Torn

.@SpeakerPelosi tears up of State of the Union speech.#SOTU #SOTU2020 pic.twitter.com/sIpi4G7KsL

— CSPAN (@cspan) February 5, 2020

I'm not one for that GIF-y kind of "yas queen" political gesture, but I easily get the sentiment behind tearing up a copy of Trump's campaign speech delivered in the place of the State of the Union. It was, indeed, better than the alternative which, one can assume, was shoving the packet of self-serving lies and stage-dressing back down his nasty throat. The White House comms team responded to her action with pure absurdity.

She was tearing up none of the things alluded to in the White House's hackish Tweet, but rather the contempt Trump showed for any positive thing at all that might have been discussed or celebrated there by lying, by smearing immigrants with racist assertions, and by hanging a medal around the neck of an infamous hate-spreader, Rush Limbaugh.

I'll level with you, cancer is a horrendous disease and I could and would wish it on no one. But suffering doesn't change what a person has done with their platform in the course of their highly-lucrative career, and watching this virulent racist be awarded a high honor on a night when we could celebrate the service of the Tuskegee airman, watching this soldier in a culture war be rewarded for his divisiveness against fellow Americans instead of focusing on our shared patriotism--this was an affront. In Rush Limbaugh's entire career, he has heaped vilification on feminists, calling a reproductive health care activist a "slut" on his platform for days on end, and generally referring to feminists as "Nazis" while offering up rape apology and misogyny on a regular basis. Whatever charitable things he's ever done (possibly for PR) are nothing compared to the harm he's done for the discourse--and of course, this Birther, this showman of the bizarre and bent opinion, is a hero to Trump--Trump's presidency is based on Limbaugh's act!

But who is he to be so celebrated? A person anathema to the values of millions of us?

The state of our union is, we are torn. A divisive president has highlighted the ways in which we are divided. The Republicans who enthusiastically applauded his deeply partisan speech, the GOP Senators who mean to acquit him later this week for things they even admit he has done, can't unite us. Our disunion is strong. And that is how Trump has liked it, and that is how he now has it.

So say what you will about Speaker Pelosi tearing the speech up. Trump tears at the Constitution and at whatever still exists of our national comity. You figure out for yourself who is more to blame--the one who errs, or the one who points it out.

Trump's Shutdown is Off the Wall

George Conway shared a very special message he received from Trump (well, the Trump 2020 campaign, right?) that is very informatively fundraising off of the wall promise. Trump informs his pigeons that this is not a political game. We are more generally informed that it is, nonetheless, very political. Because he expects his campaign to make bank on it.

So, just based on the shutdown of last three weeks, and the speech Trump gave which did not declare an emergency, and the fundraising, what should we gather about Trump's strategy, here? He's made pains to describe his wall as a "barrier" and seems to think that building it from steel rather than concrete makes a serious difference, but that sort of sounds to me like a real estate developer trying to win over investors in a project. And that's weird, because his campaign was practically built around "Build the wall!" Yet, it began as just a gimmick.

Shouldn't he have had some ideas about what kind of wall he wanted before now? For that matter, during the first two years of his presidency, shouldn't he have built more of the wall than zero (0) additional miles by now?

Despite some handwringing about the net effect of Trump being able to broadcast more lies to the American people, I'm not sure that anything very effective was accomplished by his Oval Office speech. Unlike at his campaign rallies, this setting has him stiff and scripted, more prone to sniffing and seeming uninterested in the content. The result actually is that even Fox News is fact-checking him. What he has said is basically misinformation that has been repeatedly debunked before, but more to the point, he appealed to Congress to end the shutdown because he feels he politically can't (and other members of his party understand this as well.)

Still, despite all that his been personally invested by Trump in this shutdown over wall funding, it seems like he's handed his political future to Democrats just after having a very rough midterm election. And he privately, per NYT, acknowledges that the speech and visiting the border are unlikely to change anything. He left it to Senator Schumer and Speaker Pelosi to contrast his untruthful statements about border security with the real problems caused by the shutdown.

