An AP story of 8/13/08 details the efforts by Tennessee teen Tommy Defoe to be allowed to wear his confederate belt buckle and other confederate memorabilia to school, which would be currently a violuation of the school's written dress code. Naturally, the plaintiff alleges that it is a straightforward matter of freedom of speech. According to the AP article,
"DeFoe's lawsuit questions why other symbols aren't banned, including the Mexican flag, the Canadian flag, political campaign buttons and images of Martin Luther King Jr."
This is the sort of sophistry that, it seems to me, is an insult to freedom of speech and its preservation. In what context is there any reasonable juxtaposition of the Confederate and the Canadian or Mexican flags? Does the plaintiff really want to contend that the Confederate flag was just the flag of a country and not, in fact, the symbol of an arrogance and a way of life that arguably have left a legacy of poisonous relations between blacks and whites in this country to this day?
And the comparison to images of Dr. King?! Dr. King stood for non-violent resistance to racism, for the right to peaceful assembly to redress grievances, for the individual rights of the disenfranchised. Can anyone with a functioning conscience dare to stand up and say "the Confederacy and Dr. King -- it's really the same thing"?
A part of me agrees with what the hate speech apologists say: freedom of speech is freedom of speech; you can't pick and choose. And yet is there not a type of symbol and a kind of speech that is so dedicated purely to hate that we as a society can and should ban its use? Nazism and the Swastika come immediately to mind: both are banned in Germany. Does anyone doubt that freedom of expression is alive and well in Germany? Is the quality of German life diminished by the ban of something that seems to most of us to be emblematic of pure hatred?
Similarly, does the Conferderate flag not represent a most shameful past -- a time when white human beings could and did own black human beings and a time, after the emancipation proclamation, when white human beings could and did terrorize black human beings (activities which continue today in some parts of the south, no doubt by people who would love to see the Conferederate flag on every belt buckle in America)? And, more to the point, does it not represent racism today?
Perhaps that is the crux of the matter: both the Swastika and the Conferederate flag are of more than just historical significance; they both represent unfinished business in our societies: just as there are neo-nazis today who venerate and would like to see the return of nazi policies, there are confederacy worshippers here and now who yearn for the good ole days of the old south, when whites were in charge and darkies knew their place.
This is why it seems to me that these symbols belong in history books and museums, but not as part of anyone's personal adornment, nor flying above anyone's statehouse. In books and museums, they can enlighten and inform us about some of our less savory past, a past which deserves not to be swept under the rug, but not to be celebrated either. On someone's belt buckle -- or on a T-shirt or an armband, or a poster, or as graffitti -- the symbol is not "educational;" rather it is a proclamation of intent to keep alive the evil of racism and race hatred.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Punishing the Russians
The suggestion this week, after Russia's thuggish smackdown of the Republic of Georgia, that "we" (meaning the other imperialist powers, incl the USA and Britain) should punish the Russians is laughable.
First, from a practical standpoint, just what does Bush, Brown, et al think they can do that is meaningful, short of starting WWIII?
More to the point, especially as regards the USA and Great Britain, is the lack of moral authority we have to condemn anyone these days. Is Russia's behavior more thuggish than that of our ally Israel when she bombed the crap out of Lebanon over the kidnapping of a soldier? Is Russia more of a scoflaw than the USA, which started a war in Iraq over nothing, resulting in the deaths of of least 10s of thousands of Iraquis?
At least the Russians can claim a couple of facts (whether these facts are justifications is a matter of opinion): first, Georgia was part of the Russian/Soviet empire for 2 centuries. Second, Georgia is on Russia's doorstep and in a very critical and strategic location, made more so by US military presence in the region and by our inflammatory invitiation for Georgia to join NATO. Last (although this is as yet unproven) Georgia started it by invading South Ossetia.
