Getting Bogged Down in the Details: Why We Shouldn’t Focus on Obama
November 15, 2010
Regular readers might have noticed that I’ve been particularly harsh towards Obama in the days following the 2010 midterm slaughter. My criticisms might seem unwarranted and counterproductive; after all, it’s a case of the left attacking the left, isn’t it? And even if Obama hasn’t fulfilled the dreams he had inspired in millions of reasonable Americans, surely he is an improvement over George W. Bush, right? So why devote so much time to criticizing one of our own, rather than fighting our true enemy: Republicans and Teabaggers?
In Search of the Real Obama
November 14, 2010
A popular narrative on the left leading up to the 2010 mid-term election was that Obama has in fact accomplished quite a bit during his first two years in office. When confronted with the obvious observation that Obama has failed to fulfill most of the promises he seemed to make during his campaign (seemed because he actually said very little beyond the absurdly vacuous “change” catch-phrase), many liberals respond that Obama means well, but the state of the nation as he inherited it from Bush was so calamitous that he simply needs more time. Furthermore, he has accomplished quite a lot; his administration just hasn’t been very effective at publicizing these achievements.
Enter “What the fuck has Obama done so far?” I’ll admit, when this little gem popped up just before election day, I was momentarily duped by it. ”Why yes,” I exclaimed to myself, “Obama HAS done a lot! Just look how many clicks it takes to cycle through the list!” Upon closer examination, however, it soon became apparent that the list of accomplishments only seems admirable when compared to, say, George W. Bush. Certainly, Obama is an improvement over the bane of humanity that was the Bush administration. But that’s kind of like saying that genital warts are better than herpes – both are pretty horrendous if we’re being completely honest.
Health Care Reform Revisited
November 13, 2010
I know health care reform is so 2009, but it’s an issue that speaks volumes about who we are as a culture. Our current system is brutal and barbaric, and the fact that it is allowed to exist is a testament to the predominance of primitive, animalistic impulses throughout our society. But health care, and people’s opinions about health care, are complicated issues that cannot painted with simple black and white strokes.
First let us examine the reality of our current system. As it stands now, access to medical care is considered a privilege that is based on one’s socioeconomic status. That is, if you are unemployed or poor, you do not deserve to receive quality health care. In contrast, those above a certain level of socioeconomic status have access to health care that is proportionate to their income: the more money someone earns, the better quality health care he/she receives.
What this system implies is that a long, healthy life has a monetary value, and is only available to those with adequate financial means. Sickness and the suffering that accompanies it are the default state of life, and therefore anyone who wishes to overcome them must accumulate a certain level of money to do so. There could hardly be a more obvious example of social Darwinism at work: the strong (i.e., those who prosper in our economic jungle) survive, while the weak perish. This is, quite simply, the law of natural selection applied to human society.
Bob Herbert’s Deceptive Portrayal of our Presidents as Lovable Screw-ups
November 12, 2010
If you haven’t already read Bob Herbert’s latest column, I’d highly recommend it. As a writer for the NY Times it is impossible to fully trust Herbert’s motives, but his columns generally seem to espouse genuine populist values – even if he is a little vague most of the time. His latest column deals – somewhat indirectly – with Obama’s failure to live up to the myriad promises he appeared to make to the left during his campaign. Like many other writers on the left – or, in the case of the NY times, the pseudo-left – Herbert implies that Obama is a decent, liberal-minded human being who is genuinely interested in helping average citizens. However, he is continually thwarted in his attempts to reach his benevolent goals for various reasons; Herbert suggests that Obama has become enamored with “the impossible dream” of victory in both Iraq and Afghanistan, which is preventing him from fulfilling his domestic agenda.
Obama is a Corporate Stooge
November 11, 2010
Much has been made about Obama’s trip to Asia this week, including his three day visit to India. Initially, I wasn’t entirely sure what to make of his visit. After eight years of George W. Bush, it is obviously quite refreshing to have an intelligent and well-spoken leader like Obama represent us in diplomatic missions. But there were reasons to be skeptical about Obama’s motives in making this trip, even if this skepticism failed to manifest itself in anything more than a vague feeling of apprehension.
I commented several days ago on Obama’s lackluster and woefully uninspiring Op-Ed piece in the NY Times. It was clear from the ambiguity of the article itself that there was something more sinister afoot then a simple mission to boost exports. After all, the article failed to mention specifics of any kind, and instead was nothing more than a showcase for Obama’s renowned ability to string together long sentences of eloquent words while saying absolutely nothing.
religious belief is rife with inconsistencies
November 10, 2010
My sister – let’s call her Sarah – was recently elected to her local school board. Her reasons for running were of a fiscal nature; she was concerned that the school was acting in a financially irresponsible manner, so she decided she could have the greatest impact by joining the school board.
