For all the Blue State v. Red State, Progressive Culture v. Conservative Culture sparring nowadays, you'd think that any attempted melding of the two extremes would result in a black hole, an instant atomization of our political fabric, or, more realistically, sheer madness. But many people across the country are indeed "reaching across the aisle" in furtherance of such madness. And it just so happens to be my favorite kind... Reefer Madness!
That's right, Democrats and Republicans, Progressives and Libertarians can now agree that its time to end the war on pot. Many even accept that the best option is sensible Legalization!
Now, while it's plenty cool that the only cure for chronic polarization in this country turns out to be exactly what Bob Marley and Peter Tosh told us thirty years ago (Sensimilla, Sticky-Icky, Mary Jane, and so on), and while there is plenty of room for optimism here in the Bay Area, the title of my blog will not allow my own bridled optimism to shine through. Sorry. Instead, let's do a quick point by point breakdown of certain myths about cannabis in the context of its Legalization.
I'll do my best to represent both sides of the proverbial aisle here. Perhaps then some may understand (if they don't already) why the issue of cannabis Legalization has garnered such ridiculously positive attention, but also why we may have to wait a bit before the best cannabis policies can be realized.
First, let's clear up a term or two.
By Legalization I mean total, wholesale allowance of the possession, cultivation, and sale of cannabis. Some feel that this should include allowing use to minors (17 and under), while others do not. I take the latter position for reasons which I shall make clear in a moment.
Legalization is often confused with Decriminalization. Decriminalization does not make the cultivation or sale of cannabis legal, nor does it make personal possession totally nonpunishable. Decriminalization simply means you would not go to jail for holding a smaller amount of pot (say an ounce or under). If found guilty of possession, you may still be fined, forced into community service or addiction treatment by a judge, or something of that nature. If found guilty of sale or cultivation, you may still go to jail.
So I'm talking about Legalization here, not Decriminalization. Most other people are as well, but most people seem to prefer a sort of watered down Legalization which borders on mere Decriminalization. Again, I'm talking about Legalization from here on out.
So here we go...
Let's first paraphrase the polar positions.
The main reasons given for fearing cannabis are: it's a hard drug bad for the body and mind, it's linked to crime, and is associated with the scum of the earth (who, according to the rates of incarceration for pot offenses, appear to be Blacks and Latinos predominantly, people of color in general).
The main reasons given for loving cannabis are: it's a totally natural substance, it's less harmful than alcohol, it's good fun, is totally harmless, is a source of revenue, and it may be a source of employment.
And by the way, it's my own damn body, so I'll ingest what I damn well please when it harms no one else. Especially in light of this Libertarian affirmation, I think it requires a heavy dose of proof to justify incarcerating anyone who uses or possesses a substance aimed at enhancing their personal pleasure in this life. The proof ain't there, so people are starting to second guess the War on Drugs, especially with reference to MJ. Moving on to the myths:
Harmful Devil Weed v Natural Light of God
"Is it a hard drug that causes cancer, depression, makes people crazy, and causes hallucinations that force you to shoot your children and neighbors and worship the Devil?" Not really. First, THC is not a hard, highly addictive chemical. Will some individuals experience pronounced effects, and can pot contribute to respiratory illness if smoked? Sure. Can it catalyze the development of some medical conditions if you are predisposed? Yes. But will it kill you, make you crazy, or make you attack anyone? Unless you're into anthropomorphizing a bag of Cheetos, the answer is NO. And as I'm sure you've heard by now, no one has ever died from a cannabis overdose. Some people even feel closer to God through MJ use.
"Since it's natural, isn't it totally safe and, like, totally a part of the nature of human evolution and, like, the soul and stuff like that dude?" Not so much. Remember, rattle snake venom and bad eggs are natural too. Those things hurt, and I'm not sure what they do for the soul. Look, smoking or vaporizing can feel really good, but it does impair your short term memory, and it delays most sensory and motor functions. Some people get panic attacks or vomit after smoking too much, and if ingested regularly at a young age (as with any substance like alcohol, nicotine, or caffeine) it can negatively effect cognitive development. Fact. So yes, keep it away from the kiddies.
And yes, there is such a thing as Marijuana Users Anonymous! Cannabis can be addictive, albeit to a rather infinitesimal percentage of the long term using population (Roughly 6% of 33% of users. Do the math).
In all though, people recognize that this drug is pretty harmless. It's easily less harmful than alcohol. While many object to it's use and refrain from it for health related or moral reasons, most recognize that the worst thing you get from a rip of a joint is the pain of realizing that you're suddenly out of ice cream and sun chips.
MJ Causes Crime v Criminalization Causes Crime
This is pretty much a no-brainer. Cannabis use is in no way linked to violent behavior. It is in no way linked to lower levels of income or lower levels of professional success (the opposite in one study I read), so it is fair to say that a pothead won't be breaking into your car in order to afford a ten-sack. He may be jimmying your car door with his house key because he forgot which midnight blue Tercel is his (it's dark out for fuck's sake!), but he means you no harm.
The only link between cannabis and crime is this: that it's illegal status couples with it's widespread appeal to create a massive underground market. Such markets are run by criminals with guns. The market for any illegal substance tends to get picked up by the bad guys with the guns. They fight each other and their less savory minions over money and turf. And more money. So, if you want to get rid of the crime associated with pot (i.e. cartels and gang bangers pushing and fighting for massive volume), allow people to grow their own. Or perhaps let the private sector or even the government take over production!
Drop the price and push the cartels out of the bulk of the market. License it so it's more difficult for kids to get a hold of it, and separate the supply of MJ from the supply of more harmful drugs like crack, coke, or meth. Free up law enforcement's time and money to fight real crime. Easy.