What amazes me is how rank-and-file Americans can work themselves into a righteous frenzy over Russia's bad behavior, while ignoring our own indiscretions as well as the larger context of our involvement in their back yard. Why is our imperialism OK, but theirs isn't? If you are an imperialist, stepping on other people is part of your job description. If you want to condemn imperialism, you need to quit your job as the world's chief imperialist first.
First, from a practical standpoint, just what does Bush, Brown, et al think they can do that is meaningful, short of starting WWIII?
More to the point, especially as regards the USA and Great Britain, is the lack of moral authority we have to condemn anyone these days. Is Russia's behavior more thuggish than that of our ally Israel when she bombed the crap out of Lebanon over the kidnapping of a soldier? Is Russia more of a scoflaw than the USA, which started a war in Iraq over nothing, resulting in the deaths of of least 10s of thousands of Iraquis?
At least the Russians can claim a couple of facts (whether these facts are justifications is a matter of opinion): first, Georgia was part of the Russian/Soviet empire for 2 centuries. Second, Georgia is on Russia's doorstep and in a very critical and strategic location, made more so by US military presence in the region and by our inflammatory invitiation for Georgia to join NATO. Last (although this is as yet unproven) Georgia started it by invading South Ossetia.
What amazes me is how rank-and-file Americans can work themselves into a righteous frenzy over Russia's bad behavior, while ignoring our own indiscretions as well as the larger context of our involvement in their back yard. Why is our imperialism OK, but theirs isn't? If you are an imperialist, stepping on other people is part of your job description. If you want to condemn imperialism, you need to quit your job as the world's chief imperialist first.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
How Free-market capitalists clean up their disaster
In a Washington Post article of today's date entitled Credit crisis triggers unprecedented response, the paper discusses the supposed conflict that free-market capitalists such as Treasury Secy Paulson are feeling as they are "forced" by circumstances to take "unprecedented" action to shore up the ailing credit system.
But the article misses the point entirely, as do the free-market capitalists who got us into this mess in the first place. What Secy. Paulson and Ben Bernake are doing to "fix" the crisis is simply strong-arming the taxpayer into underwriting all the bad debt floating around the economy so that the large, sleazy institutions whose rapacious lending practices caused the problems will be protected from the conequences of their actions.
Nowhere in the article nor in the actions and speeches of the people involved do we hear plans to seriously re-regulate and/or enforce regulation of the institutions and the practices that have arguably led to the great depression of 2008, 2009, 2010, who knows how long!
The approach by the Fed and Treasury is completely consistent with the behavior of free-market capitalism: de-regulate everything so that cowboy capitalists can get rich and then, when the imbalances that result are too large to ignore, get the poor taxpayer -- the majority of whom are middle class and who, I point out, have already suffered financially from the scams of these cowboys -- to pay the bill.
It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
But the article misses the point entirely, as do the free-market capitalists who got us into this mess in the first place. What Secy. Paulson and Ben Bernake are doing to "fix" the crisis is simply strong-arming the taxpayer into underwriting all the bad debt floating around the economy so that the large, sleazy institutions whose rapacious lending practices caused the problems will be protected from the conequences of their actions.
Nowhere in the article nor in the actions and speeches of the people involved do we hear plans to seriously re-regulate and/or enforce regulation of the institutions and the practices that have arguably led to the great depression of 2008, 2009, 2010, who knows how long!
The approach by the Fed and Treasury is completely consistent with the behavior of free-market capitalism: de-regulate everything so that cowboy capitalists can get rich and then, when the imbalances that result are too large to ignore, get the poor taxpayer -- the majority of whom are middle class and who, I point out, have already suffered financially from the scams of these cowboys -- to pay the bill.
It would be hilarious if it weren't so sad.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Why I hate American fundamentalism
It seems to me that true religious belief derives from a sense that there may be something greater than oneself. This can manifest while you are sitting quietly in a beautiful church or a beautiful hill of flowers in the Vermont countryside. Or by contemplating the utter wierdness of quantum physics. Or the miracle of DNA. Or when you visit an art museum or hear a Bach fugue or a late Beethoven quartet. Or visit the Alhambra, where you will see beauty so exquisite as to be almost unbearable. Or a million other experiences that lead to that most personal of moments, a sense -- however brief -- of the divine.
