Random Thoughts

It's been a busy month with many things I've seen/heard but haven't had a chance to write on. Just a few quick hits to get me back in a rhythm, hopefully...

Though relatively tame, it's interesting to note how when Democrats offer racist commentary on non-white Republicans (why, yes, there are some!), there is little or no blowback. I certainly heard almost nothing on this incident involving Elaine Chao (the wife of Republican Mitch McConnell) from any major media outlet. In spite of the fact that they've confused Taiwanese with Chinese and their assertions that, as a "Chinese", she is working in some dark fashion to move US jobs overseas to China as if though she were some sort of modern day Fu Manchu character, I have not seen where the super PAC was punished or suffered any significant blowback as a result. On the flip side, though, when a Republican Alaska representative used the derogatory term "wetback" to refer to Mexican workers, it was plastered all over the mainstream media as another example of how Republicans are racist and even his own party, in their recent attempts to step away from being the party of racist rednecks, demanded (and received) an immediate apology. Both of the incidents were racist yet only one seems to have piqued any significant interest in the media because it fits a preconceived narrative. Yet, to listen to that narrative, racists only exist on one side of the political spectrum.

A friend of mine, some time back, tweaked me to Glenn Greenwald, a journalist with the British paper The Guardian. He is a bit on the left side of the political spectrum and I have found much of what he writes to be cogent and rational (compared to some). But I was super-impressed by his arguments when it came to Rand Paul and his filibuster when it concerned the rationale seemingly put forth by the Obama administration that it could order drone strikes against US citizens under certain circumstances. While the issue was highlighted by many in the media in terms of the radical right-wing legislator frothing against the popular Democratic president serving to valiantly defend his nation against the violent terrorists, Greenwald properly called out the supposedly liberal establishment for failing to stand up for one of its ideals and instead marching in lockstep with the administration simply to adhere to political convention. Whereas protesting against illegal drone strikes against US citizens would seem like something that would have been undertaken by a liberal lion such as Ted Kennedy, it was instead a libertarian (or so I took his approach) who picked up the standard and ran with it. It amazes me how little the Obama administration has continued policies that were originally put in place by his predecessor - who took amazing heat for it - and yet his party is now happily accepting of his actions and quietly acquiesce to those decisions. Of course, both Republicans and Democrats did the same things 12 years ago after September 11, 2001 and then Republicans openly supported while Democrats began to complain as his reign continued. Now, of course, the tables are turned and we see that the issue is not the issues themselves but instead who is in power when deciding those issues.

Finally, I can't say as though I am a big fan of Noam Chomsky but I found this to be an interesting interview. He actually addresses the concern of double-standards both in his views as well as how they are reported in the media. Of course, that does not stop him from continuing to offer very pointed, one-sided points in his critical commentary on US actions while remaining silent in the face of abuses or wrongs committed by those whom he sees as being on the right side of history (Hugo Chavez being one example). Further, the idea that 9/11 could have precipitated a military takeover of the US establishment makes him sound more like a conspiracy theorist than the noted and recognized academician that he is. He sees evil in everything the US does yet has no problem with staying in the US as it will offer him the opportunity to speak as he does - perhaps he realizes that the relative free speech that he enjoys in the US is something that will not be so easily granted in other parts of the world. This is not to suggest that the US does not have problems but he appears to only see problems in the US most of the time while ignoring the same (or worse) in other parts of the world. He admits in the interview that he will call out the power establishment on their wrongs while all but ignoring those committed by those who are in ideological agreement with him. Granted, this is not something that is limited to Mr. Chomsky but nor does it absolve him, either. Frankly, it smacks of the same double standards that seem to apply to almost anyone involved with politics and which renders it as unpalatable on many levels to so many. Even when Mr. Chomsky sees and recognizes it he still continues to act and speak with it in mind, absolving himself from responsibility with the idea that it serves the greater good. Does the end justify the means?

The politics of friendship

Ah, yes, the politics of friendship. Or, put another way, the idea that politics defines your friendship. At least for some people. I try not to allow it to affect my friendships; though, to be fair, I have never been above riding someone about their political views. But I would like to think I have never defined my friendships based on political views.

