Government is...

The IRS. Good? Bad? Necessary?

I guess it’s easy for people to make a broad claim that I support big government because I’m unabashedly liberal, and therefore I generally support government assistance on many fronts. And I guess that I myself am guilty of defining conservatives as anti-tax, anti-government hate-mongers who care nothing for the poor and are only looking out for themselves, their guns, and their money. But the truth is that neither of these characterizations is fair.

I think the disconnect comes about when we define government as one, major monolithic institution. It isn’t. Government is as varied and diverse as the “private sector”, which is also often presented as having one definition and one goal. It doesn’t.

The IRS targeting conservative organizations that were seeking tax-exempt status was wrong. And while I most likely disagree with these organizations and their goals, I certainly don’t think it adds to democracy to have an institution within our government choosing winners and losers based upon political factors (to be a little fair to the IRS, many of the institutions filing for the tax-exempt status would not or should not have qualified – this includes many liberal organizations). So the IRS was wrong in this instance, but can we then turn around and say that since the IRS is part of “government”, then FEMA is wrong also, and so is HHS, and so is DHS, and so is the FDA. Where does it end? ALL government programs and institutions can’t be bad, can they? It’s ludicrous. The IRS isn’t even bad, there were just people within the institution that were doing the wrong thing.

We’re quick in this country to look for easy fixes and broad impacts. A government institution or program does something wrong – GET RID OF IT. But wait, wasn’t it performing some useful functions? Doesn’t matter, it messed up, so off with its head. That’s taxpayer money at work, and if it messes up its accountable to the taxpayers. Okay, fair enough. But what about all of the good services it provides – do those not account for anything against the mistake(s) it made? This is where conservatives and liberals seem to have the largest differential in opinion. Whereas liberals would say that the good outweighs the bad, and that there will always be government waste, but it’s a byproduct of the positive functions; conservatives are more apt to cut off the head of the individual, rather than treat the wound.

When there is waste in the private sector, we imagine that “the market” will work it out. That’s capitalism, right? WRONG. Government contracts, subsidies, tax breaks, even laws specifically written to benefit corporations. These are all examples of “government” propping up the “private sector”, because these companies no longer operated effectively or efficiently. And while it’s easy to turn this around and say that it is government that is at fault in this scenario (and part of the blame does lie with legislators), it is important to recognize that the same big business conservatives that are pimping the idea of the free market are the ones taking the government handouts. It is hypocrisy, and worse than that, it takes money away from government programs that help those in need to prop up businesses that are inefficient, ineffective, and unnecessary.

I had a discussion with a conservative friend of mine a while back in which he said that he didn’t like paying taxes because he felt that the money was being spent on things he didn’t agree with. I stood there for a second trying to get into his head. Not really understanding how an intelligent person could be so dense. I said plainly, “That’s a democracy. How do you think I feel? I’m sure I disagree with many of the things government spends money on that you agree with.” He just shrugged it off, but I think the point was noted in his psyche, because it’s a true point that no one wants to face up to. Yes, of course we all want our government to represent our individual ideological perspective, but I’d rather live in a country where I didn’t get what I want, but the process was fair, rather than live in country where a dictator happened to support my views. FOR THE RECORD – this is an oversimplification, because we don’t, in fact, live in a democracy, and unfortunately our government is more reactive to interest group and moneyed individual pressure than to that of the majority of citizens.

Sorry, you can scratch this whole post if you want, it’s rather disjointed.

The exception to the rule...

Terrorism  
ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm] - noun
1. The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Why is it that we declare people who plant bombs to kill and maim people, to illicit fear, terrorists, but we call people who do it with a gun just crazy individuals? What's the difference?

We have very little information as to the motivation behind the bombing that occurred at the Boston Marathon last week. However, the information that has trickled out seems to point to extremist views that ratcheted up to the point of committing a heinous act of violence. But so far we have no actual information linking the brothers to any terrorist group or terrorist training.

I've heard talking heads throw out the fact that they used the pressure cooker bomb as evidence, because it's been used by terrorists in other parts of the world. But I counter that anyone with even a limited knowledge of the internet can get access to the anarchists cookbook. Until I hear some definitive evidence that either one or both of these terrorists have specific links to a terror organization, I don't find it advantageous to conjecture.

