Dumbing it Down

I know that I've touched upon this topic in the past, but after reading a Maureen Dowd op-ed piece the other day, I felt that I could use this post in order to properly formulate and write down my views about the anti-intellectualism, anti-fact, and embracing of stupidity that has become the status quo in certain social and political spheres in our country.
The sad reality in contemporary American - and to a large extent global - society, is that everyone has a different view of how things actually are. Those views are not based (at least explicitly) on traditional historical perspective formulations like family, friends, culture, geography, race, gender, or any of the other myriad of factors that could contribute to determining how you view and interpret what you see and hear. So what are they based up? Where you get your news. It's as simple as that. I think that everything else; your perspective on politics, love, literature, beauty, culture, etc., is all just an extension of where you get your news.
The reason is that the "news media", if they should even be called that anymore, has gone through a terrible transition over the course of its history, that has brought it to be something of a cultural cancer that is slowly eating away at [what we have left of] our democracy. News media started as a medium to disseminate information. And while I'm sure early media pioneers didn't always printed everything about everyone, this bias was much less systemic. The news media, and I suppose media in general, then became so large that they began having an affect on what we thought. They would built up or tamp down news stories, dependent upon whether or not it was politically and economically advantageous to do so. We began to see our world filtered through the news media's prism, and what came out on the other end was not only not related to fact, but was simply a dumbed down ad for some company, product, or idea. However, the contemporary "news media" (again, I think quotes are necessary when describing the current media phantasmagoria) has become so vile, that they no longer have an effect on simply what we think, but they've had a deleterious effect on HOW we think.
How can they do this, you might ask? Well, we've become accustomed to short, fast news stories, that are meant to thrill, but not meant to last. This has become our perspective on the world, personified in our everyday lives by our relationships, our spending habits, and leisure activities. Americans no longer wish to spend years learning crafts, not for money or fame, but for the joy of making something; no, Americans prefer activities that benefit them financially or socially, but which are a low cost to them in time and money. And we don't like to build relationships over long periods of time, getting to know one another well, and learning to depend on each other for comfort and support; it's much easier to talk via a screen, and never have to leave your house. It's easier to have children raised by others, and to have the television educate children, while they eat their dinner in front of it, than to read to kids or take them out for a bike ride. And we don't build things to last anymore; it's easier just to continue buying the same cheaply built garbage over and over again, than to buy things that will stay with you for the long haul. In fact, our society goes so far as to call people who hold onto things for long periods of time "cheap" and "hoarders" (there are real hoarders, but I'm not referring to them), instead of valuing their appreciation for well made products. Houses, cars, crafts, wares, they're all made quickly and cheaper out of poor products these days.

So what does it all mean? I don't know. I'm just as susceptible and guilty as everyone else, but I've always heard that acceptance is the first step in overcoming. A long-time friend of mine and I have discussed this topic many times, and I think he has what might be the best solution in the short-term, and a building block for better solutions in the long-term. The reason we're so easily manipulated into being told how to think, is because there is a void. Parents, friends, relatives, schools, no longer teach kids how to think. They believe that a child should "be able to think for themselves". This is true, but it misses the point. The point is that kids first need to know HOW to think, before they can learn to think for themselves. The activity of teaching kids how to think is not explicit, but rather a slow process of helping children understand that everything they're taking in should not be interpreted as being true. This isn't to say a rejection of facts, but simply being able to interpret a specific type of information. What we need to develop, from the time kids start school until the time they are no longer in school, is a critical thinking curriculum. Critical thinking is the single most important skill to have in today's world, and it is among the least valued in our society. If we all learned how to think rationally, and be able to "separate the wheat from the chaff", we've all be much better suited to deal with the sensationalist news media and society that is going on around us, and attempting to pull in a million different directions at once.
A glut of information is not a bad thing. But too much information, and no way to interpret it is very scary. So to meld these two ideas, we can embrace the modern media phenomenon of a literal orgy of information, but also understand how to sift through the information to find out what is true, real and right.

