were able to get his actual views across, and to point out that they are not subversive of anything other than the rule of the rich, he might do well, and rescue "socialism" from contumely.

The need for a little socialism was underlined by a report that 29 of America’s 100 largest corporations paid more to their CEOs in 2013 than they did to the federal government in taxes. Included are 7 of the 30 largest corporations: Boeing, Chevron, Citigroup, Ford, J.P. Morgan, General Motors and Verizon. All seven were profitable, together reporting $74 billion in pre-tax profits in 2013, but together, they received $1.89 billion in refunds.[81]

Another indicator is the increasing concentration of wealth at the top. Thomas Piketty has shown that about 71% of is wealth owned by the top 10% of the population, about 34% by the top 1%.[82]   A paper by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman carries it a step further, showing that the top .1% holds over 20% of wealth, the top .01% over 11%. "At the very top end of the distribution, wealth is now as unequally distributed as in the 1920s. In 2012, the top 0.01% wealth share (fortunes of more than $110 million dollars belonging to the richest 16,000 families) is 11.2%, as much as in 1916 and more than in 1929. . . . Wealth is getting more concentrated in the United States . . . .[83]

Something needs to change. Let those who have nothing better to do fuss about labels.

_________________

79. Murray Kempton, Part of Our Time, p. 140

80. http://www.alternet.org/economy/every-treasured-progressive-reform-abolition-slavery-has- been-called-socialism
81. http://ourfuture.org/20141118/corporations-paying-more-to-their-ceo-than-they-do-in-federal- taxes
82. Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century; see chart p. 348.

83. A link to the study is here:
http://www.nationofchange.org/2014/11/18/now-richest-01-percent/.  The quote is from the paper’s Abstract. Charts follow p. 46.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

October 27, 2014

Among, no doubt, many others, there are two ways to illustrate the excessiveness of the ebola panic. The first is by satire. Andy Borowitz, online at The New Yorker, has mocked the media-fed fear with columns entitled "Man Infected with Ebola Misinformation Through Casual Contact With Cable News," "Some Fear Ebola Outbreak Could Make Nation Turn to Science" and "Study: Fear of Ebola Highest Among People Who Did Not Pay Attention During Math and Science Classes." In the last of those, he noted that, "when a participant of the study was told that he had a one-in-thirteen-million chance of contracting the virus, his response was ‘Whoa. Thirteen million is a really big number. That is totally scary’."[75]

On a more somber note, consider the contrast between the demands for action about ebola and the complacency regarding gun deaths. A Republican Congressman, Jason Chaffetz, complained about the appointment of an "ebola czar," asking "Why not have the surgeon general head this up?"[76]  Apparently he was unaware that we don’t have one. And why do we not? Because the NRA, and therefore Republicans (and some timid Democrats), oppose President Obama’s nominee because he has indicated support for such modest gun-control measures as an assault weapons ban, mandatory safety training and limits on ammunition sales.[77]

One American has died from exposure to the ebola virus; roughly 30,000 people are killed annually by guns.[78]  So the hyped panic about one will continue, as will the inaction on, and far greater menace from, the other.

_____________________

75. http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/study-fear-ebola-highest-among- people-pay- attention-math-science-classes?intcid=mod-most-popular
76. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/10/24/1338909/-Rep-Chaffetz-demands-surgeon-general- head-Ebola-efforts-Thanks-to-Republicans-there-isn-t-one#
77. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/15/us/senate-balks-at-obama-pick-for-surgeon-general. html? _r=0; 

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178888/why-nra-blocking-obamas-surgeon-general- nominee

78. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2013/09/19/u-s-has-more-guns-and-gun-deaths-than-any- other-country-study-finds/;
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01 /16/16547690-just-the-facts-gun-violence-in-america?lite

October 20, 2014

David Brooks wrote an odd column on October 16, entitled "The Case for Low Ideals." Ostensibly he was offering advice to those who might approach politics burdened with high ideals, but his notion of "low ideals" seems really to be the absence of ideals. In any case, his use of the term "ideals" is confusing.