On the other hand, fundamentalism - at least the American, protestant version -- seems to be almost completely disconnected from this sense of wonder, beauty, and joy and to be more of a thought-control movement with a rigid moralistic agenda, enforced by flogging a literal reading of the New Testament (or sometimes the Old Testament if it serves their needs). No beauty, no joy, no kindness, no tolerance -- just rules of behavior, which even the leaders of these fundamentalist movements seem unable to follow, if the number of scandals plaguing the highest levels of the fundy leadership is anything to go by.
From their suburban-looking houses of worship, which often seem more like malls than churches, to their saccharine nouveau-Christian elevator music, there is little or no beauty. Do they forsake stained glass and Bach cantatas because of alack of funds? Or do they fundamentally distrust beauty and feel that their buildings and their music should serve only the utilitiarian purpose of selling Jesus as personal savior? (Or could they simply be so suburbanized in their basic asthetics as to be unaware of an unmoved by beauty?)
Fundy's have replaced real religious contemplation by the blind worship of Jesus Christ superstar as the path to personal salvation, a notion so patronizing, so "look at how much better I am than you" as to be more related to the reason people stand in line for the latest Apple iPhone than to anything reognizable as spiritualty.
And then there is their attitude toward science: while it seems to me that science leads one closer to the divine -- and, historically, science has often been the province of priests -- American fundy's are fiercely anti-science, many of them denying the reality of natural selection, for example. Though their Bible tells them that God created us in his image, apparently he did so with the caveat that we are not supposed to use our brains.
Non of which would matter - everyone can go to hell in his own way - if it weren't for the fact that these fundamentalist organizations -- of which there are now thousands -- enjoy non-profit IRS status and 1st amendment protection -- the same as real religions -- and use these public benefits to amass large amounts of tax-free money, which they use to support political causes directly inimical to civil rights and social justice.
From their attempts to pollute public discourse about the teaching of science in schools to their unrelenting campaigns against civil rights for gay people, to their so-called "pro-life" stance(which has condemned at least tens of thousands of children to lives of poverty and ignorance), to their obstructionism with respect to stem-cell research (thereby blocking research into life-saving treatments for horrible diseases), fundys are hiding behind freedom of religion to prosecute an agenda that has nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with intolerance.
Were we as a nation to amend the Consitiution, I would strongly suggest we need a freedom from religion amendment to protect us from the small-minded bigotry which is the big business of fundamentalism.
On the other hand, fundamentalism - at least the American, protestant version -- seems to be almost completely disconnected from this sense of wonder, beauty, and joy and to be more of a thought-control movement with a rigid moralistic agenda, enforced by flogging a literal reading of the New Testament (or sometimes the Old Testament if it serves their needs). No beauty, no joy, no kindness, no tolerance -- just rules of behavior, which even the leaders of these fundamentalist movements seem unable to follow, if the number of scandals plaguing the highest levels of the fundy leadership is anything to go by.
From their suburban-looking houses of worship, which often seem more like malls than churches, to their saccharine nouveau-Christian elevator music, there is little or no beauty. Do they forsake stained glass and Bach cantatas because of alack of funds? Or do they fundamentally distrust beauty and feel that their buildings and their music should serve only the utilitiarian purpose of selling Jesus as personal savior? (Or could they simply be so suburbanized in their basic asthetics as to be unaware of an unmoved by beauty?)
Fundy's have replaced real religious contemplation by the blind worship of Jesus Christ superstar as the path to personal salvation, a notion so patronizing, so "look at how much better I am than you" as to be more related to the reason people stand in line for the latest Apple iPhone than to anything reognizable as spiritualty.
And then there is their attitude toward science: while it seems to me that science leads one closer to the divine -- and, historically, science has often been the province of priests -- American fundy's are fiercely anti-science, many of them denying the reality of natural selection, for example. Though their Bible tells them that God created us in his image, apparently he did so with the caveat that we are not supposed to use our brains.