After a short hiatus...

So it's been a while since my last post, and a lot has been going on both personally and politically.

On a personal note, I participated in the 30th Annual Hood to Coast Relay Race. For those of you not familiar with this race, there are approximately 1,200 teams that run approximately 200 miles from Timberline Lodge on Mt. Hood (the exterior of Timberline Lodge was actually used for the film "The Shining") through Portland, OR and onto Seaside on the Oregon Coast. Each team has 12 members, with six team members in each of two vans. I was recruited onto this team by a woman from work, who was in the other van, so I knew no one I was doing the race with. I'll tell you what, as a first experience, I couldn't have asked for a better group of people to do this race with. Everyone was so supportive, and made the running and the overall experience incredibly enjoyable. It's amazing how quickly you can bond with a group of people by spending nearly 36 hours in a van with them; especially since we're all sleep-deprived and exhausted from running anywhere between 15 - 20 miles. We saw each other at our highs (right before the runs) and lows (right after the runs) and I think it really contributed to the sense of team camaraderie. Our team did not come in first and I think our pre-race time actually disqualified us before we even began, but none of that really mattered, because the experience was more of a team/personal accomplishment than actually completing against the other teams (it's my philosophy of running, personified in a relay race). The finish was also quite wonderful, because not only did we get to meet up and hang out with the other van and the rest of our team members, but I also got to see some old New York co-workers who were also participating in the race on another team. I didn't stick around for the beach party, because the four hours of sleep in three days had definitely taken a toll on me. Overall, it was a great experience, and if you haven't done so before, you should consider forming or joining a team and applying for a spot (that's another thing, the race is VERY difficult to get into - nearly 10,000 team apply, and only 1,200 get spots).

In politics, it's been a pretty exciting month thus far. We had the president giving a much-anticipated jobs speech, with Republicans rebuking him days before it was even giving, and then following that up with another Republican primary debate where they threw the president's plan and reason out the window. And then there was the whole ten year remembrance of September 11, 2001, but I'll get to that later.
The president's speech was, as expected, a heavy-handed call on Republicans to work with Democrats on doing what needs to be done to create jobs. The plans and ideas, though vague, seemed to be a road map of how the president plans to blame Republicans if they fail to help him institute this nearly $500 billion plan. The problem is that Republicans have been unfazed before in the face of the president's threats (and the potential public outcry), and the most likely scenario is that their obstinate politicking will continue, despite the deleterious effect the high unemployment and low economic growth is having on our economy. While I think that the president's speech was more political posturing than anything else - the real proof will be in the bill itself - I think it was necessary posturing, considering the Republicans unwillingness to work with anything that might have even a small positive impact on the president.
The Republican debate was a bit more interesting with the inclusion of the newest person to jump into the fray, Texas Governor Rick Perry. I'm not a big fan of Perry, and I think he has no chance of winning the general election - though his chances of getting the Republican nomination are pretty high - but I think he adds a much needed Texas Governor (asshole) to the race, which had been sorely lacking. The funny thing about Perry getting into the race, is that he basically makes Michelle Bachmann irrelevant, and severely limits the possibility of Sarah Palin getting into the primary (unless of course she thinks she can beat him in a head-to-head fight for the fringe right - something she might very well be able to do). All Bachmann could do during the debate was continue to bring up "Obamacare" over and over, trying to tie it to every question asked, regardless of relevance. What Perry does for this Republican primary that none of the other candidates are able to do is bridge the gap between the party establishment and the far right (including the tea party). Rick Perry will stand up and talk like a well-seasoned politician, but then in the next sentence will call social security, probably the greatest social program the government offers, and serves what are probably the most important (politically speaking) constituents to winning an election, a ponzi scheme. His brand of Texas talk is the standard "in your face, if you don't like it we're doing it anyway", kind of politics that those on the far right adore; while his actual politics (policy-wise) puts him much more in line with standard Republican ideas and ideals. It's still anyone's game, with the first primary a little less than four months away, but I think we're seeing some standouts as the debates weed out those unqualified for the office (although none of them seem to be getting the notice, because we haven't seen anyone else drop out since Tim Pawlenty).

