When I first heard about this, I suspect that I was probably the least surprised person on the planet. Not that I treat it trivially; very much the opposite, in fact. A young life has been damaged, by the betrayal of not only her sibling, but her parents as well. That is reason enough to take it as seriously as hell.
But surprised? Not really.
I am a recovering evangelical Christian, recovering from both the ignorance and the hypocrisy that comes hand-in-hand with a belief system that claims a monopoly on truth itself. The ignorance is bad enough; you are, in order to buy into a cramped relief system, forced to withdraw from whole sectors of society that might be of more benefit to you, and to which you might bring some benefit as well. But the hypocrisy is perhaps worse. In evangelical Christianity, there is very little if any check on those in positions of power--ironic, perhaps, given the evangelical obsession with the fallen nature of humans and the like of true righteousness in all of us. Ironic, and, in the case of the Duggars' daughter, unbearably tragic.
Jim Bob Duggar is, I am sorry to say, fairly typical of the unquestioned patriarchy that controls the day-to-day lives of evangelicals. I'm the husband. I'm the father. I'm the provider and decision-maker for everyone. What I say and do goes. So says the Bible, and so say I. And woe to those who disagree with me. So, if I decide to have 19 children, well, God told me to be fruitful and multiply. And, if I decide to turn my oversized family into a reality show because I have no way otherwise to pay for it, well, that's just God's way of providing. And, if that means I can't give any of my 19-kids-and-counting the individual love and attention they deserve, well, God will provide some more.
It's precisely at this point, however, that the line is easily crossed between trusting God and trusting your own ability to discern God's will. Because, when circumstances start to become personally inconvenient, it becomes all to easy to use God as a cop-out for not accepting the responsibilities that go along with your power (to paraphrase Spider-Man's Uncle Ben). I don't have to change. God will provide, and anyone who says I need to make changes is just not trusting in God's will.
And, once that line is crossed, the person who has crossed is exposed with regard to his or her true ultimate motive: power. And all you have to do to see how Jim Bob crossed that line is to see how, in the middle of a U.S. Senate race where his family-values image was front-and-center, he handled--or rather, didn't handle--one child's cruelty toward another. To which he added his own cruelty of a cover-up, and worse.
This is why, I am sorry to say, social conservatives line up so easily with their counterparts in economic and foreign policy. Together, they are not about family values, or personal responsibility, or limited government, or even might making right. They are about might for might's sake--for their sake. They are all about power.
And it's time for the rest of us to stop them from abusing it. Before even one more child is betrayed.
Sunday, May 31, 2015
The Ultimate Source Of Teacher Demonization
As the son of a teacher, I suppose it's fair to say that I bring to the subject of teaching and teachers a natural bias toward their side of our education story. If you want to view the rest of this post through the lens of what may be a natural bias, feel free. I prefer to think that it merely gives me a front-row view of the facts. Which is important, because it is the very existence of facts that play a major role in the current crisis in our education system--or rather, in what's left of our system.
The basic outline of that decline and fall are, for the most part, well-described in this article on The Huffington Post's Web site. Essentially, the article is a plea to reverse the decades-long trend in starving public schools of funding, while essentially privatizing grades K through 12 via charter schools and other "market mechanisms." As a predicate to making that plea, however, the author lists a variety of factors beyond the control of teachers that nevertheless lead to their demonization. All of them are real, and each of them is worthy of extended individual discussion. With that in mind, I'd like to put in my 25 cents for identifying one as perhaps being more important than all the rest: the fundamental anti-intellectualism of Americans.
Historically, hatred of education has been a fundamental characteristic of American life since probably before the beginning of the Republic. And it makes an odd sort of sense, when you think about the reasons that motivated the settlement of America by Europeans. They came here seeking to either get rich, or to believe what they wanted to believe. Nobody came here to get a better education, or to get smarter. In fact, brains are the reason for all of the friction between those who value education and those who do not. Anyone can get rich, and anyone can believe. But brains are a matter of genetics, and learning, whether one has brains or not, is a matter of hard work. Not everyone has the right genetic make-up, and not everyone wants to work hard at something that does not always provide an immediate material reward.
