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?

Law of Unintended Consequences

There was a great deal of fuss over President Obama's health care plan when it was passed last year. Much of the debate was on how it would be paid for and who would be covered and whether private insurance would be phased out. What was not discussed were things like cutting the hours of part-time workers to ensure that they do not trigger certain provisions in the health care law. Yet that is what the state of Virginia is currently looking into and, while it does its research, is cutting the hours of its part-time work force to ensure that it does not trigger anything.

So, while the law was intended to help provide health coverage for all citizens, it is now inadvertently creating a situation whereby people are unable to earn their normal paychecks for fear it may end up costing them or the state more money. I am sure that many proponents of the legislation will argue that this was either unforeseen or the fault of the state of Virginia (though I find it hard to believe that Virginia is the only state that is currently working to figure it out) but that does little to help those workers who are now being punished by circumstances beyond their control. And, considering the glacial pace at which government typically works, I cannot imagine they will be having a solution anytime soon.

So, the intent was to help the underprivileged or underserved and yet the unintended consequence is actually harming them. This is one reason why all legislation should be carefully considered rather than rammed through regardless of possible (unforeseen) consequences. Somehow, I doubt that those who pass these laws (and are unaffected by them) will do anything to remedy the situation - at least not anytime soon.

Random Thanksgiving Thoughts

Thanksgiving, that most American of holidays. And I had a very nice Thanksgiving for which I was thankful to see a cousin and uncle I had not seen in some time with the rest of my family (blood and otherwise). Hopefully will be able to continue to renew old family acquaintances in the near future. Ah, the joys of the internet making the world that much smaller...

Several things have been on my mind lately so I'll just skip over a few. First, in the interest of making sure everyone is treated fairly, what the heck was John Sununu and much of the Republican Party doing when they said that the only reason General Colin Powell, a staunch Republican who also happens to be black, chose to support President Obama's re-election (as well as the first time around in 2008) was because he is also black?! I've happily taken Democrats to task for such idiotic statements and will do the same here. Regardless of whether the Republican establishment liked the fact that Gen. Powell voted for Obama or agreed with his reasoning for doing so (and he clearly stated why he supported the president and it wasn't because he was black), to suggest he did so because they share a skin color is racist. The fact that no one prominent within the party rose up to disavow those comments is a major reason why there is a very real perception that the Republican Party is the party for racists (well, ok, white racists). Unless and until the party recognizes it cannot continue with the strategy it has employed for the last 40 years, it faces the very real possibility it will go the way of the Whigs.

Ok, it's been a while and I actually started another blog post on this but got sidetracked and not in the mood to finish that thought so I'll address it in short here. Thank goodness Lucas is no longer controlling the Star Wars empire! Don't get me wrong, I am most grateful for the empire (I know, an ironic word choice) he created back in 1977 and to suggest that I am an ardent devotee is a significant understatement. But over the course of the last 20 years, he has angered me far more than made me happy with the bastardization he has done to the franchise with continual technical upgrades to the original movies and the lousy prequels he did (well, ok, Episode III was watchable but still far lagged behind IV and V). Now, with someone else in charge, even if it is as part of Disney, I have a lot more hope for the future and am looking forward to seeing where the franchise goes from here. Somewhere in a galaxy far, far away, I'm sure better things await.

Recently, have come across several people who have become much more politicized. That is in contrast to myself as I have grown less so in my old age. What struck me, though, was how they view everything in their life through the very narrow lens of politics. One person made it clear that they were removing all of their social network friends who had differing political viewpoints. Another tried to argue with me that I was wrong for not being as strident in my political views and that I should be focusing my efforts on getting one of the candidates elected for the betterment of our country as the other candidate would destroy the nation. Trying to point out to this individual that I would vote (without disclosing to whom, they simply made an assumption) and that I had problems with all of candidates and their views a variety of issues was useless as they took the opportunity to point out how the opposing candidate (only the major party candidates mattered to this person) was wrong on EVERYTHING and ignored anything I tried to say. I guess it goes along with the tendency of these same people to only hear things that support their particular worldview and ignore anything else as irrelevant. So, if I don't listen to Fox News then I am getting a slanted viewpoint that only supports liberal weenies who want to burn the flag, get rid of English and turn the country into Northern Mexico (or choose your own country) or if I am listening to Fox News then they only offer "conservative" news and I am some back-woods redneck hillbilly who spends every Sunday in church listening to ignorant preachers who hate gays. Nope, thanks but I prefer to get my news from many sources and ignore the many talking-heads who somehow manage to get paid for saying stupid things for both extremes of the political spectrum while ignoring the needs of the nation as a whole. I now hope that the day comes where we can come back to some sort of middle ground that will allow collaboration on big issues for the nation instead of small-minded wedge issues designed to only garner votes from a small subset of the electorate - because we are now in election mode every day of the year. Politicians now view their job not as one of governance but of getting re-elected. Unless and until this changes, things will likely not improve significantly.