If he had given himself any room on this, he could have magnanimously agreed to end the shutdown, and promised to work out the wall/barrier/fence funding later, talking up how he was ending the "real" crisis of badly divided government. But he hasn't given himself that room, almost entirely casting it as a loss if he doesn't get his way. He continues to own this shutdown, and sill has not gotten a wall.

UPDATE:

Why Can't Obama Get Paid?

I know there are people* who are champing at the bit to call my best president (sorry Bill!) a neo-liberal sell-out, but I have a tiny bit of news for you--highly-qualified intelligent capable performers net a ginormous amount to get them to roll out of bed and do trifles for you, because honestly, they have done better work and expect to get paid for trifling.

This goes for paid speakers in much the same way it does for the cliché of pop stars doing private concerts for an Arabian prince's birthday or a Swiss banker's kid's. Sometimes this happens on the weirdly down-low, or right out in public.  If you have a name to conjure with, you can conjure up some bank with it. I'm still trying to work out why it is a bad thing that Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton, for that matter) gets paid big bucks for talking to rich people who can afford to pay, when they have listened to poor people in their lives for what we honestly know for free--and even tried to do stuff for them.

This conversation kind of makes me sick, because this is one of those "why we can't have nice things" conversations. If someone is a "sell-out" we have to start questioning whether they ever did any good. If Hillary Clinton took money from the big banks for speeches, how did that take away from trying to get women's rights recognized? If Barack Obama takes money from big banks for speeches, how does that take away from his accomplishments?

The thing is, it doesn't. Love of money might be the root of all evil, but getting paid isn't. Money is a tool. It can pay for nuclear warheads, or it can pay for hospital beds. It can pay for chemical warfare, or it can buy AIDS medication for children to live their lives. It can build bridges to a better tomorrow, or it can build walls to keep the concerns of the hungry, harried, and hurting away from the folks who have the means to help those people. Or it can even buy a moment of time from people who understand how to communicate the needs of a world to those who have a world to offer, and maybe even unleash a movement in the best of directions...

But no really. I understand why some people might get concerned with how some people get paid to speak. Sometimes I don't like how I do my piece for free, either. But I know what my little voice is worth. And I don't hate, I just keep on singing.

*Not to hate on Bernie Sanders, or Van Jones, or Elizabeth Warren. Much love--but wrong is wrong. And if Barack Obama has a thing to say, as the first black president, he gets his asking fee to say it. That is how it is, and for that, I have no concerns. Until he endorses some entirely dumb shit that isn't commensurate with the values we all came to admire him for. Then, I will have a problem.

The Presidential Speech

I don't actually have a lot to say about President Trump's address to the joint session of Congress, and went to bed without bothering to watch any tv news commentary about it because, frankly, I was knackered. But I awoke to find that pundits seem to have watched a different speech from the one I had. They seem to have largely judged it a very "presidential" speech. Which I think begs the question: Whose definition of "presidential"?

The word "presidential" is used like everyone is assuming the same meaning. But I'm not sure we all do have the same definition in mind when using the term. I think the connotation we've been assuming is "competent, professional, statesmanlike, credible". I think the best I can do to define the term, currently, is "of or about the current duly sworn-in occupant of the White House, who also resides at Trump Towers and Mar-A-Lago." Did President Trump give a speech--well, then, it was presidential!

He started at the top of the speech reacting to the crying need to address multiple acts of domestic terror against the Jewish community and the shooting in Kansas City. This is appropriate, if a high-profile and specific way to do so, on a day when he just earlier appeared to be implying that certain acts were hoaxes to make his administration look bad. I don't think this messaging alone should grant his office a pass when a response was delayed until it could be made in a particular display, when it seems like he discounts the real fears of minority communities, and when he (whether consciously or unconsciously) apes the opinions of a (former) Klansman.