Non of which would matter - everyone can go to hell in his own way - if it weren't for the fact that these fundamentalist organizations -- of which there are now thousands -- enjoy non-profit IRS status and 1st amendment protection -- the same as real religions -- and use these public benefits to amass large amounts of tax-free money, which they use to support political causes directly inimical to civil rights and social justice.
From their attempts to pollute public discourse about the teaching of science in schools to their unrelenting campaigns against civil rights for gay people, to their so-called "pro-life" stance(which has condemned at least tens of thousands of children to lives of poverty and ignorance), to their obstructionism with respect to stem-cell research (thereby blocking research into life-saving treatments for horrible diseases), fundys are hiding behind freedom of religion to prosecute an agenda that has nothing to do with spirituality and everything to do with intolerance.
Were we as a nation to amend the Consitiution, I would strongly suggest we need a freedom from religion amendment to protect us from the small-minded bigotry which is the big business of fundamentalism.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Race problem
We have a "big race problem" in this country, evidenced not least by the fact that the mainstream media keeps flogging Obama's nomination as a big deal because he is black, rather than because he is liberal, in fact only the 2nd liberal (if you count Bill Clinton) to have a good shot at the White House in what has been more than 28 years of Republican-dominated government.
Of course, we can't get too excited about Obama as an agent of change -- after all, to become an American presidential candidate, you have to drink the KoolAid; our only hope is that he didn't drink too much or that maybe, like Clinton, he didn't swallow (or was that Monica?) Clearly, we are not going to have a revolution in which big business is sent packing, people like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh are hanged in the public square and government of the people, by the people, and for the people comes to stay. Still, there are better presidentiual administrations and there are worse ones, Reagan's and both Bush's being arguably the worst in the history of the republic.
With luck, Obama may get to raise taxes on the rich and preside over the winding down of the war in Iraq and at least a reduction in the dominance of insurance companies in healthcare. Maybe he can keep big oil from further trashing Alaska and make some headway on global warming legislation.
He will be trying to do these things against the counterpull of a government bureaucracy weakened by years of cronyism and a Congress corrupted by money, by an economy left in tatters by Bush, by worsening global warming, by the changing demographics of our population, and by the constant yammering of the agents of evil clamoring for more of what Bush and Reagan have brought us.
Of course, we can't get too excited about Obama as an agent of change -- after all, to become an American presidential candidate, you have to drink the KoolAid; our only hope is that he didn't drink too much or that maybe, like Clinton, he didn't swallow (or was that Monica?) Clearly, we are not going to have a revolution in which big business is sent packing, people like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh are hanged in the public square and government of the people, by the people, and for the people comes to stay. Still, there are better presidentiual administrations and there are worse ones, Reagan's and both Bush's being arguably the worst in the history of the republic.
With luck, Obama may get to raise taxes on the rich and preside over the winding down of the war in Iraq and at least a reduction in the dominance of insurance companies in healthcare. Maybe he can keep big oil from further trashing Alaska and make some headway on global warming legislation.
He will be trying to do these things against the counterpull of a government bureaucracy weakened by years of cronyism and a Congress corrupted by money, by an economy left in tatters by Bush, by worsening global warming, by the changing demographics of our population, and by the constant yammering of the agents of evil clamoring for more of what Bush and Reagan have brought us.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
America is Karazy!
I had the epiphany today that the USA is crazy. And I mean this in more than just the flippant way we might say of someone "oh, he's crazy!" I mean that the USA (collectively anyhow) acts like a person living in what psychiatrists call a "delusional system."
We are now in what seems like the 10,000th month of the 2008 presidential campaign and nearly drowning intellectually in the cesspool of idea diahrea that issues from the cloaca of our national media. From the fatuous to the unfounded to the unfair to the irrelevant, nothing seems too idiotic to be reported, analyzed, dissected, and rebroadcast endlessly as regards the campaign. Like voices inside the head of a delusional person, the irrationality of this 24-hr barrage of idiocy threatens to overwhelm the saner part of the collective American consciousness and lead us as a nation dangerously closer and closer to a self-destructive act.