Ok, ok, I've digressed so I'll stop ranting now.

Random Thoughts

Is $750 million enough to win the presidency? Or could it be put to better use? President Obama spent about $750 million to win the presidency in 2008 and his staff has indicated that he'll raise about the same amount for this year's election from all of his sources. Romney will likely do the same between his own campaign and the PAC's who support him. So it does beg the question of what is the difference between them and are we reduced to the point in our democracy where only the rich (or the super-rich who support them) are able to have a serious opportunity to "serve" the people? From my limited vantage point, I'm not seeing much of a difference. All I see is a new class of elite leadership that enriches itself and perpetuates its own hold on power through that enrichment. I wonder if we could find a better way to invest that combined $1.5 billion for the nation as a whole instead of on a couple of power-hungry rich guys...

Two lawmakers say that the Secret Service needs more women? So goes the line from senators Susan Collins and Carolyn Maloney. Temporarily bypassing the idea of bipartisanship (in Washington DC?!) that these two are temporarily displaying, I have to admit that my first thought upon hearing this was "why?". I am not opposed to diversity in any workforce or group and think that it is a fine idea. However, in the aftermath of the Secret Service sex scandal (should I capital Sex Scandal?), the underlying point becomes "if there were more women there, then there wouldn't have been a sex scandal." Riiiiiight. Because women are never involved in anything dirty like a sex scandal.

http://www.zimbio.com/The+50+Most+Infamous+Female+Teacher+Sex+Scandals
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2009/12/11/why-women-dont-have-sex-scandals.html

Sorry, if we want to push for diversity in the Secret Service (or anywhere else, for that matter), let's not use stupid excuses to do so. Let's push for it but let's do so for the right reasons - not as a political sop based on the actions of a few stupid people.

And now, I'm tired and off to bed... I may have to review this later to be sure it's coherent since I don't feel particularly so at the moment.  :-)

Apathy is pathetic

Apathy is pathetic.

Actually, apathy is a lack of interest in or concern for things that others find moving or exciting. That sounds like a pretty apt definition of the situation in the United States as pertains to politics for a great number of people. And it seems pretty pathetic when people are so turned off by the practice of politics that they are unsure of who their elected representatives are - and don't care.

This is not to say that everyone should be a political animal but people should at least know who represents them in government and be at least minimally informed on the issues of the day. But there a great many people who are not. And that is worrisome.

Sure, everyone knows who Barack Obama (or President Obama) is - even if not everyone likes him. But they do not always know who the senators or representatives are. Heck, I suspect there is a good number of people who do not even know who the Vice-President (Joseph Biden) is. Sure, it is important to know who the president is but it is not (and should not be) the president who drives everything in the country. It is the Congress who should generate legislation but they have chosen to abrogate their responsibilities which, unfortunately, has also rendered them mostly invisible to the general public. Indeed, between their abrogation of responsibility and the high degree of partisan gridlock that has gripped the nation's capital, not to mention the constant campaigning that now consumes the majority of a politician's time instead of actually trying to run the country in a responsible manner, it should probably be no surprise that people pay little attention to their representatives.

In which case, I guess it really is not a big surprise why there is such apathy in the US when it comes to issues that matter in the running of the country.

Some random thoughts

Just a couple of quick hit thoughts for the day.

It appears that one loser wants to buy another loser. Gosh, what else is there to say? I guess everyone has the right to their opinions but since when did one man's opinions seem to serve as the platform of a political party instead of serving to support the platform of the party? And come to think of it, if the bid is successful, does that mean that the team will be kept in St. Louis instead of moving to Los Angeles (as seems to be the rampant belief these days)? But, in the habit of trying to keep a moderate opinion that is balanced on both sides of the fence, I have a similar amount of respect for plagiarists and mean-spirited comedians/radio hosts/politicians (though, thinking about it, is there really that much of a difference between the two - other than the official titles, I mean).

