Centrist Pundits

So the world is atwitter about Harry Reid recently revealing that he said something extremely stupid and, frankly, racist during the campaign. I’m actually more shocked that we’re finding out about it now (one would think it would have come out sooner) or, if it didn’t come out immediately, that it came out at all.

There must be something about white men of a certain age thinking that being complimentary while saying something racist isn’t racist. You’ll remember that Biden did something a little less obviously stupid but still fairly dumb, calling Obama “clean”.

Part of me agrees with the Republicans who are trying to equate Reid with Trent Lott. Whether or not the comments were equally offensive, I understand the impulse to say that if your stupid enough to make a racist comment like that, well, you deserve what happens. And what’s good for geese is good for ganders… or Democrats and Republicans.

On the other hand, part of me wants to take President Obama’s lead. He’s basically told Reid that it was all okay now. Given that the comments were about Obama, that seems that.

On the third hand, what do I know? I’m white. On the other hand, a lot of people who shouldn’t be piping up are. Normally, I wouldn’t take Michael Steele to task for commenting on it, even as much as I like pointing out how bad a Republican leader he is – but he’s in trouble of his own right now for using the phrase “honest injun” and the sheer weight of hypocrisy for criticizing one foolish, probably innocent racial comment while defending his own foolish, probably innocent racial comment may cause him to implode. I’m concerned for his safety!

On the fourth hand, I’m perfectly willing to let this be Reid’s waterloo. I have no love for Reid, not because he’s a racist – and I don’t know that he is or isn’t – but because he’s not an effective leader. If in a month he emulates Dodd and says he’s retiring, I’d be fine with that. Sure, it means Nevada will almost inevitably go back to the Republicans, but I think that’s likely anyway.

I guess what I’m saying is Reid just bugs me. Whether or not he’s doing something stupid right now.

JC Personalities, Society racism, Reid, senators, Steele

The blogosphere is atwitter (ha, I’m funny) today about a memo from a so-called “Astroturf” organization – an organization that appears to be a citizens group but is really a front for the insurance industry and their conservative allies – encouraging not only the disruption of town halls by Democratic politicians, but giving specific point by point guides to how to disrupt town hall meetings.  The health care debate in this nation is an important one and I realize that people are passionate about it, but there’s a lot going on here that is very insidiously damaging to our nation.

First and foremost, disruption of debate is not a means of debate.  It’s a means to prevent debate.  Health care debate is good.  It lets us look at what we really need, and it lets ideas from multiple sources be a part of the solution.  (And lest anyone think, like McCain, that the current health care bill has no Republican input, keep in mind that 166 of the markups in the Senate bill are based on Republican amendments.  166 is greater than 0.)  Good ideas and good points come from almost everyone involved in this discussion.  Discussion and debate, and then working together, are the cornerstone to how things get done in a democracy.  Yes, when one party or another is in power, the compromises will tend toward the party in power, but as a whole, that’s how laws are made.  When you shut down the debate, you are no longer interested in democracy, but in ruling as an authoritarian.

Which is why there is another thing to think about here.  The points the memo suggests – getting in the front row and then spreading out, shouting down opposition, calling out support for your side, asking the same questions repeatedly – do undoubtedly serve to shut down debate well.  The stated goal is to rattle your opposition so they can not respond.  That’s why these same points were used, point for point, by the rising Nazi party.  Yes, I realize I’m Godwining the debate by raising that point, but the fact remains – disrupting the debate by disrupting democratic gatherings was a key tactic of the Nazis.  If that isn’t a sign that it’s a danger to American democracy, then I’m not sure what is.

It is a hard tactic to fight, which is probably why it is one that is thought to work.  You could try to set rules – only speak when you have the microphone, anyone speaking out of turn will be removed – but then you set yourself for the accusation of trying to stifle free speech.  Indeed, down that path lies the Free Speech Zones of George W. Bush, as if Free Speech were not a right that we have everywhere in America by virtue of being Americans (within reasonable limits – see also “fire in a crowded theater”).  And it is not like liberal groups haven’t had their share of disruption tactics in the past.  But perhaps the best thing for all would be to be democratic, and debate the issue.  Debate the issue, and debate to win, rather than hope to disrupt enough to make the other guy lose.