He also gave space to honor the sacrifice of U.S. Navy Special Operator Senior Chief William “Ryan” Owens by pointing out his widow, Carryn Owens. I have nothing but sympathy for her fresh grief and the obvious depth of her sorrow. But I turned the sound down through that spectacle, because I felt like he was using her as a prop. (I am not alone--earlier that day Trump seemed to blame the Generals, anyone but himself for signing off on the raid. Despite White House claims that it was wildly successful, except for the dead civilians, mostly children, the dead Navy SEAL, and not actually gathering actionable intelligence--I'm not sure what the WH definition of "successful" is. But I can't applaud Trump using a man's widow as a human shield to deflect against criticism.)

Also, Trump lied, because he does that. A lot. Many of his claims, countered even when he was on the campaign stump, have been oft-repeated by Trump, and he can't help himself. His policies are and will be based on false claims. I don't think this is helpful.

None of this was to my taste, not raised my estimation of him one iota, and I don't get what those who found this speech to be especially compelling were looking for--if it was honestly, competence, and not being a huge manipulative con, sorry, that wasn't what he provided. At best, it was a reasonable act. But listen closer, put it in context--he did not "become presidential". He is President. But he's still Trump.

About the Maddening Crowds

The day after Donald Trump was sworn in as the United States' 45th president, a rather astonishing thing happened--an extraordinary, mostly woman-centered, nonviolent protest, occurring globally (even in Antarctica!) took form. Numbering in the millions, this is one of the largest demonstrations ever--maybe it calls to mind some of the anti-Iraq war protests circa 2002-2003? They were pretty global and well-attended--but no. This was a unique experience of sisterhood and brotherhood, intersectional support for human rights and a call-out for dignity and against (really!) President Trump's lack of concern for all of the same.

Let this lovely backdrop of unity and positivity highlight our Trump era contrast: the just-yesterday sworn-in President made a visit to Langley, ostensibly to make things less awkward between himself and the intelligence community. I don't think it worked. Standing in front of a wall commemorating the sacrifices of CIA line officers to bitch about whether you're getting good press is possibly not a good look. It's also probably pretty awkward to be gung-ho about torture and indicate a willingness to go back to Iraq to take the oil of another country as if we didn't have people still serving there when Iraqis might take those statements some kind of way, but I am probably confused about whether the far larger issue that should be consuming us all is his inauguration's crowd-size.

No, really. This was such a big thing in Trumplandia that WH press secretary Sean "The Forehead" Spicer was called out to pretty much lie about whether the Trump inauguration, was, too, the biggest and best inauguration ever. But it really wasn't. And really, everyone knows it isn't necessarily the crowd-size, but what you do with it anyway, right? (Although if you give a short but brutal, and it turns out, Steve Bannon-penned speech after bragging about writing it all your damn self, maybe you are a bit of a prat.) But that isn't good enough, Spicer strongly suggested. The journalists are just unfairly size-queening the incoming Administration.

Whatevs, says I. Maybe there is some kind of partisan "dick-measuring" to be had between whether Obama or Trump had the bigger inauguration package. But neither of them had quite the support that was shown today for the pussies.

And Now Donald Trump is POTUS

It's something from the "They said it couldn't happen" files: Donald Trump, real estate baron, reality show celebrity, conspiracy theorist and tabloid news regular, has been sworn in as the United States' 45th president. There was no last-minute intervention from earthly or celestial forces to spare the dissatisfied and disappointed from this event, because that isn't how our democracy works. Although Trump's failure to divest himself of his various holdings (such as the DC hotel lease which, as an elected official, he is now in violation of) reflect a conflict of interest (or Constitutional crisis, depending upon how you look at things) that could result in impeachment proceedings (sure, with a GOP congress?) and the investigation into potential correspondence between his presidential campaign staff and Russia may turn up something devastating--Trump is now the president, and will be, very likely, for the next four years.

What does it mean? Well, gosh, it's only just begun, but going from the brief but emphatic inaugural speech--which sounded like the campaign spiel he'd been giving all along, he's doubling down on America First--for a definition of America that I'm pretty sure doesn't mean all of us. I think his depiction of the current state of the country sounds awfully "homeless vets, foreign debts, AIDS, crack, Bernie Goetz"-- a valid criticism of the 1980's, but not really as accurate a picture of today's America. He says he's for the forgotten man, but I don't even know what his cabinet picks or policies will necessarily do for a soul. I'm a little put-out that anyone at all is chuffed enough just to feel name-checked.