The media has turned its attention to discrediting Barack Obama. He's either not experienced enough or he's too liberal, or he has embarrassing associations with those who speak unpleasant truths about the land of the free and the home of the brave. There's more than an undercurrent of racism about this -- fear of black men, fear of the black community and what it might do if one of its own is president. But the mechanism is the same as with every other candidate the media decide to trash: sow doubts about experience, about competency, about moral fibre, about associations with people we're not supposed to approve of (eg Rev. Wright)
After the presidencies of Reagan and Bush II, it seems a bit late to make experience and competence a litmus test for the presidency. And on what basis could such a test be issued? Experience? Regan and Bush were former governors. Obama is a Senator, arguably a position even closer to the presidency. Competency? At one point, the Reagan White House was using an astrologer to decide who got to see the Presdent that day. And Bush II, an alcoholic whose poor use of the English language is, so far as I know, unique in presidential history, has "managed" the country into a war and what looks very much like the great depression of the 21st century.
Moral fibre? Let's see, our current president lied to start a war that serves no purpose and which has not only killed 100s of thousands, but may bankrupt our country for a generation to come. What defect in Obama's character can possbly compare to the things Bush has done?
Bad associations? Now we're getting closer to the nub of what is really scaring the media about Obama: the fear that he may actually represent one or more constituencies for change. Change of the kind that could threaten the elites who have managed to brainwash many Americans into thinking that lowering taxes on the rich is good for the poor, that attacking Iraq will make us stronger, that letting scoundrels plunder the economy is protection of "choice."
Unfortunately, while Obama is certainly to be preferred to McCain or Clinton, he is not Robin Hood and his election is unlikely to bring more than marginal change for the better. This fact alone should tell us that the firestorm of controversy over his candidacy is just more mental noise inside the collective head of our seriouslyh mentally ill country.
We are now in what seems like the 10,000th month of the 2008 presidential campaign and nearly drowning intellectually in the cesspool of idea diahrea that issues from the cloaca of our national media. From the fatuous to the unfounded to the unfair to the irrelevant, nothing seems too idiotic to be reported, analyzed, dissected, and rebroadcast endlessly as regards the campaign. Like voices inside the head of a delusional person, the irrationality of this 24-hr barrage of idiocy threatens to overwhelm the saner part of the collective American consciousness and lead us as a nation dangerously closer and closer to a self-destructive act.
The media has turned its attention to discrediting Barack Obama. He's either not experienced enough or he's too liberal, or he has embarrassing associations with those who speak unpleasant truths about the land of the free and the home of the brave. There's more than an undercurrent of racism about this -- fear of black men, fear of the black community and what it might do if one of its own is president. But the mechanism is the same as with every other candidate the media decide to trash: sow doubts about experience, about competency, about moral fibre, about associations with people we're not supposed to approve of (eg Rev. Wright)
After the presidencies of Reagan and Bush II, it seems a bit late to make experience and competence a litmus test for the presidency. And on what basis could such a test be issued? Experience? Regan and Bush were former governors. Obama is a Senator, arguably a position even closer to the presidency. Competency? At one point, the Reagan White House was using an astrologer to decide who got to see the Presdent that day. And Bush II, an alcoholic whose poor use of the English language is, so far as I know, unique in presidential history, has "managed" the country into a war and what looks very much like the great depression of the 21st century.
Moral fibre? Let's see, our current president lied to start a war that serves no purpose and which has not only killed 100s of thousands, but may bankrupt our country for a generation to come. What defect in Obama's character can possbly compare to the things Bush has done?