Which brings me to the main issue, which is what makes someone a terrorist. It seems that by media standards, one can meet the threshhold of terrorist with any of the following:
(a) any immigrant that commits an act of violence against a U.S. citizen
(b) any person that uses a bomb to commit an act of violence
(c) any Muslim that commits any act of violence whatsoever
(d) any person that commits an act of violence after traveling to a majority-Muslim country

This criteria is bullshit. The media is wrong. The Tsarnaev Brothers are terrorists, there is little to no doubt about that (unless of course the police have the wrong person). But so is the shooter at Sandy Hook, so is the shooter at the Sikh temple, so is the Aurora shooter, so is the shooter in Tucsom, so is the shooter in Fort Hood, so is the shooter at Virginia Tech, and on and on and on.

These are all terrorist acts by the definition provided above. But because most of them were committed by "normal" young, white men, they are not deemed as such. Added to the fact that our nation's obsession with guns, and the gun lobby's huge influence, diminishes the impact that guns and gun violence have on the national conscious. I've never heard someone say, "bombs don't kill people, people kill people", but for some reason our society allows the same to be said of guns.

We are a nation that lives in fear. I've heard way more times than I'm comfortable with that people are stock-piling ammunition because they want to be prepared when "stuff goes down". I'm not exactly sure what they mean by this, or what they think the government is planning, but THAT is a the threat of violence that intimidates and coerces.

Fairness, huh...

Fairness may be an easy term to define, but it’s much more nebulous when we make an effort to point it out in reality or determine how to bring it about (or even if we want it, but that’s another story).

The reason I got to thinking about fairness is because on NPR this last week (I listen to NPR on my way to work) they've been discussing the “sequester” and the impact it will have on the defense department. NPR has been talking about how the deep cuts in defense spending will impact the civilian jobs paid for by the defense department (employees will be forced to take 22 unpaid furlough days per year), and how the cuts will affect our “military readiness”. Now, obviously Defense is posturing, because the last thing they want is for their bloated budget to get cut, and for them to actually have to tighten their belt and buy equipment that gets used and pay for personnel that actually serves the interest of the armed forces; but that’s an issue for another day. Let’s suffice it to say that the Defense Department will say and do whatever they have to do to continue to receive the portion of the budget they receive. But what struck me most about this article was not the fact that the Defense Department was whining about furlough days and military readiness, but the complete failure of NPR – the supposed mouthpiece of the left – in discussing how the other part of the sequester, the cuts in non-defense spending, will affect literally hundreds of thousands of people.

But I guess I shouldn't be surprised by this fact. Fairness doesn't matter in this country. Fairness is a buzz word used by politicians to get people to hate and deride other people, while at the same time doing things that are unfair to others. Is it fair that minor drugs offenses send people to jail and give them felony convictions which affect the rest of their lives, while investment bankers gamble with your and the government’s money and lose literally trillions of dollars, but receive nothing lighter than a golden parachute (and a government bailout)? Is it fair that the working poor can hardly make ends meet, but are not only scorned by the wealthy for (supposedly) draining government coffers, but also pay higher tax rates than those at the very top who don’t even work for a living (and actually are the one’s draining government coffers through subsidies and special tax breaks)? Is it fair that immigrants (illegal or not) come to this country every day, labor hard doing shitty work while constantly fearing discrimination and deportation, while working hard to make a living for their family, only to have politicians in this country turn around and describe them all as criminals, who are doing nothing to serve this country but instead draining our resources (which is patently false according to statistics – something conservatives are generally afraid of) and/or taking the jobs from “hard-working (but unwilling to do the jobs) Americans”.

The fact is, things are not fair. I wish they were. I wish everyone had basic health care. I wish everyone had access to a good education. I wish everyone could get a job. I wish everyone cared to get a job. I wish people didn't manipulate the system. I wish there wasn't fraud. I wish the media was open and honest. I wish politicians were open and honest. I wish people who committed financial crimes would be held responsible. I wish. I wish. I wish. The list goes on and on. But the reality is reality. But one wish that I think actually can and should come true is that people who support the system of inequality and unfairness, shouldn't be allowed to whine about it once they’re facing the sharp end. To quote John Kennedy from his inaugural address, “those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside”.

A true diplomat...

I did not vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 primary elections. I didn’t want her to be president. I wasn’t even a huge fan of hers. I don’t know why. I guess I was just excited about the potential for a Barack Obama presidency (and had been since his Democractic convention speech in 2004). The election got nasty. Hillary said some things that people cringed at. Bill said some things that people cringed at. Barack said some things people cringed at. It was thought that President Obama taking Joe Biden as his VP was a slight to Hillary – and maybe it was – but it turned out to be one of the best administrational slights ever made.