Finally, I think that I should address the remembrance of September 11, 2011. The horror of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center will certainly be something that I will never forgot. However, not at the time, nor at any time after, have I lived with the illusion that we all of the sudden became some hyperbolized haven for liberty and tranquility, and that our subsequent military interventions were benevolent conquests to spread freedom to people that were wallowing under the manacles of violent despots, just waiting to be released.
However, I'm don't want to get into the manipulation and sickening use of the attack for political purposes; instead I think it's important to remember that there were nearly 3,000 people that were killed, and that those people were innocently murdered for the sake of a radical religio-political ideology whose aim it was to strike fear into our hearts, and disrupt our way of living. The people who were killed were fathers and mother, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, friends. Many thousands of people that were nowhere near the World Trade Center, The Pentagon, or the field outside of Shanksville, PA, were affected by losing someone they loved. The ability to deal with and move on from this tragedy has been different for everyone, and some people grieve best by getting revenge. Some people grieve by withdrawing, and closing themselves off to the outside world until they've had time to figure things out for themselves. Some people go on with their lives as if nothing has changed, constantly trying to not remember the horrific events they've witnessed, or the loved ones they've lost. Others simply weep at the unimaginable destruction that was wrought, both to the planes and the buildings that were crashed into, but also in the hearts of people who cannot comprehend what would compel someone to do something so awful to others. The truth is that there is no comprehension of how people can come up with, plan and execute such a ghastly endeavor; but I guess our goal should not be to comprehend, but to feel sympathy not only for ourselves, but also for those that harbor so much hatred and anger within themselves.

"When are you going to unleash us..."

In case you missed it this week, my favorite California Congresswoman, Maxine Waters, was in the news this week after pleading with the black community to allow the Congressional Black Caucus to challenge the policies of the president and rejoin the political fighting in Washington.
“When you tell us it’s alright and you unleash us and you tell us you’re ready for us to have this conversation, we’re ready to have the conversation." She went on to say, “We’re elected officials. We are trying to do the right thing and the best thing. When you let us know it is time to let go, we’ll let go.” Maxine Waters was finally uttering a feeling that I think a lot of Democrats have been having about President Obama, but have as yet felt unable to speak about. I personally don't think the Obama presidency has been a failure of leadership, but as a liberal, I would say that I am frustrated with the policies that have come out Washington during his tenure.
Maxine Waters, as one of the leading voices of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in the House of Representatives, should be able to press the president day after day on every policy to try and push the legislation - and the country - in a more progressive direction. But what congressional members are seeing, and especially Democratic - and especially especially very liberal Democratic - members are seeing, is the president continually extending the olive branch to Republicans, watching them spit in his face, and then watching him wipe the spit off and extend the olive branch again. They're feeling as though he's continually trying to work across the aisle, but by doing so has forgotten about the people who supported him and elected him in the first place.
I think this is especially true of the Congressional Black Caucus, who as Mrs. Waters so vociferously pointed out, has felt "leashed" and unable to confront the president, because they worried about a backlash from the black community. While obviously the black community, and no other group as well, vote as a bloc, I think congressional Democrats - and especially the Congressional Black Caucus - have been walking on egg shells with regard to criticizing the president, because they don't want to scare people away from voting in 2012, and they don't want to anger a constituency that will get them personally re-elected. Waters stated this point in her meeting in Detroit, “We don’t put pressure on the president. Let me tell you why. We don’t put pressure on the president because ya’ll love the president. You love the president. You’re very proud to have a black man — first time in the history of the United States of America. If we go after the president too hard, you’re going after us.”
So why is it that people are so protective of the president? Why do Democratic members of congress, and especially members of the Congressional Black Caucus, feel unable to speak freely about the president and his policies? I think that part of it might have to do with the fact that president Obama, both as a great orator, as well as the first black presidential nominee from a major party, excited a group of voters that has up til now [then, 2008] felt left out of the political process and felt like they had no one that cared about them or was representing them. And while President Obama may have seemed to be this shining knight, for congressional members he's proven to be just a politician, and not a voice for the voiceless. So what congressional Democrats - and again, especially the Congressional Black Caucus - want to do is to give voice to dissent against the president in an effort to create better policy, and stop letting Republicans be the only alternative voice to the president's, without upsetting this very group of people whose political involvement is tenuous, and who because they are either blinded by his professorial manner and oratory skill, or because they don't necessarily follow politics, still see the president as the knight that is going to be the champion of the downtrodden.

