It is inarguable that the Holocaust that occurred during World War II is one of the darkest moments in human history. The events and scope of the genocide that took place is the very epitome of horrific. The idea that at one time this was considered a politically acceptable plan is almost as unthinkable as the Holocaust itself is well documented. With that in mind, I do not presume to tread on the memory of those that died, survived, or all around suffered as a result of this occurrence. I wish instead to bring into light a wrong regarding the Holocaust that I think too often gets forgotten about: the fact that there were millions other than Jews that wire killed as a part of it.
The Holocaust is seen as a very fundamental part of what it means to be Jewish in the modern world. So much in fact is this an underlying part of Jewish identity that anti-Jewish activists seek to go so far as to deny it ever occurred as a method of attack. (Please note I use the term anti-Jewish rather than anti-Semitic; a Semite is a Jew living in Europe, just a matter of semantics.) Denying the Holocaust is meant to be the ultimate anti-Jewish political position, I doubt few people honestly think that one of the most well documented historical atrocities is actually made up.
Many Jews simply define the Holocaust as the killing of 6 million Jews by the Germans during WWII. This is both correct and incorrect. The Holocaust was the genocide of 11 million people, the remaining 5 million of which were not Jewish. Many were Catholic, some were Islamic or gypsies. Some were simply socially undesirable in that culture such as homosexuals, handicapped, or mentally retarded. When the efficacy of the Holocaust is spoken about, these are often not mentioned. Many times people will refer to the Holocaust only as the genocide of the Jews. In many ways, this serves to lessen the importance of the other types of people that were exterminated; both history and humanity suffer as a result.
I would like to see those that invoke the Holocaust to discontinue referring to only the Jewish part of the Holocaust as the real event. In many ways it serves to give the impression that it is the only part that matters, that the other 5 million people that were killed don’t count because they weren’t Jewish. I personally have never met a Jewish person that actively thinks this; it seems this omission and its effect are unintentional.
But in some small way, isn’t there a similarity between denying the Holocaust ever happened and cherrypicking the events to highlight only your social groups connection to an historical atrocity? They certainly aren’t as bad as one another, but on some small lever there has to be some small similarity. They both are definitely wrong. Both are wrong in significantly different intensities, but still both wrong nonetheless.
The Holocaust is a very important aspect of Jewish history and I have no reason or wish to deny them that. But I think it is equally a human issue. This event is a horrid reminder of the radically differing avenues that human nature can take; that is a lesson that belongs to all of humanity.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Liberals and Conservatives Both Love America, but in Different Ways
I have grown quite weary of hearing the same old tired arguments that people on the left hate America. Conservatives love to tout that they are the true patriots and that Liberals seek to somehow destroy America in some fashion, it's never really clear what it is that we advocate that leads to that supposed destruction. The truth is that both sides love their country; both Liberals and Conservatives are patriotic. However, they are patriotic in different ways from one another. There cannot be a better example to delineate this difference than looking to how both sides react to dissent, both from popular politics as well as from within their own party.
The Difference in Maturity
Liberals love their country the way that an adult loves something. While their love is honestly unconditional, they are willing to tell the person that they love when they are doing something wrong. When conditions are negative, they react by working to make a change and help the situation become better. They give support that is based on the nature of the relationship rather than on the particular environment of the moment. This is the way that an adult reacts within a relationship of love. Honest disagreement is evidence that they actually love the person/country; not that they hate it. They want the country to be better than it currently is, to live up to its potential. Hate is demonstrated by apathy within a relationship moreso than it is action. True patriotism is striving to force the country to maintain its principles and become the best it can. If Liberals truly hated this country they would be indifferent to it and see to create society under a different organizing principle.
Conservatives love their country the way that a small child loves its parents. The relationship is based on what is going on that moment only. On one hand they see no wrong in what their parents do. A small child isn't able to decide to love a parent more or less based on the character of that parent. Children love their parents even if they beat them, molest them, or abandon them. This is the same as Conservatives. They define patriotism as blind adherence to authority and never allowing in the possibility that anything the country has ever done is wrong. They define dissent and disagreement as hating one's country and not being patriotic. Unlike Liberals they are quick to move their allegiances away from the country and into those small outlets of political agreement that serve as the basis of their identity.
The Reaction to Dissent
When there is dissent with the national direction among Liberals, their response is to create grassroots efforts and make political arguments to convince the democratic electorate to their point of view. This is the foundation of the Change movement and the election of Barack Obama. Many Liberals saw the Bush administration as a mark on what the true character of America is and chose to correct this by pushing that very political system to work for them. They fought for democracy to see the light in how they saw it. And as we all know, were rewarded when Obama was elected with an over 60% majority.
When there is internal dissent in the party, the reaction is much the same. The party is treated as a marketplace of ideas and many of the same dynamics of persuasion and democracy reign. They become the subject of serious debate amongst those in similar political influence. What ideas ultimately form the direction of the party are based on pragmatism and democracy; those same principles that govern the country as a whole.
Conservatives, on the other hand, react to dissent in a wildly different way. When they disagree with the direction of the nation, they redefine that which they do not agree with as being anti-American. The love America when they agree with its national direction and hate it when it operates under different principles. This is similar to a small child beaming with delight when he gets a new toy and throwing a screaming temper tantrum in the cereal isle when they don't get what they want. This is evidenced in the recent Tea Party protests that occurred. There was no unifying principle behind them, just a general distaste with a nation that no longer agreed with their radical agenda. They decried tyranny from a leader that had not been in office long enough to effect the ramifications of his new policies; they protested a tax code that their former president had implemented without realizing it. This is similar to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas hinting at secession because he disagrees with the president. It is also similar to Glen Beck publicly advocating violent uprising on his TV show from thinly evidenced threat scenarios that have no real grounding in the actual politics of the country.
Reaction are no calmer in response to dissent within the party; in fact at times they are more harsh. Internal dissent in Republican politics is not permitted in any format. Having a different opinion is grounds for being expelled from the party, no longer able to receive their political support. De facto leader Rush Limbaugh will relentlessly campaign against everything that is you, making up stories to destroy your political career for the egregious act of thinking for yourself. Often, the national party will respond by backing a primary candidate to beat you in the next election.
The internal and external politics of the Democratic and Republican parties are disparate at best. Their dynamics make it difficult to understand from both ends what it is actually like to be a member of the other side. Republicans think that Democrats hate America because were one of them to disagree with the will of the party it would be understood by the rest of the Republicans as an affront to their vision of America and thus anti-American. The sides are completely different; seeking to understand the culture of both parties is a particularly difficult task. But when it comes down to it, mature or immature, they both honestly believe that they love their country and are true patriots.
The Difference in Maturity
Liberals love their country the way that an adult loves something. While their love is honestly unconditional, they are willing to tell the person that they love when they are doing something wrong. When conditions are negative, they react by working to make a change and help the situation become better. They give support that is based on the nature of the relationship rather than on the particular environment of the moment. This is the way that an adult reacts within a relationship of love. Honest disagreement is evidence that they actually love the person/country; not that they hate it. They want the country to be better than it currently is, to live up to its potential. Hate is demonstrated by apathy within a relationship moreso than it is action. True patriotism is striving to force the country to maintain its principles and become the best it can. If Liberals truly hated this country they would be indifferent to it and see to create society under a different organizing principle.
Conservatives love their country the way that a small child loves its parents. The relationship is based on what is going on that moment only. On one hand they see no wrong in what their parents do. A small child isn't able to decide to love a parent more or less based on the character of that parent. Children love their parents even if they beat them, molest them, or abandon them. This is the same as Conservatives. They define patriotism as blind adherence to authority and never allowing in the possibility that anything the country has ever done is wrong. They define dissent and disagreement as hating one's country and not being patriotic. Unlike Liberals they are quick to move their allegiances away from the country and into those small outlets of political agreement that serve as the basis of their identity.
The Reaction to Dissent
When there is dissent with the national direction among Liberals, their response is to create grassroots efforts and make political arguments to convince the democratic electorate to their point of view. This is the foundation of the Change movement and the election of Barack Obama. Many Liberals saw the Bush administration as a mark on what the true character of America is and chose to correct this by pushing that very political system to work for them. They fought for democracy to see the light in how they saw it. And as we all know, were rewarded when Obama was elected with an over 60% majority.
When there is internal dissent in the party, the reaction is much the same. The party is treated as a marketplace of ideas and many of the same dynamics of persuasion and democracy reign. They become the subject of serious debate amongst those in similar political influence. What ideas ultimately form the direction of the party are based on pragmatism and democracy; those same principles that govern the country as a whole.