Budgetary Big Shot v Shot in the Arm
Many proponents of legalization pitch the idea that legalizing bud will fix the budget. Well, maybe it will help a little. It will save tons of money currently spent enforcing the idiotic criminalization of cannabis (enforcement costs, prison costs, legal and appellate costs, etc.), and the tax revenue would be a good salve for, say, some of the budgetary shortfalls in education. But while pot legalization would be a shot in the fiscal arm, it won't be a cure all. Not a bad idea though.
Pretty straight forward overall. Again, considering my more Libertarian premise (It's my body and I will ingest what I like so long as it harms no one else) and how it seems to echo mass anti-government sentiment on both sides of the aisle at this time, you can see why so many people are willing to give pot a chance on the open market.
Now, will most politicians pick this up? Not really. It's going to have to happen from a true grass-roots level. There are too many people who are still dead-set against "drugs" in general. There are too many people who think that beer is the nectar of the Gods while cannabis and black tar heroin are analogous to Satan's two favorite stooges. Not a good political move to associate yourself with the Devil's Weed. So the candidates can't expect Party or Union support (read $) for their campaigns. Further, some assert that Prison Unions put a lot of money into marijuana criminalization campaigns, because they want more work for more prison guards. Tracking the political donation money seems to corroborate this claim, but I'm not going to bank on this potentially paranoid tangent. In all, unless the cannabis industry throws around some serious cash (which it very well may do before 2010), full legalization is a ways off in Cali, let alone the US of A.
So, while it certainly makes sense to Legalize pot -- restrict children from early access; minimize access to truly hard drugs by disentangling the markets; keep non-violent, otherwise good people from going to prison for a minimum of five years; prevent the ruin of promising lives via felony conviction for small amounts at the age of 19; prevent the breakup of families through imprisonment of parents who are trying to relax after work; allow us the reasonable freedom of our own bodies; save on enforcement costs so we can tackle real crime; and tax it for some much needed revenue -- it will take a little perseverance to make all that happen.
After Legalization, the next step would of course be to hash out exactly how we legalize the stuff. At exactly what age (16, 18, 21?), exactly what amounts, and in what places should cultivation, sale, and use be permissible? In any event, I'm glad to see that the Blue and the Red can finally combine on something, even if the path forward isn't crystal clear.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Dems, Racism, and Fumbling Credibility
I’ve got some issues with the Dems’ current political strategy for dealing with their opponents. I like the fact that they are willing to attack racism. Needs to happen. But only stupidity can explain why they are tying Rep. Joe Wilson's isolated outburst into their short term strategy on Healthcare Reform -- a platform which is already boiling in political hot water. Due to the malignance of cancerous racism in America, a scalpel is required to achieve its remission. The Dems, however, have brought a sledge hammer to the now unfortunate operation. Call me cynical, but while I am all for rebuking racists, I just don’t think most people will respond well to the Democrats' clumsily leveled allegations. I fear their strategy may hurt their party's political aspirations, and worse, I fear it will set us on a backwards path on the issue of race.
But before I discuss the ever expanding role of Obama’s “nationality” in our present political climate, I’d like to share a story. I used to have this boss who would randomly accuse employees of stealing extra time on breaks. She was right most of the time. But it was also clear that her accusations were a cover, a proxy for her general inability to manage us with respect to bigger, more pertinent problems. Often times, it was clear that the accusations were simply leveraged for some form of personal retribution, for some non-issue over which my fellow employees and I could not be officially censured. Perhaps she was just venting. Either way, instead of working to deal with the difficulties she suffered under her own inability to cope with store management, instead of giving her own efforts a hard look, she would find a fake yet otherwise plausible, otherwise legitimate reason to take her crap out on us. True, shit rolls down hill...
But the fumes rise. She lasted in that store for a few months before middle management axed her.
By brandishing accusations of racism in a similar manner, Congressional Democrats are headed for a similar fate in 2010. Congressional Democrats, Jimmy Carter, Maureen Dowd, and the sheep in their flock may be tossing Republicans and moderates a handle for that ax head they’ve been grinding since Obama first began to run for office. To accuse all of their political opponents of being racist because of Joe Wilson’s single outburst -- even if Joe Wilson does salute the Confederate flag -- is about the dumbest thing the Democrats can do… at least right now.
Here’s why:
We all know that many if not most people are racists. Duh. Didn’t we find this out over the last, I don’t know, several thousand years of human history, let alone the last four hundred years in America, let alone the last election cycle?
We know this like my old manager knew that many if not most retail workers attempt to take a few extra minutes on lunch breaks (Yes, this is an awkward analogy). But in both cases, the accuser has to be careful about managing the specific offenses and even more careful about making accusations. Politicians have to be really careful about issuing Congressional censure.
Then again, racism is less like a time clock violation and more like a time bomb. It takes an incredible amount of skill, patience and precision to defuse. There’s a lot of risk involved. If you get it wrong, boom. If you run out of time, boom. All the while a bunch of people are running around, screaming, panicking. Some, nonplussed, question why the bomb isn’t being disarmed faster. Other more sinister minds set up shop and take advantage of the disarray. Others prepare to profit from the inevitable explosion.
In short, there are some traps you may encounter even when artfully accusing someone of being a racist. I know. I used to be one, and I accuse others all the time.
For one, if you accuse someone of something, anything, they begin to dislike associating with you. When they aren’t doing what you accuse them of (Or, in the case of most racists, aren’t aware of what they are doing) your accusation pisses them off. If they are guilty, well, then they just don’t like being caught. Maybe they just glide through some massive state of denial. But, right or wrong, the accusation creates a set of even less manageable problems. Right or wrong, you, the accuser, end up attacking someone for an otherwise justified, logical reason on a purely personal level. So instead of bringing people together, brandishing accusations of racism separates people further. It's simply the nature of accusing someone of something.