JC Society debate, free speech, Health care, town halls

First of all, I want to say something to our regular readers – due to some stuff going on behind the scenes in my life, my pace of posting is probably going to slow down some.  You’ll notice, for example, that I didn’t post the last 2 days.  I apologize to those who’ve been enjoying my writing.

Anyway, the whole Professor Gates thing has me thinking, especially the commentary on it.  There’s a series of questions buzzing around people’s heads… is Officer Crowley a racist?  Is Professor Gates?  Is President Obama?  Is the woman who called 911?  (We’ll ignore (I imagine soon to be ex-) Officer Barrett, who’s clearly a racist)  But while the person in question there changes, its always the same question – is this or that person a racist?

We like to think we are moving in to some sort of post-racial stage in American history, where the biases that plagued our forefathers have somehow been shrugged off.  We don’t.  We live in a world where more people recognize that racism is wrong, but most Americans have yet to move in to a true post-racial mindset.  Racial humor is still prevalent.  People still lock their doors in if they see people on the side of the road.  We still expect certain kids to be better at school, or sports, or whatever, because of their race.  Lots of Americans still blame their problems on “the other” – whatever that other may be.

Oh, sure, we manage to disguise it better these days, most of the time.  We lock our doors because we’re in “a bad neighborhood”.  Racial humor is okay if the person telling it is part of the race in question.  And so on, and so forth.  But in the end, we still spend a lot of time making assumptions because of someone’s race.

In the end, I’m not sure that can be completely prevented.  Human nature seems to seem to find scapegoats for certain things.  Perhaps the best we can do is try to recognize when it influences our behavior, and the behavior of those around us, and then work to correct that influence.  Perhaps the idea of post-racial is an impossible one.  But maybe that’s okay.  Maybe just recognizing the harm, and working to fix it, is good enough.

Or maybe I’m just a white guy who’s looking to get off easy on racism.  I dunno.

JC Society race

There’s a lot going on in the world right now.  I suppose there’s always a lot going on, but right now, it seems like more.  Even domestically, we’re having serious debates going on for issues both new (the economy) and old (health care).  America is doing some important things, and that’s cool.

Greg and I started Centrist Pundits because we like discussing things, and we know that debate with each other and with others can both lead to new ideas and lead to the better arguments for those ideas we already have.  But there is another part to being politically active than discussion; you have to get involved.  The vast majority of people who read this political blog are never going to run for office, but that isn’t the only way to get involved.

Politician’s careers live and die on two inter-related things: money and the votes of the people.  Money feeds advertising to convince more people to vote for you, and a politician who regularly gets a lot of votes is a better investment than one who may be ousted in 2 years (for, say, a member of the House).  The problem is that half of this equation doesn’t serve the other half well.

Most of us reading this aren’t capable of gathering up enough money to make the kind of difference in policy that those with money can.  Only a few ultra-rich businessmen, or corporation, have that kind of money.  If you don’t believe that, take a look at the health-care debate in this nation.  The numbers of people who want health care reform are staggering, but reform is moving forward with only fits and starts because corporations – and their lobbyists – who donate big money to politicians are using as much effort as they can to make sure things don’t reform (or don’t reform that much).

If you don’t believe that one, there’s also the New York State Senate situation, where the Senate was plunged in to chaos because one New York businessman felt slighted, so he decided to work with a couple of politicians if they changed their tune and their affiliation.  The work on behalf of 19.5 million people disrupted by 1 man with money.

We can’t make a difference on money, but we can make a difference on the votes.  It’s called advocacy, and we here at Centrist Pundits support it.  If you feel strongly on an issue, write your representative and Senators.  Write your local paper.  If you have the time, volunteer with a group that supports your viewpoint.  In the healthcare debate, if you want a public option, make sure your politicians know.  If you want the coop plan, make that known instead.  Try to convince others, if you can without being pushy about it (seriously, don’t tick anyone off).  Be respectful, be adamant, and most importantly, make it clear that your vote rides on the issue (or a record of supporting your issues, if you like).  Make it clear that you keep informed on politics and that you will vote for someone else, whether or not fancy commercials are produced. 

For example, if you support the public option, let them know that no matter how much the health care companies donate to them, no matter how much air time that lets the politician buy, if they do not vote for it, you will vote for their opponent in the primary, and either for the other party, or a third party, or just not for them on election day.  In America, we’ve somehow allowed the money side of the equation to dominate influence, but let’s face it – their money dries up completely the moment they don’t get elected. 