Being from a small city, Sarah ran unopposed and had no problem winning the single-candidate election. However, in order to have her name placed on the ballot at all, she was required to collect one hundred signatures from local registered voters, which she accomplished by going door-to-door throughout her neighborhood.
At one house, she was greeted by a rather gruff, middle-aged man who demanded to know her stance on the theory of evolution. Taken aback, she responded that she was running for the school board based solely on financial reasons; her person beliefs in origin of life on earth were irrelevant. The man continued to press her, and when she admitted that she did not believe in evolution, this man abruptly informed her that he would not sign her petition, and closed the door in her face.
Sarah was rather peeved by this incident. She thought this man was rude and inconsiderate, and just as dogmatic as any fundamentalist Christian. She also failed to see how her views on an issue as peripheral as the theory of evolution should influence her eligibility to hold a spot on the school board.
My sister is an intelligent person. She is a college graduate, having earned excellent grades throughout her academic career. She has spent years working in the field of early childhood education, and her knowledge of pedagogy and early childhood psychology is superb. Yet my sister is also a fundamentalist Christian: she believes that God created the world in six days a mere 5,000 years ago, and that someday soon he will return from the sky, trumpets blazing, to simultaneously call his flock to heaven and bring on the seven years of tribulation foretold in the apocalyptic Book of Revelation.
How can we explain such contradictions? How can seemingly intelligent people adhere to such ridiculous belief systems? And how can she, and others like her, fail to see the inherent conflict of interest in running for an elected position which is directly related to the education of our children?
What we find is that such people have, generally speaking, never fully considered the ramifications of their beliefs. My sister embraces the fruits of science in virtually every aspect of her life: the food she eats, the TV she watches, the Internet she enjoys, the car she drives, the medicines she takes. She utilizes these benefits of science without hesitation or reflection, but when a well-established tenet of science appears to contradict a cherished childhood belief, she rejects it.
Such behavior is illogical and unreasonable, and seems to be in complete opposition to the level of education and critical thinking she brings to most aspects of life. But again, what we find is that she has, quite simply, failed to fully consider the implications of her religious beliefs. She, like myself, was raised in a fundamentalist Protestant Christian household. Growing up in such an environment can be a truly traumatic experience, as anyone who has seen “Jesus Camp” can tell you. This primitive, 5,000-year-old myth about the creation of the earth was thoroughly ingrained in her impressionable, childhood mind, and it has stayed there ever since.
Once a child has been indoctrinated in any religious belief system, it is remarkably difficult to break free – particularly in Christianity, which is an especially parasitic religion. For embedded into the most basic tenets of Christianity, and as discussed in great detail by Richard Dawkins and others, are two important characteristics: a belief in the notion of faith as a virtue, and a belief in the existence of hell as an actual physical place.
When a young child is told that he/she must believe a certain set of tenets or face eternal damnation, that child will invariably force him/herself to believe. And when it is further added that unquestioning adherence to these belief,”faith,” is a virtue to be rewarded – and, by extension, that questioning them is a vice to be punished – that child will all the more passionately and blindly throw him/herself behind those beliefs – however absurd they may be.
Once those beliefs are deeply ingrained in the childhood psyche, they are remarkably tenacious. Rooting them out – through a long process of tedious self-reflection which is perhaps never fully complete – can be an experience as traumatic as the initial indoctrination. As a result, we find people like my sister who are both intelligent and highly educated, yet clinging to an antiquated belief system that predates the advent of science by two millennia – give or take a few.
Should a person like Sarah be allowed to serve on the school board? In this particular circumstance I would say yes, because I know her to be a reasonable person who would not actively strive to push her own beliefs onto the school. In general, however, I would argue that public educational institutions have no place for adherents of ancient pre-science superstitions, and their very presence could be detrimental to our continued development as a civilization and as a species. Our society is founded on the ideals of science, and it is dangerous to allow anyone who questions the veracity of science obtain a position which might influence the education of our children.
labels obstruct meaningful debate
November 9, 2010
One of the reasons that political dialogue – and indeed, dialogue of any kind – is so absurdly counterproductive in this country has to do with our obsession with labels. Rather than discussing ideas, we have a tendency to become bogged down with arbitrary labels and titles: liberal, conservative, right wing, left wing, socialist, libertarian, and ad nauseam.
Labels do serve a practical purpose, and they have a place in any discussion. Without labels, it would be hard to discuss abstract notions – such as freedom and creative expression – with any degree of effectiveness. But when our fixation with labels becomes the focal point of our discussion, then we run into problems.
Such is the case in the political arena. Our national dialogue – molded and prodded by the corporate-owned mainstream media – revolves around labels. The big issues lying at the core of these labels are hardly ever mentioned; instead, we hear endless stories about “liberal” candidates” trailing “conservative” candidates, or about the latest opinion poll showing more Americans consider themselves “Republican” than “Democrat.” But the issues themselves are never addressed.