Second, a vicious cycle often ensues. The accused resents the accuser, and vice versa. You accuse them, they accuse you. Each comes to embody the flaw the one sees in the other whether the flaw ever existed or not. Roles are confused and thus potentially reversed, and the moral high-ground is lost, deservedly or not.
Third, if the initial accuser was incorrect, then we have what may be considered a genuine personal injustice. This can sting pretty badly, especially with regard to racism. Suppose, like me and many other people, you have some questions about Healthcare Reform you would like Obama and the Dems to answer. Let’s say you think it’s crazy to require people to buy insurance to the point where the uninsured will be punished with a $3,500 fine, and then turn around and refuse to offer a Public Option -- the only way those uninsured would be able afford insurance in the first place. I don’t think my opposition to this proposal has a damn thing to do with race. I think it has to do with the schizophrenic nature of the policy as proposed.
Understanding the true gravity of racism, particularly that which weighs down on many African Americans to this day, I understand why people are so defensive about certain challenges to Obama's Presidency. But please, do not confuse my rejection of Democratic policy with a rejection of Obama’s features, heritage, or upbringing. I don’t want to read his birth certificate. I want to read his Healthcare Reform. I have, and I don’t like all of it at present.
But whatever. I can take it. I don’t blame all the Dems, nor do I blame Obama (He can’t really get away with saying something about this). Plus, people have suffered far greater political and personal affronts than this implied assault on my character. Even so, it’s not right. I’m happily not a racist anymore, so I can move on while others might not.
But fourth, and most importantly, note that the truly problematic conundrum does not arise in the instance that the initial accuser was incorrect (that the person was not stealing time, or that the person was not in fact a racist). The worst result comes about when the initial accusation was correct, but the strategic and tactical nature of the initial accusation badly damages the accuser’s credibility.
This is what has happened. Because the accuser applied a truly real and heinous accusation across a far wider group of people than could possibly be guilty, they lose some credibility. Because the accuser, perhaps incensed by the truth of their convictions, jumped at the first, subtle, relatively innocuous example of that which they rightfully abhor, they open themselves up for criticism. They come off as a little trigger happy, if not a bit hypercritical. They certainly come off as a little hypocritical -- that is to say, of painting with a rather broad brush themselves. And lastly, because they have accused the very people whom they need to exact the punishment, to enforce and enact the change in racist attitudes they so desire, the accuser now stands alone. In this instance the accuser has limited recourse to bring the accusation up in the future, and even if they are able to, the positive results will be far more limited than they otherwise should be.
And we know that something inherently racist will happen again, perhaps soon. Whether or not it actually effects their positions on policy, we know that most of Obama’s opponents harbor some racist resentment towards any black person, let alone a black President. We know that Rep. Wilson would never interrupt a white President in the way he interrupted the President a week ago. We know that race was, is, and will be an issue with Obama’s Presidency and every step he takes towards enacting any reform.
But we cannot dream of winning this struggle by reducing our argument to the level of our opponents’ petty tactics. On the contrary, when your opposition is too stupid to realize the limitations of their personal perceptions, when their introspective abilities prove to be less than stellar, a broader strategy is required. I find that the best weapons against anxious, loud mouthed morons are the opposing properties of patience and intelligence. The most intelligent understanding of racism I have achieved so far is this: That racists can only truly stop being such when they make an effort from within.
So then, the best way to solve racism, at least politically speaking, is to facilitate this process. How? First, know the idiots better than they know themselves (They are racists who, not being members of an overtly racist group like the KKK, think they are not racist). Second, predict what they will do (Something overtly racist). Third, put them in a situation to do it (Elect a black President). Fourth, wait for them to do it (This is where the patience comes in, although I don’t think we would have had to wait too long). Fifth, when they do what you expect, call ‘em out and let ‘em have it!
There’s nothing quite like public humiliation for an unarguably shameless blunder. And there’s nothing like public humiliation to force introspection or force even more overt, more objectionable behavior that anyone in their right mind would soundly reject. What would constitute such a blunder? Well let’s see… a racial slur, a slip of the tongue, a candid video, or even some form of violence. No, of course violence is certainly not desirable, even if it serves to somehow solve racism in one fell swoop (That would take a lot of nasty violence, by the way).
In any event, the scope of an obvious, heinous affront would allow for a broader reform of racist minds and keep those people who cannot understand how racist they are from feeling personally attacked. I assume so because, in my experience, people are less likely to be offended by being called out so long as they can point the finger to a more egregious offense. They are willing to sacrifice that more egregious offender so that they may salvage their self respect while they change. They also have a clear example to avoid. Rep. Wilson’s outburst, though clearly racist to many of us, was not overtly racist to most. It was at worst, by the measure of our truly racist opponents, an improper way of rebuking the President. But no slurs were used, no crosses were burnt, and therefore, to most white people, there was no racism.
Finally, Joe Wilson’s remarks, though racist, just weren’t enough fuel to ignite genuine empathy for his victim, President Obama. And so, we are left with a bunch of voters who think that Dems are doing exactly what their stereotype suggests: Manufacturing a victim in order to blunt moderate opposition to increased Federal spending.
Unfortunately, Democrats and progressives had to rush into this. You could tell they were salivating, waiting for the opportunity with the patience of a five year old on Christmas Eve. Perhaps due to anxiousness, perhaps due to desperation on Healthcare reform, perhaps over genuine outrage, perhaps (as I suspect) to rush in and provide evidence against their own subtle brand of racism, or perhaps all of the above, parts four and five of the above mentioned process are far less likely to happen. Sadly, we can't do everything according to grand strategy, especially without the benefits of hindsight.
