Friday, October 15, 2010

The all-new 2010 conservative


Click to embiggen.

Scapegoats

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
People Destroying America- Goats Steal Landscaping Jobs
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes2010 ElectionMarch to Keep Fear Alive

Sane or not


Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity has a new website, Sane or Not, where you can vote on the sanity of rally signs, like those you see here, or propose your own.

There are a lot of talented people out there (and a few dicks, of course).


Edit: I should have realized this, but Stephen Colbert has a similar website, Spooky or Dooky, where you can vote on scary Halloween costumes. (Colbert is encouraging people to come in costume to his Keep Fear Alive march, held in conjunction with - and in humorous competition with - the Rally to Restore Sanity.)

So far, most of the offerings seem "dooky" (is that a word?) rather than spooky, but I expect better things on Oct. 30th.

Thursday, October 14, 2010

It gets better



That's a powerful statement, isn't it? It's good to know that there are decent Texans. Well, I knew there had to be. I guess they just don't get as much publicity as the lunatics.

Stressful day

Class warfare

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Tax Shelter Skelter
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes2010 ElectionMarch to Keep Fear Alive

I really sympathize with the wealthy, don't you? I mean, in the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression, the poor dears face "ridicule" and "anxiety."

It really must be tough, don't you think? Aren't you glad you're not rich? I'm surprised they're not jumping out of windows right and left. (Oh, yeah. They'd only jump to the right, huh?)

And higher taxes kill incentive. If we return tax rates to where they were during the 1990s, the wealthy will only work as hard as they did back then. This means that a lot of the work the wealthy are doing now will have to be done by someone else. And that's bad, because... well, apparently there's some reason why that's bad...

Stephen Colbert's interview with Austan Goolsbee, in the following clip, is pretty good, too. (I can't embed two clips in the same post, for some reason - not without causing problems here.)

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

More on secret corporate cash


Ed Stein's commentary:
The import of the Supreme Court’s drastic over-reach in the Citizens United case is coming painfully clear. Tens of millions of dollars in anonymous campaign contributions are pouring in to groups free to spend on this election with absolutely no accountability for where the money came from. Groups with innocuous names like The American Future Fund are bankrolling attack ads, mostly against Democrats. Who is behind the AFF? according to todays’ New York Times, the group was started with seed money from one Bruce Rastetter, chief exec of one of the country’s largest ethanol companies. The fund’s targets? Primarily politicians on legislative committees with interests in ethanol subsidies. There is no way of knowing how much Rastetter and his colleagues in the industry have contributed, since AFF doesn’t have to report its funding sources. And AFF is just one of dozens of groups active in this year’s election.

Before someone jumps in and names George Soros and unions on the Democratic side, let me point out two things. One, I’m talking about the anonymity of contributions; I don’t care who is putting up the money; the lack of transparency is an outrage. Second, by all accounts, the largest portion of the money being spent this year is from conservative groups with, we assume, ties to corporate entities with vested interests in the outcome. As of the first of this month, the amount spend on Republican candidates totaled $74.6 million, compared to $39.7 for Democrats–almost twice as much. The activist Roberts Court certainly anticipated this outcome when it brazenly decided that corporations possess the same free speech rights as people. The Court knew that the Republican party would be the big winner, and the money is flowing like oil from the Deep Water Horizon spill–with no relief well in sight. It’s not just the money inequality that should disturb us, although that alone should trouble us all; it’s that so much of it is secret. Congress attempted to address this issue with the Disclose Act, but it was filibustered to death by–you guessed it–Republicans. How can we possibly know what we are really voting for when we don’t know who is bankrolling candidates? This is, in my humble opinion, nothing short of a disaster for free and fair democratic elections in this country.

This is a followup to my last post. At least there are a few people objecting to this situation, if not actually able to accomplish anything. The money is bad enough. Do we really want to sell our political process to the highest bidder? But the anonymity is even worse, far worse.

When we have an organization bankrolled - in secret - by big ethanol companies, targeting politicians who set government subsidies for these companies, what is it but legal blackmail? (And note that it's only legal because our far-right Supreme Court overturned precedent.) When any politician knows he can get millions of dollars of support - in secret, no less - from big corporate interests if he does their bidding, and millions of dollars of opposition - pretending to be from ordinary citizens - if he doesn't, what do you expect to happen?

There's more. Why have Republicans turned away from science? The whole party has become anti-science. Partly, no doubt, this is because fundamentalist Christians have taken control of the GOP. But how much of it is also the influence of corporate dollars from interests like Big Oil?

You know, as the scientific evidence for global warming gets stronger and stronger, belief in the science among laymen continues to drop. According to this study, only 18% of Republicans accept the scientific consensus about global warming, and only 14% think it's a serious issue. How much of this is due to corporate money - not just issue advertising from Big Oil, but the effect of corporate money on politicians who really, really want to get elected?

We went through all this years ago with Big Tobacco. Tobacco industry lobbyists and pet scientists put up a smokescreen to make the scientific consensus about tobacco seem controversial and unproven, delaying action against a public health scourge. Why haven't we learned from that? Well, Big Oil has apparently learned from it, huh?

Here's Bill McKibben:
Conservative opinion has been steadily hardening—for decades Republicans were part of the coalition on almost every environmental issue, but now it’s positively weird to think that as late as 2004, McCain thought it would make sense for a GOP presidential candidate to position himself as a fighter for climate legislation. And all of that is troubling. Because we’re going to be dealing with climate change for a very long time, and if one of the great schools of political thought in this country has checked out completely, that process is going to be even harder. I don’t have any expectation that conservatives will mute their tune between now and November—but it is worth thinking in some depth about what lies beneath this newly overwhelming sentiment.