However, it is something that has become a glaring issue in my opinion. I have friends and family members who define their friendships based on their political views and wanting to associate only with politically like-minded individuals. I don't get it and, quite frankly, find it to be a very disturbing concern. Everyone has political views (particularly in the US) and there is a strong vein of politics that permeates American lives because of our history. Further, I am sure that the sense of polarization that is so prevalent today is nothing new and has existed throughout the short history of the US. However, that should still not pose the issue that it does with so many non-political friends and associates of mine.

A short thirty years ago (during the heyday of Reagan), there was a lot of political vitriol between the two political parties in the US, the Republicans and Democrats. Yet, at the end of the day, I remember the stories of the two main leaders of their respective parties (Reagan and Tip O'Neil of the Democrats who was the then-Speaker of the House) getting together to have drinks and engage in friendly conversation. These were the same two men who would put forth great criticisms of each other and their respective views on the issues of the day but they also realized that it was as much political theatre and did not allow it to keep them from being able to interact on other levels for the benefit of each other and the country as a whole. Today, however, the two parties batter each other to a degree that comes close to rivaling the demonization that preceded the genocidal massacre of Tutsis in Rwanda in 1994. And that occurs just on the political level. However, what has followed today is a similar level of demonization on a non-political level by adherents of the various parties.

I have friends and family who will not speak to each other because they hold different political views. Some of them are on the political right and only watch Fox News because it is "fair and balanced" and read the National Review while anything else represents only the political left (those damn liberals!). Some are on the political left and only watch MSNBC and read Mother Jones while abhorring Fox News for being biased (stupid retarded conservatives!). And they will only associate with people who hold similar viewpoints while lambasting those who hold divergent opinions without ever truly attempting to understand them, let alone trying to find a middle ground. The result, of course, is a stark inability to find common ground on a personal level that could be used to help create a framework to help move them (and the country as a whole) forward. This deliberate limitation is amazing and completely idiotic to me. Why would people choose to limit themselves from learning from or about others? I have never understood this and the politicization of these relationships makes it even more difficult to fathom.

Of course, I see this because I tend to adhere to a more moderate set of views that crosses over into both major party platforms so I am not beholden to one or the others. I also prefer to learn as much as I can and do not limit myself to a single source of information - though I also am aware of the various biases that creep up in what passes for "news reporting" today. But the idea that I would allow my political views to dictate my friendships (none of which are "political") is abhorrent to me. And this is in spite of the fact that my degree is in Political Science and I have a fairly well-grounded knowledge base on a number of subjects.

I simply want to take some of these people (who will openly admit to such selective "friendships") and throttle them while asking them what the heck they are thinking in doing such a thing! Maybe I am just an anachronistic relic of an earlier age or an optimist? I hope not. I'd be curious for the feedback of others on this.

Really, who is the racist?

As I have pointed out on this blog a few times before, I have a hard time understanding how it is that, in the political landscape, Republicans are racist and Democrats are the new party of Abraham Lincoln come to rescue the downtrodden blacks.

And apparently I'm not the only one is willing to point this out as this one gentleman did. And he did a good job in pointing out that he doesn't necessarily have to agree with her choice or her reasoning in making said choice (and he doesn't on both counts). But to suggest that she is a race traitor or worse because she is expressing her freedom to choose someone else and to stand outside the mainstream is not wrong but is a step that shows that the color of one's skin should not be the determining factor in one's political affiliation. After all, wasn't that the point of the Civil Rights Movement?

Unfortunately, I suspect that such a nuanced point of view will continue to be ignored because it's an uncomfortable thing to reflect upon contradictions in our views. Well, for most people, anyway...

Random Thoughts

As I noted in my most recent post, I had recently started using Spotify, an online music service. I cannot tell you how absolutely thrilled I am with this service. Granted, I am not necessarily a huge user beyond my office and occasionally at home but the ability to play both the music I already have then the music I find from their site has been absolutely wonderful and opened up new genres for me to appreciate. This evening, I found the Pirates of the Caribbean soundtrack as well as a variety of music from the various Star Wars films among the music available and have been listening to them with great joy. This does not include the list of music from the 70's, 80's & 90's that I have found and listened to over the last week or so. Granted, they do not have all of the music I would like (I found very little by Peter Schilling who I truly enjoy) but it has been far more of a gift than a disappointment. For music lovers, this site is highly recommended!