Given these realities, is it really surprising that hatred of the educated is the only form of class warfare that is acceptable in the United States? And is it really any more surprising that our political culture, from the early nineteen-century on up to the present, features so many attacks on "college boys (and girls)," "intellectual snobs," and "eggheads"? I remember one of Richard Nixon's aide-de-crooks, John Ehrlichman, addressing Sam Dash, lead counsel for the Senate Select Watergate Committee, as "Professor" Dash, as though Dash's intellectual credentials would somehow make him alien to "real" Americans.
At least it was the case, back in Nixon's heyday, that we could still agree on the existence of facts. In the post Bush-Cheney era, however, facts themselves are up for debate. Want to go to war in Iraq? Need to invent a conspiracy theory to do so, to satisfy those "eggheads" in the intellectual community? Well then, just cherry-pick the evidence, cobble together some "facts," get a respected, loyal soldier like Colin Powell to sell them, and who gives a rat's behind if lives are lost and trillions are spent on a lie? You're in the pursuit of oil and profits, while waging war against a "false god," and snookering the brainy class to boot. It's win-win-win. Except, of course, that it was lose-lose-lose. For all of us.
And even THAT failure doesn't stop us from feeling free to question the most provable facts, if doing so will somehow get us ahead of the latest "egghead conspiracy" and feel powerful. Doubt me? Take a look at this. As the responses to the ridiculous question affirm, the existence of the Roman Empire is about as well-documented a historical fact as any. But not to those wrapped up in the non-existent power of "belief."
That's why conservative politicians are so hell-bent on destroying the public school system and instituting privatized education, controlled by their supporters. They believe, not without reason, that this is the key to destroying any concept of objective truth--and, with it, any basis for opposing their ability to control every aspect of American society. And, if you think they want to stop this process at grade 12, think again. Look at what they've done--or haven't done--with our college loan crisis. They're perfectly happy to put any obstacles in the way of a potential source of political opposition--even if that makes the United States effectively a brain-dead country compared to the nations with which we compete and trade.
We're talking, again, about a fundamental aspect of our national character. I have no silver-bullet solutions. But we'd better start focusing on finding one, and finding one fast. Before the only facts know are the ones that the investing class will let you believe in. Perhaps the best way is to align ourselves on the sides of the current scapegoats: teachers. Whether you have school-age children or not, find a way to get involved in public education, whether in your local schools or on the local board of education. Make yourself known. Make yourself heard. And help them to push back, while we still can.
Because, whether we have school-age children or not, we all benefit from a society where facts are stubborn things--and everyone has the resources to acquire them.
The basic outline of that decline and fall are, for the most part, well-described in this article on The Huffington Post's Web site. Essentially, the article is a plea to reverse the decades-long trend in starving public schools of funding, while essentially privatizing grades K through 12 via charter schools and other "market mechanisms." As a predicate to making that plea, however, the author lists a variety of factors beyond the control of teachers that nevertheless lead to their demonization. All of them are real, and each of them is worthy of extended individual discussion. With that in mind, I'd like to put in my 25 cents for identifying one as perhaps being more important than all the rest: the fundamental anti-intellectualism of Americans.
Historically, hatred of education has been a fundamental characteristic of American life since probably before the beginning of the Republic. And it makes an odd sort of sense, when you think about the reasons that motivated the settlement of America by Europeans. They came here seeking to either get rich, or to believe what they wanted to believe. Nobody came here to get a better education, or to get smarter. In fact, brains are the reason for all of the friction between those who value education and those who do not. Anyone can get rich, and anyone can believe. But brains are a matter of genetics, and learning, whether one has brains or not, is a matter of hard work. Not everyone has the right genetic make-up, and not everyone wants to work hard at something that does not always provide an immediate material reward.