Hillary Clinton has been no less than a phenomenal Secretary of State. Hillary not only repaired the fracture within the Democratic party with her steadfast commitment to the Obama administration foreign policy, but also gained the respect of most Republican lawmakers and citizens with her tireless travel and diplomatic efforts in reaching out to leaders throughout all corners of the globe. Clinton has visited more countries and traveled more extensively than any other secretary of state in history. She is indefatigable. She’s visited several countries during her tenure that have been ignored by American presidents and secretaries of state for years. She saw before her as Secretary of State a task that was nothing short of changing how the rest of the world perceived the United States. And while that is a continuing process (and hopefully her legacy will continue under Sec. of State John Kerry), Clinton has made giant strides in improving the relations of the United States with the rest of the world.

Clinton faced congressional hearings today to answer questions about the murder of diplomatic personnel in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012. Clinton was nothing short of spectacular. Certainly this was an awful situation. Awful for the families who suffered losses of their loved ones. Awful for other diplomatic personnel who lost a colleague and are also put at unease over their own security. Awful for the administration that place those personnel in harm’s way. And awful for an American public that sees the hatred against the United States being manifested in such a horrific way. And rightly, the public and members of congress want answers to questions about how this was allowed to happen. Republican congressmen attempted – and succeeded – in making Susan Rice, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, the sacrificial lamb, by accusing her of fabricating a protest that had turned into an attack on the consulate in Benghazi. Susan Rice was incorrect, that much has been shown to be true, but she was simply relaying CIA talking points that she had been given, to the Sunday morning talk shows. Rice should not have had to fall on the sword, but as a consummate professional, she did so to protect the integrity of the office on Secretary of State.

Hillary has done the same thing. While Clinton wasn’t the one to attend the Sunday morning shows, she would have given the same information that Ambassador Rice gave. And that is what Hillary has indicated in these congressional hearings. She said it before and she’s repeated it today that she was the one responsible for diplomatic personnel, and while there might have been failures in providing adequate security to American consulates and diplomatic personnel around the globe, there was so much happening during that time that there was little that she or the State Department could do. It was a bad situation and the Secretary of State cannot wave a magic wand and make a bad situation disappear. But she’s proven throughout the questioning of the Benghazi attacks, and especially during these hearings, that she is a person of integrity and will sacrifice herself to the dogs of politics to save the face of the office of the Secretary of State, the President, and the country as a whole.

We will miss you Madame Secretary. See you in 2016.

Change and no change...

Today I wanted to write a dual post about the president and myself.

I know a lot of people did not care as much about the RE-election of Barack Obama as they did about the election. The economy is still poor. We will have wiretapping issues. We still use drone strikes. We’re still in Afghanistan. But watching the president take the oath of office, and deliver what many have considered a bold, hyper-partisan inaugural address, I couldn’t help but feel a little choked up at the idea that this country not only elected, but re-elected the first black president in our history. I read a great Eugene Robinson article today, where he talked about what an amazing statement it makes that through all of the president’s trials and tribulations during his first term, he came through with an electoral victory, and race (at least with regard to the president) has become a muted or non-existent issue. Now that is not to say that we’ve attained that post-racial world, but at least the majority of Americans now accept that it’s not strange for a black man to be occupy the White House and maintain the position as the most powerful man in the world.

It is amazing. Sure, we heard a lot of racist undertones (and overtones) throughout the first four years of Barack’s presidency, but most of that stuff was fallen off to a light din in the radical corners of American political life. The president, for all intents and purposes, has changed the dynamic of American politics by not becoming (in the eyes of prejudice people who don’t consider themselves prejudice) a token black president that we as a country can hang our hat on, and then send packing with the election of a rich old white man, but instead an enduring presence during a period of uncertainty and insecurity. Barack is no longer only the first black president, but he is now a re-elected president; and specifically a president re-elected in the midst of continuing economic turmoil. Good on you President Obama, good on you.

Now onto myself. I’m not perfect. I’m sure that I have prejudices just like everyone else, and I’m sure that from time to time I say things that some people cringe at. However, anyone who knows me knows that I make painstaking efforts to be sensitive in what I say, and am the first to correct someone who I feel has said something insensitive or offensive. Again, I’m not perfect and I’m not bringing this up to say that I’m “holier than thou”, but I at least make an effort.