Make the consequences of their actions clear to them.  Be vocal.  Be an advocate.

JC National Politics, Society advocacy, elections

So let us turn away from the big stories of the week.  Health care will move forward in one way or another; even now there is talk that the Senate may have a plan that will actually cost less than a trillion dollars.  Iran is going to keep rioting for a while yet.  Mark Sanford may or may not lose his job.  It is time to look at a quieter story of the week… well, 2 stories, actually, about our dear friends at the TSA, the Transportation Security Administration.

The first story is that they pulled aside a man carrying a large amount of cash for further questioning.  The man in question then didn’t exactly refuse the answer their questions; he more asked them if he HAD to answer their questions, according to the law.  The officers questioning him got a little persnickety.   Unfortunately for the TSA officers, this wasn’t a terrorist on his way to buy a bomb, it was a Ron Paul campaign worker who had a box full of cash from selling Ron Paul merchandise… and who had an iphone he slipped on to “record audio” as they took him in.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/20/tsa.lawsuit/#cnnSTCText

The other TSA related story of the week is that Clear’s VIP pass service has been shut down, so all passengers are going to have to go through the same security gates.  VIP was a program where you could be pre-screened with a background check to make sure you aren’t a terrorist, and then you could go through a slightly faster line to get to your plane.  You still had to go through a metal detector etc, but it was a convenience service for frequent travelers, to the tune of $200 a year.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TRAVEL/06/23/clear.airport.terminated/

But see, both these stories illustrate problems with the TSA.  I absolutely agree that we need to have security at airports.  More than any other form of transportation, planes are capable of becoming weapons if a group of madmen decide to use them as such.  I mean, there is only so much we can do, but what we can do within the bounds of common sense, we should do.  That said, what exactly is the TSA doing, and who is telling them to do it?

The Ron Paul campaigner… had a box of cash.  Okay, that’s kind of weird, I’ll admit that.  But in what way is it a threat to the plane?  Is it a weapon or bomb?  No.  Can it become a weapon or bomb?  No.  Is it illegal?  No.  What was their justification for pulling this guy aside?  There isn’t one.  If it is weird enough to make a TSA officer’s spidey-sense tingle, then fine, get the guys name and report it to… I dunno, the FBI or something, just as a name and what happened.  If they want to run with it, they’ll do so.  But don’t violate civil rights to do so, and don’t undermine your whole agency’s mission by being an idiot.

Clear’s VIP service sounds like a great convenience to frequent travelers, but it always gave me pause.  Why?  Well, because I wondered how long it would be before it turned from being pre-approved was a bonus to not being pre-approved was a liability.  It hadn’t happened yet, but I could see it happening.  If you have nothing to hide, why aren’t you going through the pre-screening process?  I realize it is a slippery slope argument, and I usually find those fairly stupid, but it did always make me wonder.

The TSA needs to do its job.  Its job is making sure that no one takes any explosives or weapons on to a plane.  Metal detection, okay.  X-rays of bags, okay.  Taking off shoes… thank you Richard Reid, I guess okay.  Confiscating utility tools… I guess okay.  No liquids through the gates?  I never quite got that one, but I suppose there was a reason somewhere that was legit.  Maybe.  But harassing people who have broken no laws and are not in any way a threat to the plane is not in their job description.

What was he going to do, paper cut the pilot in to submission?

JC Crime and Punishment, Society, Terrorism TSA

Which of the following is an example of low-level idiocy?

— Spending more than you take in on a long-term basis

— Bailing out billionaires but not the middle and lower classes

— Putting troops in harm’s way without sufficient armor

— The Pentagon’s exam on terrorism 

The answer, for the record, is the recent exam by the Pentagon, which equated protesting with low-level terrorism.  (The other examples in my question are high-level idiocy!)

Seriously, this was a question on an exam by the Pentagon in a course on learning about terrorism:

“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”

— Attacking the Pentagon

— IEDs

— Hate crimes against racial groups

— Protests

The correct answer, according to the exam, is “Protests.”  I can only assume that since the others are all types of terrorism, they must be high-level stuff.  Now, I want to be fair to the Pentagon here.  They have said that the exam is for people who are stationed abroad and who, as a rule, should avoid protests in other nations.  And they are probably right about that, if only because protests can become violent and no one should really be there unless they are a protestor or the media or someone else who is choosing to be in harm’s way.