As for the festivities themselves, well, it's a rainy Friday in DC, with a president-elect with an historically low approval rating. It was bound to be poorly-attended, relatively speaking.

The Speech Where Clinton Did It All

This speech in Reno was a defining speech for Hillary Clinton, as a reaffirmation of her values, and defining for Donald Trump, in that she took the campaign he had been running so far and looped it around his neck like the stinking, rotting albatross it should be. The transcript reads just as well as her measured and presidential demeanor in the giving of the speech. And Donald Trump can cry at this late date, that she is manipulating the optics and using the tired tactic of labelling someone as racist--but really, is that the problem? Or is it the verbatim quotes of how Mexicans were supposedly racists and criminals, and the comments about black people that were right out of a Ron Paul newsletter, and an immigration policy that, despite whatever changes he has been polling his shrinking crowds about, would have to be absurdly cruel and desperately un-Constitutional. She defined him by wrapping him up in his words and deeds and spelling out the narrative and context of his associations with the former head of Breitbart.com, and conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones. She highlighted their fringe nonsense. And she connected homebrewed fringe nonsense, to the international problems of fringe nonsense people getting power.

It was damn effective, IMHO, because she used a kind of political akido to use his strength against him. I thought it was all rather well done on her part, and being followed by revelations that alt-right CEO new-hire Bannon was accused of wife-beating just hammers home how rotten Team Trump is.

What does Trump do? Madly try to disassociate from current connections and disavow all previous racialist statements? Or tell the establishment to screw off and cling tighter to the fringe than he ever clung to the cushion.

Both are likely vote-losers. There is no needle to thread, here. Clinton put the evil eye on, and it isn't ever coming off.

And he can yell that she's a bigot now, if he wants, and if he knows what that word means. But the "I'm rubber you're glue" shit doesn't play in this schoolyard. Nah, son. We saw you hugging the website that lynched ACORN for registering black people and tried to ruin Shirley Sherrod. WE know what birther Donald Trump was doing several summers ago.

She read his ass for dirt and dirt it will stay. Amen.

I Swear Barack Obama Gave one of His Best Speeches

All I know is that in this second term, a lot of what President Obama has been saying plays on the themes of Stonewall, Selma and Seneca Falls. He returns to the essential idea that freedom and justice alike are woven into the multicolored tapestry of our history as a nation, forged in the steely ink of our founding documents, tested again and again whenever Americans have faced trials and struggles. He weaves once again this great notion of a strong nation, made more perfect by the work of many hands, in offering support to someone who can take up the banner and go forward with it.

It was an encouragement that the successes (which are very real) of his administration have a chance to continue under great, Democratic leadership. It's an exhortation to participate in our democracy to keep it strong. It was a paean to our diversity and the many ways it gives us strength, and should not be feared. It was uplifting, and a rebuke to people who don't grasp what the essential greatness of our country is--its potential, and the portability and timeless nature of our values and dreams, that are transmissible and easily the greatest export, the finest product we can ever peddle and which are free to any man, woman, being that wants to become a part.

It was about patriotism, and more--it transcended ideas about "left" and "right" labeling, explicitly revealing how individual freedom and progress was up to everyone as a part of our civic heritage.

I know I am going to miss the hell out of President Obama--although I am looking forward to seeing what a still-young man might do in his post-presidency. But he also made me look forward to what Hillary Clinton might accomplish in office. It was the highlight of the evening. A jewel.

(I know I skipped over mentioning VP Joe Biden and VP-to-be Tim Kaine's speeches--and it's a shame, because I think these are actually two of the most compassionate, sincerely nice and decent people in politics today and they both did excellent--it's just, seriously? Barack Obama's speech took my damn breath away.)