But if we are truly smarter for not being racists, let’s prove it. Let’s stop lumping everyone who opposes an Obama or Democratic policy in with the failed Confederacy. Again, sad as it is, I think we will have more than enough opportunities to call someone out for an overt racial affront against the President and his family, an overt affront against anyone who isn't white. Unfortunately, due to their short term political thinking, Democrats now have an uphill battle in what would have otherwise been an easy, noble undertaking.
But before I discuss the ever expanding role of Obama’s “nationality” in our present political climate, I’d like to share a story. I used to have this boss who would randomly accuse employees of stealing extra time on breaks. She was right most of the time. But it was also clear that her accusations were a cover, a proxy for her general inability to manage us with respect to bigger, more pertinent problems. Often times, it was clear that the accusations were simply leveraged for some form of personal retribution, for some non-issue over which my fellow employees and I could not be officially censured. Perhaps she was just venting. Either way, instead of working to deal with the difficulties she suffered under her own inability to cope with store management, instead of giving her own efforts a hard look, she would find a fake yet otherwise plausible, otherwise legitimate reason to take her crap out on us. True, shit rolls down hill...
But the fumes rise. She lasted in that store for a few months before middle management axed her.
By brandishing accusations of racism in a similar manner, Congressional Democrats are headed for a similar fate in 2010. Congressional Democrats, Jimmy Carter, Maureen Dowd, and the sheep in their flock may be tossing Republicans and moderates a handle for that ax head they’ve been grinding since Obama first began to run for office. To accuse all of their political opponents of being racist because of Joe Wilson’s single outburst -- even if Joe Wilson does salute the Confederate flag -- is about the dumbest thing the Democrats can do… at least right now.
Here’s why:
We all know that many if not most people are racists. Duh. Didn’t we find this out over the last, I don’t know, several thousand years of human history, let alone the last four hundred years in America, let alone the last election cycle?
We know this like my old manager knew that many if not most retail workers attempt to take a few extra minutes on lunch breaks (Yes, this is an awkward analogy). But in both cases, the accuser has to be careful about managing the specific offenses and even more careful about making accusations. Politicians have to be really careful about issuing Congressional censure.
Then again, racism is less like a time clock violation and more like a time bomb. It takes an incredible amount of skill, patience and precision to defuse. There’s a lot of risk involved. If you get it wrong, boom. If you run out of time, boom. All the while a bunch of people are running around, screaming, panicking. Some, nonplussed, question why the bomb isn’t being disarmed faster. Other more sinister minds set up shop and take advantage of the disarray. Others prepare to profit from the inevitable explosion.
In short, there are some traps you may encounter even when artfully accusing someone of being a racist. I know. I used to be one, and I accuse others all the time.
For one, if you accuse someone of something, anything, they begin to dislike associating with you. When they aren’t doing what you accuse them of (Or, in the case of most racists, aren’t aware of what they are doing) your accusation pisses them off. If they are guilty, well, then they just don’t like being caught. Maybe they just glide through some massive state of denial. But, right or wrong, the accusation creates a set of even less manageable problems. Right or wrong, you, the accuser, end up attacking someone for an otherwise justified, logical reason on a purely personal level. So instead of bringing people together, brandishing accusations of racism separates people further. It's simply the nature of accusing someone of something.
Second, a vicious cycle often ensues. The accused resents the accuser, and vice versa. You accuse them, they accuse you. Each comes to embody the flaw the one sees in the other whether the flaw ever existed or not. Roles are confused and thus potentially reversed, and the moral high-ground is lost, deservedly or not.
Third, if the initial accuser was incorrect, then we have what may be considered a genuine personal injustice. This can sting pretty badly, especially with regard to racism. Suppose, like me and many other people, you have some questions about Healthcare Reform you would like Obama and the Dems to answer. Let’s say you think it’s crazy to require people to buy insurance to the point where the uninsured will be punished with a $3,500 fine, and then turn around and refuse to offer a Public Option -- the only way those uninsured would be able afford insurance in the first place. I don’t think my opposition to this proposal has a damn thing to do with race. I think it has to do with the schizophrenic nature of the policy as proposed.
Understanding the true gravity of racism, particularly that which weighs down on many African Americans to this day, I understand why people are so defensive about certain challenges to Obama's Presidency. But please, do not confuse my rejection of Democratic policy with a rejection of Obama’s features, heritage, or upbringing. I don’t want to read his birth certificate. I want to read his Healthcare Reform. I have, and I don’t like all of it at present.
But whatever. I can take it. I don’t blame all the Dems, nor do I blame Obama (He can’t really get away with saying something about this). Plus, people have suffered far greater political and personal affronts than this implied assault on my character. Even so, it’s not right. I’m happily not a racist anymore, so I can move on while others might not.
But fourth, and most importantly, note that the truly problematic conundrum does not arise in the instance that the initial accuser was incorrect (that the person was not stealing time, or that the person was not in fact a racist). The worst result comes about when the initial accusation was correct, but the strategic and tactical nature of the initial accusation badly damages the accuser’s credibility.
This is what has happened. Because the accuser applied a truly real and heinous accusation across a far wider group of people than could possibly be guilty, they lose some credibility. Because the accuser, perhaps incensed by the truth of their convictions, jumped at the first, subtle, relatively innocuous example of that which they rightfully abhor, they open themselves up for criticism. They come off as a little trigger happy, if not a bit hypercritical. They certainly come off as a little hypocritical -- that is to say, of painting with a rather broad brush themselves. And lastly, because they have accused the very people whom they need to exact the punishment, to enforce and enact the change in racist attitudes they so desire, the accuser now stands alone. In this instance the accuser has limited recourse to bring the accusation up in the future, and even if they are able to, the positive results will be far more limited than they otherwise should be.