Conservatives, on the other hand, react to dissent in a wildly different way. When they disagree with the direction of the nation, they redefine that which they do not agree with as being anti-American. The love America when they agree with its national direction and hate it when it operates under different principles. This is similar to a small child beaming with delight when he gets a new toy and throwing a screaming temper tantrum in the cereal isle when they don't get what they want. This is evidenced in the recent Tea Party protests that occurred. There was no unifying principle behind them, just a general distaste with a nation that no longer agreed with their radical agenda. They decried tyranny from a leader that had not been in office long enough to effect the ramifications of his new policies; they protested a tax code that their former president had implemented without realizing it. This is similar to Gov. Rick Perry of Texas hinting at secession because he disagrees with the president. It is also similar to Glen Beck publicly advocating violent uprising on his TV show from thinly evidenced threat scenarios that have no real grounding in the actual politics of the country.
Reaction are no calmer in response to dissent within the party; in fact at times they are more harsh. Internal dissent in Republican politics is not permitted in any format. Having a different opinion is grounds for being expelled from the party, no longer able to receive their political support. De facto leader Rush Limbaugh will relentlessly campaign against everything that is you, making up stories to destroy your political career for the egregious act of thinking for yourself. Often, the national party will respond by backing a primary candidate to beat you in the next election.
The internal and external politics of the Democratic and Republican parties are disparate at best. Their dynamics make it difficult to understand from both ends what it is actually like to be a member of the other side. Republicans think that Democrats hate America because were one of them to disagree with the will of the party it would be understood by the rest of the Republicans as an affront to their vision of America and thus anti-American. The sides are completely different; seeking to understand the culture of both parties is a particularly difficult task. But when it comes down to it, mature or immature, they both honestly believe that they love their country and are true patriots.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Texas Can't Actually Secede, and It Wouldn't Really Want to Anyway
During a recent anti-Obama rally, Governor Rick Perry of Texas made remarks that hinted at Texas keeping open the idea of seceding from the US to solve its opposition to the country's embrace of liberal politics. Perry disagrees with Obama politically and in a move meant to play to the radically conservative base of Texas citizens, publicly advocated the possibility of secession. This has garnered a massive response from the media and the citizenry of Texas alike. A majority of republicans in the state report that they are in favor of considering secession, this accounts for over 30% of statewide voters encompassing all political affiliations. The idea of secession is a recurring theme in Texas politics. However, I feel that they fail to see that advocating it proves that Texans are not actually patriotic to America. The argument is mostly academic since Texas (despite its illusions of grandeur) cannot actually secede from the union. Most importantly, even if their wish came true and secession were actually allowed, they fail to see that they really wouldn't want to leave the US anyway.
Advocating Secession is the Opposite of Patriotic
The deep south bills itself as the home to the height of real patriotism. Presidential politics for the last several decades have required either candidates from the south (Bush, Bush Jr, Johnson, Clinton, Carter) or massive support from southern states. The citizens of the south proudly refer to themselves as flag waving and gut toting. They believe that their maintenance of strong religion based values mean that they are at the forefront of patriotism. They advertise their unwavering support for the military troops and American military operations. Then they spoil the whole thing by advocating leaving the US entirely and forming their own country. I hate to point out the obvious, but you can't be patriotic to your country if you at the same time advocate leaving it en masse.
Where once the Texans were the leaders of southern patriotism and values, they now seem to be advocating high treason. This means that Texans actually don't support the war or the troops. They can't be in favor of national security and at the same time want to disassociate themselves with that nation. Were they to leave the US, they would be abandoning the troops and everything they fought for.
Just to put this in perspective, let us look at the exact same situation in reverse. Let's pretend that it is 2004, just after the reelection of an unpopular president to progressive citizens and New York, Massachusetts, or California decided that it wanted to secede from the Union. Maybe this wouldn't even be a statewide action, just a large number of people publicly advocating that their state secede from the Union. They, and the entire political movement they associate with, would be crucified by the media. They would be called anti-American, and would seek to stick this label to all progressives. Glen Beck's head would explode.
The situation is no different now. This recent secession talk is ironclad proof that progressives are the true patriots and that conservatives actually hate America. Their country takes second place to conservative politics and the demi-gods that it creates. If you disagree with a country you love, you react like the progressives did: you start grassroots movements, make political arguments, and seek to win the hearts of the people to your side and hopefully their votes in democratic elections. Hence, the reaction to the radically conservative politics of the Bush administration were to work hard and elect a progressive Congress and a inspirational progressive president.
The incorrect reaction is to pout and politically "take your ball and go home." When progressives were in the political minority they worked hard and made political movements and arguments. Now that conservatives are in the political minority they scream tyranny and say that they don't want to be American anymore. Grown-ups react to not getting their way by pushing harder and striving to get better; immature children react to not getting their way by kicking and screaming, throwing temper tantrums. At the moment Texas conservatives seem to frighteningly resemble a kid in the cereal isle at the grocery store whose parents won't buy him Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs. Who are the real patriots here?
Texas Actually Can't Secede
The argument of whether or not Texas actually has the right to secede from the union has been the subject of much debate. This concept is fundamental to the identity of people from Texas. I have known a large number of people from Texas since I live in Oklahoma. People that are from Texas just think differently. Their perceived ability to leave the US whenever they want in hammered into their heads at a very young age and becomes the root of their sense of superiority over all other Americans. To demonstrate to those who are less familiar with what I am talking about, I would like to share a short story about something that happened to be when I was a camp counselor in Maine the summer after my freshman year of college.
The counselor staff was about 120 people. About half of those were from the US, and about half were from other countries. Of the 60 or so from the US, 6 were from Texas. On the first day of orientation, before the kids showed up, we were asked to create name tags as a way to help us get to know each other better. Everyone was asked to create simple name tag that said two things: your first name and what country you lie in. Of the ~120 people, see if you can guess which 6 were too stupid to be able to get that amazingly simple instruction correct? All 6 of them put 'Texas' instead of 'USA' or 'America'. This was not a problem for anyone else. There were 4 other people from Oklahoma, we all were smart enough to put USA on our tag. Everyone else from the US were able to correctly name what country they belonged to without a second try. But all 6 Texans put the name of their state when asked to name their country. People from Texas just think differently.
The base of the secessionist claim is their assertion that Texas was at one time its own country. While they certainly claimed that they were a completely independent country, the actual truth to this claim is hazy and has decent arguments from both directions. They claim that there is a provision in their revised state constitution when the rejoined the union post-Civil War that allows them to secede. There isn't. The closest thing is that their second state constitution states that they are organized under the US Constitution and thus are solely under its govern. Their claim is that because there is no specific provision in the US Constitution that disallows secession, and that all rights not enumerated are reserved to the states under the 10th amendment, that they are allowed to secede if they choose. This is no different than any other state constitution and they have no more or less right to secede from the US than does any other state.
But there actually are two major reasons that no state is granted the right to secede from the union. The first is the Civil War. The outcome of the Civil War is the proclamation that it is the position of the US government according to its Constitutional powers that no state is able to secede and that any action attempting this is considered sedition to national unity and security giving the federal government the ability to do what is necessary to return the preservation of that union.
The second reason is the Supreme Court Case Texas v. White from 1868. In the actual words of the decision:
Enough about the delusion of the ability to secede, I think in an argument like this it is important to look at what would actually happen if they got what they wanted. I don't think Texans would actually want to literally secede from the US if they actually thought about it.
Texas Wouldn't Want to Secede Anyway
To anyone that sits down and thinks about the economics and politics of breaking away from the US, the idea seems like it would cause nothing but harm to the newly formed country of Texas. They would be hit with a multitude of problems that were once solved as a component of being a member state in the federal government. Texas would lose a massive amount of its current commerce if it were to become an independent state. It would experience a massive outflow of people, many of which would be the people that would cause the most harm to the state. It would have to suddenly face issues of national security that it historically would not be prepared. All in all, leaving the US would prove to be devastating to Texas--those that advocate it should be held accountable to what it is they are actually preaching.
One of the first problems that would occur would be its loss of trade abilities. The people of the state are very much against NAFTA, so there is little evidence that they would want to join it as a member nation. Even if they flip-flopped and decided to join NAFTA, that would require months to put in place, months that would be harsh on the Texan economy. They would no longer likely be much of an avenue for current US/Mexican trading as we would seek to minimize tariffs by routing that traffic through New Mexico and Arizona. They would lose American border protection; while this would be able to aptly be performed by Texas, it would add a significant new cost to the budget. Texas would lose massive amounts of tourism as fewer people would be willing to vacation in Texas if it required a passport and customs checks in and out. They additionally would lose the use of the US Dollar as a currency along with the ability to acquire FDIC protection for its banks. This would require stabilization of the banking system as a new fiscal and monetary plan was created as billions would flow out of the state in favor of US banks. Keep in mind with all these considerations that there is little evidence that there will exist the political will to increase the tax base enough to cover the additional costs of sovereignty.