Given these realities, is it really surprising that hatred of the educated is the only form of class warfare that is acceptable in the United States? And is it really any more surprising that our political culture, from the early nineteen-century on up to the present, features so many attacks on "college boys (and girls)," "intellectual snobs," and "eggheads"? I remember one of Richard Nixon's aide-de-crooks, John Ehrlichman, addressing Sam Dash, lead counsel for the Senate Select Watergate Committee, as "Professor" Dash, as though Dash's intellectual credentials would somehow make him alien to "real" Americans.
At least it was the case, back in Nixon's heyday, that we could still agree on the existence of facts. In the post Bush-Cheney era, however, facts themselves are up for debate. Want to go to war in Iraq? Need to invent a conspiracy theory to do so, to satisfy those "eggheads" in the intellectual community? Well then, just cherry-pick the evidence, cobble together some "facts," get a respected, loyal soldier like Colin Powell to sell them, and who gives a rat's behind if lives are lost and trillions are spent on a lie? You're in the pursuit of oil and profits, while waging war against a "false god," and snookering the brainy class to boot. It's win-win-win. Except, of course, that it was lose-lose-lose. For all of us.
And even THAT failure doesn't stop us from feeling free to question the most provable facts, if doing so will somehow get us ahead of the latest "egghead conspiracy" and feel powerful. Doubt me? Take a look at this. As the responses to the ridiculous question affirm, the existence of the Roman Empire is about as well-documented a historical fact as any. But not to those wrapped up in the non-existent power of "belief."
That's why conservative politicians are so hell-bent on destroying the public school system and instituting privatized education, controlled by their supporters. They believe, not without reason, that this is the key to destroying any concept of objective truth--and, with it, any basis for opposing their ability to control every aspect of American society. And, if you think they want to stop this process at grade 12, think again. Look at what they've done--or haven't done--with our college loan crisis. They're perfectly happy to put any obstacles in the way of a potential source of political opposition--even if that makes the United States effectively a brain-dead country compared to the nations with which we compete and trade.
We're talking, again, about a fundamental aspect of our national character. I have no silver-bullet solutions. But we'd better start focusing on finding one, and finding one fast. Before the only facts know are the ones that the investing class will let you believe in. Perhaps the best way is to align ourselves on the sides of the current scapegoats: teachers. Whether you have school-age children or not, find a way to get involved in public education, whether in your local schools or on the local board of education. Make yourself known. Make yourself heard. And help them to push back, while we still can.
Because, whether we have school-age children or not, we all benefit from a society where facts are stubborn things--and everyone has the resources to acquire them.
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Ted Cruz, Hypocrite
If you remember his Obamacare hypocrisy, his current FEMA hypocrisy shouldn't be surprising at all.
You Vote For A President, You Elect An Administration
Perhaps this can make that clear, as well as why voting in presidential elections is important in the first place.
Two Great Charters, Born Imperfect, Now Ignored
One protected individual rights, while one protected common rights. And government of, by and for the rich have largely swallowed up what they promised. Can we turn the tide? Only if we first wake up to what is being done to all of us--as individuals and as a society.
Don't Run, Elizabeth!
You have leverage now. Build on it in the Senate, where you'll never be term-limited, and become the next Ted Kennedy.
On The Brighter Side Of Green Politics ...
... there's innovative architecture, like this proposed rental complex in Bushwick (Brooklyn), New York. Bravo!
It's Time To Be Really Afraid Of Global Warming
Take a look at this, especially the photos of a small island in Vanuatu stripped of its vegetation by Cyclone Pam. And tell me it's a hoax. And tell me you aren't afraid.
And I'll call you a damn liar. And I'll be right.
And I'll call you a damn liar. And I'll be right.
Why "Redistribution" Is No Longer A Dirty Word
Because we live in an age when, thanks to technology, consumers are not needed as producers. And thus, consumers can't afford to buy, and producers therefore have no ability to sell.
One Way To Nudge States Toward Climate Reality
Don't want to prepare for climate change, because you don't believe it exists? Then no FEMA funds for you.