One crude answer is money. The fossilfuel industry has deep wells of it—no business in history has been as profitable as finding, refining, and combusting coal, oil, and gas. Six of the ten largest companies on earth are in the fossil-fuel business. Those companies have spent some small part of their wealth in recent years to underwrite climate change denialism: Jane Mayer’s excellent New Yorker piece on the Koch brothers is just the latest and best of a string of such exposés dating back to Ross Gelbspan’s 1997 book The Heat Is On.

McKibben thinks this is only part of the answer, and he might be right. But the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, which really opened the floodgates to corporate spending, is less than a year old. We're just starting to see the results from that. If things are this bad already, what can we expect in the future?

And things are bad, very bad. It's not just global warming, but all of science. Republicans think it's all some massive conspiracy by evil scientists and their Communist/Muslim overlords (ironically, right-wing Republicans see the world pretty much the same way fundamentalist Muslims do). And Republican leaders seem to be even worse than the rank and file.

Christine O'Donnell - a Republican nominee for the United States Senate, no less - thinks that scientists have cross-bred humans and mice to create mice with "fully functioning human brains." Funny? Yes. But scary, too. She also rejects evolution because she's not seeing monkeys evolving into human beings before her eyes. Now that is scientific ignorance!

But she's not alone, far from it. The entire Republican Party is anti-science. Unfortunately, scientists don't have massive amounts of money to throw at them. And the fat cats and corporations who do have that kind of money have a vested interest in keeping Americans ignorant - not just of science but of their own identities.

Well, for them, all this is just an investment. Those of us who give meager campaign donations sacrifice by doing so. But billionaires give millions in order to get tax cuts worth tens of millions. Corporations do it to evade regulation and also for the tax cuts that benefit upper management (who control the purse strings and who aren't above using corporate cash to help themselves).

Money is the motivation here, and money is the method. Vast sums of money pouring into our political process is bad enough. But now that it's secret money from unknown sources, it's far, far worse. Will we ever see principled Republicans standing up and objecting? Will we see independents coming to their senses and abandoning the GOP? Or will we only see Democrats trying to jump on the gravy train, too, in political self-preservation?

I'm not optimistic.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Expect a trick


Note that it's not just anonymous campaign contributions, either. It's anonymous influence in other ways, too. For example, the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a right-wing political activist who's created a new nonprofit group, Liberty Central.

From the New York Times:
Mrs. Thomas is the founder and head of a new nonprofit group, Liberty Central, dedicated to opposing what she characterizes as the leftist “tyranny” of President Obama and Democrats in Congress and to “protecting the core founding principles” of the nation.

It is the most partisan role ever for a spouse of a justice on the nation’s highest court, and Mrs. Thomas is just getting started. “Liberty Central will be bigger than the Tea Party movement,” she told Fox News in April, at a Tea Party rally in Atlanta.

But to some people who study judicial ethics, Mrs. Thomas’s activism is raising knotty questions, in particular about her acceptance of large, unidentified contributions for Liberty Central. She began the group in late 2009 with two gifts of $500,000 and $50,000, and because it is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit group, named for the applicable section of the federal tax code, she does not have to publicly disclose any contributors. Such tax-exempt groups are supposed to make sure that less than half of their activities are political.

First, does anyone really believe that "less than half" of this group's activities will be political? Virginia Thomas has been a right-wing political activist for three decades. This group is entirely about politics. And yet, anonymous donors are getting tax breaks for their donations.

Who is giving a half million dollars to this group? What is their purpose? Wouldn't you like to know? Sorry, but it's a secret. Now, suppose a case comes before the Supreme Court that affects this anonymous donor. What then?

A federal law requires justices to recuse themselves in a number of circumstances where real or perceived conflicts of interest could arise, including in cases where their spouses could have a financial interest. But the decision to step aside is up to each justice; there is no appeal from the nation’s highest court.

“It’s shocking that you would have a Supreme Court justice sitting on a case that might implicate in a very fundamental way the interests of someone who might have contributed to his wife’s organization,” said Deborah L. Rhode, a law professor and director of the Stanford University Center on the Legal Profession.

“The fact that we can’t find that out is the first problem,” she said, adding, “And how can the public form a judgment about propriety if it doesn’t have the basic underlying facts?”

Justice Thomas might recuse himself and he might not. In any case, it's up to him. But since these huge donations are anonymous, none of us will ever know if he had a conflict of interest or not. Is this really the kind of judicial system we want in America?

Nonprofit groups with political agendas like Liberty Central are operating in this election cycle under evolving legal and regulatory standards, most notably the ruling last January by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case, which eased restrictions on independent campaign spending by corporations and unions. In that case, Justice Thomas, long an advocate of dismantling campaign finance restrictions, was in the 5-to-4 majority. Wealthy individuals and some corporations, emboldened by the ruling, are giving to such groups to influence the election but still hide their tracks.

Not only has the Supreme Court, in that same 5-4 vote that's given us so many terrible decisions already, opened the floodgate to corporate spending (spending money which might be owned by you and me, in millions of small retirement accounts, but which is controlled by corporate management and other wealthy individuals), they've also made it easy to hide what's going on.

These people like to operate under a cloak of secrecy, at least partly so they can pretend that protests - like the Tea Party movement - are grassroots efforts by ordinary people, instead of funded, promoted, and otherwise manipulated by fat cats behind the scene.

In the weeks before a 5-to-4 majority of the Supreme Court, including her husband, decided the 2000 election for George W. Bush over Al Gore, Mrs. Thomas was compiling résumés for potential appointees to a Bush administration from her job at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative, Republican-leaning research group.