For those in the US (not that most Americans are paying any attention to it at the moment other than the various talking heads who have been wailing for the last few weeks), the looming debt crisis has to be rather unnerving. The possibility that the US could fall into a default status is a worrying concern and one that, frankly, should never have reached a critical point such as it now faces (3 days from today). Politicians have whored themselves out to every interest group (I can't refer to them as special interest groups as that would assign them a status that would not be fitting) and created causes for which government money can be spent with wild and reckless abandon. It has deemed itself an integral factor into the everyday life of its citizens and, as a sad result, requires vast sums of money to support itself. And now, both sides are playing brinksmanship in the hope of winning political points (and elections) rather than trying to resolve an issue that has no short-term solution. Democrats are unwilling to cut social programs - let's face it, if you received money from any one of those social programs (and far too many people do), would you vote for the party that took it away from you? Republicans are unwilling to increase the debt limit unless some form of fiscal restraint (and significant social spending but not military cuts) are imposed. And both sides of Congress waited until less than a week before even attempting to pass any form of legislation - and both sides passed bills that they knew would not pass in the other half. It is at times like this that not only Americans but people everywhere look at this form of government and wonder how the US managed to become a world superpower.

And, just to be fair, let's not forget the other burgeoning superpower that is facing a crisis that seems to have only grown in the past week and does not figure to become better with time - the fatal crash of one of its high-speed trains. A nation that has grown increasingly restless with the corruption that has plagued its government leaders found a focus upon which to vent in not just the crash itself but the actions taken by the government that seemed designed to hide any unpleasant facts that may have placed culpability for the crash upon itself. And the fact that there has been little transparency and deliberate efforts by the government to put a rosy picture on the efforts of the government to help the people hurt by the crash (much like the Wenchuan earthquake of 2008 which saw the rise of Ai Weiwei who worked to reveal facts of shoddy school construction that resulted in many children's deaths that the government did not want advertised) has only added fuel to the anger of many people who want accountability. Sadly, the likely outcome of this will be a sop - some poor official who has insufficient ties to higher officials for protection will be held as a sacrificial lamb and likely executed for "corruption". It is worth wondering how much longer Chinese will be satisfied with such sops before they demand real answers and accountability that correspond with the rise of the Chinese nation. For that matter, it's worth wondering how long Americans will be content to live with the decreasing accountability they seem to hold their own officials to...

EDIT: And just learned that apparently there isn't much in the way of an independent judiciary in China (big surprise!). Or at least it doesn't seem that way when the government tells all lawyers in the vicinity of the train crash they are not allowed to help any victims of the train crash because it "is a major sensitive issue concerning social stability".

More political demonization thoughts

Sometimes, it amazes me how people see each other, particularly when it comes to politics. And, I will preface before I go further that I am absolutely certain this is nothing new but the speed with which things are spread via the internet simply allows this sort of vitriol and negative stereotypes to perpetrate themselves with lightning speed. And, for the purpose of this post, I will limit myself to US politics as that is what I am most familiar with. The general stereotype is that Republicans are social and fiscal conservatives, often deeply religious and strongly supportive of the military and financial responsibility. For Democrats, it is the belief that they are borderline communists whose belief in greater government interaction with society is for the betterment of all and who prefer that the rich should be taxed more heavily to support the poor and downtrodden in society who cannot do for themselves.

It should be pretty obvious to anyone who has read this blog for any period of time that I do not belong to either of these political parties as I tend to despise them pretty equally for different reasons. The one thing I dislike is hypocrisy and I strive hard not to be that way in my own life. However, it seems impossible to be involved with any sort of political activity and not become hypocritical at some point. Republicans, to me, are hypocritical based on their "Do as I say, not as I do" attitude, particularly galling for a group that positions themselves as the more "moral" party based on their increasingly religious credentials (and when I say religious, I am referring more to Christian). Correspondingly, Democrats gall me for their attitude of being the more "elitist" party who thinks they know all of the answers and can implement them if only the government were granted more power to do so - in spite of the mountain of evidence through history that indicates that increased power with government usually does not provide for anything to society other than the desire for more power for those who already have it. But this does not stop either party from stooping to various lows to denigrate their opponents for transgressions while ignoring their own. Perhaps this is why so many people outside of the political beltway try to ignore it.