So I'm Petty, Sue Me

Of course, Michelle Obama and Senator Elizabeth Warren gave absolutely grand speeches this evening; Obama bringing in an inspiring historical perspective about the direction of this country, Warren laying down the truly stark choices we are facing in this election.

But I've got to give it up for Bernie Sanders--he laid out the case for why his supporters should vote for Hillary Clinton. It wasn't an easy speech for him, and he'd even said himself that the job of party unification was up to the presumptive nominee. But in an obvious contrast from Senator Ted Cruz telling the RNC audience to "Vote their Conscience", Senator Sanders basically said, "If you have a conscience, vote for Clinton."

That's huge. Today was marked with Sanders supporters (I use the term loosely, I think they are more against things than for them based on their behavior) engaging in the kind of hostility that would have been more at home in the other guys' camp. There were chants from some of these classless class warriors that tried to stomp all over the speeches of people they could have heard out as allies instead of treating like enemies. (I misheard "We trusted you" directed at Senator Warren, as "prostitute", and wanted to drive down and start punching hippies. It's like that, now.)

But Senator Sanders himself showed his qualities by trying to be the peacemaker and the unifier. He hushed up Donald Trump's gross insinuations that Team Gilded Toilet could win over people who genuinely understand that income inequality in the country isn't going to be any closer to fixed by letting a conman into the White House.

This isn't to say those people who were feeling the bern and now are Trump-curious don't exist. Cable news programs are looking hard for those people and found a few. But let's just come out and say it--those folks are not a revolution. They are a tantrum.

But I'm petty. This Tweet basically sums up how Trump looks at people--if Sanders isn't anti-Hillary, well, he needs to be insulted. The Sanders Twitter reply is as dismissive as it ought to be.

Is the Trump Campaign For Real?

You know, when a candidate whose economic policy has already been rubbished makes a speech regarding his economic policy with a backdrop consisting of compacted rubbish, one begins to wonder if there is any political campaign-type adult making decisions in Trump-World. Oh, sure, Trump's Telepromptered delivery of some rare specificity might be partially praised for seeming in the ball park of presidential (but maybe it sounds awkward when CNN's new hire Lewandowski does it, eh? Good investment, you guys), but when you fact-check that stuff, it gets quaint in a hurry. When he talks about globalization like he was never for it, or outsourcing like his stupid Trump campaign swag isn't made in China or Bangladesh or Lesotho, he's perpetrating a fraud. The rubbish back-drop might just be the most honest thing about it.

But the vision of The Donald in his Bobby Jindal-ish candy cane tie with the backdrop of crushed tin cans offsetting the green notes of his hair and orange notes of his skin shouldn't be the main takeaway here--oh no!

The point is, his campaign is a hot mess. For example, they got hold of an email list from who knows where--Heritage or something. And then they started spamming UK MPs for campaign donations. It's not actually legal to solicit donations from foreign nationals for US political campaigns, but this is Trump-World. They just don't know to strip out those emails. They don't know.

It gets worse, of course. In light of the terrorist bombing at Istanbul's airport, Trump performed actually as his responses to Orlando and previous events would have led us to expect--he tries to capitalize on the opportunity without even the empathy to acknowledge the enormity of what took place. And he's lately on a weird kick about discussing things in terms of rape metaphors. So maybe the optics of having non-political convention speakers like convicted rapist Mike Tyson is really also weird? Or maybe even downright pathological?

The Trump campaign is so uniquely and specifically and variously and terrifically fucked that it is hard to treat as being real. And yet it is. It is.

I missed blogging about the State of the Union

Missed President Obama's final #SOTU last night? Check out his full remarks. https://t.co/7KHp3EHK8D

— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) January 13, 2016

I always do this--I find there's some major event to do political blogging about, blow it off for something more interesting like getting a decent night's sleep, and then find that I am blog-blocked until I get a few paragraphs about it out of the way. So here goes:

It was a good speech in that it was optimistic about what the US can achieve together as a nation. President Obama said it would be shorter than previous SOTU speeches, and I think it was, barely. I think expressing a commitment to investing in a cure for cancer is a an admirable goal, and putting VP Biden in charge of it is a great idea because he is a very motivated person of great capability. This kind of government pledge to start a "War on Cancer" had been previously declared by President Nixon, but I think the past four decades have given us more reason to be hopeful--take a look at the immunotherapy that has resulted in President Carter's cancer being undetectable.