One of the first things to happen would be the loss of federal institutions. Secession would invalidate Texas' ability to be involved in the Social Security program. This would cause a massive cost to Texas to either fund a replacement (huge tax increase) or discontinue the program leading to a mass exodus from its people that are forced to rely on Social Security. It would additionally end their ability to receive Medicare benefits or contribute to US based retirement accounts like IRAs and 401(k)s. This would cause another mass exodus of refugees returning to the US. Let us also not forget that secession would also dis-enroll colleges in Texas from membership in the NCAA in all sports. I would imagine the fans of sports like these will soon get tired of watching Baylor, UT, Tech, and A&M play each other over and over again. Colleges period would suffer as many would chose not to go to schools in Texas or work there once they get degrees in favor of a more open career in America. Many of the people that would leave Texas would be its best and brightest.
At the same time as the exodus of federal institutions would occur a massive exodus of business from Texas. One of the first that comes to mind is the use of Texas as a hub for airlines like Southwest. Dallas and Houston are large hubs for flights. They would instantly pull out of using these as hubs putting many thousands out of work. Airlines would no longer use a foreign country as its domestic hub, particularly considering the extremely restrictive nature of international flight routes by the FAA. Because of the inability to gain FDIC protection, large banks in Texas would move their primary operations to the US to be able to maintain their American consumer base. There are similar effects that could be considered for many businesses as the economic effect of the billions that flows through Texas would dry up as its costs would inevitably increase and their former customers would prefer to "Buy American." These actions would lead to a massive increase in unemployment, decrease in population, and runaway increase in crime rates
The most important reason that real Texans should oppose secession is the state's inability to maintain its national security. They would lose everything that belongs to the US military and would have to spend many years trying to reacquire a new military and equipment. It's going to take more than just some rednecks with deer rifles. Plus, it is important to remember that Texas not historically known as a military power. This is a state that during its national sovereignty lost a war to Mexico. Let me say that again, Texas lost a war to Mexico. It is an instance that solidly proves that it didn't consider itself a true independent nation. Texas loved to tout itself as a nation until Santa Anna showed up and started kicking the shit out of Texas. It was then that they instantly came crying back to America, an actual country, to come save them from the Mexicans. The list of countries that have lost wars to Mexico is a short one, but there is Texas' name shining brightly at the top.
In total, the quality of life for Texans would suffer severely in the case of secession. It would devastate the entire country and become the worst thing that ever happened to it. And, in that instance where it occurred I think it would only be prudent for the US to keep a database of everyone that advocated Texas secession and disallow any of them to ever enter the US.
Conclusion
All those that are true citizens of both Texas and the USA should be calling for the resignation or impeachment of Gov. Perry. It is one thing when some crazy radicals like Todd Palin (Sarah Palin's husband and Alaska secessionist) advocate secession. But it is another when the supposed political mainstream of a state espouses that position. It is obvious that in one way this is meant only to appease the radical political demagogues. But it is important to outline that he is cowing to these radicals at the risk of destroying the entire state.
There is no evidence that this will actually happen in the foreseeable future. But arguments from nuts like these have to be chronicled and refuted when, like Texas secession, there are so many radicals that they cannon be simply ignored. Even if their stated goals are not meant, we have learned what lengths political radicals have gone (especially anti-US government activists that advocate secession like Timothy McVeigh) in pursuit of these goals. Political radicals have the real ability to hurt national unity and harm real Americans. I do not in any way advocate abridging their right to free speech; but inherent in that same freedom is my ability to point out how stupid and poorly thought out their arguments really are.
Freedom of speech additionally dozen not mean that you cannot be held accountable for your positions. And in cases like Governor Rick Perry and other Texas secessionists, I think we should move on from this Conservative anti-American rhetoric and try to create a little unity to solve those problems that threaten to divide us. The answer to a call for national unity is to make your country better, not cut and run with your head between your legs.
Advocating Secession is the Opposite of Patriotic
The deep south bills itself as the home to the height of real patriotism. Presidential politics for the last several decades have required either candidates from the south (Bush, Bush Jr, Johnson, Clinton, Carter) or massive support from southern states. The citizens of the south proudly refer to themselves as flag waving and gut toting. They believe that their maintenance of strong religion based values mean that they are at the forefront of patriotism. They advertise their unwavering support for the military troops and American military operations. Then they spoil the whole thing by advocating leaving the US entirely and forming their own country. I hate to point out the obvious, but you can't be patriotic to your country if you at the same time advocate leaving it en masse.
Where once the Texans were the leaders of southern patriotism and values, they now seem to be advocating high treason. This means that Texans actually don't support the war or the troops. They can't be in favor of national security and at the same time want to disassociate themselves with that nation. Were they to leave the US, they would be abandoning the troops and everything they fought for.
Just to put this in perspective, let us look at the exact same situation in reverse. Let's pretend that it is 2004, just after the reelection of an unpopular president to progressive citizens and New York, Massachusetts, or California decided that it wanted to secede from the Union. Maybe this wouldn't even be a statewide action, just a large number of people publicly advocating that their state secede from the Union. They, and the entire political movement they associate with, would be crucified by the media. They would be called anti-American, and would seek to stick this label to all progressives. Glen Beck's head would explode.
The situation is no different now. This recent secession talk is ironclad proof that progressives are the true patriots and that conservatives actually hate America. Their country takes second place to conservative politics and the demi-gods that it creates. If you disagree with a country you love, you react like the progressives did: you start grassroots movements, make political arguments, and seek to win the hearts of the people to your side and hopefully their votes in democratic elections. Hence, the reaction to the radically conservative politics of the Bush administration were to work hard and elect a progressive Congress and a inspirational progressive president.
The incorrect reaction is to pout and politically "take your ball and go home." When progressives were in the political minority they worked hard and made political movements and arguments. Now that conservatives are in the political minority they scream tyranny and say that they don't want to be American anymore. Grown-ups react to not getting their way by pushing harder and striving to get better; immature children react to not getting their way by kicking and screaming, throwing temper tantrums. At the moment Texas conservatives seem to frighteningly resemble a kid in the cereal isle at the grocery store whose parents won't buy him Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs. Who are the real patriots here?
Texas Actually Can't Secede
The argument of whether or not Texas actually has the right to secede from the union has been the subject of much debate. This concept is fundamental to the identity of people from Texas. I have known a large number of people from Texas since I live in Oklahoma. People that are from Texas just think differently. Their perceived ability to leave the US whenever they want in hammered into their heads at a very young age and becomes the root of their sense of superiority over all other Americans. To demonstrate to those who are less familiar with what I am talking about, I would like to share a short story about something that happened to be when I was a camp counselor in Maine the summer after my freshman year of college.
The counselor staff was about 120 people. About half of those were from the US, and about half were from other countries. Of the 60 or so from the US, 6 were from Texas. On the first day of orientation, before the kids showed up, we were asked to create name tags as a way to help us get to know each other better. Everyone was asked to create simple name tag that said two things: your first name and what country you lie in. Of the ~120 people, see if you can guess which 6 were too stupid to be able to get that amazingly simple instruction correct? All 6 of them put 'Texas' instead of 'USA' or 'America'. This was not a problem for anyone else. There were 4 other people from Oklahoma, we all were smart enough to put USA on our tag. Everyone else from the US were able to correctly name what country they belonged to without a second try. But all 6 Texans put the name of their state when asked to name their country. People from Texas just think differently.
The base of the secessionist claim is their assertion that Texas was at one time its own country. While they certainly claimed that they were a completely independent country, the actual truth to this claim is hazy and has decent arguments from both directions. They claim that there is a provision in their revised state constitution when the rejoined the union post-Civil War that allows them to secede. There isn't. The closest thing is that their second state constitution states that they are organized under the US Constitution and thus are solely under its govern. Their claim is that because there is no specific provision in the US Constitution that disallows secession, and that all rights not enumerated are reserved to the states under the 10th amendment, that they are allowed to secede if they choose. This is no different than any other state constitution and they have no more or less right to secede from the US than does any other state.
But there actually are two major reasons that no state is granted the right to secede from the union. The first is the Civil War. The outcome of the Civil War is the proclamation that it is the position of the US government according to its Constitutional powers that no state is able to secede and that any action attempting this is considered sedition to national unity and security giving the federal government the ability to do what is necessary to return the preservation of that union.
The second reason is the Supreme Court Case Texas v. White from 1868. In the actual words of the decision:
When Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.It is important to remember at this time that according to the concept of judicial review established in Marbury v. Madison, the official issuances of the Supreme Court are the sole final arbitration for the interpretation of the Constitution. Essentially, what the Supreme Court says, is the Constitution. This fully satisfies the Texas state Constitutional requirement to obey the US Constitution and its judicial provision of an "indissoluble relation[ship]" to the rest of the US.
Enough about the delusion of the ability to secede, I think in an argument like this it is important to look at what would actually happen if they got what they wanted. I don't think Texans would actually want to literally secede from the US if they actually thought about it.
Texas Wouldn't Want to Secede Anyway
To anyone that sits down and thinks about the economics and politics of breaking away from the US, the idea seems like it would cause nothing but harm to the newly formed country of Texas. They would be hit with a multitude of problems that were once solved as a component of being a member state in the federal government. Texas would lose a massive amount of its current commerce if it were to become an independent state. It would experience a massive outflow of people, many of which would be the people that would cause the most harm to the state. It would have to suddenly face issues of national security that it historically would not be prepared. All in all, leaving the US would prove to be devastating to Texas--those that advocate it should be held accountable to what it is they are actually preaching.