This was bad enough. (Why didn't Justice Thomas recuse himself in this decision? And why was this the only "states' rights" argument these right-wing justices have ever failed to support?) But at least it wasn't a secret. Never before has a sitting Supreme Court justice had such a politically active spouse, one intensely concerned with the Court's decisions. But these days, two-career families are the norm. There is a conflict between the appearance of impropriety in any judge and the right of his or her spouse.

But we already know how to handle that. The judge - even a Supreme Court justice - simply recuses himself from any decision where he or his spouse has a conflict of interest. It's simple enough - or it would be, if all this was out in the open. But not anymore. Now it's a secret. Now it's hidden behind anonymous contributions from wealthy individuals and corporations. The people involved, their intent, their ultimate goals - all hidden from public scrutiny.

Here's an example:  In recent decades, we've been sending a flood of cash to oil-rich Muslim nations, enriching some of the worst despotisms on the planet. That money floods back into purchasing stock - and influence - in multinational corporations. Heck, the second largest stockholder in News Corp., the parent company of Fox "News," is a Muslim billionaire from Saudi Arabia.

Is it just coincidence that Fox "News" consistently supports Big Oil and fights against environmental issues, energy conservation, and alternate energy? And since that Supreme Court ruling, News Corp. has given a million dollars to the Republican Party and another million to the Chamber of Commerce to lobby for Republican policies (including, again, supporting Big Oil).

We always hear "follow the money." Who is benefiting from such policies? It's certainly not America. But Saudi Arabia definitely benefits - at least, the wealthy despots who run that country benefit.

Corporate money is a danger to our democracy. But at least, when it's out in the open, we have a chance to make up our own minds. Yes, it's very hard to compete against millions of dollars of corporate-funded advertising, but at least it's theoretically possible. However, when all this is a complete secret, just anonymous donors shoveling money around in secret, it's completely impossible. It's hard to object when you don't know what's going on.

And that's the whole point. This is where our nation has been headed for decades. Wealthy supporters of the Republican Party have not only gotten windfall tax breaks, they've also succeeded in packing our Supreme Court with far-right extremists. The Supreme Court then overturns precedent and opens the floodgates not just for corporate money, but anonymous money. The benefit goes right back to those wealthy supporters again, making them even wealthier. If this was an investment, they've gotten a good return on their money.

It's hard to imagine anyone thinking that corporations had too little power previously, but now, it's especially frightening. We citizens haven't been smart enough to stop this earlier, and now it's going to be much, much harder. Think about it. Who really thinks that anonymous is the way to go? What will fester in the dark, away from the light of public knowledge? Well, we won't know, will we? Not until it erupts into complete disaster.

Monday, October 11, 2010

Right wing radio duck

Confrontation

A couple of days ago, PZ Myers was on a panel discussion about "Science and Religion: Confrontation or Accommodation?" (no problem figuring out what side he's on) at the Secular Humanism conference in Los Angeles.

Myers is a biologist and an associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris, but he's better known as the author of Pharyngula, one of the most popular blogs on the internet. Saturday, he posted his statement to the audience at the panel discussion, and it's really something.

Here's an excerpt:
We have been treading water for 50 years. In one sense, that's a very good thing: better to stay afloat in one place than to sink, and I am deeply appreciative of organizations like the NCSE that have kept us bobbing at the surface all this time, and please don't ever stop. But isn't it also about time we learned a new stroke and actually made some progress towards the shore? Shouldn't we move beyond just reacting to every assault by Idiot America on science education, and honestly look at the root causes of this chronic malignancy and do something about it?

The sea our country is drowning in is a raging religiosity, wave after wave of ignorant arguments and ideological absurdities pushed by tired dogma and fervent and frustrated fanatics. We keep hearing that the answer is to find the still waters of a more moderate faith, but I'm sorry, I don't feel like drowning there either.

There is an answer, and it's on display right here in this room. The solution, the only longterm solution, is the sanity of secularism. The lesser struggles to keep silly stickers off our textbooks or to keep pseudoscientific BS like intelligent design out of our classrooms are important, but they are endless chores -- at some point we just have to stop pandering to the ideological noise that spawns these unending tasks and cut right to the source: religion.

That's where the Gnu Atheists get their confrontational reputation. We're fed up with fighting off the symptoms. We need to address the disease. And if you're one of those people trying to defend superstition and quivering in fear at the idea of taking on a majority that believes in foolishness, urging us to continue slapping bandages on the blight of faith, well then, you're part of the problem and we'll probably do something utterly dreadful, like be rude to you or write some cutting sarcastic essay to mock your position. That is our métier, after all.

There is another motive for our confrontational ways, and it has to do with values. We talk a lot about values in this country, so I kind of hate to use the word -- it's been tainted by the religious right, which howls about "Christian values" every time the subject of civil rights for gays or equal rights for women or universal health care or improving the plight of the poor come up -- True Christian values are agin' those things, after all. But the Gnu Atheists have values, too, and premiere among them is truth. And that makes us uncivil and rude, because we challenge the truth of religion.

Religion provides solace to millions, we are told, it makes them happy, and it's mostly harmless.

"But is it true?", we ask, as if it matters.

The religious are the majority, we hear over and over again, and we need to be pragmatic and diplomatic in dealing with them.

"But is what they believe true?", we ask, and "What do we gain by compromising on reality?"

Religion isn't the problem, they claim, it's only the extremists and zealots and weirdos. The majority of believers are moderates and even share some values with us.

"But is a moderate superstition true?", we repeat, and "How can a myth be made more true if its proponents are simply calmer in stating it?"

I mean, it's nice and all that most Christians aren't out chanting "God Hates Fags" and are a little embarrassed when some yokel whines that he didn't come from no monkey, but they still go out and quietly vote against gay and lesbian rights, and they still sit at home while their school boards set fire to good science.