It’s hard to say how this obsession with labels first emerged. What we can say is that it obviously works in the favor of corporations whose goal is to limit meaningful cultural exchange in the hopes of maintaining the status quo – or, as has been the case for the last 30 years, of shifting the political spectrum in the United States further and further to the right. I would argue that being preoccupied with labels is a natural human tendency; we depend heavily on language – which, after all, is nothing but labels – and so it is easy to fall into the trap of focusing a bit too heavily on the words themselves, rather than the ideas they represent. And the corporate-owned media has opportunistically – and cleverly – exploited this innate human tendency.
There are two major problems that arise as a result of this fixation on labels. The first is that people tend to become highly polarized, when the world is seen in such black-and-white terms. If there is only “liberal” and “conservative,” then by default I am one side and you must be on the other. And even though, for example, the terms “Republican” and “Democrat” bear similar meanings (being side by side on the larger political spectrum), Americans associate themselves with one group and then passionately attack the other. People fail to consider the broader picture, and so a meaningful dialogue is never commenced.
The second problem is that not everyone has the same definitions in mind. Some words have different definitions depending on the circle in which they are used. For example, the word “socialism” has been redefined in a large segment of the United States to be synonymous with “fascism.” Traditionally, and in the majority of the world, socialism has a much more positive meaning: namely, something that is owned and/or controlled by the people of a society, rather than an elite few.
So it is not surprising, then, that much of the American public is so hysterically opposed to “socialized medicine”; when they use the term “socialized,” they are in fact referring to a fascistic system controlled not by the people, but by a brutal dictator. (Interestingly enough, our current privately-controlled health care system is , in practice, the very thing they fear: a fascistic system whereby access to health care is administered by a ruthless and uncompromising dictator – i.e., insurance companies. But that’s for another post.) People on the left have the traditional definition of “socialized” in mind, so it is often difficult for us to fathom the rabid fear that is so apparent on the right. There is a fundamental misunderstanding that prevents the very possibility of a meaningful exchange; how can two people discuss something while essentially speaking different languages?
We see evidence of this misunderstanding when conservatives routinely complain about the price-gouging they experience at the hands of ruthless insurance companies, but then fight so fervently against any attempt at reforming the current system. As disappointed as I was in Obama’s health care reform bill, there were a few bright spots which would help ordinary Americans: no denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, and caps on extortionate insurance rates. These two features alone will benefit millions of self-professed conservative Americans, but they are opposed to Obama’s bill solely on the basis of a misunderstanding, grounded in an unhealthy fixation on labels.
Until we are able to move beyond these petty labels to address the underlying issues, political discourse in America will continue to flounder, allowing the corporate elite to drive us further and further to the right.
teabaggers hate America
November 8, 2010
The corporate elite realized ages ago that genuine democracy cannot exist without an educated populace. Business leaders – if such a term can be applied to such ghastly humans – would therefore have reasoned that in order to push their agenda on an uncooperative population, the key would be to control the flow of information. And in our nation, corporations have succeeded fantastically.
Now, I would argue that the majority of Americans do not share the conservative, wacka-wacka world view of your average teabagger. The majority of Americans are fairly reasonable people who hold reasonable issues on a host of issues. For instance, most Americans oppose the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, support abortion rights and support the idea of universal health care.
But the corporate elite have managed to succeed in two key aspects. First, they have brainwashed a significant segment of society – although still a minority - into swallowing a political and social agenda which is decidedly against their own best interests – namely, teabaggers and other rightwing nutters. Second, they have managed to make ordinary, liberal-minded Americans feel completely isolated and alienated. Most people seem to have bought the corporate media’s bogus narrative that “Americans are conservative,” and as a result there is widespread apathy on the Left.
The righties, on the other hand, are convinced not only of the rectitude of their beliefs – regardless of all evidence to the contrary – but also of their divine right to impose those beliefs on the remainder of the population, based on the false notion that most Americans are “conservative.” The corporate-controlled media has conjured a vicious witches’ brew which allows them to steadily shift the political discourse in our country further and further into the abyss of right-wing lunacy. And the Left sits idly by, allowing themselves to be dragged rightwards, occasionally being motivated by some slick ad-campaign (i.e. Obama) to vote, but quickly settling back into despondency after being stabbed in the back by spineless Democrats. Quite simply, we on the Left do not have any leaders with the balls to truly represent our interests. And when such leaders do attempt to emerge from the rubble of our corporatocracy, they are relegated to the sidelines by a mainstream media that refuses to pay them any attention – a la Dennis Kucinich.
Let’s put this another way. Most Americans hold political and social views that are in the best interest of Americans as a whole. These Americans form the actual “silent majority,” not the rabid, vociferous rightwing nutters who grab all of the attention. And the fact is, as a democratic nation we are all in this together. A philosophy of “every-person-for-him/herself” might have been appropriate when we were still swinging from tree to tree in the jungle, but it simply doesn’t work in a society.
