Call these endorsements or not -- whatever. Enough people have asked me to post these over the past few elections that I feel like doing one here. I do my best to be clear with just how much knowledge (or lack thereof) about the candidates I'm basing my decisions on, so I don't give any false impression of expertise. Anyway, enough primary blather to choke a horse awaits just below the fold....
(I've put whom I'm voting for in bold, for perhaps easier reading.)
Just to repeat myself a bit, but it's amazing how The Onion, despite being dedicated to humor, has been one of the most prescient news organizations on the planet. This past week, I haven't been able to get this video out of my head.
Continue reading "BiF flashback: The Onion on the most important issue to voters" »
While I'm not looking forward to the Democratic nomination getting ugly, there's a bright side here. In an election that everyone expected to be over in February, North Carolina's May primary will actually matter. Between now and then, the only other large population state to vote is Pennsylvania.
Since North Carolina has been ignored in every presidential election since I was old enough to vote, and its primary has always been so late that the race was always decided by then, I'm pretty excited about this. It's the first time I'll get a meaningful vote in a presidential election.
Well, there goes my prediction for the Republican primary. Every time I looked at it, I was pretty sure Romney was going to be the one ending up on top. Guess I counted out McCain too soon -- without his rejuvenation, I think Romney probably took it. Oh, well. I'm kind of sad, because I was really hoping for once that the Democrats would actually have a chance to run against a dour, charisma-less doob from Massachusetts.
As an Iraq war opponent and a geographer, I've already got two things against Thomas Friedman, whose errors include his support for the war and continual suggestion of giving it "six more months," along with his rather deranged book on economic geography, The World Is Flat. His latest op-ed in the New York Times, entitled "Generation Q," isn't on the same level of the previous ones, but it's pretty maddening in its own right.
Friedman's argument is effectively that the current generation of 20-somethings (and I have to say that while I'm a border case in regard to the big official generation definitions, I tend to identify with the younger set than the "Gen X" crowd I'm on the tail end of) do not lack for idealism, activism, or altruism, but that we're way too quiet about it. The radix of Friedman's article lies here:
America needs a jolt of the idealism, activism and outrage (it must be in there) of Generation Q. That's what twentysomethings are for -- to light a fire under the country. But they can't e-mail it in, and an online petition or a mouse click for carbon neutrality won't cut it. They have to get organized in a way that will force politicians to pay attention rather than just patronize them.
Honestly, while someone had brought the op-ed to my attention, I basically blew it off. There's nothing in Friedman's piece that's particularly new, although he hits a vaguely more interesting rhetorical tone than the standard, "these kids today don't care about anything! (with their hair and their clothes...)" My least charitable response would be that there are elements of the boomer generation who honestly thought they were going to change the world and bring about the Age of Aquarius and all that, and they're both bitter that it didn't happen, and indignant that the current generation isn't following their lead. (And in Friedman's case, he might also be avoiding the fact that he was a vocal cheerleader for what my generation is most outraged about, the Iraq war.)
A much better response (hat tip to AS) comes from American Prospect columnist Courtney Martin:
We are not apathetic. What we are, and perhaps this is what Friedman was picking up on, is totally and completely overwhelmed. One of the most critical questions of our time is one of attention. In a 24-7 news climate, it is all but impossible to emotionally engage all of the stories and issues you are taking in, and then act on them in some pragmatic way. So instead, young people become paralyzed. (It seems that all of us are a bit paralyzed. After all, what are Friedman's peers really doing? And aren't his peers the ones with the most straightforward kind of power?)
My generation tries to create lives that seem to match our values, but beyond that it's hard to locate a place to put our outrage. We aren't satisfied with point-and-click activism, as Friedman suggests, but we don't see other options. Many of us have protested, but we -- by and large -- felt like we were imitating an earlier generation, playing dress-up in our parents' old hippie clothes. I marched against the war and my president called it a focus group. The worst part was that I did feel inert while doing it. In the 21st century, a bunch of people marching down the street, complimenting one another on their original slogans and pretty protest signs, feels like self-flagellation, not real and true social change.