It's all about the truth, people. And all the evidence is crystal clear right now: the earth is far older than 6,000 years. Evolution is a real, and it is a process built on raw chance driven by the brutal engines of selection, and there is no sign of a loving, personal god, but only billions of years of pitiless winnowing without any direction other than short-term survival and reproduction. It's not pretty, it's not consoling, it doesn't sanctify virginity, or tell you that god really loves your foreskin, but it's got one soaring virtue that trumps all the others: it's true.

Great stuff, isn't it? See why Pharyngula is so popular? I don't always agree with Myers, but there's not much I can disagree with here, or in the rest of his statement, either. If you expect him to pussyfoot around about this stuff, you don't know PZ Myers.

Atheists have no dogma and no elected or appointed leaders. We don't always agree among ourselves (why should we?), and we're rarely shy about expressing our opinions. This particular disagreement, confrontation vs. accommodation, is currently a hot issue in our community - probably the hot issue, in fact.

One side argues that anger and ridicule aren't going to persuade anyone, and that, unless we respect religious belief, we might lose allies in such important issues as science education and the separation of church and state. After all, the vast majority of Americans are religious believers, and equating science with atheism is likely to turn them away from science. They often argue that the so-called "new atheists" have done more harm than good.

The other side argues that being polite hasn't done much good, either. Heck, 150 years after Darwin, only 40% of Americans even accept evolution, the foundation of modern biology. If ridicule doesn't help, neither does gentle persuasion, apparently. The "new atheists" are at least getting noticed, which is more than could be said for the "old atheists." And their passion is infectious. (BTW, "gnu atheists" is just a way of poking fun at the whole idea of "new" atheists.)

In general, I'm firmly on Myers' side of things. But what does that really mean? All of us strongly support freedom of religion and the strict separation of church and state. You have the right to believe whatever you want. You don't, however, have the right to demand that I respect those beliefs. I don't. I respect your right to hold them, but that's a completely different thing.

None of us, "new" atheists or old, disrupt church services or picket funerals. We don't push atheism on the elderly as they lay dying, or tell grieving parents how stupid they are to find solace anywhere they can get it. We don't even go door to door as atheist missionaries. When you think about it, we're all pretty much - pardon the expression - choirboys.

But we "confrontational" atheists insist that we have as much right to our opinions as you do to yours. And we have the right to express those opinions, too. We're not going to stay in the closet. (Surely, that's something we've all learned from the gay community, haven't we? You've got to be out in the open if you ever hope for equal rights.)

I'm sorry if your feelings are hurt that I disagree with you. But why should they be? My feelings aren't hurt when you disagree with me. And why should religion automatically get my respect, especially when the reverse is never true. We get presidents claiming that atheists aren't patriots and probably can't even be considered citizens. Can you imagine the uproar if Bush had said that about any other religious minority?

I'm always pleased to have religious allies when working on other issues, such as maintaining America's separation of church and state. We don't agree about everything? So what? I don't agree with anyone about everything. Why should our disagreement about religion make any difference at all? The fact is, no matter what your belief, you're in a minority in this world. Every religion - and every form of non-belief, too - is a minority position.

But just as I don't expect you to stay in the closet about your religious beliefs, to avoid offending me, I claim the same freedom for myself. I'm not a second-class citizen. I have the same rights as you. If you expect me to stay quiet, well, why should I?

And yes, I think that religious belief is just superstition. It's just wishful thinking. You may firmly believe in your religion, but that belief would be just as firm about some other religion if you'd been born in another place or another time. The vast majority of believers were raised in their belief. That's why different beliefs are prominent in different parts of the world. Yes, your religion is simply an accident of birth.

Science, on the other hand, is about evidence. You don't see a different science in Iran and yet another in India. The scientific consensus is worldwide. There's disagreement, yes. And scientists being human beings, you can find individuals with almost any beliefs. But as more and more evidence is accumulated, science tends toward greater and greater consensus.

That's because any scientist can see the evidence for himself, even perform the experiment for himself. It's not just dogma written in an ancient text. You can test scientific claims for yourself (well, scientists can, since these things often require equipment and some education). You can examine and critique research methods. Science is not about faith. You get the same results whether you believe in it or not.

And when you reject science because it contradicts your religious faith, I can't respect that. Rejecting reality for fantasy is simply not worthy of my respect. Yes, I understand that you want to believe, but when you're wrong, you're wrong. Accept that you made a mistake and move on. Why should I respect anything else?

I respect you, of course, as a human being, with rights equal to my own. But I don't have to respect your beliefs, any more than I have to respect your actions. Even then, there's a time and place for everything. If I'm a missionary, I'm a lot less intrusive than most. You have the right to your privacy, too. But you don't have the right to never see or hear an atheist.

I've been an atheist all my life, as far as I can remember, but when I was a child, I never knew another nonbeliever. If there were any in my community, they kept themselves hidden. But when I grew older, I was astonished to learn of prominent atheists and agnostics in the 19th Century (not to mention presidents who didn't believe in a personal god). People like Robert G. Ingersoll were quite prominent in the Golden Age of Freethought.

So what happened? I don't know. Race relations in America were also better in the last quarter of the 19th Century than later in the 20th. Did two world wars and the Great Depression put a premium on conformity? At any rate, the so-called "new atheists" certainly seem to have revived things these days. I can hardly look on that as being a mistake.

And besides, there's plenty of room for different tactics. If you want to be respectful of religion, to curtail your criticism, to use gentle persuasion in an attempt to change minds, be my guest. In fact, I wish you well. And who knows? Maybe a "good cop, bad cop" routine will work the best of all. :)

Seeing orange

Sunday, October 10, 2010

It's like coming home... to the Soviet Union


From TPM:
A lawyer in Tupelo, Miss., was thrown in jail Wednesday for refusing to say the Pledge of Allegiance in court.