So the president goes to make a pitch for the Olympics and ends up with egg on his face when not only is Chicago denied, but it is the first to be knocked out of the voting. For a man who got elected through his ability to convince people to believe as he wants, it does not make him look very good. Frankly, the move was a lose-lose situation. By going, he takes attention away from other, more pressing issues (say, like health-care reform or the war in Afghanistan) and, by losing the bid, he opens up a new avenue of potential criticism at home. And it did not take long for the criticism to start by many of his Republican opponents who have been desperately looking for any reason to find fault with his actions. While his actions may not have been the best use of his efforts - not to mention his political capital and star power - some of the critics who were openly boasting that the president was a failure or happy with the loss have opened themselves to questions of their own actions. After all, the loss is a loss for the country as a whole, not just Chicago and certainly not just President Obama. (Seriously, who would not want to see the Olympics hosted in the US?) Somehow, I'd be willing to bet that had it been former President Bush (43), some of those current critics would be singing a far different tune. Or, more precisely, the position of the Democrats and Republicans would be reversed. It seems that public service is increasingly being determined as service only in the name of a political ideology instead of the good of the citizenry and the nation. Compromise is not a dirty word.

Finally, what is the reasoning behind President Obama's decision to not meet with the Dalai Lama when he visits the US this week? Instead, any official meeting will be put off until after he goes to China in November. Come to think of it, this probably should not be so surprising since it is not the first time he's been unable to meet with the Tibetan spiritual leader. I guess this means, quite obviously, that the reasoning is entirely political and is serving only to try to ingratiate himself with the Chinese government - the same government that has blasted the Dalai Lama as a "splittist" who is trying to break Tibet away from China. Or, to look at it another way, after angering Chinese officials with his recent tariffs on Chinese-made tires, he's now hoping to make amends by not meeting with the Dalai Lama. The problem with this action is that it reduces the credibility he (and the government and nation he represents) possesses as the leader of a free and open nation with respect for human rights. Certainly, it can be argued that the US has always acted in its own self-interest and human rights is secondary, but the reality is that many people throughout the world look to the US as the land of freedom and opportunity. Tarnished that belief may now be after the last 10 years or so, but it is an enduring image that will only suffer further indignities by this slight against a man that many view as a symbol of peace and hope. Additionally, even if he meets the Dalai Lama at a later date, the Chinese government will still be furious as it does not view any official meetings between the Dalai Lama and other international leaders with favor. So, any possible gains are short-term and tenuous at best.

Cult of Personality

I have to admit that Cult of Personality is one of my favorite songs. It has been ever since it first came out by the band Living Colour. I enjoyed it not only for the style of music but also for its political commentary - which makes sense when I tend to associate almost everything to politics somehow.

I was reminded of this recently as I was thinking about the Obama effect. More precisely, the effect that he has apparently had on a new generation of young voters and supporters. While Bill Clinton enjoyed a certain amount of popularity, particularly among women voters, his overall effect was comparatively small when compared to the first black president of the United States. In an era where people seem to be increasingly judged upon their appeal and popularity, President Obama enjoys a tremendous amount of support. His appearances both on the campaign trail during the election last year attained the status of rock concerts with women swooning as soon as he appeared onstage. Since his election, his popularity has seemingly not waned. While there are many people who do not agree with his policies, none can deny the effect his appearance has had on not just Americans but people all over the world. Whereas his predecessor had engendered a great deal of derision for his policies and sometimes questionable decisions, Obama has just the opposite effect.

His appeal is not hard to understand. He is well-spoken, intelligent, cultured (though that is a subjective term) and good-looking (well, at least that is what I've heard women say). And to become the first black president in a country that is deservedly lambasted for its past with blacks has given him a special position in history that cannot be denied. However, at times, it seems that his appeal has also granted him a sort of invulnerability to criticism that is somewhat disturbing. While Janeane Garofalo is a somewhat extreme example of his supporters, it is rather representative of the beliefs of those who will defend him from any criticism, whether deserved or not. Essentially, the assertion by his backers is that those who would criticize him is that they are all racist regardless of whatever the criticism may be. They assign motive to his critics - something that is simply not possible for it would require the ability to read minds.

And, to be fair, it should be pointed out that such tactics are not only on one side of the political spectrum, as commentary from the other side was equally brutal during the previous administration. But a crucial difference is how Obama is held in regard by his supporters versus the supporters of President Bush, or any others for that matter. There is an almost reverent belief among his followers that he will make everything better. Like the pied piper leading his charges through his musical pipe, President Obama's supporters want to believe and thus they do, without reservation or question. Any critical analysis or advice given is automatically discarded because it does not conform to the hope being offered by the pied piper.

History has shown that blind belief without rational analysis, especially when applied to a charismatic leader, can often have disastrous consequences. Indeed, it is replete with many examples, both elected and not. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini are a few among many. And these examples are only within the last century!

I should caveat that this is not necessarily to infer that President Obama is the same as any of the aforementioned notorious rulers. It is meant merely to demonstrate how the power of wanting to believe in something can lead people to follow leaders whose leadership abilities is questionable at best, disastrous and deadly at worst.