And we know that something inherently racist will happen again, perhaps soon. Whether or not it actually effects their positions on policy, we know that most of Obama’s opponents harbor some racist resentment towards any black person, let alone a black President. We know that Rep. Wilson would never interrupt a white President in the way he interrupted the President a week ago. We know that race was, is, and will be an issue with Obama’s Presidency and every step he takes towards enacting any reform.
But we cannot dream of winning this struggle by reducing our argument to the level of our opponents’ petty tactics. On the contrary, when your opposition is too stupid to realize the limitations of their personal perceptions, when their introspective abilities prove to be less than stellar, a broader strategy is required. I find that the best weapons against anxious, loud mouthed morons are the opposing properties of patience and intelligence. The most intelligent understanding of racism I have achieved so far is this: That racists can only truly stop being such when they make an effort from within.
So then, the best way to solve racism, at least politically speaking, is to facilitate this process. How? First, know the idiots better than they know themselves (They are racists who, not being members of an overtly racist group like the KKK, think they are not racist). Second, predict what they will do (Something overtly racist). Third, put them in a situation to do it (Elect a black President). Fourth, wait for them to do it (This is where the patience comes in, although I don’t think we would have had to wait too long). Fifth, when they do what you expect, call ‘em out and let ‘em have it!
There’s nothing quite like public humiliation for an unarguably shameless blunder. And there’s nothing like public humiliation to force introspection or force even more overt, more objectionable behavior that anyone in their right mind would soundly reject. What would constitute such a blunder? Well let’s see… a racial slur, a slip of the tongue, a candid video, or even some form of violence. No, of course violence is certainly not desirable, even if it serves to somehow solve racism in one fell swoop (That would take a lot of nasty violence, by the way).
In any event, the scope of an obvious, heinous affront would allow for a broader reform of racist minds and keep those people who cannot understand how racist they are from feeling personally attacked. I assume so because, in my experience, people are less likely to be offended by being called out so long as they can point the finger to a more egregious offense. They are willing to sacrifice that more egregious offender so that they may salvage their self respect while they change. They also have a clear example to avoid. Rep. Wilson’s outburst, though clearly racist to many of us, was not overtly racist to most. It was at worst, by the measure of our truly racist opponents, an improper way of rebuking the President. But no slurs were used, no crosses were burnt, and therefore, to most white people, there was no racism.
Finally, Joe Wilson’s remarks, though racist, just weren’t enough fuel to ignite genuine empathy for his victim, President Obama. And so, we are left with a bunch of voters who think that Dems are doing exactly what their stereotype suggests: Manufacturing a victim in order to blunt moderate opposition to increased Federal spending.
Unfortunately, Democrats and progressives had to rush into this. You could tell they were salivating, waiting for the opportunity with the patience of a five year old on Christmas Eve. Perhaps due to anxiousness, perhaps due to desperation on Healthcare reform, perhaps over genuine outrage, perhaps (as I suspect) to rush in and provide evidence against their own subtle brand of racism, or perhaps all of the above, parts four and five of the above mentioned process are far less likely to happen. Sadly, we can't do everything according to grand strategy, especially without the benefits of hindsight.
But if we are truly smarter for not being racists, let’s prove it. Let’s stop lumping everyone who opposes an Obama or Democratic policy in with the failed Confederacy. Again, sad as it is, I think we will have more than enough opportunities to call someone out for an overt racial affront against the President and his family, an overt affront against anyone who isn't white. Unfortunately, due to their short term political thinking, Democrats now have an uphill battle in what would have otherwise been an easy, noble undertaking.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Obama's Gambit
Certain segments of the current ruling coalition are up in arms over President O's apparent dithering under the onslaught of ridiculous right-wing vitriol. Some segments are simply fed up with Obama. Another decent percentage of erstwhile progressive folks seem to have thrown in the towel. A mere eight months into O's Presidency, Democrats, Progressives, Liberals -- or whatever the hell people want to call themselves -- feel betrayed by their guy, the man they believed in last November. Most if not all of their vainly solemn views are expressed in Maureen Dowd's recent NY Times article, "Less Spocky, More Rocky."
Read it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09dowd.html (Sorry for the long link. I'm a tech-tard. Copy and paste. It won't kill ya').
In general, Dowd criticizes Obama's lack of passion. She wants less "brainy talk" and more "leadership". I don't feel like taking her on point by point. What I will say in general is that Dowd echoes the chorus of ridiculously short-sighted nitwits who don't realize they may be watching a true master as he compiles a canonical work of art.
One reason the disillusioned dimwits may doubt Obama's chess game (aside from the fact that many people are too stupid for adopting a strategic point of view) is that these very same outraged individuals are the chess pieces. The words and wills of pawns and bishops are often dire and shaking.
The king, of course, remains on the back line. The king appears withdrawn from the game. The king, the others pieces may suspect, strays behind, perhaps fearful in his knowledge of the truth: that the game ultimately ends with his success or failure.
But the player, if he/she is good, knows that sooner or later, when the time is right, when the pieces are in place and when the springs are set, the real action begins. That moment, that is the point in time wherein the gravity of the king's weight bares it's relevance. You see, most good chess games are not played in this moment -- they are played in preparation for it. In this moment, the game is not played but decided. The pawns, were they able to speak in this moment, may sound like those doubters currently standing face to face with the other side's proverbial Queen, the most powerful of the pieces which strikes in apparent nonsensical fashion from any direction, from any distance. But while these pieces shake about the board, the king watches, prepares for the players to make their decision.