When the judge asked the court to rise and say the Pledge, the lawyer, Danny Lampley, stood but did not say the words. According to local reports, Lampley, known for taking on First Amendment cases, has done so before.

This time, the judge, Talmadge Littlejohn, held him in contempt and sent him to county jail. Lampley was released five hours later.

This is in America!  OK, yes, in Mississippi, but last I heard, Mississippi was still part of America. How could anyone think that this was reasonable, let alone a judge?

Crazy, isn't it?

Is the Muslim world America's future?

In reply to my earlier post, a few days ago, Tony Williams made the following thought-provoking comment:
The kind of political developments you describe in your blog are deeply depressing to anyone who cares about the traditional values of western civilisation. Up to now we seem to have avoided such excesses in the UK. Following an indecisive election a few months ago, we now have two very different political parties cooperating quite harmoniously to sort out our financial mess. However, what happens in the USA is often reflected in some way in the UK, maybe a decade later, so I'm not complacent.

A thought has struck me which may be entirely inappropriate, and even offensive, to some in the USA: that faced with unpalatable international political and economic developments, many people in your country are increasingly looking inwards and retreating to the psychological comfort of old beliefs (I still find it very hard to understand how only 40% of the US population believes that humans evolved from earlier animals). At the extreme, this includes those who are not just religious fundamentalists but who look forward to the "Rapture" in their lifetime anyway; a serious case of denial of reality.

I can't help observing that something very similar started to happen in the Muslim world just over half a century ago. A combination of events - focused on the creation of the western-backed Israel in Palestine, reinforced by the failure of the Muslim world to keep up with western economic and technological developments -began to make Muslims increasingly inward-looking and fundamentalist, and more inclined to believe frankly lunatic things (e.g. that Israel was responsible for 9/11). Countries like Egypt and (most obviously) Iran are far less westernised than they used to be. And we all know what the reaction of the extremist and violent Muslim fringe has been, and continues to be.

That's a very perceptive observation, don't you think? The Muslim world, in general (I know we're talking about individual human beings here), compares the developed western world with their own societies - often flush with oil wealth, but still backward economically, technologically primitive, militarily weak. They are a proud people, so the contrast is hard to take.

But what has been the response to this unflattering comparison? Instead of learning from the west, instead of opening up to diversity, creating free societies separating religion from government, unleashing their own creativity in pluralistic democratic societies where respect for minority rights is at least as strong as other side of the coin, majority rules, they've done just the reverse. They've retreated inward, closing their societies from outside influence as much as possible, retreating into mysticism and fundamentalism.

Islamic nations try to adopt the modern technologies of the western world without changing anything else in their societies. Indeed, they've become more determined than ever that they won't change. Instead of bravely facing reality, and accepting the challenge of modern life, they retreat, as Tony puts it, into the psychological comfort of old beliefs - pretty much what the right-wing in America is doing right now, don't you think?

There's more. Looking for a reason why they don't lead the world, and refusing to blame themselves, all too many Muslims have concluded that they must be the victims of some giant conspiracy to keep them down. They've even developed the kind of victim mentality that still sees the Crusades, nearly a thousand years in the past, as relevant today. None of this is their fault, you see. It's not because they've refused to stand up and admit they need change, drastic change, but just because their enemies have kept them down. That's where the anger comes from, the anger that incites violence, that makes rioting seem like a valid response to cartoons, indeed to any criticism.

Is America also headed down this road? Is this a glimpse of our future? America was a religious nation in my childhood, but it seemed to be a moderate kind of belief. People went to church on Sunday - it didn't really matter which one - but that was all. It was just custom, just a common social activity. There was none of this "culture war" crap. And there weren't fundamentalists everywhere you turned. Both political parties supported the separation of church and state (although both were quite willing to turn a blind eye to violations of that, for political expediency).

Previously, I talked about my experiences in college, and how my nation seemed to change around me. Frankly, I've been astonished by America's retreat to religion. These days, you can't throw a dead cat without hitting a Christian fundamentalist. Are we seeing the beginnings, here in America, of what Muslim societies have already become? Does the Muslim world show us America's future?

That feeling of victimization is here, too. A few weeks ago, Christopher Hitchens pointed this out:
In a rather curious and confused way, some white people are starting almost to think like a minority, even like a persecuted one. What does it take to believe that Christianity is an endangered religion in America or that the name of Jesus is insufficiently spoken or appreciated? Who wakes up believing that there is no appreciation for our veterans and our armed forces and that without a noisy speech from Sarah Palin, their sacrifice would be scorned? It's not unfair to say that such grievances are purely and simply imaginary, which in turn leads one to ask what the real ones can be. The clue, surely, is furnished by the remainder of the speeches, which deny racial feeling so monotonously and vehemently as to draw attention.

The right-wing in America is convinced that they're the victims of a conspiracy by the liberal elite. (Being "elite" is not an admirable objective for the right. Instead, the ideal is to be a "good ol' boy," a proud redneck with folksy speech and no more education than you really need.) They see themselves as being under constant attack by the media, by government bureaucrats, by the education system. Ironically, they often rail against the "victim mentality" of African Americans while adopting that same mentality themselves.

The right-wing has pretty well controlled politics in America for decades, with even the Democrats moving to the right. George W. Bush was the far-right's candidate, and they wholeheartedly supported his policies (excepting only immigration reform, which failed to pass Congress). But none of the disasters that resulted from those policies is their fault. Somehow, they put the blame elsewhere. They were betrayed. Of course, they still support the exact same policies that Republicans pushed then, even using the same rhetoric. But bizarrely, they think they're the victims in all this.