The 2008 campaign, he tells us, "was based on the idea that people are basically innocent and differences can be quickly transcended. It was based on the idea that society is easily malleable and it’s possible to have quick transformational change. It was based in the idea of a heroic savior (remember those ‘Hope’ posters)." That’s a peculiar and tendentious reading, and an idea is not exactly synonymous with an ideal, but never mind. The point he was trying to make, I think, is that politics should be conducted in an atmosphere of compromise and accommodation. As an abstract principle, that is perfectly sensible.

His formula for achieving this is "low idealism," which seems to describe his preferred attitude of the voter, rather than of the official:

[L]ow idealism starts with a tone of sympathy. Anybody who works in this realm [politics] deserves compassion and gentle regard. The low idealist knows that rallies with anthems and roaring are just make-believe, but has warm affection for any politician who exhibits neighborliness, courtesy and the ability to listen. . . . [T]his kind of idealist has a full heart for those who serve the practical work of legislating . . . . Believing experience is the best mode of education, he favors the competent old hand to the naïve outsider.

However, tucked into the first ellipsis is this: "The low idealist understands that those who try to rise above the messy business of deal-making often turn into zealots and wind up sinking below it." That seems to denounce high idealism in the officeholder as well.

Returning to the voter, Brooks thinks that the low idealist, in looking for a leader, wants "not the martyr or the passionate crusader or the righteous populist. He likes the resilient one, who maybe has been tainted by scandals and has learned from his self-inflicted wounds that his own worst enemy is himself." I haven’t noticed a tendency on the part of voters to favor those tainted by scandal, but perhaps his low idealist would. "He likes the person who speaks only after paying minute attention to the way things really are, and whose proposals are grounded in the low stability of the truth." What might those proposals be? He doesn’t say; he seems to be advocating a content-free politics: elect a nice, friendly representative, and sit back; all will be well. "Low idealism . . . holds that people can be improved by their political relationships, so it ends up with something loftier and more inspiring than those faux idealists who think human beings are not a problem and politics is mostly a matter of moving money around." I don’t know what the last two phrases relate to, but again here is an empty politics: "something loftier. . . ."

If Brooks’ notion of a voter is theoretical, his view of government is minimalist and reactionary: "The core functions of government are negative — putting out fires, arresting criminals, settling disputes — and much of what government does is the unromantic work of preventing bad situations from getting worse." Perhaps that conclusion follows from this presumed characteristic of his preferred voter: "The low idealist is more romantic about the past than about the future." That person "believes, as Samuel Johnson put it, that ‘The happiness of society depends on virtue’ — not primarily material conditions." Government shouldn’t make people’s lives better on the low moral plane of physical well-being. No, its task is to raise the tone; "better laws can nurture virtue. Statecraft is soulcraft. Good tax policies can arouse energy and enterprise. Good social programs can encourage compassion and community service."

His borrowing of the title of one of George Will’s books is ironic. Mr. Will has moved so far to the right that he may now share Mr. Brooks’ preference for a minimal state but, when he wrote Statecraft as Soulcraft, in 1983, he hadn’t reached that point. He then declared his "belief in strong government, including the essentials of the welfare state" and stated that the values of the conservative tradition "are threatened less by 'big' government than by abdication by the government."[74]

Idealism, if naïve, can be a poor foundation for governing (or for voting, whichever it is that we are talking about), but the problem we face at the present isn’t a surfeit of idealism, but the dire effects of ideology; not high and noble aspirations but a cramped, rigid, uninformed, often deliberately ignorant philosophy of government and of society which issues primarily in servitude to the wealthy. If Mr. Brooks truly is concerned about the influence of attitudes and mental states, and about whom voters should support, he might direct his attention there.
______________________

74. Quotes from Statecraft as Soulcraft pp. 12, 22.

September 27, 2014

There are so many football games on television now that we often get down to the third, or fourth or fifth-string broadcast crews. Listening to those announcers, especially the color guys, brings to mind the word "bloviate," which then makes me think of political commentary. Here’s a definition: "To talk at length, especially in an inflated or empty way."[64]  I especially like this one: "To discourse at length in a pompous or boastful manner. To pretend to understand technical subject matter and sell it to others even dumber than oneself."[65]  The latter perfectly describes some color commentators: they have only a rudimentary understanding of the game, but feel compelled to demonstrate that by offering analysis of every play.