When Friedman was young and people were taking to the streets, there were a handful of issues to focus on and a few solid sources of news to pay attention to. Now there is a staggering amount of both. If I read the news today with my heart wide open and my mind engaged, I will be crushed. Do I address the injustices in Sudan, Iraq, Burma, Pakistan, the Bronx? Do I call an official, write a letter, respond to a MoveOn.org request? None of it promises to be effective, and it certainly won't pacify my outrage.
Few of the responses I've seen to this sort of charge have ever hit the nail on the head as squarely as this column. Interestingly, this touches on a topic that came up over dinner with my mother at Thai Cafe the other night. At one point I brought up a particularly irritating bumper sticker, which Friedman, perhaps unintentionally, paraphrases in his piece:
. . . if they are not spitting mad, well, then they're just not paying attention.
Righteous outrage is, to be honest, quite a lot of fun. There's an emotional rush to it that can be rather intoxicating. But, in the end, it tends to turn itself into something more about narcissism and less about
actually doing something about the source of the outrage, which is why most modern protests, demonstrations, and marches seem to be more about a glorified self-expression and experientialism than any manner of pragmatic change.
However much the current state of the world might call for it, one simply cannot live ones life in a state of perpetual outrage. (Or rather, those that do seem to end up ineffective and self-absorbed.) And while it is true that in my lifetime I will face challenges and events beyond the imagination of my grandparents, to somehow believe that these problems require a greater challenge than those before is nothing but either unhinged hyperventilation or a cynical attempt to abuse fear and outrage towards some specific end. The current administration may be the most recent and most egregious violators of this, but the left is not without fault here. I recall from childhood growing up and reading the endless direct mailings from hard working, well-meaning groups like the Sierra Club and Handgun Control telling how some recent bill or executive order could cause untold gloom and doom. After a while, however true those mailings were, one gets numb. This sort of perpetual outrage doesn't lead to change -- it leads to an overwhelming desire to lose oneself in a video game, where repeated mashing of buttons will eventually solve the problem. Or worse, it leads to the election of a president who says he can cut taxes and raise spending, and that everything will be alright, because it's "morning in America."
As Martin's piece points out, Friedman shouldn't look at the quiet activism of his "Generation Q" as some sort of failing; rather he should be encouraged that they have rejected the self-centered politics of the past thirty years, and started focusing on what they might be able to do. My way of coping has been to turn almost all of my focus as an activist towards the very local, and after nearly a decade of casting about, it seems that yes, one of the best ways I can contribute is by writing and blogging.
Solving the mess in Iraq and dealing with global warming will not be easy. But then again, as Leslie Marmon Silko noted (and I'm so fond of quoting), it has never been easy.
Those savants at The Onion have done it again. This video had me laughing for like 5 minutes after I finished watching it. (Given the topic, it's pretty obviously not safe for some people's workplaces, although I'm guessing Barry is just fine...)
So, question for you: Let's pretend you're a law abiding citizen that lives in a place that's in the middle of an insurgency, where sectarian militias are roaming the streets, and ethnic cleansing and assassinations are widespread. Now, let's pretend, one day, you find an AK-47 sitting in the street, unattended. What are you going to do?
Well, if it were me, I'd probably pick it up, check it's condition, and thank the relevant deity for the good fortune. Of course, this could very likely get me shot by US troops as proof that I'm an insurgent.
Given the President's recent insistence that Iraq is just like Vietnam, it reminds me of this classic snippet from Good Morning Vietnam:
Adrian Cronauer: [impersonating an Intelligence Officer] We've realized that we're having a very difficult time finding the enemy. It isn't easy to find a Vietnamese man named "Charlie." They're all named Nguyen, or Tran, or...
Adrian Cronauer: [as himself] Well, how are you going about it?
Adrian Cronauer: [as Intel Officer] Well, we walk up to someone and say, 'Are you the enemy? And, if they say yes, then we shoot them."
(Quotes from IMDB, natch.)
Well, before I get going, another apology about the light posting. Things will return to normal, whatever that is, in a couple of weeks.