In my post a week ago, I called this kind of thinking cowardice. I still think so. It's a refusal to face reality and a refusal to accept responsibility for your own mistakes. Instead of bravely standing up and facing the future, we're retreating into religious dogma, into bigotry, into bombastic patriotism and paranoia, and into a kind of victim mentality. It takes courage to change your mind when the evidence shows that you've been wrong. It takes courage to stand up in an increasingly competitive world and strive to be the best. It takes courage to welcome diversity and to understand that change is inevitable.

Is America headed toward the Christian equivalent of the most backward Muslim nations? Are we retreating into the psychological comfort of religious fantasy, praying for the "Rapture" as others take the lead in the real world? Are we retreating into a victim mentality, where nothing is our fault? (I don't exempt progressives from this either, when they stay at home or support third-party candidates in a "plague on both your houses" kind of idiocy. Progress may be frustratingly slow, but that's no excuse to give up.)

In a followup, in a personal email to me (posted with his permission), Tony Williams offers this ray of hope:
There is one reason to hope that the USA, and the West generally, will not go down the same slope as some of the Muslim countries (or at least not as far down it). That is that the most extreme Muslim countries tend to be very homogeneous in all respects: racial, cultural and in religion. So if an influential individual gets in power there, he has a much better chance of taking the whole country with him. In the West we are far more diverse in all respects (the USA especially) and it is very hard to imagine that any one extreme group could attain the kind of dominance you see in Iran. However, I fear that a Republican Party which is dominated by the Tea Party could do a lot of damage in trying to do so.

Yes, we are a diverse nation, and we're becoming more diverse all the time. To a large extent, this is what has set off the hysteria on the right - the hysteria about having a black man in the White House (clearly, not one of "us" - he must be a Muslim, a Kenyan, a socialist, a terrorist plant), the hysteria over illegal immigration (all those brown people can't ever become "us"), the hysteria about Muslims (very similar to the hysteria about Catholics more than a century ago).

White people are still the majority in America (66% of Americans are non-Hispanic whites). If we fear other races, other ethnicities, rather than accepting them as Americans just like us, what will that do to us? Christians are an overwhelming majority in America (76% of us, including Protestants, Catholics, and Mormons). What will happen if they cease to see freedom of religion and the separation of church and state as the best guarantee of their own rights. (I can, and do, disagree with them while still strongly supporting their right to believe what they wish.) What will happen if they cease to support science? What will happen if they see all Muslims as the enemy, rather than welcoming peaceful Muslims into the diverse mix that is America?

What will happen if we Americans lose our courage? Or has that already happened? Will we continue to blame others for our own mistakes, continue to fantasize about supernatural intervention instead of working to solve real problems, continue to have hysterics over the fact that 21st Century America isn't what we imagine, looking back in nostalgia through rose-colored glasses, the 1950s were like (for white people only, of course)? Will we turn into the 21st or 22nd Century equivalent of the Muslim world today?

Tony's comment was very perceptive - and frightening. He's right that we're far more diverse than Muslim nations. But we're also a superpower. We can do a lot of damage if the lunatics take charge. (Indeed, just look at all the damage the Bush administration did.) We're also at a time when the whole world faces some big, big problems - global warming, overpopulation, the destruction of our oceans. If we don't face up to those problems now, will we ever have another chance?

One thing is certain: the future is not fixed. OK, maybe tomorrow a giant asteroid will wipe out all life on Earth. But absent such an unlikely event, the future is up to us. What direction we take is our choice. We can retreat into fantasy, or we can accept the evidence of science. We can turn inward, praying for magical solutions to our problems, or we can stand up and face reality, working to change what we can.

True, as individuals, we can't do much. But that's no excuse not to try. It is always individuals, working together, who accomplish anything. Does it look hopeless? So what? Are you that much of a coward that you'll let that stop you? It's the easiest thing in the world to think of an excuse for doing nothing. That's why it's so popular, because it's easy.

What I'm suggesting is hard. It's hard to face reality, instead of a comforting fantasy. It's hard to believe what you don't want to believe. It's hard to accept the evidence that you've been wrong, and that you need to change. And it's hard, very hard, to keep working on what you think is right, no matter how frustrating it gets, no matter how hopeless it seems, no matter how little your own efforts really seem to accomplish.

But you have to look at yourself in the mirror every day. What kind of person do you want looking back at you?

Trickle-down economics

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Sound the Sharia alarm!


Now the right-wing is going batshit crazy over... soup. Yes, Campbell's (Canada) has introduced a line of halal-certified soups, and it's apparently the end of civilization as we know it.

These are like kosher foods. But while kosher-certified foods are made in accordance to Jewish dietary laws, halal-certified foods are made in accordance to Muslim dietary laws. See the problem? No, neither do I.

According to TPM, where I got this news (and my title), the Islamic Society of North America has been certifying halal foods since 1988. American companies have been advertising kosher foods since 1911. That's basically the difference.

Now, maybe religious bigots were upset by the introduction of kosher foods outside of Jewish ghettos, I don't know. But even if that's so, haven't we learned anything in the past century? Do you get angry when you see kosher pickles in the grocery story? Do you boycott companies that sell certified kosher foods? Do you see how stupid this is?

From TPM:

To some people, that's just more evidence that Sharia is coming to North America -- this time, via the grocery store.

"M-m-good for the Islamists. Not so yummy for the rest of us," reads the blog of Scaramouche, which broke the news Tuesday, some eight months after Campbell's launched the line.

Robert Spencer, who writes Jihadwatch.org and has been saying for years that ISNA is tied to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, quickly echoed the alarm.

"So why is Campbell's Soup rushing to do its bidding?" Spencer wrote on Tuesday. "'M-M-Muslim Brotherhood Good?'"

Park51 opponent Pamela Geller is now calling for a boycott of Campbell's.