Now, the average American is a pretty crummy player. As is the American tradition, voters are accustomed to riling up for an election and then checking out for the next three and a half years. They let the man in charge take care of that "Government" stuff. That's why they put him there, right? Obama, however, sees it differently. His job, as a leader, is not to straddle the bully pulpit and point the way. It's not even necessarily to provide a general map. Like most leaders, his job is not to do the job for us; his job is to help facilitate the process as we take care of our own end of the bargain.
So first, please avoid a simplistic viewing of President O here. In the absence of a good chess player (that is, in the presence of American Democrats), he's not only the king… He's the king and the player.
With this in mind, let's revisit the question: Why isn't Obama speaking up? Why not more Rocky Balboa, less Mister Spock? Well, for one, he isn't getting bogged down into a pointless debate over non-issues like "death panels", nor is he taking the bait laid out for him by cable TV's talking heads. Two, he's giving a little credence to these objectors by appearing to soften. Thus he appears to give in while essentially changing nothing about his strategic position. Instead, like a master of such gambits, he’s letting Palin, Limbaugh and co. speak for themselves. These things alone may combine to place enough rope in the hands of Republicans so that Obama's fiercest opponents may, as the saying goes, hang themselves.
No, Obama's not telling you what he thinks, and he's not going to tell you how he feels. He will provide no vicarious governance, no fictional involvement for voters who wish to "achieve" real change by the emotional effects of whatever eloquent advice he may impart.
Instead, he's letting you suffer. He's letting you build your own reasons to defy convention. He's letting you consolidate your own response to vacuous vitriol. He's letting you figure out what you would do, what you would say, why you would prefer Healthcare Reform, why you want green energy, gay marriage, and so on.
Next step: Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!
That's what we will see in the speech tonight. No, he won't pantomime a preacher. He won't let out an autocratic yelp from the saddle of power. He'll be Barrack Obama. He'll be cool while he lays it out for you. What you do then, which issue you decide to support, whatever letter you decide to write to your representative or what amount of money you decide to donate is then your own damn problem.
Fact of the matter is that Obama isn't the person cowering in the face of asinine opposition. Obama isn't the one panicking. Obama isn't the person looking for the next excuse to cast off the last two and a half years worth of work as a failure, to quit and proclaim the end of change. Maureen Dowd and those with whom she agrees, these people are the cowards, the turncoats, the real opponents to change. These are the people ducking for cover. These are the people who have handed over their dialogue by their own inaction, by their own willingness to offer up Obama as the lamb in sacrifice to the realities of making change actually happen!
The power is in our hands and the debate is on our terms. We have a majority in the House as well as the Senate. We have a relevant issue which stirs passion. We have a powerful stance on the issue which is buttressed by political, social, and economic necessity. And we have Barrack Obama.
Our opponents have lies and conspiracy theories, they are vocal about them, and they're resting their case on Sara Palin's credibility with the American public.
The opponents of Healthcare Reform have fallen for Obama's Gambit. For once it's been the conservatives who fell for the bait -- now's time for the switch. It's in the bag, but only if the pawns and bishops stay in position.
Read it here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/09/opinion/09dowd.html (Sorry for the long link. I'm a tech-tard. Copy and paste. It won't kill ya').
In general, Dowd criticizes Obama's lack of passion. She wants less "brainy talk" and more "leadership". I don't feel like taking her on point by point. What I will say in general is that Dowd echoes the chorus of ridiculously short-sighted nitwits who don't realize they may be watching a true master as he compiles a canonical work of art.
One reason the disillusioned dimwits may doubt Obama's chess game (aside from the fact that many people are too stupid for adopting a strategic point of view) is that these very same outraged individuals are the chess pieces. The words and wills of pawns and bishops are often dire and shaking.
The king, of course, remains on the back line. The king appears withdrawn from the game. The king, the others pieces may suspect, strays behind, perhaps fearful in his knowledge of the truth: that the game ultimately ends with his success or failure.
But the player, if he/she is good, knows that sooner or later, when the time is right, when the pieces are in place and when the springs are set, the real action begins. That moment, that is the point in time wherein the gravity of the king's weight bares it's relevance. You see, most good chess games are not played in this moment -- they are played in preparation for it. In this moment, the game is not played but decided. The pawns, were they able to speak in this moment, may sound like those doubters currently standing face to face with the other side's proverbial Queen, the most powerful of the pieces which strikes in apparent nonsensical fashion from any direction, from any distance. But while these pieces shake about the board, the king watches, prepares for the players to make their decision.
Now, the average American is a pretty crummy player. As is the American tradition, voters are accustomed to riling up for an election and then checking out for the next three and a half years. They let the man in charge take care of that "Government" stuff. That's why they put him there, right? Obama, however, sees it differently. His job, as a leader, is not to straddle the bully pulpit and point the way. It's not even necessarily to provide a general map. Like most leaders, his job is not to do the job for us; his job is to help facilitate the process as we take care of our own end of the bargain.
So first, please avoid a simplistic viewing of President O here. In the absence of a good chess player (that is, in the presence of American Democrats), he's not only the king… He's the king and the player.
With this in mind, let's revisit the question: Why isn't Obama speaking up? Why not more Rocky Balboa, less Mister Spock? Well, for one, he isn't getting bogged down into a pointless debate over non-issues like "death panels", nor is he taking the bait laid out for him by cable TV's talking heads. Two, he's giving a little credence to these objectors by appearing to soften. Thus he appears to give in while essentially changing nothing about his strategic position. Instead, like a master of such gambits, he’s letting Palin, Limbaugh and co. speak for themselves. These things alone may combine to place enough rope in the hands of Republicans so that Obama's fiercest opponents may, as the saying goes, hang themselves.