One of the first problems that would occur would be its loss of trade abilities. The people of the state are very much against NAFTA, so there is little evidence that they would want to join it as a member nation. Even if they flip-flopped and decided to join NAFTA, that would require months to put in place, months that would be harsh on the Texan economy. They would no longer likely be much of an avenue for current US/Mexican trading as we would seek to minimize tariffs by routing that traffic through New Mexico and Arizona. They would lose American border protection; while this would be able to aptly be performed by Texas, it would add a significant new cost to the budget. Texas would lose massive amounts of tourism as fewer people would be willing to vacation in Texas if it required a passport and customs checks in and out. They additionally would lose the use of the US Dollar as a currency along with the ability to acquire FDIC protection for its banks. This would require stabilization of the banking system as a new fiscal and monetary plan was created as billions would flow out of the state in favor of US banks. Keep in mind with all these considerations that there is little evidence that there will exist the political will to increase the tax base enough to cover the additional costs of sovereignty.
One of the first things to happen would be the loss of federal institutions. Secession would invalidate Texas' ability to be involved in the Social Security program. This would cause a massive cost to Texas to either fund a replacement (huge tax increase) or discontinue the program leading to a mass exodus from its people that are forced to rely on Social Security. It would additionally end their ability to receive Medicare benefits or contribute to US based retirement accounts like IRAs and 401(k)s. This would cause another mass exodus of refugees returning to the US. Let us also not forget that secession would also dis-enroll colleges in Texas from membership in the NCAA in all sports. I would imagine the fans of sports like these will soon get tired of watching Baylor, UT, Tech, and A&M play each other over and over again. Colleges period would suffer as many would chose not to go to schools in Texas or work there once they get degrees in favor of a more open career in America. Many of the people that would leave Texas would be its best and brightest.
At the same time as the exodus of federal institutions would occur a massive exodus of business from Texas. One of the first that comes to mind is the use of Texas as a hub for airlines like Southwest. Dallas and Houston are large hubs for flights. They would instantly pull out of using these as hubs putting many thousands out of work. Airlines would no longer use a foreign country as its domestic hub, particularly considering the extremely restrictive nature of international flight routes by the FAA. Because of the inability to gain FDIC protection, large banks in Texas would move their primary operations to the US to be able to maintain their American consumer base. There are similar effects that could be considered for many businesses as the economic effect of the billions that flows through Texas would dry up as its costs would inevitably increase and their former customers would prefer to "Buy American." These actions would lead to a massive increase in unemployment, decrease in population, and runaway increase in crime rates
The most important reason that real Texans should oppose secession is the state's inability to maintain its national security. They would lose everything that belongs to the US military and would have to spend many years trying to reacquire a new military and equipment. It's going to take more than just some rednecks with deer rifles. Plus, it is important to remember that Texas not historically known as a military power. This is a state that during its national sovereignty lost a war to Mexico. Let me say that again, Texas lost a war to Mexico. It is an instance that solidly proves that it didn't consider itself a true independent nation. Texas loved to tout itself as a nation until Santa Anna showed up and started kicking the shit out of Texas. It was then that they instantly came crying back to America, an actual country, to come save them from the Mexicans. The list of countries that have lost wars to Mexico is a short one, but there is Texas' name shining brightly at the top.
In total, the quality of life for Texans would suffer severely in the case of secession. It would devastate the entire country and become the worst thing that ever happened to it. And, in that instance where it occurred I think it would only be prudent for the US to keep a database of everyone that advocated Texas secession and disallow any of them to ever enter the US.
Conclusion
All those that are true citizens of both Texas and the USA should be calling for the resignation or impeachment of Gov. Perry. It is one thing when some crazy radicals like Todd Palin (Sarah Palin's husband and Alaska secessionist) advocate secession. But it is another when the supposed political mainstream of a state espouses that position. It is obvious that in one way this is meant only to appease the radical political demagogues. But it is important to outline that he is cowing to these radicals at the risk of destroying the entire state.
There is no evidence that this will actually happen in the foreseeable future. But arguments from nuts like these have to be chronicled and refuted when, like Texas secession, there are so many radicals that they cannon be simply ignored. Even if their stated goals are not meant, we have learned what lengths political radicals have gone (especially anti-US government activists that advocate secession like Timothy McVeigh) in pursuit of these goals. Political radicals have the real ability to hurt national unity and harm real Americans. I do not in any way advocate abridging their right to free speech; but inherent in that same freedom is my ability to point out how stupid and poorly thought out their arguments really are.
Freedom of speech additionally dozen not mean that you cannot be held accountable for your positions. And in cases like Governor Rick Perry and other Texas secessionists, I think we should move on from this Conservative anti-American rhetoric and try to create a little unity to solve those problems that threaten to divide us. The answer to a call for national unity is to make your country better, not cut and run with your head between your legs.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sorry Vietnam, You Should Have Made a Deal with Wal-Mart
The Vietnam War is likely one of the most horriffic events in modern history. The battle waged on for almost 3 decades in different forms, millions of lives and acres were destroyed, and the evidence that led to American involvement is hazy and best. Yet even today we are told that stopping the spread of Communism was the reason for the Vietnam War. Yet everytime I drop by Wal-Mart and see the airplane hanger's worth of cheap shit I can buy from Communist China I have to stop and think: was that really what it was about?
The Vietnam conflict raged on in some form or another from 1948-1975. It was mostly small levels of violence for the first 15 years, eventually heating up with American full involvement in the early 60s. When the war was completely over the body count was staggering. Over 59,000 American soldiers were killed; many thousands of South Vietnamese and other ally soldiers dead as well. The count for dead civilians in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos totaled nearly 5.25 million. In 1975 this was accepted by many as the price tag for preventing the spread of Communism.
What About China?
China is a communist county. This is not in question. Not only is it a Communist county, it is well known internationally for its authoritarian stance on freedoms and the rights of its citizenry. This is a classic example of the exactly the type of Communism that was the subject of the Vietnam War. But we hardly treat China in the same manner.
We have very large amounts of trading with China, as do a number of other major western democracies. Several American corporations serve as powerful distribution systems for Chinese goods. Most well known amongst these is Wal-Mart, but several other major retailers like Target, Best Buy, and Toys'R'Us also have massive quantities of Chinese goods. Plus, there is even talk about opening trading with the Chinese and their emerging auto industry.
The Difference in Times
With that in mind, what does it feel like to be a survivor of the Vietnam Conflict (on either side, military and non) in an age when another country with the same governing dynamics as you becomes a major world economic player? What is it like to have a friend or family member who died for the exact same conditions that allow companies like Wal-Mart to operate now? How do you tell someone that lost a husband, a son, or a father, that being able to pay $35 for a pair of shoes that would otherwise cost $40 invalidated the reason that their loved one gave their life? Would a trading deal with a big box retailer have saved the entire need for the war? Could a store like Wal-Mart have been like Oscar Schindler and saved over 5 million lives?
Both of these countries were Communist yet the reaction by the US could not have been more different. The American reaction to Vietnam becomeing Communist was something akin to "let's kill them"; the reaction to the same situation in China was more along the lines of "finally, some cheaper sunglasses."
What if we play out the scenerio of this idea not changing? Let's say that we were to react to the spread of Communism in China in the same way that we did with Vietnam. Given its size and population, it likely could have required us killing roughly 125-150 million Chinese to preserve democracy. Sure, it seems evil to think about in abstract terms. But surely it was more evil to actually kill the 5+ million that we actually did kill in the Vietnam war.
Are we really a country that won't maintain that same level of political convicion because there are significant economic ties? If this is true, and all evidence points this way, then those principles that led us into the Vietnam conflict were illegitimate. They were not true convictions, they were political and personal agendas that led to the death of millions. They were the pet projects of monsters.
When he returned from the war and began to coordinate other veterans that were agains the Vietnam conflict, John Kerry asked the question, "How do you ask a man to be the last person to die for a mistake?" But how do you ask a man to be the first one to die for a sale? Our culture's selfishness means we have to look every dead soldier, civilian, and child in the eyes and tell them, "Sorry, you should have made a deal with Wal-Mart."
The Vietnam conflict raged on in some form or another from 1948-1975. It was mostly small levels of violence for the first 15 years, eventually heating up with American full involvement in the early 60s. When the war was completely over the body count was staggering. Over 59,000 American soldiers were killed; many thousands of South Vietnamese and other ally soldiers dead as well. The count for dead civilians in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos totaled nearly 5.25 million. In 1975 this was accepted by many as the price tag for preventing the spread of Communism.
What About China?
China is a communist county. This is not in question. Not only is it a Communist county, it is well known internationally for its authoritarian stance on freedoms and the rights of its citizenry. This is a classic example of the exactly the type of Communism that was the subject of the Vietnam War. But we hardly treat China in the same manner.