So what has ignited this particular post? The following comment came through my Twitter feed recently and it just irked me a little.

If you slotted Hitler into the current Republican presidential field he’d be a moderate.

Obviously, it is posted by someone with Democratic leanings. But how is it ok for Democrats (the supposed peace party - their current president probably excluded) to make these associations? Or, for that matter, how is it ok for Republicans to paint Obama as anything from Lenin to Stalin to Mao to Hitler (individuals whose only comparable feature was that they were all dictators within the last century)? And, frankly, how does this sort of discourse allow for any sort of rational compromise to occur that will benefit the nation as a whole? It often seems like the entire point of politics today is nothing more than a race to see who will finish first regardless of the consequences. And the deteriorating state of society that seems very evident to any who wish to see it is the sad result. It is not the fault of the Democrats or the Republicans, it is the fault of both and a society that happily allows itself to be fooled into thinking that it is someone else's fault in order to avoid blame unto themselves. I only hope that we will wake up one day to recognize that we are the ones who have to take action if we hope to avoid falling into third world status in the next generation.

No double standards here...

Nope, the Democratic Party and its supporters - particularly African-Americans - are all lining up in support of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid after comments he made about then-candidate Obama were printed in a new book about the 2008 campaign. Specifically, his comments were that Obama was:

a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one

[sarcasm]Yep, nothing racist or even stereotypical in those comments. I can see why no African-Americans would be offended by something so trivial. Heck, I can't see why I, or anyone else for that matter, should be offended by such commentary. [/sarcasm]

I think the problem here is that this exposes the political hypocrisy to which race and racism has devolved. Without defending the idiocy that has been perpetrated by Republicans in equal measure, the refusal of Democrats and leading African-Americans to condemn either the comments or the speaker lend a great deal of credence to the belief that racism has become nothing more than a political tool for Democrats to abuse Republicans. George Allen in Virginia during the 2006 Senate campaign with his "macaca" comment and Trent Lott's commentary on Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday celebration in 2002 are two of the more egregious examples by the Republicans in recent memory and both were pilloried by their Democratic opponents and subsequently lost their positions of authority. Indeed, there was no shortage of commentators, leaders and supporters from the left of the political spectrum who rose up indignantly and shouted for some form of punishment to be inflicted upon the two of them.

And that is all reasonable when the same standards are applied to the idiots on the left who make similarly embarrassing gaffes. The problem that arises here are the double standards that are clearly evident. The racist card is to be applied to your political opponents to ensure that they are labeled as such and to establish the moral high ground for your own side of any debate. But when your side makes comments that are clearly racist, then it is best to find some other way of deflecting attention away or defending them in the hope of "the greater good". The problem is that, by doing so, you then minimize the injustice of the racism that clearly does exist (except within the Democratic Party, obviously). So what is the greater good?

There has been commentary from Democratic apologists that Sen. Reid's comments do not compare with the comments of some of his Republican predecessors. That is a subjective (and specious) argument. According to those apologists, Republicans are all racist by nature so the intent of racial commentary is obviously racist by design whereas similar comments by Democrats are not intended to be racist because they are more enlightened on the subject of race. Therefore, the arguments do not compare. The problem with such an argument is that they are arguing intent and motive which can never actually be known by anyone other than the offender. Furthermore, if Democrats are so "enlightened", how can they possibly countenance such comments in the first place, let alone utter them aloud?

In a further galling move, Senator Reid apologized on the Sunday morning talk shows and then has followed up by calling every African-American leader that he can find to beg their forgiveness. And while this is obviously a necessity to help deflect attention away from his mistake, it seems that no one is questioning the fact that his mea culpa comes more than a year after the comments were made and only after it was published in an upcoming book. So, would he have apologized for his comments if someone had not outed them in the first place? Not likely. Additionally, the president, in a move clearly intended (and hoped) to defuse the situation, dismissed it with clear political motivations. If the Senate Majority Leader becomes embroiled in a distraction such as racist comments, it can only serve to detract from his goal of passing healthcare legislation - and those distractions must be avoided at all costs. There can be no clearer sign of the political machinations that have now superseded the issue of racism.

And in a country with as many open wounds relating to racism, this clearly is a problem.