I think one of the more positive things about the evening was that there wasn't a whole bunch of rebuttals--SC Governor Nikki Haley gave the Republican rebuttal and I think she did fine. It's not an easy act to follow, she was maybe a little stiff, but she didn't say anything weird, reach about for beverages, or wear a really distracting tie. For a position where the bar is "not screwing up"--she gets an A for not screwing up. She spoke in favor of the US being a welcoming and diverse nation and for civility in politics. It kind of astounds me that this was found objectionable by some far-right voices like Ann Coulter (who Tweeted that her Fatherland Figure Donald Trump should deport the Governor of SC--who was born here! Seriously?)

Another Bangladeshi Blogger Has Been Murdered

A Bangladeshi blogger known for his atheist views has been hacked to death by a gang armed with machetes in the capital Dhaka, police say. Niloy Neel was attacked at his home in the city's Goran area. He is the fourth secularist blogger to have been killed this year by suspected Islamist militants in Bangladesh. Imran H Sarkar, head of the Bangladesh Blogger and Activist Network, told the Daily News Videonel that Mr Neel had been an anti-extremist voice of reason. "He was the voice against fundamentalism and extremism and was even a voice for minority rights - especially women's rights and the rights of indigenous people," he said.

I despise the fundamentalists who willfully murder such intelligent voices, and feel even more strongly that I should speak out against fundamentalism in my own country. Any impulse that views dissident voices as in need of being extinguished is an impulse of tyranny. Wherever the argument is silenced by force of arms--we have a true failure to communicate. But the failure is on the end of those who use force to silence--not those who use their voice for reason. One more voice was silenced--let a thousand others rise.

UPDATED: Bangladesh Home Minister Kamal in response has made a very strong statement: Don't go writing things that hurt religious sentiment. So the priorities here are clear. You can maybe have people hacked to death in the street, but let's not hurt those religious sentiments.

Selma's America is America for Barack Obama, and Me

The great poet Langston Hughes wrote "America was never America to me" in a poem about what America could be. The promise of America was a dream deferred or delayed or outright denied, but which laid before the pioneer, the slave, the rebel, the migrant, all, as a possible better world a-borning, a place where the love of that dream overcomes the adversity of every present moment to be remade new--a "more perfect union".

Out of the rack and ruin of our gangster death,
The rape and rot of graft, and stealth, and lies,
We, the people, must redeem
The land, the mines, the plants, the rivers.
The mountains and the endless plain—
All, all the stretch of these great green states—
And make America again!

Langston Hughes' America--newly-made, is what John Lewis and Martin Luther King and so many more marched for.  That "more perfect" and always infinitely perfectable union, is what President Obama has been talking about since he ever talked. This ability to get better, do better, be more and expect more, has been the very nature of our American exceptionalism. The revolutionaries that separated from their King, the fight that separated slave from master, and made them equals, that lifted woman from helpmeet to citizen--has been the best of America. We face adversity--and still we rise.

Has This Really Been Netanyahu's Story for 25 Years?

At intervals, Benjamin Netanyahu has actually repeated the claim that Iran was just a year or so away from having nuclear weapons for twenty-five years.  I'm just saying, twenty-five years is very different from a year or so. If this keeps up, it could very well leave the impression that Iran isn't all that interested in pursuing a nuclear weapons program. It could also be the case that Netanyahu has been misunderstanding the level of the threat all this time. And if that's the case, it seems like maybe his voice isn't the most authoritative on the subject.

After all, presenting a speech regarding this issue to the a joint meeting of the US Congress, for the most part, reminds me that it is sort of dangerous to play politics with intelligence regarding weapons programs as if the threat were imminent when it is not. And by indicating that he doesn't consider talks with Iran to ensure that they are not developing such a weapon, he seems to be implying that something more dire is required.