Important Note: I think I've stated this before, and I think it's worth noting again; I support the president, and I think that he's accomplished quite a lot in such a rough political climate. Has he fully represented the liberal perspective like I would like to see - not at all. But then again, he ran on a platform of change, and his idea of change was post-partisanship, not necessarily progression and reform. But look for the president to change after November 2012. I think that during the president's second term, he will be the leader that we've been waiting for, and the champion of the downtrodden that we hoped he would be. With no political ramifications to hold him back, the president will be able to push ahead with his progressive agenda unfettered. He will become what we've always wanted him to be; or maybe I'm just blinded by his professorial manner and oratory skill.

Where did it go...

I've been uber-focused on politics as of late, so I'm going to take a break for a second, and tell you what's going on in my life.
A couple of weeks ago, I drove to a party at a friends house, partied through the night, and got a ride home when the party was over; leaving my car at my friends house overnight. I got up the next day, and remembered that my car was not outside, and decided to ride my bike over to my friends house to pick up my bike. I get to my friends house, hang out for a while, and then leave my bike behind and drove the car home.
Now let me give you a little background on my friends house. This is a house in which four girls live; they never lock their garage, they never lock their back door, and they have a lot of lawn furniture and two bicycles that sit unlocked in their unfenced back yard. Not to jink them, but these girls have never had their house broken into, and have never had anything stolen from their back yard or garage. So, I'm figuring it's a safe bet to leave my bike in their backyard, so much so that I don't even lock up my bike (my fault) for a night.
Well, I get a call from my friend the next day, and she asks me if I had come that morning to get my bike. I tell her that I had not, but why was she asking. She said that the bike was no longer there. I really didn't think much of the comment, and figured she just wasn't paying attention, or that one of the other ladies in the house had moved it.
I went for a run later and ran over to the ladies' house. I arrived, not really thinking about my bicycle, but more just hanging out. I hung out for a couple of hours, and then when I was ready to head home, I went to the back yard to search for my bike. Well, lo and behold, it was gone. I searched the garage, searched every corner of the yard, looked in the basement, and checked in with all of the housemates; no dice. I was baffled. No fence, garage unlocked, lawn furniture, other unlocked bikes, and none of them were touched; my bike was the only thing stolen.
I'm not hugely upset about the actual bike, it wasn't terribly expensive or nice, but what frustrates me is that a) a free, energy-efficient, exercise-inducing, (almost) carbon footprint-free mode of transportation was taken from me, and b) the fact nothing else was taken (I'm glad nobody else lost anything, but I don't understand it), so it felt like a conspiracy.

Did he just say that...?