And, if that feels like too much billy club, consider what's happening in Texas and Oklahoma this week. Most of the folks there might want a billy club to lift and keep them above the flood waters. Even their two-faced GOP Congresspeople are now being forced to ask for the FEMA money they wanted to withhold from other states. They should be forced to confess the reality of climate change before they get a single penny.
And, if that feels like too much billy club, consider what's happening in Texas and Oklahoma this week. Most of the folks there might want a billy club to lift and keep them above the flood waters. Even their two-faced GOP Congresspeople are now being forced to ask for the FEMA money they wanted to withhold from other states. They should be forced to confess the reality of climate change before they get a single penny.
Is Kansas Waking Up?
When it comes to Obamacare at least, and its potential for Medicaid expansion, maybe they are.
When It Comes To Summing Up The House Of Representative's Current Stupidity ...
,,, I have no words. Fortunately, I don't need any. Bob Goodlatte, the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, has put together an entire e-press release that does so, complete with GIFs (all of which represent stolen intellectual property) to punctuate his lies about President Obama, and his Administration's alleged "failure" to enforce our immigration laws.
You know who's failed, Bob? You, your stupid Committee, and your even dumber House, for failing to work with the President to fix a broken system that your party, more than anyone or anything else, bears the greatest responsibility for breaking.
You know who's failed, Bob? You, your stupid Committee, and your even dumber House, for failing to work with the President to fix a broken system that your party, more than anyone or anything else, bears the greatest responsibility for breaking.
Times Square: Still Mirroring America, Even In The Age Of The 1%
In the old, edgy, sex-and-drug saturated '70s, 42nd Street and Broadway was the perfect reflection of our self-indulgent narcissism. Well, narcissism in America has moved from sex and drugs to money, but guess what? It turns out that Times Square is still the perfect mirror for all that.
I mean, when even Toys-R-Us can no longer afford to stay there, who can? Can even Broadway afford to stay there?
Once upon a time, saving Times Square seemed impossible. It's beginning to feel like saving America may be impossible.
I mean, when even Toys-R-Us can no longer afford to stay there, who can? Can even Broadway afford to stay there?
Once upon a time, saving Times Square seemed impossible. It's beginning to feel like saving America may be impossible.
Sunday, May 24, 2015
The Real Reason Republicans Are Stumbling On Iraq
Ah, Iraq. Does anyone remember the time when it was supposed to be a political gift to the Republicans? One that would keep on giving and giving political success after political success, for decades to come? Sadly, I do. I remember John Podhoretz, a member of the right-wing Lucky Sperm Club, using the New York Post column nepotism gave him to tell then-President George W. Bush to "go ahead" and "wag the dog," saying it would be "luscious" and "delicious" for his party and his country.
Of course, as all of us in the reality-based community know, things didn't work out exactly as the Republicans expected. Curiously, even Podhoretz and his employer seem to know it as well; I recently did a search of the Post's Web site, and couldn't find the column. Makes you think that George Orwell's "memory hole," supposedly a hallmark exclusively of left-wing totalitarian states, has found a home in Rupert Murdoch's right-wing media empire.
It's one thing for the conservative chattering classes to try to forget about the biggest foreign policy disaster in recent American history, a disaster authored and executed by Republicans. It's quite another for 2016 Republican Presidential candidates to try doing it as well. And, as they are now discovering, they cannot. They have to deal with it. And, as it turns out, they are not doing terribly well with it. That may be putting it mildly, in fact. They are failing. Miserably. Much like they failed in making the decision to go to war in the first place. It was a war of choice, to look for non-existent weapons of mass destruction, with no plan to pay for it and a consequential diversion of resources for the hunt of the real mass destroyer, Osama bin Laden.
Why is it so hard to acknowledge what everyone knows? Why are Republican candidates twisting themselves in knots on this subject to say that the sky isn't blue?