We have very large amounts of trading with China, as do a number of other major western democracies. Several American corporations serve as powerful distribution systems for Chinese goods. Most well known amongst these is Wal-Mart, but several other major retailers like Target, Best Buy, and Toys'R'Us also have massive quantities of Chinese goods. Plus, there is even talk about opening trading with the Chinese and their emerging auto industry.
The Difference in Times
With that in mind, what does it feel like to be a survivor of the Vietnam Conflict (on either side, military and non) in an age when another country with the same governing dynamics as you becomes a major world economic player? What is it like to have a friend or family member who died for the exact same conditions that allow companies like Wal-Mart to operate now? How do you tell someone that lost a husband, a son, or a father, that being able to pay $35 for a pair of shoes that would otherwise cost $40 invalidated the reason that their loved one gave their life? Would a trading deal with a big box retailer have saved the entire need for the war? Could a store like Wal-Mart have been like Oscar Schindler and saved over 5 million lives?
Both of these countries were Communist yet the reaction by the US could not have been more different. The American reaction to Vietnam becomeing Communist was something akin to "let's kill them"; the reaction to the same situation in China was more along the lines of "finally, some cheaper sunglasses."
What if we play out the scenerio of this idea not changing? Let's say that we were to react to the spread of Communism in China in the same way that we did with Vietnam. Given its size and population, it likely could have required us killing roughly 125-150 million Chinese to preserve democracy. Sure, it seems evil to think about in abstract terms. But surely it was more evil to actually kill the 5+ million that we actually did kill in the Vietnam war.
Are we really a country that won't maintain that same level of political convicion because there are significant economic ties? If this is true, and all evidence points this way, then those principles that led us into the Vietnam conflict were illegitimate. They were not true convictions, they were political and personal agendas that led to the death of millions. They were the pet projects of monsters.
When he returned from the war and began to coordinate other veterans that were agains the Vietnam conflict, John Kerry asked the question, "How do you ask a man to be the last person to die for a mistake?" But how do you ask a man to be the first one to die for a sale? Our culture's selfishness means we have to look every dead soldier, civilian, and child in the eyes and tell them, "Sorry, you should have made a deal with Wal-Mart."
Friday, April 24, 2009
Stop Invoking Hitler: It’s Annoying, Disrespectful, and Dangerous
If you are a fan of cable news like I am, it seems like you can barely turn around without hearing someone in some political position being compared to Hitler or their followers and policies compared to that of the Nazis. This is not exclusively a tool of one particular political side, I have seen it employed from both sides many times over. I don’t wish to address this issue from a political perspective, I want to look this specifically from its role as a political analogy and its inherent allegorical significance.
Nuremberg: Not What You Think
One of the principle fallacies I want to address is references to the trials of Nuremberg. This is often the context that the phrase “just following orders” is used to allude to Hitler’s officers attempting to absolve themselves of responsibility for aspects of the Holocaust. This is not true; the Nuremberg trials were not regarding the Holocaust. In fact, in history no one was every put on trial for genocide until the Tutsi regime in Rwanda for acts in the early 1990s (this was the subject of the Don Cheadle film Hotel Rwanda).
Nazi officers were put on trial for “waging and carrying out an aggressive war.” The Nuremberg trials were for war crimes, and additionally for starting and escalating the war itself. Yet, this does not stop people now from comparing any authoritarian policy to Hitler and any scandal to the necessity of Nuremberg type trials.
Not Everything is Hitler, Almost Nothing Is
When so many movements, decisions, and power changes are compared to Hitler, it serves only to incarnate Hitler as evil in an elementary way—where we have little opportunity to actually learn the historical lessons contained in Germany’s Third Reich. Embodying Hitler as pure evil discounts the fact that he thought he was doing right and there is a lot to learn from a situation like that. Making sure a power hungry regime isn’t able to amass the type of power and political will that led Germany into Hitler’s hands is more than just a matter of mindlessly repeating the phrase “Never Again.”
Additionally, referring to all you dislike as Hitler discounts the legitimacy of your argument. Arguments where people, policies, and politics are automatically compared to Hitler are not taken seriously. It is not seen as an authentic disagreement with the substance of your opponent’s arguments; rather it is seen as a desperate attempt to shock the spectators of the conflict and shadow the lack of actual evidence.
Many times the tools of governance of Hitler are referred to in this way as though they are inherently evil rather than just being historically used to facilitate an evil end in one historical example. This encompasses things like Hitler’s push for affordable transportation (VW Beetle) and his fiery oratorical style. When things like this are constantly being compared to Hitler, it makes them less effective and makes the person making the argument look ignorant and incapable of intelligent discourse.
There are a host of lessons that need to be learned from a host of political and historical situation. Even confining arguments to regimes that had remarkable acts of atrocities there are many other equally important events to learn from. Joseph Stalin killed nearly 20 million in the Soviet Union during the same time as the German genocide was being conducted; and he was an ally of the US during the majority of that time. Pol Pot killed several million in southeast Asia; he was held to live out the rest of his life under house arrest and is largely forgotten by modern culture. Additionally, there was the death of approximately 5.25 million civilians during the American war in Vietnam. There are a lot of lessons that need to be remembered from many aspects of this, and unfortunately many of them have left consciousness.
Those that do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. This is a phrase I am sure you have all heard hundreds of times. And yet we have created a demagogue out of this one small slice of world history and its overemployment may be what it takes to make us forget those other atrocious mistakes of the past that we may be doomed to watch repeated.
Nuremberg: Not What You Think
One of the principle fallacies I want to address is references to the trials of Nuremberg. This is often the context that the phrase “just following orders” is used to allude to Hitler’s officers attempting to absolve themselves of responsibility for aspects of the Holocaust. This is not true; the Nuremberg trials were not regarding the Holocaust. In fact, in history no one was every put on trial for genocide until the Tutsi regime in Rwanda for acts in the early 1990s (this was the subject of the Don Cheadle film Hotel Rwanda).
Nazi officers were put on trial for “waging and carrying out an aggressive war.” The Nuremberg trials were for war crimes, and additionally for starting and escalating the war itself. Yet, this does not stop people now from comparing any authoritarian policy to Hitler and any scandal to the necessity of Nuremberg type trials.
Not Everything is Hitler, Almost Nothing Is
When so many movements, decisions, and power changes are compared to Hitler, it serves only to incarnate Hitler as evil in an elementary way—where we have little opportunity to actually learn the historical lessons contained in Germany’s Third Reich. Embodying Hitler as pure evil discounts the fact that he thought he was doing right and there is a lot to learn from a situation like that. Making sure a power hungry regime isn’t able to amass the type of power and political will that led Germany into Hitler’s hands is more than just a matter of mindlessly repeating the phrase “Never Again.”
Additionally, referring to all you dislike as Hitler discounts the legitimacy of your argument. Arguments where people, policies, and politics are automatically compared to Hitler are not taken seriously. It is not seen as an authentic disagreement with the substance of your opponent’s arguments; rather it is seen as a desperate attempt to shock the spectators of the conflict and shadow the lack of actual evidence.
Many times the tools of governance of Hitler are referred to in this way as though they are inherently evil rather than just being historically used to facilitate an evil end in one historical example. This encompasses things like Hitler’s push for affordable transportation (VW Beetle) and his fiery oratorical style. When things like this are constantly being compared to Hitler, it makes them less effective and makes the person making the argument look ignorant and incapable of intelligent discourse.
There are a host of lessons that need to be learned from a host of political and historical situation. Even confining arguments to regimes that had remarkable acts of atrocities there are many other equally important events to learn from. Joseph Stalin killed nearly 20 million in the Soviet Union during the same time as the German genocide was being conducted; and he was an ally of the US during the majority of that time. Pol Pot killed several million in southeast Asia; he was held to live out the rest of his life under house arrest and is largely forgotten by modern culture. Additionally, there was the death of approximately 5.25 million civilians during the American war in Vietnam. There are a lot of lessons that need to be remembered from many aspects of this, and unfortunately many of them have left consciousness.
Those that do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. This is a phrase I am sure you have all heard hundreds of times. And yet we have created a demagogue out of this one small slice of world history and its overemployment may be what it takes to make us forget those other atrocious mistakes of the past that we may be doomed to watch repeated.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Obama is a Fascist, Just Please Don’t Look Up the Definition
Over the course of the last couple days there has been a concerted effort on the part of the infamous Republican attack machine to do some rebranding. Obama is no longer a socialist; now (amazingly without actually changing any intended policies) he is a die hard Fascist.
The Rebranding of Socialism
Unfortunately for the neo-conservative Republican base, the forced perception of Obama and his policies as “Socialism” have not had the intended effect. They failed to change the election and have subsequently failed to rally the American people against Obama’s policies. It would seem that the Republicans believe that the trouble is that the characterization of socialism just isn’t harsh enough and needs to be replaced with a new term.