After having missed the August 11 Republican debate, I finally had the opportunity to check it out in full yesterday. As a liberal, watching these debates are always rather frustrating and scary, but I feel that as somewhat of a political wonk, it's important to hear and understand (if possible) the perspectives of those on the other side.
While most of the questions thrown to the candidates are the standard softballs, occasionally they get hit with a tough policy question that the serious politicians and politicos like Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney have no trouble with, but the less astute candidates such as Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain find to be a little more difficult to answer.
What I think is interesting is how these candidates are trying so hard to pander to the right (most of them, anyway), that they'll probably going to end up crippling themselves in the general election. I was reading an article yesterday about how this primary is much different from that between Obama and Hillary, because in that fight they were attacking each other, but fighting for political moderacy, while in this Republican primary fight they're aiming all of their arrows at the president, but fighting for the fringe. I've got news for these candidates, the Tea Party, while it may be a vocal and vociferous movement, simply does not have the votes to give you the primary victory, or especially a victory in the general election. Winning the presidency in this country has to do with a) getting the majority of registered members of your party to actually show up to the polls, and b) getting a lot of independent voters (by registration - no voter is truly independent on the issues) to vote for you. It's that simple.
What the republicans are banking on is that they can excite their base enough so that ALL of them show up, and then the Republican establishment-types will vote Republican no matter what, because that's what they do. Then, they're hoping that Independents will be disenchanted enough with the economy (remember, stupid...) that they're turn their back on the President and his efforts to revive it. The problem with this philosophy is that it only works if Republicans sent one of their warriors to the general, and not one of their establishment candidates. Michele Bachmann will excite the base, but she has literally no chance of winning the general. Same goes for Herman Cain and Ron Paul. Mitt Romney and John Huntsman are on the opposite end of the spectrum; they can make a lot of money by appealing to the party elites, and could both possibly win a general election, but would most likely not do so because the party base would stay at home, and opt to mourn the state of the country, instead of handing the presidency over to a more mainstream, establishment Republican (to be fair, I give them credit for being principled, even if they are misguided).
Basically, I think the point I'm making is that Republicans are in a catch-22, and are probably going to lose the election. I don't know much about Rick Perry, but I find it hard to imagine that even if the guy is a great campaigner, and can play moderate for the Independent's sake, that the country would be willing to throw out the current intelligent, moderate, professorial president we now have for another governor from Texas.

Two asides--
First, I find Herman Cain's obsession with Islam and making sure that Shari'ah law is not practiced within United States courts very odd. The guy has tried to clarify his statements over and over again, but he continues to make his hole deeper. Cain has basically said that Christian values must be respected, because those are protected by the Constitution, but that Islamic values are essentially an infringement upon Christian values, and are therefore not protected by the same Constitution. When will Republicans give up their jingoist, pro-Christian agenda, and just respectfully let everyone believe what they want to believe (including Christians). Despite popular Republican opinion, respect for other religions does not infringe upon your rights.
Second, I think Sarah Palin's trailing of the Republican primary campaign trail to be kind of creepy. It seems obvious that all she wants is attention, which is probably why she will end up joining the Republican primary fight. However, with her credentials known (or lack thereof) and her name recognition already greater, than any of the other Republican primary candidates; to involve herself in the debates would probably do more harm than good. With almost 7 months before the Republican primaries are set to begin, Sarah Palin has no real incentive to join the fray, when she'll only be running as a celebrity candidate anyway, and everyone just expects her do so. She'll try and keep herself in the news, while desperately trying to bulk up her foreign and domestic policy knowledge. Look for Palin's primary campaign to be short-lived. She'll be in and out.