No, Obama's not telling you what he thinks, and he's not going to tell you how he feels. He will provide no vicarious governance, no fictional involvement for voters who wish to "achieve" real change by the emotional effects of whatever eloquent advice he may impart.
Instead, he's letting you suffer. He's letting you build your own reasons to defy convention. He's letting you consolidate your own response to vacuous vitriol. He's letting you figure out what you would do, what you would say, why you would prefer Healthcare Reform, why you want green energy, gay marriage, and so on.
Next step: Cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war!
That's what we will see in the speech tonight. No, he won't pantomime a preacher. He won't let out an autocratic yelp from the saddle of power. He'll be Barrack Obama. He'll be cool while he lays it out for you. What you do then, which issue you decide to support, whatever letter you decide to write to your representative or what amount of money you decide to donate is then your own damn problem.
Fact of the matter is that Obama isn't the person cowering in the face of asinine opposition. Obama isn't the one panicking. Obama isn't the person looking for the next excuse to cast off the last two and a half years worth of work as a failure, to quit and proclaim the end of change. Maureen Dowd and those with whom she agrees, these people are the cowards, the turncoats, the real opponents to change. These are the people ducking for cover. These are the people who have handed over their dialogue by their own inaction, by their own willingness to offer up Obama as the lamb in sacrifice to the realities of making change actually happen!
The power is in our hands and the debate is on our terms. We have a majority in the House as well as the Senate. We have a relevant issue which stirs passion. We have a powerful stance on the issue which is buttressed by political, social, and economic necessity. And we have Barrack Obama.
Our opponents have lies and conspiracy theories, they are vocal about them, and they're resting their case on Sara Palin's credibility with the American public.
The opponents of Healthcare Reform have fallen for Obama's Gambit. For once it's been the conservatives who fell for the bait -- now's time for the switch. It's in the bag, but only if the pawns and bishops stay in position.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Everything is Hitler, but MLK Will Save Us!
Look out! Everything is Hitler!
Congress and Obama want to team up and look at Health Care Reform... Hitler! Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly spout nonsensical crap on tv, and some people agree with them... Hitler! Michael Moore... Hitler!Remember how George Bush went and bombed two countries when well over the basic majority of us wanted it to happen, because we were generally scared and grossly uninformed about U.S. foreign policy...? Hitler! The vast Right Wing conspiracy won't let gay people get married... Hitler! The vast Left Wing conspiracy wants to force children to be educated about gay people... Hitler! The Left wants to expand government... Hitler! The Right wants to turn the government into a shadowy cabal... Hitler! The Ten Commandments are in the court houses... Hitler! They won't let me say the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance... Hitler!
Al Franken is a fucking Congressman... Hitler!
Or is it Hitler? Is it just me, or is framing every relatively benign domestic political disagreement in the context of a life or death struggle against a homicidal autocrat from the early twentieth century a bit extreme? Perhaps I am suffering from an advanced case of acute mental facility; but comparing the current institutional processing of mainstream political issues to combating the unfathomable actions of a man responsible for transforming the Wiemar Republic into a maniacally efficient, anti-semitic-meat-grinder seems, well, just a little off base. Perhaps I'm not getting it, but there seems to be a slight difference between cutting a bit from medicare to subsidize the potential for a national health care system and throwing people into an oven because their last name is Goldstein. Such decisions (Medicare cuts that is) are certainly tough and worthy of passionate debate, but is it true that all difficult decisions are analogous to preventing the Holocaust?
Is Uncle Sam really trying to pull the plug on Grandma? On all Grandmas? All at once? As a Final Solution?
Perhaps so, but there is hope. Apparently, MLK will save us!
I can't cite too many examples from mass media (I don't own a tv), but amongst the liberal intelligentsia, the LGBT community, and San Franciscans in general, the Civil Rights movement comparisons seem to pop up like Mellisa Rivers at a red carpet event -- often, awkwardly, and as a token gesture which underscores the moment's genuine lack of intrinsic relevance.
I'm sorry, perhaps I don't get it, but there seems to be a slight difference between leading people from the shackles of institutional slavery and attempting to gain the legal right to enter the shackles of marriage. I voted against Prop 8 and all, but it appears to me that attempting a quickie legal normalization when you are in fact not normal, in any sense of the word, differs slightly from the enterprises of an oratory genius who, with enough will and intelligence, was able to guide masses of people from the fears of lynching and false incarceration. Is it just me, or is there a slight problem with trying to invoke the spirit of such people when your "struggle" has nothing to do with them in scope, intensity, or proximity?
While there are many nut jobs on either side of the political spectrum hocking poorly conceived ideas (ideas which, if carried out to their extremes, would cause a lot of problems), are these problems ever going to materialize unless we ask them to? Is voting in favor of gay marriage the same as asking for your neighbor's son to get molested by an ostensibly straight priest? Is condoning the presence or non-presence of some religious artifact in a court house the same as asking the Federal Government to create internment camps for it's current political scapegoat, whether they be Christian, Atheist -- or whatever the hell else people do/don't believe in these days?
Violence against gays certainly is a real problem. But, while there are many gay people who are physically abused, harassed, even killed year in and year out, are there not also people who endure the same treatment from violent, ignorant thugs for a host of ridiculous reasons -- and are these events combined anywhere close to the scale and scope of the problems Dr. King and his comrades addressed?
Is this not the fundamental problem with mainstream politics: That we pretend to fight the struggle of our lives against every single issue when the vast majority of actual day to day governance involves things so boring that I can barely begin to think of describing them without falling asleep?