If he's of a mind that he wants conventional war for real over an imagined problem, and has not noticed that a certain war that was begun in 2003 did not actually stabilize the region and thinks we can do the same thing and get different results, I believe I may have found a possible existential threat a little closer to himself than he may have supposed.

Political Correctness and its Discontents



 

Today, Jonathan Chait was in the tumbrils for a bit over a column critical of the apparent resurgence of "political correctness", which could loosely be defined as dissent against certain speech deemed to be derogatory towards protected classes, generally of gender, gender ID, sexual orientation or affection, race, ethnicity, nationality or religion, or lack thereof.

 

I won't lie. There are times when I do suspect that there is an "itchy trigger finger", if you will, behind certain storms of internet-based outrage. Sometimes I really feel like there is a need for a "Devil's Advocate" on behalf of some otherwise well-intentioned ally who has bumbled over this or that rail and is getting raked over. And yeah, I have certain people whose writing or work I follow and find or have found serious disagreements with, whom I nonetheless wouldn't write off because of those disagreements. I make no secret of my issues with Bill Maher, Naomi Wolf, Andrew Sullivan, or the late Christopher Hitchens, but I still keep up with the former and retain a kind of admiration for the latter on the basis of not only the bits I agree with, but the way I am challenged to reform, restate, or review my understanding of my own position when I do disagree. To me, the arena of ideas is where our shit gets thrashed out, and some ideas get discredited, and for me--it's not really any skin off my nose when I don't see eye-to-eye with someone.

 

But then again, I have a lot of white, cis, straight (appearing), middle-class, able-bodied privilege. This is why I recognize that while I can take a lot of things impersonally--this isn't really the option for everyone. It's one thing to scoff at the concept of "microaggressions". It's another to really grasp that those microaggressions take place on top of or alongside the actual systemized macroaggressions of racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or some intersection of the same. The sentiments, and the life experiences that they arise from, are real. They shouldn't be dismissed.

 

Now, I think some things aren't at least, for me, practical or practicable. At one stage in my blogging, around 2010, I tried trigger warnings and the application of more gender-inclusive language to "break out of the binary". It felt forced.  The former I found to be condescending, because I credit people interested in my content with being able realize within a paragraph or two whether that content is something they prefer to engage with, and the latter simply felt awkward and distracting. But the overall goal of not being rude and not stereotyping whole groups of people because of my learned cultural biases is necessary and actually liberating and honest. People are just people. Shedding assumptions and trying to speak from a place of authentic observation and genuine criticism of lazy "proofs" that some marginalized group "really is" lesser than is not "political correctness" so much as being on the right side of a battle against bullshit.

Blasphemy: You Know It When You See It--Right?

So, I have been following with some interest the protests occurring in some Moslem communities against the Charlie Hebdo "blasphemous" cartoons, because it just strikes me as so...forced. People are being killed in these protests. If protests from Karachi to Algiers are to mean anything, they are only to remind us that the compulsion to ban and kill to protect a ban on free speech exists all over, and that the sentiments of the attackers didn't come from nowhere. The idea that speech--ironic speech, critical speech, vulgar speech, should be met with death, is a sentiment enshrined in some nations' very being. Which does nothing to hallow it.

Take Pakistan, where very recently over a hundred schoolchildren were killed by extremists, whose legislature seems to be mouthing the extremists line. "Death to blasphemers?" Like, death to Asia Bibi, whose alleged blasphemy charge is very thin indeed? Like, death to Veena Malik?  Like death to Rimsha Masih--a mentally challenged child falsely accused?

The blasphemy laws in Pakistan are clearly arbitrary and can be politically motivated and terribly subjective. How does anyone look at lawmakers cheering the terrorists who killed people in France as anything but terrorist sympathizers--as being murder-minded and encouraging to people who feel this way?

It very much reminds me of the Justice Potter Stewart  definition of obscenity: "I know it when I see it." Which is subjective enough to do no one any good.