The public has seen what true socialism is like. There are blends of socialism all over the world in “radical, failed countries” like Canada, England, Germany, France, Australia, Spain, Brazil, and even already in the US. It is true that we have seen massive failure in the overly authoritarian Communism, but conversely the world has experienced some of the highest levels of economic growth and social justice with a blended form of socialism and capitalism. The fallacy of attempting to incite hatred in Obama’s policies by referring to them as socialism is starting to be more than just glaring; it’s necessitated a shift to using the term “Fascism.”
In marketing this is referred to as rebranding. And, just like the Sham-Wow and every other piece of bullshit out there, Conservative economics is going to need a lot of marketing.
Political Rebranding Disproves any Notion of Authenticity
What should be most discouraging to conservatives is the fact that this sudden attempt at rebranding solidifies the evidence that this is not an authentic characterization of Obama’s politics, it is only a political stunt employed as a last ditch effort to maintain political significance. There is a huge difference between Fascism and Socialism, and in many ways they are on opposite ends of the governance/economic scale. This nearly diametric shift comes at a time when Obama’s actual politics and economics have not changed. So if the same policies were Socialism a few weeks ago but Fascism now, how can there be clearer evidence that there is no sincerity to this characterization?
The conservatives can only vainly hope that in calling Obama a Fascist that no one on their side actually looks up what the definition of Fascist actually is. My republican friends, you are being duped; there is a man behind the curtain.
The Inconvenient Facets of Fascism
It is certainly likely that by characterizing Obama’s policies as Fascist is meant to be a replacement for expressing that they believe the administration is overly authoritarian. But words like this fall flat on Fox News, you need a passionate rally cry like Fascist. Despite their substitution of the term Fascist for authoritarian, it is not even the accurate derivative of authoritarianism to use based on their logic. Communism, Monarchy, and Totalitarianism are also characterized primarily by authoritarian rule; but they just don’t have the ring that Fascism does. Who cares if it’s true? The Conservatives sure don’t. They seem to be confusing tyranny with losing.
One of the main aspects of Fascism prove this label as pure politics and no substance: class. Fascism invalidates the idea of class and hopes that resultantly it eliminates classism. This is in no way similar to either Capitalism (which creates classes and their distinctness) or Communism (which exploits classes already in place to reorganize power). It seems like it would be impossible to argue that Obama was trying to start elements of class warfare while simultaneously arguing that he was plotting to remove class distinctions. Impossible only if you are an independent person that thinks for yourself; a demographic that Republicans just can’t clinch.
Obviously when Obama’s policies are radically overblown and cherrypicked there is a better argument for Socialism or Communism than Fascism. Take for example his response to Samuel Wurzlebacher, (not) Joe the (not) Plumber, that he wanted to spread the wealth around. This statement was repeated ad nauseam to convince people that Obama was a Socialist. Except, if you watch the whole video, Obama is speaking toward not punishing people trying to begin small businesses that have not yet made 250K a year, which is actually a pro-business capitalist stance. Obama’s “spread the wealth around” was referring to opportunity to engage in capitalism as the “wealth” of our economy, not literally taking money and giving it to others. Any semi-intelligent person that actually watches the video can see that is what he is telling “Joe”, but I think we already know who that rules out.
Which One is the Fascist Again?
The major distinction of Fascism was its view of the government and its people in a form or corporate identity and governs according to the good of the corporate people. The government in many ways sees its people as elements of a corporation and governs accordingly. This was a particularly favorite government type to dislike by Scientology creator L. Ron Hubbard who often organized the governments of the enemy alien races of his science-fiction books in this manner.
Battlefield Earth aside, am I the only one that sees some part of our history in the corporatism that distinguishes Fascism? Operating the elements of the government according to the good of the corporate identity under vast authoritarianism sounds familiar for some reason. Just to make it easier to think about, let’s give the corporations names and see if that jogs the memory. Let’s call the government sponsored corporate identities Halliburton, Enron, KBR, Lockheed, Blackwater, and Diebold. Wow, that really does make it a lot clearer. I think the protesters of Fascism missed their mark by only one administration. If only this was February 2003, the people screaming about fascism would have actually had some legitimate ground to operate on.
Those that call Obama a fascist are in danger of their followers pausing their racially/politically motivated hatred just long enough to wiki the term Fascism and see what it actually means. And if that happens, they will slowly find that they have been protesting the tenets of their own side’s previous administration. When the streets are full of people crying “Fascism!”, it is the face of George W. Bush they are incanting, not Barack Obama. Is it possible to hate an opposing opinion so much you are willing to hate your own beliefs if the talking heads can convince you they are the beliefs of your opponents?
Stay with Fox News, we’ll keep you advised.
The Rebranding of Socialism
Unfortunately for the neo-conservative Republican base, the forced perception of Obama and his policies as “Socialism” have not had the intended effect. They failed to change the election and have subsequently failed to rally the American people against Obama’s policies. It would seem that the Republicans believe that the trouble is that the characterization of socialism just isn’t harsh enough and needs to be replaced with a new term.
The public has seen what true socialism is like. There are blends of socialism all over the world in “radical, failed countries” like Canada, England, Germany, France, Australia, Spain, Brazil, and even already in the US. It is true that we have seen massive failure in the overly authoritarian Communism, but conversely the world has experienced some of the highest levels of economic growth and social justice with a blended form of socialism and capitalism. The fallacy of attempting to incite hatred in Obama’s policies by referring to them as socialism is starting to be more than just glaring; it’s necessitated a shift to using the term “Fascism.”
In marketing this is referred to as rebranding. And, just like the Sham-Wow and every other piece of bullshit out there, Conservative economics is going to need a lot of marketing.
Political Rebranding Disproves any Notion of Authenticity
What should be most discouraging to conservatives is the fact that this sudden attempt at rebranding solidifies the evidence that this is not an authentic characterization of Obama’s politics, it is only a political stunt employed as a last ditch effort to maintain political significance. There is a huge difference between Fascism and Socialism, and in many ways they are on opposite ends of the governance/economic scale. This nearly diametric shift comes at a time when Obama’s actual politics and economics have not changed. So if the same policies were Socialism a few weeks ago but Fascism now, how can there be clearer evidence that there is no sincerity to this characterization?
The conservatives can only vainly hope that in calling Obama a Fascist that no one on their side actually looks up what the definition of Fascist actually is. My republican friends, you are being duped; there is a man behind the curtain.
The Inconvenient Facets of Fascism
It is certainly likely that by characterizing Obama’s policies as Fascist is meant to be a replacement for expressing that they believe the administration is overly authoritarian. But words like this fall flat on Fox News, you need a passionate rally cry like Fascist. Despite their substitution of the term Fascist for authoritarian, it is not even the accurate derivative of authoritarianism to use based on their logic. Communism, Monarchy, and Totalitarianism are also characterized primarily by authoritarian rule; but they just don’t have the ring that Fascism does. Who cares if it’s true? The Conservatives sure don’t. They seem to be confusing tyranny with losing.
One of the main aspects of Fascism prove this label as pure politics and no substance: class. Fascism invalidates the idea of class and hopes that resultantly it eliminates classism. This is in no way similar to either Capitalism (which creates classes and their distinctness) or Communism (which exploits classes already in place to reorganize power). It seems like it would be impossible to argue that Obama was trying to start elements of class warfare while simultaneously arguing that he was plotting to remove class distinctions. Impossible only if you are an independent person that thinks for yourself; a demographic that Republicans just can’t clinch.
Obviously when Obama’s policies are radically overblown and cherrypicked there is a better argument for Socialism or Communism than Fascism. Take for example his response to Samuel Wurzlebacher, (not) Joe the (not) Plumber, that he wanted to spread the wealth around. This statement was repeated ad nauseam to convince people that Obama was a Socialist. Except, if you watch the whole video, Obama is speaking toward not punishing people trying to begin small businesses that have not yet made 250K a year, which is actually a pro-business capitalist stance. Obama’s “spread the wealth around” was referring to opportunity to engage in capitalism as the “wealth” of our economy, not literally taking money and giving it to others. Any semi-intelligent person that actually watches the video can see that is what he is telling “Joe”, but I think we already know who that rules out.
Which One is the Fascist Again?
The major distinction of Fascism was its view of the government and its people in a form or corporate identity and governs according to the good of the corporate people. The government in many ways sees its people as elements of a corporation and governs accordingly. This was a particularly favorite government type to dislike by Scientology creator L. Ron Hubbard who often organized the governments of the enemy alien races of his science-fiction books in this manner.
Battlefield Earth aside, am I the only one that sees some part of our history in the corporatism that distinguishes Fascism? Operating the elements of the government according to the good of the corporate identity under vast authoritarianism sounds familiar for some reason. Just to make it easier to think about, let’s give the corporations names and see if that jogs the memory. Let’s call the government sponsored corporate identities Halliburton, Enron, KBR, Lockheed, Blackwater, and Diebold. Wow, that really does make it a lot clearer. I think the protesters of Fascism missed their mark by only one administration. If only this was February 2003, the people screaming about fascism would have actually had some legitimate ground to operate on.