The Tea Party Nation is on board, too, tweeting today, " Campbell's now making Muslim approved soups. Mmmmm Mmmmm not good. No more campbells for me."

A Facebook group created just Tuesday called "Boycott Campbell Soup" already has almost 2,000 members. Members who leave messages like [sic]:
This is yet another example of just how dangerous creeping shariah is to Western Civilization, Democracy and all freedom loving peoples. There are stages to the islamization of non-islamic countries. [...] This is just another way that terrorism and it's sponsors are insinuating themselves into our culture, Terrorists are NOT freedom fighters they are murderous thugs and I will not pay money for soup or any other product that supports, aids or abetts their tactics. Hope someone puts a list out of all of Campbell's affiliates.
The blog Creeping Sharia notes that Kellogg UK has halal-certified cereals and asks, "Are their U.S. products secretly halal?"

Secretly halal? Er, the whole point of marketing halal-certified foods is so Muslims who follow their dietary laws can buy them. You know, just like marketing kosher-certified foods? What would be the point if no one knew about it? Do these lunatics think that they'll be made Muslim by eating soup??? No doubt eating pickles will turn you Jewish, too, huh? (Yes, I know that kosher dill pickles aren't necessarily certified kosher. Through long association, the name has become just a flavor profile in America. But that's kind of my point.)

Tell me that the right-wing doesn't get crazier by the day. Tell me - please! - that we Americans aren't completely losing our minds - or our courage. When will there be a backlash against this kind of lunacy? When will we see the right-wing laughed off the political stage? This is complete insanity, and it just seems to be getting worse and worse.

I don't doubt that we've always had lunatics like this. But they've always been a fringe, even in the Republican Party. Now, the lunatics have taken control of the Republican Party, such that even presidential candidates echo their lunacy (either because people like Newt Gingrich have also lost their minds or because they feel it's the only way to regain political power). These days, the lunatics have political power - either because there's more of them now than ever before, or just because the rest of us let them.

Either way, it's a sad commentary on America, don't you think? So, what are you going to do about it? You can join the lunatics (perhaps you have ambitions as a Republican politician?), you can give up and let the lunatics have their way, or you can stand up for what's right. Individually, we can't do much. (Collectively, we can, though you may not believe that.) But that's no excuse. Apathy is just another name for cowardice.

Taking back America

Friday, October 8, 2010

FearStock.com

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Indecision 2010 - Revenge of the Fallen - FearStock.com
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes2010 ElectionMarch to Keep Fear Alive

Funny, huh? "This is the most terrifying scenario of all. There aren't enough stock photos of scary minorities out there to represent all the scary minorities we know have gotta be out there. ... Anyway, Ms. Angle, Sen. Vitter, next time use FearStock.com for when reality is not as terrifying as you need it to be."

But is it really that funny? Think of the real problems in America. We've still trying to dig our way out of the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. We're still fighting two wars, and in particular, mired down in Afghanistan with no real prospect of a successful exit. As China ramps up its spending on education, on research and development, and on 21st Century infrastructure, our own infrastructure is crumbling and our children are failing in math and science.

So what are Republicans concerned about? College tuition for illegal immigrants! Yeah, that's a biggie, isn't it? What would happen to us if Hispanics get an education? It's certainly a scary, scary prospect, don't you think?

Or is it? In reality, it's just scapegoating. It's just white Americans wanting to find someone else to blame, instead of ourselves. We're in this mess - these messes - because we elected Republicans who gave tax cuts to the wealthy instead of balancing the budget, who deregulated our financial industry, leading to economic bubbles, who invaded two different nations - at least one for no reason at all - without paying, or even budgeting, for the wars, and whose politically-motivated mantra of tax-cuts, tax-cuts, tax-cuts ignored, and continues to ignore, the needs of our children and the long-term consequences to our nation.

But we don't want to believe that, do we? We don't want to believe that all this is our fault. Republican politicians, who haven't changed their policy positions one iota, certainly don't want to admit it. And given how bigotry always increases in stressful times, dark-skinned illegal immigrants make a great scapegoat (as long as we voters remain ignorant, short-sighted, and not very smart).

And so they use stock photos of scary minorities in campaign ads that focus on college tuition, of all things! Well, this is normal for the GOP. This is just the continuation of their Southern Strategy of appealing to white racists.  As I say, it's even easier in stressful times, when people are eager for a simplistic "us" vs "them" message. Of course, Tea Partiers indignantly deny that they're racist, even while eagerly lapping up - and distributing - racist messages.

Look at that stock photo which Sharron Angle and David Vitter both used. Those scary, dark-skinned Hispanics really look like eager college students, don't they? Heh, heh. OK, racism isn't funny, nor is the gullibility of ignorant voters. But... we've got to laugh sometimes. And ridicule is one valid response to stuff like this (the other is to vote and to work to get people like this out of office).

PS. Note that David Vitter is that right-wing "family values" Republican caught patronizing prostitutes in Washington D.C.  While cheating on his own wife, he was demanding that Bill Clinton resign for infidelity and arguing that gay rights threatened the holy sanctity of traditional marriage.

Quite the little hypocrite, isn't he? But none of that has hurt him politically. He's still in office and heavily favored to win election again this year. Amazing, isn't it?

Strategic default - do as I say, not as I do

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Mortgage Bankers Association Strategic Default
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full EpisodesPolitical HumorRally to Restore Sanity

You're me? I don't think so!


Hmm,... well, I'd like to credit the artist, but I can't read the signature, or even tell where it was originally published. Can anyone help with that? I got it here.