It is not wrong to hope that a man can make a situation better. It is wrong to unquestioningly believe everything that a man may say. And for a great many people who were willing to not only question the abilities of his predecessor but to openly associate him with many of the aforementioned rulers, it seems particularly amazing that they are so blindly willing to follow the current leader without question or reservation.

Race Today

In the last year, America has experienced almost a revolution in terms of race, ethnicity and how the two interact within society. The election of the first black president, Barack Obama, showed just how far America has come in terms of the overcoming the stigma of race. Or perhaps it showed how much race is still a factor within American society. It depends upon one's point of view. This was followed by the much ballyhooed case that went before the Supreme Court on the issue of white firefighters being denied promotion due to an insufficient number of minorities passing a promotion exam in New Haven, Connecticut - and the role played by the all-but-confirmed Sonia Sotomayor who will likely be the first Hispanic on the US Supreme Court. And the most recent example of race relations in the US is the case involving a white police officer arresting Henry Louis "Skip" Gates, a black Harvard professor which, on its own was newsworthy but escalated with the additional (and some might feel inflammatory) comments by President Obama on the case.

Certainly the election of the first black president is a sign of tremendous progress on the issue of race in America. It could be argued that it is a tremendous sign of progress in almost any Western nation - most of which have not equaled the feat. At the time of his election, it was being hailed as the "post-racial" era. Presumably, this meant that the era of racism was quickly reaching its denouement. However, and this is something that I pointed out at the time privately, racism is still a relevant issue in the United States and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Indeed, the election of a black man (or woman, for that matter) did not signal an end to the path started generations earlier. Frankly, the beginning of the end for that issue will occur when a white man (or woman) can freely criticize that elected official for whatever reason and not be immediately labeled a racist. And it is clear from the reactions that have been shown toward those with the temerity to criticize the current president that the nation is still not approaching that point.

The white firefighters filed suit to claim their promotions shortly after the city of New Haven declared the results to be invalid and that there would be no promotions at that time due to the lack of minority candidates passing the exam. Their case was pursued all the way to the Supreme Court - along the way being denied by current Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor - where it was awarded its final merit and declared that the city did not have the right to deny them a promotion based on the lack of a higher number of qualified minority candidates. Some felt this signaled the end of race-based quotas while others felt this was clearly a strike against Ms. Sotomayor being elevated to the Supreme Court as her earlier decision in the case was overruled. But the decision did not resolve the underlying issues concerning race-based quotas and that will continue to be an issue for the immediate future. But this can be seen as part of a backlash against the race-based quota system under the larger aegis of affirmative action. Is affirmative action something that is no longer needed? Certainly it is debatable and there is merit on both sides of the argument. Certainly everyone should be given the same opportunities to succeed - after all, that is the founding promise of America. But are quotas the best way to even the playing field? Would not equal opportunities to education be an equal solution, if not better? And while it can be argued that educational opportunities for minorities are certainly better than they were 40 years ago, that does not mean that they are equal. Perhaps if affirmative action were aimed more toward education, then it would not be so polarizing for adults.

The case of racial profiling looms large when discussing Professor Gates. Was his a case of racial profiling? There is not enough public information to say for certain. But Colin Powell put it well. There was probably an over-reaction on both the part of Prof. Gates as well as Sgt. Crowley. Prof. Gates was likely tired and did not like being challenged in his own home and felt that race was the leading factor in him being questioned. Sgt. Crowley probably did not like being challenged for questioning Prof. Gates and, after a short time of listening to the professor, subsequently arrested and charged him with disorderly conduct - a charge that was soon dismissed. But it does beg the question of whether the perception by blacks is that, even when innocent, are they being challenged because of their race or because of other issues? And do the police profile potential suspects? Absolutely! Just as everyone does profiling of one sort or another. An older black man wearing a suit may not attract the attention of the police as quickly as a black youth wearing a bandanna. A young white man in shorts and sandals may not get a job as easily as a black youth wearing a shirt and tie. Everyone judges others by what they see immediately and color is one of those things that is immediately visible to everyone. But to argue that the profiling takes place only because of color is to suggest that we can know the motivations of others - something that simply is not possible. We know only what we see, hear and touch. We cannot prove what someone else is thinking. Indeed, everything else is subjective. But perhaps some good will come of this as it may be an opportunity for others to talk and be heard and to communicate and learn from others.

Institutionalized racism is no longer acceptable but that does not mean that racism is gone, only that it is not so overt as it was in earlier generations. It is unlikely that it will ever truly go away unless we all go blind and color no longer holds any meaning. But it does not mean that we should hold judgment based only on one's color nor necessarily withhold judgment solely for the same reason. Perhaps, with time and patience, we can learn that the definition of people is, and should be, based on the person themselves and not what is seen at first glance.