Those that call Obama a fascist are in danger of their followers pausing their racially/politically motivated hatred just long enough to wiki the term Fascism and see what it actually means. And if that happens, they will slowly find that they have been protesting the tenets of their own side’s previous administration. When the streets are full of people crying “Fascism!”, it is the face of George W. Bush they are incanting, not Barack Obama. Is it possible to hate an opposing opinion so much you are willing to hate your own beliefs if the talking heads can convince you they are the beliefs of your opponents?
Stay with Fox News, we’ll keep you advised.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Republican Teabagging Parties
Tomorrow is April 15th, for those of us that are lazy it’s the one last day you can get your taxes in on time. But for a number of conservative Americans it’s an opportunity to take to the streets to do some Teabagging. No, this is not the Rainbow Parade in San Francisco (although I bet there is some serious ‘bagging going on then too); this is the national day of protest of the US Tax Code in the guise of what the protesters think is similar to the Boston Tea Party. Anyone that has watched a non-Fox News program in the last week knows, there is a national joke going on regarding those that consider themselves “Teabaggers” and plan to recreate the Boston Tea Party to protest what they see as “taxation without representation.” I will make this post mostly about jokes, but before that there are just a couple of serious points I would like to add to the conversation.
Serious Points
The original Boston Tea Party was only partially regarding unfair taxation. The phrase “No Taxation without Representation” was equally about the right to self-govern as it was to retain tax revenue for the good of the colonies. It’s true that the tea bought by the colonies was subject to a heavy tax that was then remitted back to the English government. But there was one more straw with the shipment that was destroyed during the Boston Tea Party: the colonists never even bought that tea. This shipment was originally slated for England. When the English did not need or want it, the King told the company to ship it to the colonists and force them to pay for it. This lack of self governance coupled with the heavy tax is what ultimately proved too much and by itself led to the Boston Tea Party, and in the aggregate with other taxes and governing policies led to the American Revolution.
This is not to say that the American Colonies had a voice in Parliament that due to a recent election had rendered them in the slight minority and this caused the colonists to revolt on the tax system that they had imposed on themselves. No, that is what is happening today. The absence of representation analogized to the impeding American breakaway from England bears no real resemblance to a national political shift that favors progressive politics and renders radical conservatism into the minority. There is in this situation not a lack of representation. Those that consider themselves conservative have a large minority stake in the Congress (over 40%), the states, and the national court systems.
Aside from the rampant tantrums of the radical right, there is something else that needs to be pointed out: there have been no changes to the tax code under the new administration. Conceivably if the protest is in regards to taxation (and the fake Boston Tea Party demagoguery seems to indicate that it is), then the conservatives are protesting the tax code of the Republican Congress and the previous Republican Presidency.
Some are making the argument that they are protesting the future tax increases that may come as a result of economically responding to the national and international recession. This means that they are protesting a tax code that is 10% lower (even for those super rich all those $30-50K republicans want to make damn sure they protect) than it was under Reagan. Man, if only Reagan were still alive, they would definitely want to get him in on some hot Teabagging action. With that, I think its time to depart serious discourse and do some joking.
Joking Around
With all serious analysis done, can I ask one question? Will someone please tell the Republicans what the term “Teabagging” means? I am as big a fan as the rest of you when it comes to just making the Republicans into a national joke for yet another reason. But I think now that the protest is less than 24 hours away, we should slap them in the face with the truth, let them wake up to a sweaty sack of revelation on their forehead. The crowds can even keep their rally cries that they are going to “lick the problem” and “can no longer keep their lips sealed.”
Fox News, please also continue to cover this as strongly as you have. One of the Teabagging leadership works for Fox: Neil Cavuto. He stated on his program that Fox was, “going to be right in the middle of the Teabaggers.” I presume this means they hired Jeff Gannon back. I hope Neil does get right in the middle of the Teabagging and I hope he also brings Sean Hannity and Brit Hume (who kind of looks like a ball bag on his own). Plus, I have to mention that one of the other leaders of this protest is Dick Armey. This joke just writes itself; because if you are going to have a national day of Teabagging, you definitely are going to need to have a Dick Arm[e]y there.
With this in mind, I don’t wish for the entirety of this to be criticism. I would like to make some suggestions of well known conservative figures that I would like to see involved in this effort and could really bring some good ideas to the mouth of the Teabaggers.
Serious Points
The original Boston Tea Party was only partially regarding unfair taxation. The phrase “No Taxation without Representation” was equally about the right to self-govern as it was to retain tax revenue for the good of the colonies. It’s true that the tea bought by the colonies was subject to a heavy tax that was then remitted back to the English government. But there was one more straw with the shipment that was destroyed during the Boston Tea Party: the colonists never even bought that tea. This shipment was originally slated for England. When the English did not need or want it, the King told the company to ship it to the colonists and force them to pay for it. This lack of self governance coupled with the heavy tax is what ultimately proved too much and by itself led to the Boston Tea Party, and in the aggregate with other taxes and governing policies led to the American Revolution.
This is not to say that the American Colonies had a voice in Parliament that due to a recent election had rendered them in the slight minority and this caused the colonists to revolt on the tax system that they had imposed on themselves. No, that is what is happening today. The absence of representation analogized to the impeding American breakaway from England bears no real resemblance to a national political shift that favors progressive politics and renders radical conservatism into the minority. There is in this situation not a lack of representation. Those that consider themselves conservative have a large minority stake in the Congress (over 40%), the states, and the national court systems.
Aside from the rampant tantrums of the radical right, there is something else that needs to be pointed out: there have been no changes to the tax code under the new administration. Conceivably if the protest is in regards to taxation (and the fake Boston Tea Party demagoguery seems to indicate that it is), then the conservatives are protesting the tax code of the Republican Congress and the previous Republican Presidency.
Some are making the argument that they are protesting the future tax increases that may come as a result of economically responding to the national and international recession. This means that they are protesting a tax code that is 10% lower (even for those super rich all those $30-50K republicans want to make damn sure they protect) than it was under Reagan. Man, if only Reagan were still alive, they would definitely want to get him in on some hot Teabagging action. With that, I think its time to depart serious discourse and do some joking.
Joking Around
With all serious analysis done, can I ask one question? Will someone please tell the Republicans what the term “Teabagging” means? I am as big a fan as the rest of you when it comes to just making the Republicans into a national joke for yet another reason. But I think now that the protest is less than 24 hours away, we should slap them in the face with the truth, let them wake up to a sweaty sack of revelation on their forehead. The crowds can even keep their rally cries that they are going to “lick the problem” and “can no longer keep their lips sealed.”
Fox News, please also continue to cover this as strongly as you have. One of the Teabagging leadership works for Fox: Neil Cavuto. He stated on his program that Fox was, “going to be right in the middle of the Teabaggers.” I presume this means they hired Jeff Gannon back. I hope Neil does get right in the middle of the Teabagging and I hope he also brings Sean Hannity and Brit Hume (who kind of looks like a ball bag on his own). Plus, I have to mention that one of the other leaders of this protest is Dick Armey. This joke just writes itself; because if you are going to have a national day of Teabagging, you definitely are going to need to have a Dick Arm[e]y there.
With this in mind, I don’t wish for the entirety of this to be criticism. I would like to make some suggestions of well known conservative figures that I would like to see involved in this effort and could really bring some good ideas to the mouth of the Teabaggers.
- Larry Craig – the obvious first pick to solicit new Teabaggers, his wide stance will set the standard of clean Teabagging that the rest of the crown can look up to.
- Mark Foley – this former Representative can really make the youth Teabaggers come, they are the voice of tomorrow and Foley can fill that voice with the muffled sound of Teabagging determination.
- Ted Haggard – they are going to need someone to do the invocation. Once that is done, Teddy can rally the Teabaggers against drugs and gay prostitutes—kill two birds with one ball.
- Sarah Palin – like her run for VP, there is essentially no evidence that the Barracuda has any real Teabagging experience (I’m not doing any Teabagging anywhere in the vicinity of any woman with the nickname “Barracuda”). But I think in a time of political need her “you betcha” attitude will make up for that lack of experience. Plus, she’s from Alaska, there could be some Ice Teabagging parties she could lead.
- Sam Wurzelbacher - this Republican star who performs under the name Joe the Plumber is my pick for the wild card in this campaign. His political finesse is shaky, but his made up blue collar background as the political “Larry the Cable Guy” is right on target. After all, if you’re going to do some Teabagging, eventually you need a guy there that knows how to lay some pipe.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Let's Kick the Shit Out of Jesus
I know this is a bit out of time for a movie that came out several years ago, but like the "Left Behind" series of books it is impossible to gloss over the vast importance that Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ contributed to the way that fundamentalist christians see their relationship to Jesus. In reality, this movie is a cheap torture porn horror movie that is meant to artificially create a reason to show a massive amount of blood and gore, then convince you that the inevitable feeling of uneasiness in your stomach is a religious experience. The Passion is not a religious movie, it is a high budget propaganda film that should have been more aptly called, Let's Kick the Shit Out of Jesus for a Couple Hours.