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Rawesome foods

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Rawesome Foods Raid
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes2010 ElectionMarch to Keep Fear Alive

This raw milk controversy is bizarre, don't you think? After all, pasteurization was one of the greatest scientific discoveries of the 19th Century. It has saved countless lives. There's a very good reason why we pasteurize milk. It isn't just done on a whim. Raw milk can be dangerous, even deadly.

And it's not just a matter of individual rights, either, since people give raw milk to their children. Quite simply, you're not allowed to harm your children, even if you think you're doing the right thing. Would you let parents beat their children to drive out "demons"? Would you let parents deny their children medical care when they get really sick? Heck, would you even let parents deny their children an education, if they thought it was God's will? Society has an obligation to protect children, even from their own parents, when necessary.

Obviously, it's true that individual freedom is important, very important. There is always going to be a question about government regulation. Does it go too far? Does it go far enough? Yes, people have the right to decide most things for themselves, and yes, we the people need government regulation, since we are social animals who live and work together. We will never all agree on where to draw the line. Reasonable people can and will disagree.

But only unreasonable people will refuse to understand that both individual freedom and government regulation are necessary, and that it's not cut and dried where the line between them should be drawn. Personally, I think that raw milk fans are unscientific. It's just magical "New Age" thinking by fantasy-prone personalities who define "natural" as "good." In this case, I think the case for pasteurization is clear. But that doesn't mean I deny the importance of individual freedom. Of course not!

This reminds me of the debate about requiring people to use seat belts. When I was a kid, I didn't have a choice. I couldn't use a seat belt, because none of our cars had them. Well, they weren't required, and without that, they'd be expensive and very few people would opt to order them with a new car. Of course, my family bought used cars, and you just didn't find used cars with seat belts. It would be very expensive to install a custom-made seat belt, and they'd probably be quite unreliable, anyway. At any rate, when I was a kid, you just did without one of the simplest, most logical safety devices there are.

Eventually, new cars were required to have seat belts, but no one was required to use them. OK, in your own car, you could decide for yourself. But most of the time, whenever you rode as a passenger in someone else's car, the seat belts would be stuffed so far down down into the seat cushions that you couldn't find them. It was the same way with work vehicles, too. As a practical matter, seat belt usage often wasn't your choice (and almost never for kids).

And if you did have a choice, and you chose not to wear them? Well, that would cause insurance rates for everyone else to go up (insurance companies could tell when a car was equipped with seat belts, but not whether or not you used them). And even if you couldn't afford health care, hospitals would still care for you - again, increasing the costs for everyone else. Well, should they just let you bleed to death on the side of the road? Is that really the kind of society we want to live in?

Well, maybe you do. In Obion County, Tennessee, firefighters watched a family's house burn to the ground because their $75 subscription fee hadn't been paid. Yes, in this bizarre new world of ours, they're even privatizing fire departments. You see, if fire departments are supported by tax money, then the wealthy pay more than the middle class, and the middle class pay more than the poor. Oh, no! That's just socialism! We can't have that, huh? Private fire departments can charge the same for everyone. Heck, maybe they'd even want to charge the poor extra for service. Those hovels are probably firetraps anyway. And who deserves to save money more than the wealthy? Hey, the fact that they're rich just proves that God loves them best.

And this is entirely personal freedom. If you want to risk it - or if you can't afford it - then you can save on taxes and just pray that your house doesn't catch on fire. (Bad things never happen to good Christians, right?) Then, when you lose everything, you and your children can live on the street. You don't expect our tax money to help you out then, do you? And you'd better hope you don't get burned in that fire, because health care isn't free, either. Yeah, it's tough on your kids, but we don't want a nanny state, do we?

Getting back to seat belts, vehicular safety requirements have saved a lot of lives. And it's made a lot of potentially serious injuries much less serious - or avoided them altogether. Is this a bad thing? Do you feel less free now? And getting back to raw milk, pasteurization has saved countless lives and kept even more people from suffering horribly. OK, I suppose you've lost the right to risk your own health in a particularly foolhardy manner, but it's also saved children from the idiocy of their parents.

This doesn't mean that every potential regulation, every government requirement, is automatically the right thing to do. But it also doesn't meant that we're turning into a "nanny state," either, just because we have some restrictions like these. Are you worried about the slippery slope? Hey, we're always on a slippery slope, where one side or the other is completely idiotic. In the middle of that slippery slope is often exactly where rational people should be. Is it an uncomfortable place to be? Tough. Are you unsure of the exact spot on that slope that's the perfect policy position? Yeah, well, welcome to the adult world.

In this, like so much else, we Americans seem to have completely lost our sense of proportion. We see black and white, instead of gray. In our (reasonable) appreciation for individual freedom, we become completely unreasonable when it comes to any restrictions. We fantasize about weird conspiracy theories. And we are embarrassingly ignorant about science and the scientific method. It's not raw milk that's the problem here, not really. The problem is in a population of people who simply believe what they want to believe.

It's human nature to make up our minds first, and then look for ways to justify our decision. And the internet is diverse enough that you can always find someone - maybe even a "scientist" - to back up your position, no matter how loony it might be. Few people are determined enough and capable enough to closely examine the question from multiple sides, and even if you are that exceptional, it's easy to dismiss or rationalize away contrary arguments, while accepting those which seem to confirm your existing beliefs. As I say, this is all just human nature.

That's why the scientific method was developed. It's the best way we've ever found to determine the truth, instead of just what we want to believe. And so, when it comes to a scientific issue, the only rational move is to accept - provisionally, as all science is provisional - the consensus of the scientists in that field. This is true for evolution, it's true for global warming, and it's true for the raw milk controversy. If you're a scientist who specializes in a particular field, you can hold a minority opinion in it, if you want. But for us laymen, accepting anything but the scientific consensus makes no sense at all.

The scientific consensus could be wrong, but that's not the way to bet. And if it is wrong, the consensus will change.