The problem is, there is a handful of greedy, selfish pricks – you know, the wealthiest 1% that controls 24% of our nation’s wealth – that has managed to turn a significant segment of our society against itself. Those teabaggers and other wackjobs who moan on about the outrageousness of a social safety net, or universal health care, or even free access to quality education, have been manipulated into fighting against themselves, against their own best interests.
In a very real sense, we are engaged in another civil war today: reason, evidence, and universal progress stand on one side, while ignorance, prejudice and unfettered greed stand on the other. Our fellow Americans who stand on the wrong side of the line are fighting for profits and wealth they will never actually see; they are negating their own rights so that a powerful few can continue to horde unprecedented levels of material wealth. They’re like prisoners who have joined the ranks of the brutal and sadistic guards, while the guards share nothing and instead laugh uncontrollably behind the backs of the idiotic and opportunistic traitors.
In this fight, the teabaggers are our enemies. Those who espouse corporatist values in the face of all evidence and logic are our enemies. There is no compromising with such people; they have proven time and time again that they are not interested in cooperating. So instead of attempting to cooperate, which has long been proven ineffective, we must unite on the Left to fight for the values that we know are true -the values that we have come to hold based on the Enlightenment values of logic, reason and evidence. We are the reality-based community, and it is high time we retook the reins of our teabag-infested democracy.
teabaggers: the battered spouses of corporate America
November 7, 2010
Not that this will come as a surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention, but the following quote from a recent Mother Jones article says a great deal about the state of democracy in America:
“The real story of the 2010 midterm elections wasn’t the tea party, but instead the rise of deep-pocketed, secretive outside groups that spent nearly $300 million to influence… [the] results.”
The teabaggers – excuse me, Tea Partiers - love to present themselves as being a massive, grassroots opposition movement that grew out of widespread discontent with Obama’s “liberal” agenda. Unfortunately for the teabaggers, the depth of their vast ignorance is amply demonstrated merely from this most basic of suppositions. The first issue has to do with their contention that Obama is a leftist at all. He isn’t. Obama is a centrist politician, and has been moving steadily towards the right ever since his inauguration. The second problem with the teabaggers’ assumption is that Americans do not, in general, agree with their ludicrous and – let’s be honest – idiotic political views. In reality, most Americans hold “liberal” values, as demonstrated in endless surveys and polls. The existence of a conservative majority is just one of many myths propagated by our corporate-controlled mainstream media: the narrative of a rightist population fits in well with the agenda of big business.
And finally, the teabaggers’ belief that they are a grassroots movement is demonstrably false, as the Mother Jones article mentioned above aptly proves. MJ notes that of the $300 million donated from “secret outsider groups,” rightist groups outspent leftist groups by a margin of 2 to 1. The rightist groups also had significantly higher success rates:
“The US Chamber of Commerce and the Karl Rove-launched Crossroads GPS led the way, with .800 and .700 averages, respectively, in making the most of their (mostly) attack dollars. The labor group SEIU, meanwhile, finished last, albeit in an incredibly GOP-friendly election year.”
So that is the state of politics in America today, courtesy of Citizens United. Multinational corporations can now, in essence, legally buy elections, and the ignorant masses can dress up in Halloween costumes while touting their support for puppets who then turn around and immediately commence dismantling the government so that their shadowy corporate masters can rape and pillage a little bit more. And the obedient sheep love it – they beg for more. ”Please!” they cry, “Take away my Social Security! I don’t want health care! I love paying extortionate amounts for my crappy insurance coverage! Don’t raise the minimum wage, I like being poor! F*ck education – isn’t there a McDonald’s University anyway?”
And the corporate elite get richer, the poor and middle class struggle to survive, but the myth of the American dream lives on.
Adventures in Doublespeak: “Elitist”
November 16, 2010
George Orwell’s 1984 was far more prescient than most people would like to admit. Although a thorough analysis of his benchmark novel is beyond the scope of this post, the notion of doublespeak is tragically all too relevant in the era of corporate-controlled media. One of the most fundamental reasons why the nation continues to be dragged further into the abyss of the Right is that the media has successfully redefined a number of terms which are crucial to engaging in meaningful debate. Shifting definitions is just one tactic used by the corporate media to narrow the parameters of our national dialogue, but it effectively prevents a significant percentage of Americans from ever even realizing that a world exists beyond those painfully restricted boundaries.
And so I would like to introduce a new feature of Failed Empire: Adventures in Doublespeak. Today we will be examining a word that has become the bane of liberals nationwide – the dreaded slur, “Elitist.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Education, Human Rights, Media, Politics | Leave a Comment »
Tags: conservative, politics, liberal, mainstream media, teabagger, media commentary, doublespeak