When I first saw the movie, it produced two specific lines of thought in my head. The first was that this was just a bloody spectacle for the purpose of shocking people and making money. The second was that I was secretly was pining to see Mel Gibson make other favorite religious stories into meaninlessly graffic cinematic adventures. I am particularly looking forward to his remake of Sodom & Gomorrah. I think his Mad-Max flair can make an amazing scene where Lot's daughters rape him, that will look great with a few dozen pints of stage blood and an IMAX lens.
As I have said, the complete idea of the movie was to gross people out. The zietgeist of the nation would convince the masses that this normal negative reaction to seeing so much blood and a graphic portrayal of what would have been a relatively routine state execution should be interpreted as a movement of faith. It is not. If you see the movie and think you are having a religious experience by getting to know the story of Christ better, then you have been fooled into their trap. This is a cheap version of Saw or Hostel, only with a 2000 year old half-cocked plot meant to make money.
While we are discussing this abomination of a movie, there are a couple other obvious errors I would like to briefly discuss. Since the point of the movie was to be as "authentic" as possible to the time and story, these errors are particualrly disconcerting.
First, the Roman soldiers in the moive, including the Prefect Pilate, were speaking Latin--this did not happen until many decades later. The Romans at this time spoke Greek. Considering all the work this movie went through to portray the Judeans as speaking Aramaic, it is unusual that they made this large of an error.
Second, one of the main style aspects of the movie was the brutal beating of Jesus. While the lashes would have been horrible (and are enumerated at 39 likely in accordance with the Bible's numerology such that 40 would have killed him; not a literal 39), there is no reason to beleive that the soldiers would have beat him the way that they did. Remember, there were 3 people being executed that day, and if you remember the movie, the other 2 arrive at Golgatha mostly untouched. Keep in mind that the soldiers moivng him from the court to the execution site are never told that this prisoner is to be beaten more, nor do they even speak his language and know who he is. This element as well was invented to make the movie more interesting.
Usually reviews like this are meant to carry the implication that one should not see the movie being reveiwed; this is not the case for this particular film. For those interested in these types of social interactions with people of extreme faith, it is good to know where they are coming from and in what frame of mind they make their key decisions. Just don't fall into the trap of thinking anything like this ever actually happened.
P.S. - The "tear from God" thing was really corny and I laughed aloud in the theatre; that didn't go over well. Just a warning.
Friday, February 13, 2009
God's Disregarded Children: Black People Should Not Be Christians
Black people should not be Christians.
Although I primarily want to make my argument for this position from the standpoint of the interest of American Blacks, I first need to qualify this statement. In no way do I think that anyone should not be allowed to be Christian, even black people. Nor do I think the status of being black means your are not a "real" Christian. I simply argue that it is both not in the best interest of an American black person to be Christian, nor do I think the dogmatic belief structure of Christianity is conducive to the possibility of a positive identity for a black person.
Let me explain my dogmatic position before my historical one; only because the historical one is funnier. Dogmatically, Christianity is completely okay with slavery—an institution somewhat unique to blacks and American Indians in this particular country. Additionally, this is not one of those obscure customs of the Old Testament that many "Christians" like to pretend don't exist. Christ himself supports a slavery system in multiple teachings. Surely an American black person would be okay with a history of something that Jesus himself condoned. However, you might not yet be convinced.
Secondarily, I wish to use a similar Christian, albeit mostly evangelical, position that acceptance of Christ into your life and being born-again is the ONLY possible path to salvation. Lets play out a quick scenario. What if the Negro slavery system never existed in North America. The vast majority of black blood lines now living in the USA would still be in Africa instead. The majority of black people now living in America would instead live in Africa and would not know Christianity, therefore foregoing the possibility of salvation. Christians define the eternal life in heaven much more important than the struggles of mortal life. Therefore, American blacks that are Christian would have to be thankful (yes, thankful) that they were enslaved so that they were given the ability to learn about Jesus.
Let me explain my dogmatic position before my historical one; only because the historical one is funnier. Dogmatically, Christianity is completely okay with slavery—an institution somewhat unique to blacks and American Indians in this particular country. Additionally, this is not one of those obscure customs of the Old Testament that many "Christians" like to pretend don't exist. Christ himself supports a slavery system in multiple teachings. Surely an American black person would be okay with a history of something that Jesus himself condoned. However, you might not yet be convinced.
Secondarily, I wish to use a similar Christian, albeit mostly evangelical, position that acceptance of Christ into your life and being born-again is the ONLY possible path to salvation. Lets play out a quick scenario. What if the Negro slavery system never existed in North America. The vast majority of black blood lines now living in the USA would still be in Africa instead. The majority of black people now living in America would instead live in Africa and would not know Christianity, therefore foregoing the possibility of salvation. Christians define the eternal life in heaven much more important than the struggles of mortal life. Therefore, American blacks that are Christian would have to be thankful (yes, thankful) that they were enslaved so that they were given the ability to learn about Jesus.
Please do not think that this is my original opinion. By no means am I the first person to come up with this justification for the enslavement of an entire culture of people based on their race. The Pope himself wrote a letter to Columbus with the exact same theory. Except, he was asking that Columbus enslave as many Indians as possible so that they could be given the opportunity be saved. According to the Pope at the time, it was better for the potential slave to live a live of involuntary servitude and receive the eternal benefits of Christian salvation than to just be left alone to live out their own culture and beleifs.
Is my position that black people should opt to not be Christian stupid, racist, mean, or even ignorant? Not in the least. Religion is for some reason the only thing that seems eternally exempt from criticism and logical thinking. I have been called all of these things but will never consider that it is religion itself that guides these illogical, idiotic doctrines into the minds of its followers. We cannot afford to be a society that believes these silly fairy tales anymore, it will destroy us. We have to be better than that.
Christianity: eternal suffering awaits those that dare to question God's unconditional love.
Is my position that black people should opt to not be Christian stupid, racist, mean, or even ignorant? Not in the least. Religion is for some reason the only thing that seems eternally exempt from criticism and logical thinking. I have been called all of these things but will never consider that it is religion itself that guides these illogical, idiotic doctrines into the minds of its followers. We cannot afford to be a society that believes these silly fairy tales anymore, it will destroy us. We have to be better than that.
Christianity: eternal suffering awaits those that dare to question God's unconditional love.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Return of the Real Fox News
They came back; I was starting to think that they never would. Corruption, crime, and cronyism were so prevalent in the ranks of what was formerly the prevailing party to such an extent that I was sure I would never get my Fox News back. For those of you that know me as a progressive agnostic liberal, you might think that me wanting Fox News is an internal contradiction. Stay with me, you will be glad your Fox News came back as well.
Most of us are barely old enough to remember the real Fox News, if at all. The Fox News we know now is not at all like the real one. You see Fox News was originally meant to be the "blind hatred of Clinton" station. Its only purpose was to perpetuate a Klan level detest of Clinton; coincidentally ironic that he was our "first" black president. Now that there is actually a black president, who is intelligent and progressive, and the most popular in history, look for the fireworks to come loaded with idiocy and hate-commenced code language.
During the last few Clinton years, Fox News was a snarling junk-yard dog whose only ambition was to rally Clinton haters in the type of way that a roaring economy, strong international peace, and record national unity inherent to Clinton's administration could not instill in those God-Guns-&-Gays Supernaturalists. We understood that they had a hard time. After all they did think that trickle-down economics would work. Who would have thought anything else than if we gave all the rich, greedy people all the money they would naturally want to give it back to the rest of us? Why didn't that work?
All of this changed when the Supreme Court and Katherine Harris appointed George W. Bush to occupy commandeered federal land on Pennsylvania Ave. in a black neighborhood near Virginia. Fox News no longer was the snarling hate driven propaganda factory it was created for; overnight it became this disgusting lap-dog; licking Republicans' collective face and eroding journalism in a brand new way.
But with the return of the Democratic party to power, I finally get my Fox News back. Look at the lineup, this was not a channel that was meant to be kind or objective in the least. Sean Hannity is disgusting when he is nice, his calling in life is to spew pointless talking points and then then snoodily point his nose up to the sky and refuse to listen to reason for a second. What the quintessential little right-wing cheerleader he is. He was doubled only by Tony Snow. However Tony completely missed the changeover back to hateful, God Complex level information control when he left to work for the other Fox News (White House Press Office).
My personal favorite of course is Bill O'Reilly. This is the proof of the network's intentions. You don't hire a raving lunatic like Bill O'Reilly unless you are trying to rally political troops that need only rhetorical ravings from a 3 meter tall mendicant. However, the only thing that matters is that they came back.
Don't spoil my Christmas; I'm just happy to have all my old friends back. News is fun again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)