However, that is only a temporary, if repeated annoyance; in politics, inflated, empty talk is dangerous, because it influences attitudes and votes. Consider the following examples on Fox "News" and/or by its pundits:

Up to May 2, Fox ran 1,098 segments that "included significant discussion of Benghazi, an average of roughly 13 segments each week.[66] Having found a faux-scandal, it has blabbed about it continuously.

Andrea Tantaros personifies the phenomenon. She has become a star on Fox, having the necessary ability to have an uninformed opinion on every subject. As to Obama’s speech in ISIS, she observed, "I'm very deeply troubled by what he will say." As Stephen Colbert put it, "I couldn't have agreed more, because I also have not seen it and I am furious about what I think it will be."[67]  Ms. Tantaros also managed to find Obama at fault in the Ray Rice/NFL scandal: "I wanna know, where is the President on this one?"[68]  So, If he says anything, he’s wrong, but if he fails, in her view, to say something soon enough, he’s wrong. She claims that the government is pushing single motherhood, that it wants mother and child on the dole.[69]  Attorney General Holder has been Obama’s "cover-up guy." He’s "one of the most divisive, polarizing, controversial, dangerous men in America — unethical." "He ran the DOJ much like the Black Panthers would. That is a fact."[70]

However, she has stiff competition. Lindsey Graham, an expert at bloviating, has outdone himself in his panic over the threat posed by ISIS: "I think of an American city in flames because of the terrorists’ ability to operate in Syria and Iraq." "This is a war we’re fighting! It is not a counter-terrorism operation. This president needs to rise to the occasion before we all get killed back here at home."[71]

Religion offers many opportunities; Here’s Mike Huckabee’s contribution to Middle East theory: "I’ve got good news for all the dispirited and disquieted Christians in America who somehow are afraid that the Sons of Ishmael who are challenging us now in the Middle East will overwhelm the Sons of Isaac," Huckabee said. "Let me assure you, I have read the end of the Book! My dear friend, we win!"[72]

Without using the term, H.L. Mencken described bloviation, using a speech by President Harding as his foil:

It reminds me of a string of wet sponges; it reminds me of tattered washing on the line; it reminds me of stale bean-soup, of college yells, of dogs barking idiotically through endless nights. It is so bad that a sort of grandeur creeps into it. It drags itself out of the dark abysm . . . of pish, and crawls insanely up the topmost pinnacle of posh. It is rumble and bumble. It is flap and doodle. It is balder and dash.[73]

It’s Fox.

However, bloviating isn’t limited to the political right; arts reviews are perhaps the outstanding, although less sigificant, manifestation. Every week the Friday The New York Times provides a comical example of the genre. Consider this from September 26, describing a series of paintings (the one shown is all red): "Irony is now obscured by a veneer of sincerity that can seem almost apologetic. The nine paintings suggest dilutions of quasi-abstract, expressionistic, visionary styles by a painter long dead and best forgotten. Among their generic illusions are cataclysms of light, watery darknesses, a trail of sparkles worthy of Tinker Bell and a red-on-red orb so dry with pigment it looks like velvet. . . . A barely discernible back story confirms that the resemblance to generic emo-painting is intentionally superficial. . . ."

Alas for the English language, clear thinking, responsible politics and the culture.

_________________________

64. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/bloviate  

65. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bloviate 

66. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/fox-news-benghazi-segments-study


67. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/stephen-colbert-andrea-tantaros-obama-statement

68. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/andrea-tantaros-ray-rice-obama

69. http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/01/07/foxs-tantaros-obama-administration-wants-women /197473; http://mediamatters.org/video/2014/09/10/fox-host-blames-lower-marriage-rates-on-obama- p/200718

70. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/andrea-tantaros-eric-holder-black-panthers (video)

71. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/lindsey-graham-meltdown-obama-isis;
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/15/americas_most_terrified_senator_lindsey_grahams_never_
ending_doomsday_visions/ See my note of 8/24/12 for more examples of political bloviating.

72. http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/mike-huckabee-promises-christians-sons-isaac-will- defeat-sons-ishmael

73. http://www.deadlineartists.com/contributor-samples/h-l-mencken-%E2%80%93-gamalielese- %E2%80%93-baltimore-sun-%E2%80%93-3721/