But it still paints the issue with far too broad a brush for my comfort.  I am not the biggest proponent (nor am I an opponent) of the ACLU but they are right in questioning the Pentagon’s phrasing of this question.  It does certainly seem to imply – or outright state – that protest is terrorism, and that serves to undermine the very freedoms of speech and assembly that we hold dear as Americans.

Within our borders, the ability to protest is one of the cornerstones of our liberties, of our right to freedom of expression.  This right has been repeatedly diluted over the years with “free speech zones” near Presidential rallies (hey, President Bush – AMERICA is my free speech zone) and other such nonsense.  And it’s a freedom available to both sides of the aisle.  You want to protest the Iraq war outside President Bush’s Crawford Ranch?  No problem.  You want to hold a “teabagging” party?  Also no problem.

Okay, I admit it, I just look for any excuse to snicker at the phrase teabagging.

Outside our borders, protests are also a legitimate form of expression, and not necessarily nascent terrorism.  The recent protests in Iran are an example of this.  I’m not sure what happened in the election – I’m fairly sure there was fraud, but I suppose there’s an outside chance that there was not, which as a friend of mine said, makes any attempts to overturn what happened a coup – but the protestors have not been the scary ones.  The only people terrorizing anyone in that regime is the government.

Like I said, I think I get what the Pentagon was trying to do.  If they really were trying to say that a protest has the potential to turn violent and become terroristic, then I would agree.  But the simple statement that protests are terrorism is to simple, and it is wrong, and it is offensive to any patriot.

JC National Politics, Society ACLU, culture, free speech, language, Pentagon, protests

Recently, President Obama has been taking a lot of hits from the left, and perhaps the biggest hits are coming from gay rights groups who have taken great umbrage to his Department of Justice performing such a vigorous defense of the Defense of Marriage act.  I suppose this should not surprise anyone.  While Obama is easily the most pro-gay rights President ever (barring, maybe, rumors about one or two specific Presidents) he’s never been a great friend to homosexual rights groups.  He came out – if you pardon the expression – against gay marriage as far back as the campaign.  And while this is certainly painting with a broad brush, with many groups that are against gay marriage being of a religious background, the idea that this very religious President isn’t the best friend of the gay community doesn’t really strike me as surprising.

I buy that the government has to defend the laws that are on the books.  I also buy that they don’t have to do so with quite the vigor that occurred in this case.  On the other hand, if I expected the government to help me on something, I would hope they would do so to the best of their ability regardless of any individual bureaucrat’s feelings.  Perhaps that is naïve.

I think the problem here is not that Obama is particularly anti-gay; I don’t think he is.  I just think its remarkably low on his list of priorities.  Obama has been saying since his election, if not before – “economy, health care, and education” as his domestic agenda.  He has made it plain that anything that’s not one of those 3 issues has to take a back seat to those 3 issues.

By that same logic, I have a friend up here in New York who’s pretty sure gun laws are going to be changing for the worse shortly.  He’s not alone, gun and ammo sales are up up up since Obama’s election out of worries about gun restrictions.  I’m fairly sure guns are somewhere on Obama’s agenda.  I don’t know if it is before or after gay rights.  But since guns are not economic, health care, or education, I just don’t think he’s going to do much with them this term.  If he gets a second term, maybe then.  Maybe not.

Gay rights groups have every right to be disappointed with Obama on this matter and perhaps other, similar issues.  Obama will never have more political capital then he has right now, if he hopes to get things passed he needs to do it now.  By not putting these issues at the top of his agenda, he is making them less likely to pass during his term in office.  That is no doubt the true implication of his lack of concern about gay rights, and so of course activists should be worried.

On the other hand, to every idea there is a season, and given the polling on the acceptance of gay marriage indicates that the younger a person is, the more accepted the idea is, it is likely that as time goes on gay rights will happen almost inevitably.  Of course, “almost” is a tricky word, and no one feels they should have to wait for their inevitable rights.  I sympathize. 

The most cynical argument would be, of course, “where else will the gay rights community go if not the Democrats”?  A third party?  Please.  The Republicans?  Log Cabin aside, unlikely.  Stay home come election time?  That’s like giving up.  Of course, that’s a dangerous philosophy; some say the Republicans lost because they didn’t excite the traditional base enough this last election.