This brings me to a frustrating point of contention I’ve encountered in American society. I’ve noticed this among white people, but in talking to people of other racial/ethnic groups I know that it occurs there too, that people think that somehow because you’re of the same race that they are free to say whatever they want in front of you. It’s as if because we share the same skin tone it means I automatically agree with your prejudice or outright racism. And then, when I correct the person and let them know that I’m NOT okay with what they’re saying, then I’m questioned as to why I’m so upset about, because “it doesn’t affect me”. And my response is always the same (albeit somewhat trite) – “it affect ALL of us”. I don’t to live in a society where prejudice and racism exist, so I’m offended when it occurs by anyone against anyone. I don’t need to be a member of any particular group to be offended and I shouldn’t have to defend myself for being so. I should be the one (and am) that is questioning the person for thinking that they can “get away with” talking in some loose, effluent manner, just because our skin color looks similar. It just makes me sad and angry.

Quentin unchained...

So I debated whether or not to write something about Django Unchained. I had considered writing about the movie before I had seen it, because what I was planning on writing didn't have so much to do with the movie itself, but the reaction to it. However, because of laziness, and also because of a certain uneasiness with writing about movies that I haven’t seen, I decided to hold off.

Well I saw Django Unchained over the weekend, and while I’m still digesting the film, I think I’m at least comfortable writing a post about it.

Let me begin by saying that while Spike Lee is an intelligent man (or seemingly so), a creative filmmaker, and an undisputed maven in black cinema (an American cinema in general), I question his criticism of Django before even seeing the film. I can’t say that no one will find this movie racist (I personally did not, but more on that later), because it is subjective, after all, and that means that what I took away from it is not necessarily what someone else will take away from it. But I can’t help but accuse Spike Lee of bias, as he has a history of criticizing Quentin Tarantino (don’t get me wrong, I’m no Tarantino apologist) for being a racist; so the context of a white filmmaker – especially Quentin Tarantino – making a glib film about slavery naturally would rub him the wrong way. But as a filmmaker – especially a filmmaker that deals with racial issues – should at least give Tarantino a chance to make his argument before completely debasing the film, and calling it racist.

That being said, had Spike Lee seen the film, he still might have come to the same conclusion. And to be fair, I’ll agree with Spike Lee in saying that Tarantino’s use of the “N” word in his movies seems more about his potential desire for using a controversial word freely than to create authenticity in his characters and movies. In my reality – and my reality in no way reflects anybody else’s – people don’t just throw around the “N” word, whether that be in the company of black people or not. The “N” word is a taboo word, and just because a white person is friendly or comfortable with an individual or group of black people, doesn't mean that the word becomes standard nomenclature. In the black community it could be different, and I understand that, but I think Lee’s criticism is more of Tarantino’s white characters’ flippant use of the word, rather than his black characters.

Sorry, I trailed off a bit there. So while I understand Lee’s issues with Tarantino’s use of the “N” word, and the “N” word was used A LOT – I repeat A LOT – in Django Unchained, the use actually seemed very apropos to the film, and actually added a certain authenticity that Tarantino sometimes lacks in his historic pieces. If you read my blog, you might have stumbled upon a piece where I talk about the “N” word, so you know that I’m no fan; but as I said, it’s use in Django Unchained, while very liberal, actually seemed quite realistic. The use of the word itself, I hope at least, didn't solely create the impression in some people’s minds that this movie, or Tarantino himself, is racist.

Now to the film itself. I personally did not find the film racist. It is true that a filmmaker ought to be sensitive when addressing a topic such as slavery; but Quentin Tarantino is not a sensitive filmmaker, so while should doesn't equate to is, that doesn't mean he was being racist with his insensitivity. The film, similar to his efforts in Inglorious Basterds, is essentially a revenge movie where Tarantino rewrites history to make oppressed people beat their oppressors. While people may question why Tarantino made the movie, if I was to venture a guess I would say that it’s because he’s a filmmaker who is interested in the idea of oppression and social injustice, and therefore wanted to make a bloody farce based upon what would happen if history were fair.

That’s my take on the movie, but I’m interested in knowing what others thought of the movie. Did you find it racist? Did you think there was a point in Tarantino making the movie? Is it fair for Spike Lee to disavow the movie without ever seeing it?