A Bad Rap

There is a fairly common narrative going around the country today within Democratic and liberal political circles, that President Obama’s first term has been a failure. Not in terms of getting things done, per se, but in terms of living up to the hype of hope and end of partisanship that he so eloquently stated he would bring to Washington, DC and the country at large. I disagree.
I don’t disagree that there was a tremendous amount of hype surrounding the then first-term Senator, or that the Obama campaign took advantage of that hype to propel Mr. Obama into the White House. However, my disagreement stems from the idea that President Obama has failed to live up to this hype, or that he has failed to move beyond partisanship. You blanch?
The hope surrounding candidate Obama was that he was going to “change Washington”. While the specific understanding of this concept is rather muddled and ambiguous, and understood differently by almost every person in the country, the general idea was that the cronyism, corruption and extreme partisanship needed to end. So Mr. Obama swoops into Washington with a Democratically-controlled Congress, both House and Senate, and people start saying that what they always say when either chamber of Congress changes from one party to the other, that the President has a mandate. Just as a small digression, I will say that I hate this term mandate, as it undeservedly gives whoever is using an almost carte blanche authority to do whatever they want in the name of it. Tangent aside, Democrats eagerly got busy on their plan for overturning many of the more unpopular and unproductive policies of the Bush administration. President Obama welcomed Republicans, even though a large minority, to bring ideas to the table for shaping policy moving forward. The president tried to create transparency in government, and figure out what were some major policy matters that both sides wanted to deal with.
It was just about this time that the idea of reforming the healthcare system came to the forefront. For the next several months congress fought this issue back and forth, with the Republicans adding little to no actual policy suggestions, but instead repeating the message that the whole bill should be scrapped and the process started anew (euphemism for “kill the bill”). Republicans did not want healthcare reform; both because they thought jobs and the economy should be the number one focus of congress, and also because they – like Democrats in congress – had insurance and prescription drug lobbyists breathing down their necks, and stuffing money in their drawers. So the president did what he could to remain above the fray, while reasserting to both Democrats and Republicans alike, that this was going to be the most comprehensive healthcare reform in the last 50 years, and that they needed to figure out how to bolster care, provide options, and reduce costs. Republicans wanted nothing to do with this, so Democrats were left to fight this battle out themselves and suffered devastating scars from the battle.
Democrats not only got a bad healthcare reform bill, but suffered devastating losses in the 2010 midterm elections. The Republicans gained a few seats in the Senate, and won a huge number of seats in the House, thereby taking back one of the chambers. The president, though crestfallen over the demoralizing losses Democrats suffered in the elections, was nonetheless prepared to remain above the fray and work with Republicans on creating sound policy. What the president didn’t see coming was the influx of hard-lined tea party freshman that were not willing to work with moderate Republicans, Democrats, or especially the president on anything. Their view of government was that it was too big, and they saw their wins a sort of directive to begin the long, slow process of killing it from the inside.
Republicans, in typical “do anything to win” fashion, decided that they had to pander to the extreme tea party wing of their party, and as a result, the whole party shifted further to the right – both with regard to fiscal and social policy.
President Obama responded in his typical conciliatory fashion, welcoming the new members to congress and telling them that he was excited to work together. The new members were less than excited, however, to work with the president, or anyone else for that matter, and were hell bent on cutting government spending, taxes and any form of social “welfare” (i.e. any and all government programs) that they could. Their goal had nothing to do with creating jobs, but instead was simply pandering to their dogmatic ideology and the loud extremists that supported it.
Obama has since spent from then until now grinding out weak legislation after weak legislation, all in an effort to get something – anything – done, but continuously getting a stick in the eye from Republicans; both on the weak legislation itself, but also on his failure to lead. It’s a bizarre world. The president has made an effort to not only include Republicans in the discussion, but have given them more than ample representation in the bills he’s helped produce, even to the detriment of his own ideological principles. While some may see that as weakness, it’s actually showing a lot of strength and leadership, and the president is now taking flak from all sides for his neutrality.
I think the bottom line is that the fact that both Democrats and Republicans are unhappy with the president is a testament to what a good job he’s doing. Neither party really cares what party the president is a part of, as long as he’s willing to do whatever they want him to do. This president isn’t doing anything ideological for either party, and therefore neither of them can stand him for it. Although the American people might be frustrated by how ineffective government seems to be these days, it’s not the president that should take the blame, because he actually is doing what he said he was going to do, and he has brought change to Washington, it’s just that congress hasn’t yet received the memo.
To quote the Alfred from The Dark Knight, speaking of how Batman must be the bad guy for a while to do the right thing, “Endure, Master Wayne. Take it. They'll hate you for it, but that's the point of Batman, he can be the outcast. He can make the choice that no one else can make, the right choice.” This is what Obama is doing, and this is what he will continue to do. It might cost him the 2012 election (although I’m not really sure who to, as the Republicans have a very weak field), but he will continue to do what he has to do, and sign weak legislation, because that’s what he knows he has to do to get Republicans and Democrats to work together.