In some ways, a mountain is being made of a molehill here.  Still, there are enough people out there for whom this is the single issue that most importantly defines their support for a candidate – I’m looking at you, Doc – that the mountain still needs climbing.

Photo by rt69 on flickr.com and is shared under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 license.  Thank you and let us know if you would like attribution noted differently.

JC Society culture, gay rights, obama

Last week, a case involving a cancer-stricken child and a mother who was refusing chemotherapy made the national news.  Its hardly the first such case ever, though this one had the “sexiness” of the mother and her son fleeing rather than subjecting themselves to the court’s authority, at least for part of the time.  A fairly good, if rather basic, summary of the issues surrounding the case and cases like it appears today on CNN.com:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/05/28/treatment.parental.rights/index.html

I have a friend who I would say is very mixed, politically, but comes from a conservative background, who wrote a very intelligent and thought out argument against the court intervention in this case.  She made the point that allowing the courts to override a parental right based on a recommendation from a doctor is one very small step from doing the same to adults (probably starting with adults who have others making their medical decisions for them, but ending with you and me).  It is an important and scary point, and as my friend points out, it is the stuff of Orwellian nightmares.

I have to admit, my first reaction was different.  My first reaction was that the parents in this case are morons, and that their denial of life-saving procedures to the child was tantamount to abuse.  Of course, I am not a doctor, and I don’t understand what is going on with this child’s particular medical case.  I thought I had read that it was a fairly clear cut survivability issue – that without treatment, he was 99.9% likely to do quite soon, and with treatment, there was every chance he’d live the rest of his life fine and dandy.  Other things I’ve read since then have indicated I may have misunderstood, but I have to admit, I think I may have misunderstood the reality of the situation too.  I mean, is it really okay to do this to one child because he’s likely to survive if we take action, and not okay to another because he isn’t?  Does the degree make the difference, and if so, is there a clear line at which we intervene and on the other side of which we don’t?

I mean, as a society, we’ve already decided the state can override parental rights on all sorts of issues.  And yet, on others, we remain strangely silent.  You can take a child away from verbally or physically abusive parents, but as was pointed out to me, if you feed a child nothing but fast food all day long, the state does nothing.

As a society, we all want every child to be given every advantage.  At the same time, we don’t have any desire to take away the right to parents to raise their children the way they see fit.  We have nightmares about leaving children with parents who raise them to be full of hate or completely ignorant of the way to world works, and yet we at the same time are no more pleased by the vision of children raised by the state, uniformly, without such trivial things in the background like religion, compassion, or individuality.

All that cases like this really point out is how woefully inadequate our current systems are for handling such complex problems, while at the same time offering up no better solution.  Our current health care system?  Messed up at a remarkable number of levels.  Our current legal system?  The same.  Our social services?  Also the same.  Even our society.

We have become a nation that wants easy solutions.  We aren’t really capable of dealing with situations that have no easy answers.  All I know is, I want our children to be safe, healthy, and happy.  But those three words have such a wide meaning that there’s no easy way to meet that goal.

JC Health care, Society culture, Health care, parental rights

We all expect it from Rush Limbaugh and maybe some others, but people like Newt Gingrich need to tread lightly in calling Sotomayor a racist.  She may even be one, for all I know, but still, given the public perception of the Republican party sometimes, a bunch of white guys calling a latina racist just isn’t a good image to cultivate.

JC Society, Supreme Court Gingrich, Sotomayor

…in our system, here’s a point to think about.

In the wake of the Prop 8 decision, groups are moving forward with taking their case to Federal Court.  I don’t know if there’s a layer of courts before the Supreme Court or not, but I figure eventually it will wind up there.

I know the groups that are for gay marriage are assuming it will be protected in the same way that interracial marriage was found to be the law of the land, nation wide.  I would agree with that hope, but…

I don’t agree that this particular Supreme Court would find with the pro-gay marriage groups.  I’m not sure they really have any choice other than taking it further, legally, but I’m just not sure that with this court, which leans at least a bit conservative (certain decisions not withstanding) is the slam dunk that some seem to think it is.

JC Society, Supreme Court gay marriage, Supreme Court