Is this not the fundamental problem with the gay rights movement: That people are willing to invoke MLK and the 1960's as the spirit of their struggle while they leave the fruits of Harvey Milk and the fate of the present to the providence of Mickey Mouse?
The gist of all this, among many potential tangents: Frame your "struggle" appropriately people.
Not only does the above mentioned hyperbole damage your cause by confusing the hell out of people and whipping up a froth, it prevents you from accurately addressing the actual issues at hand. Don't glorify your fight by pretending to battle Hitler. Don't glorify your struggle by asking "What would MLK do?" or in any way comparing your "struggle" to his. You're opposition isn't Hitler. You're leader isn't MLK -- or even Harvey Milk. You're struggle evokes nothing remotely analogous to what Hitler posed or what MLK solved in light of the human soul. The more you speak as if it does, the more you convince me that you're "struggle" is as imagined as your attachment to these notably powerful, notably dead people.
I will publish the second part of last week's post on Negativity later on this week... stay tuned.
Thanks for reading.
Congress and Obama want to team up and look at Health Care Reform... Hitler! Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly spout nonsensical crap on tv, and some people agree with them... Hitler! Michael Moore... Hitler!Remember how George Bush went and bombed two countries when well over the basic majority of us wanted it to happen, because we were generally scared and grossly uninformed about U.S. foreign policy...? Hitler! The vast Right Wing conspiracy won't let gay people get married... Hitler! The vast Left Wing conspiracy wants to force children to be educated about gay people... Hitler! The Left wants to expand government... Hitler! The Right wants to turn the government into a shadowy cabal... Hitler! The Ten Commandments are in the court houses... Hitler! They won't let me say the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance... Hitler!
Al Franken is a fucking Congressman... Hitler!
Or is it Hitler? Is it just me, or is framing every relatively benign domestic political disagreement in the context of a life or death struggle against a homicidal autocrat from the early twentieth century a bit extreme? Perhaps I am suffering from an advanced case of acute mental facility; but comparing the current institutional processing of mainstream political issues to combating the unfathomable actions of a man responsible for transforming the Wiemar Republic into a maniacally efficient, anti-semitic-meat-grinder seems, well, just a little off base. Perhaps I'm not getting it, but there seems to be a slight difference between cutting a bit from medicare to subsidize the potential for a national health care system and throwing people into an oven because their last name is Goldstein. Such decisions (Medicare cuts that is) are certainly tough and worthy of passionate debate, but is it true that all difficult decisions are analogous to preventing the Holocaust?
Is Uncle Sam really trying to pull the plug on Grandma? On all Grandmas? All at once? As a Final Solution?
Perhaps so, but there is hope. Apparently, MLK will save us!
I can't cite too many examples from mass media (I don't own a tv), but amongst the liberal intelligentsia, the LGBT community, and San Franciscans in general, the Civil Rights movement comparisons seem to pop up like Mellisa Rivers at a red carpet event -- often, awkwardly, and as a token gesture which underscores the moment's genuine lack of intrinsic relevance.
I'm sorry, perhaps I don't get it, but there seems to be a slight difference between leading people from the shackles of institutional slavery and attempting to gain the legal right to enter the shackles of marriage. I voted against Prop 8 and all, but it appears to me that attempting a quickie legal normalization when you are in fact not normal, in any sense of the word, differs slightly from the enterprises of an oratory genius who, with enough will and intelligence, was able to guide masses of people from the fears of lynching and false incarceration. Is it just me, or is there a slight problem with trying to invoke the spirit of such people when your "struggle" has nothing to do with them in scope, intensity, or proximity?
While there are many nut jobs on either side of the political spectrum hocking poorly conceived ideas (ideas which, if carried out to their extremes, would cause a lot of problems), are these problems ever going to materialize unless we ask them to? Is voting in favor of gay marriage the same as asking for your neighbor's son to get molested by an ostensibly straight priest? Is condoning the presence or non-presence of some religious artifact in a court house the same as asking the Federal Government to create internment camps for it's current political scapegoat, whether they be Christian, Atheist -- or whatever the hell else people do/don't believe in these days?
Violence against gays certainly is a real problem. But, while there are many gay people who are physically abused, harassed, even killed year in and year out, are there not also people who endure the same treatment from violent, ignorant thugs for a host of ridiculous reasons -- and are these events combined anywhere close to the scale and scope of the problems Dr. King and his comrades addressed?
Is this not the fundamental problem with mainstream politics: That we pretend to fight the struggle of our lives against every single issue when the vast majority of actual day to day governance involves things so boring that I can barely begin to think of describing them without falling asleep?
Is this not the fundamental problem with the gay rights movement: That people are willing to invoke MLK and the 1960's as the spirit of their struggle while they leave the fruits of Harvey Milk and the fate of the present to the providence of Mickey Mouse?
The gist of all this, among many potential tangents: Frame your "struggle" appropriately people.
Not only does the above mentioned hyperbole damage your cause by confusing the hell out of people and whipping up a froth, it prevents you from accurately addressing the actual issues at hand. Don't glorify your fight by pretending to battle Hitler. Don't glorify your struggle by asking "What would MLK do?" or in any way comparing your "struggle" to his. You're opposition isn't Hitler. You're leader isn't MLK -- or even Harvey Milk. You're struggle evokes nothing remotely analogous to what Hitler posed or what MLK solved in light of the human soul. The more you speak as if it does, the more you convince me that you're "struggle" is as imagined as your attachment to these notably powerful, notably dead people.
I will publish the second part of last week's post on Negativity later on this week... stay tuned.
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)