To answer that question, you have to go all the way back to 1980, and the presidential election that began the past three-decade-plus dominance of conservative politics. More than anything else, the Republican campaign in that election was based on promoting the concept that the incumbent Democrat, Jimmy Carter, was weak, vacillating, unable to take a principled stand and stick with it regardless of the circumstances or consequences. In contrast, Ronald Reagan was a bedrock conservative, unmovable on matters of principle (except during his actual presidency, when he was forced to move his principles on issues ranging from taxes to the so-called "Evil Empire).
Despite Reagan's own deviations from his alleged beliefs, the basic dichotomy painted during the 1980 campaign stuck in the mind of the public, with a generous amount of media help. And it continued to play a role in later Republican victories, in 1998, 1994, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, and 2014. That is because even when Republicans deviate from their alleged principles, they never admit it. They sweep their deviations under the media rug. And, so long as they continued to do so, the deviations never really happen.
But the rise of ISIS in what is left of Iraq and, increasingly, what is left of Syria have forced all of us to focus on Iraq, whether we want to or not. And, from the answers that Republican candidates have been giving, it's clear that they do not want to focus on it at all. For one very simple reason: to do so would ultimately force them to admit that their party, and many of them personally, made a mistake. And they cannot afford to do that. To do that would fatally undermine the entire rationale for Republican electoral success since 1980.
But they have no choice. The war in Iraq was a mistake. Their mistake. And their inability to admit that may be the beginning of the end of their party.
Of course, as all of us in the reality-based community know, things didn't work out exactly as the Republicans expected. Curiously, even Podhoretz and his employer seem to know it as well; I recently did a search of the Post's Web site, and couldn't find the column. Makes you think that George Orwell's "memory hole," supposedly a hallmark exclusively of left-wing totalitarian states, has found a home in Rupert Murdoch's right-wing media empire.
It's one thing for the conservative chattering classes to try to forget about the biggest foreign policy disaster in recent American history, a disaster authored and executed by Republicans. It's quite another for 2016 Republican Presidential candidates to try doing it as well. And, as they are now discovering, they cannot. They have to deal with it. And, as it turns out, they are not doing terribly well with it. That may be putting it mildly, in fact. They are failing. Miserably. Much like they failed in making the decision to go to war in the first place. It was a war of choice, to look for non-existent weapons of mass destruction, with no plan to pay for it and a consequential diversion of resources for the hunt of the real mass destroyer, Osama bin Laden.
Why is it so hard to acknowledge what everyone knows? Why are Republican candidates twisting themselves in knots on this subject to say that the sky isn't blue?
To answer that question, you have to go all the way back to 1980, and the presidential election that began the past three-decade-plus dominance of conservative politics. More than anything else, the Republican campaign in that election was based on promoting the concept that the incumbent Democrat, Jimmy Carter, was weak, vacillating, unable to take a principled stand and stick with it regardless of the circumstances or consequences. In contrast, Ronald Reagan was a bedrock conservative, unmovable on matters of principle (except during his actual presidency, when he was forced to move his principles on issues ranging from taxes to the so-called "Evil Empire).
Despite Reagan's own deviations from his alleged beliefs, the basic dichotomy painted during the 1980 campaign stuck in the mind of the public, with a generous amount of media help. And it continued to play a role in later Republican victories, in 1998, 1994, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010, and 2014. That is because even when Republicans deviate from their alleged principles, they never admit it. They sweep their deviations under the media rug. And, so long as they continued to do so, the deviations never really happen.
But the rise of ISIS in what is left of Iraq and, increasingly, what is left of Syria have forced all of us to focus on Iraq, whether we want to or not. And, from the answers that Republican candidates have been giving, it's clear that they do not want to focus on it at all. For one very simple reason: to do so would ultimately force them to admit that their party, and many of them personally, made a mistake. And they cannot afford to do that. To do that would fatally undermine the entire rationale for Republican electoral success since 1980.
But they have no choice. The war in Iraq was a mistake. Their mistake. And their inability to admit that may be the beginning of the end of their party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)