With that out of the way, I'm going to turn the focus to national politics for a change here today. The premise is pretty simple -- back in March, Congress approved an appropriation bill giving the President funds for his "surge," or increase in troop levels in Iraq. Despite a strong sentiment at the last election that it was time for the war to end, bills designed to end the war failed to muster enough support to override a veto. Instead, many Republicans said that the President had until September to show some progress, and they would reconsider then.
Checking the calendar, it's September now, and almost no progress has been made in Iraq. Most Republicans are sending the signal that they're going to hang with the President and give him yet another six months to try to do something useful. And Democrats, without any cross party support, are frankly acting timid when it comes to forcing the President's hand. A bill requiring troop withdrawals from Iraq is going to be vetoed, and it's unlikely that Congress can muster the 2/3 majority to override that veto. However, Congress is under no Constitutional mandate to authorize funds for Iraq. The President has requested another $200 billion for continuing operations. If Congress does not appropriate these funds, the President cannot continue. Now, without any funds, there isn't money to get them out either, so SOME bill has to pass. However, by insisting that any funding bill include mandatory withdrawal timelines, Congress can force an end to the war with a simple majority and some political will in the face of the President's vetoes.
We're approaching decision time, and folks in the Bull City, including myself, are often reticent to call our Congressfolk about the Iraq War. Our Representative, David Price, is already a staunch war opponent, and our Senators, Elizabeth Dole and Richard Burr, have rarely ever said anything in opposition to the President. Calling may sometimes seem like a waste of time.
But if there's a lesson we can learn from this President, it's that consistent, repeated pressure can often do things you didn't expect. In 2002, any talk about a war in Iraq looked ridiculous. But with the sustained PR effort from the White House for nearly a year, the President got his invasion. So today, the day after the President gave his national address to act as the final keystone in his PR push to continue the same strategy that by any objective account has failed, I'm asking the readers of this blog to make three phone calls. Please call your House representative and your two Senators. For most of my readers, of course, that's Price, Dole, and Burr.
Here's the numbers:
You don't need to make speaches -- you'll just be talking to a 20-something staff member who will jot down the gist of what you said and add it to the pile. The key points I'd emphasize are these: based on what we've heard this week, it's time to get out of Iraq, and the President isn't going to do it himself. Please don't appropriate funds without a mandatory withdrawal of the majority of troops from Iraq.
And if, by some happenstance, you agree with the President, go ahead and call them anyway and tell them that. (I think you're a looney, but go ahead and call.) It's worth having the national conversation. But in that case, go ahead and tell them you read about it on my blog... ;)
Three bloggers at The Atlantic -- Ross Douthat (a conservative), Matt Yglesias (a progressive), and Andrew Sullivan (a political mutt) -- raise their voices in favor of reform of the hopelessly broken American prison system. I've actually only posted once on this topic on the blog, but I've got at least a half dozen half-baked ideas for posts related to prisons and gangs that I can't ever get fully written. I have a clear idea on how to approach a lot of political issues, but prison reform is one that just stumps me. Ross notes that this is one area where nearly all political forces conspire to enforce the status quo, with few countervailing winds to try to sail.
The two greatest arguments I can make against the current prisons system are, one, the sheer brutality of it should offend our sensibilities, even if it does not, and two, that as I've noted elsewhere, our prisons frequently serve as little more than state-run gang recruitment centers. All of the other moral arguments about rehabilitation, forgiveness, human rights, and human decency all seem to fall flat when it comes to talking about convicts, and we get more and more "get tough" rhetoric, which usually only serves to make things worse.
Given that my readership is a fraction of those of the Atlantic blogs, maybe this marks the start of some actual political movement on the issue.
Late Update: Reader CC e-mailed me this link to a story in the Denver Westword about ADX Florence, home of some of America's most notorious convicts. Since September 11, there have been 100 media requests for access to any aspect of the prison, all of which have been denied. The article also mentions that Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser is working on a book about prison reform, which I think is fantastic. (I'll admit to never having read FFN, but I know a lot of folks who have. Which if nothing else means that Schlosser has the ability to write with a fair amount of mass appeal, something which is critical for any push to get anywhere.)
Okay, so maybe not best EVER, but this is so succinct yet forceful, not to mention right on the money (so to speak), I had to link to it:
Recent Comments