Bad associations? Now we're getting closer to the nub of what is really scaring the media about Obama: the fear that he may actually represent one or more constituencies for change. Change of the kind that could threaten the elites who have managed to brainwash many Americans into thinking that lowering taxes on the rich is good for the poor, that attacking Iraq will make us stronger, that letting scoundrels plunder the economy is protection of "choice."
Unfortunately, while Obama is certainly to be preferred to McCain or Clinton, he is not Robin Hood and his election is unlikely to bring more than marginal change for the better. This fact alone should tell us that the firestorm of controversy over his candidacy is just more mental noise inside the collective head of our seriouslyh mentally ill country.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic
It's funny how, each time there's a national crisis, the Bush admin invents a new bureaucracy and/or consolidates old departments, but nothing useful ever gets done. As with new plans to re-organize the finacial regulatory bureaucracy. The problem isn't that there aren't the right federal agencies. The problem is that, thanks to the efforts of the relentless right-wing propaganda machine, there is a national attitude against regulating the rich and greedy (not to be redundant). The current financial mess could have been avoided by exercising prudent regulatory and legislative control using existing government structures. It does not require a new federal bureacucracy to:
* repeal the tax change that allows people to sell their primary residence tax free every two years, a change which helped fuel the real estate boom that is now going bust. Retain the change that allows a one-time tax-free sale for retirement-age homeowenrs.
* reinstate higher tax rates for the rich, who now pay only a tiny amount of their income in taxes
* reinstate higher short-term capital gains rates, thereby discouraging stock market gamblers and encouraging long-term investors
* conbsider repealing the mortgage tax deduction and replacing it with a housing allowance deduction that would apply to renters and home owners equally.
* repeal rules allowing brokerage houses to act as banks
* establish national standards for licensing of mortgage lenders and brokers
* outlaw mortgage advertising that only shows monthly payments based on a ridiculously low teaser rate. This sleazy practice is still going on -- as I write this, there are thousands of ads on the internet claiming to provide mortgages for unbelievably low rates. Why are these ads still allowed to exist after all the damage they have caused already?
* outlaw preditory practices by credit card companies, including zero-percent teaser rates designed to get you to transfer balances which then cause all new charges to be subject to a much higher finance rate until the zero balance is paid off
* re-establish consumer protection from usurious credit card rates
* appoint a new FCC chairman who will stop selling out the public's interests to the highest bidder, ie stop allowing media conglomerates, which then dominate public discourse with conservaive propaganda
* pass strict campaign financing laws, completely outlawing contributions to political campaigns by anyone except indivudal human beings. No organizational contributions. Period.
Well, that would be a start anyhow!
*
* repeal the tax change that allows people to sell their primary residence tax free every two years, a change which helped fuel the real estate boom that is now going bust. Retain the change that allows a one-time tax-free sale for retirement-age homeowenrs.
* reinstate higher tax rates for the rich, who now pay only a tiny amount of their income in taxes
* reinstate higher short-term capital gains rates, thereby discouraging stock market gamblers and encouraging long-term investors
* conbsider repealing the mortgage tax deduction and replacing it with a housing allowance deduction that would apply to renters and home owners equally.
* repeal rules allowing brokerage houses to act as banks
* establish national standards for licensing of mortgage lenders and brokers
* outlaw mortgage advertising that only shows monthly payments based on a ridiculously low teaser rate. This sleazy practice is still going on -- as I write this, there are thousands of ads on the internet claiming to provide mortgages for unbelievably low rates. Why are these ads still allowed to exist after all the damage they have caused already?
* outlaw preditory practices by credit card companies, including zero-percent teaser rates designed to get you to transfer balances which then cause all new charges to be subject to a much higher finance rate until the zero balance is paid off
* re-establish consumer protection from usurious credit card rates
* appoint a new FCC chairman who will stop selling out the public's interests to the highest bidder, ie stop allowing media conglomerates, which then dominate public discourse with conservaive propaganda
* pass strict campaign financing laws, completely outlawing contributions to political campaigns by anyone except indivudal human beings. No organizational contributions. Period.
Well, that would be a start anyhow!
*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)