Ecrasons L'Infame!

 

If I read the cover of the latest issue of Charlie Hebdo correctly, all is, actually, not forgiven, any crocodile tears regarding what happened from the usual intolerant suspects aside. And that is how the spirit of the magazine would have it, after all. If satirists can't roast the odd sacred cow, why not pack it in? It's hard to ignore that some of the leaders clasping arms in solidarity claiming "Je suis Charlie" pretty much are no such thing. 

 

I take issue myself regarding the curtailment of free speech--I am for countering speech with more speech, for having an argument, and for hearing out people I don't agree with so that I really know where they stand. There are hurtful words I don't use myself and would prefer others not use, but when I hear them said, it tells me something about the speaker.

 

This is why I take a little exception about what the Pope said regarding insulting or criticizing the faith of others. He says that one can not--or if one does, one should expect hurt feelings, if not reprisal. Andrew Sullivan beat me to the punch at picking a comparison of quotes from the current Pontiff, and a relevant section from the sayings of a certain Palestinian Jew of antiquity, who was, if Mark was right, sentenced to death for blasphemy.  To go a little further, I would say, the beliefs of the wide variety of people on the earth being what they are--one can't help sometimes offending or contradicting the beliefs of others. One man's heresy is another man's article of faith.

 

It also strikes me as a mistake to have some inviolate box that ideas we don't want criticized can be placed in with the label "religion" pasted on. What can't fall under religion's rubric? There's an amorphous quality to the idea that leaves it subject to the determination of whoever is in power. So to go beyond considering Raif Badawi, let's also consider his lawyer, Waleed Abu Al-Khair.  To the theocratic government of Saudi Arabia, simply being a human rights lawyer is a kind of heresy. Blasphemy laws are what gets Egyptian atheists thrown in jail. The question of how free speech should be, and whether blasphemy laws should really exist, must be considered--everywhere sooner or later. 

 

As for me, I am only interested in nailing up complaints, not people. Don't we wish everyone was?

Deranged Defenders

The shocking murder of twelve people at the Charlie Hebdo magazine office in Paris has generated many displays of sympathy for the victims and their families, and support for freedom of speech over disgusting acts of terror, many by fellow artists and colleagues. It's possible that the attack was planned by people who considered themselves defenders of their faith in some way, but they were hardly anything of the sort.

The cartoons that were likely the justification the perpetrators will use for their murder spree were often quite shocking, crude, and yes, offensive. This is hardly the point, though. Even crude and offensive speech should be protected--which is not to say it cannot be protested or criticized! But the standard that we have for freedom of speech, that enables the KKK or Westboro Baptist to have their say in public is the same standard that protects people of other, less noxious, but possibly threatened minority positions from being persecuted.  It is never acceptable that ideas, words, and images, be responded to with violence. To attempt to silence people in this brutal way is an affront to civilization itself.

Thoughts Regarding the SOTU

I think the SOTU is probably best graded as Pass/Fail. The bar for passing isn't even that high. So long as a president can get through it without saying anything demonstrably untrue, totally batshit, or unveil a policy that everyone will hate, it's a pass. I'd say President Obama passed. I think there's no way to make everybody happy with one of these things, because everyone will ask "Why didn't he say more about____?" So when something good comes up, like "Global warming is a fact" or ending Gitmo this year, well. It sounds good.

The problem always lies with the execution,though, and I think it was appropriate to point out that Congress just hasn't been getting done in the "making stuff work" department. The devil is in the details--literally. If Obama says he will rely more on executive orders, why, of course executive orders will only be seen as more "tyranny" (just like, I dunno, using his authority to appoint czars, judges, any other regular presidential power used historically before he came into office, which wasn't a big deal until now) by the sort of people who already think he's the Anti-Christ.

Rep. Steve Stockman walked out during it, he says. He's funny, isn't he? He could have taken his pants off and people would have been like, "Oh, Steve Stockman, you are a character." It really is no reflection on Obama for some people to, you know. Be themselves.

Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers passed, too. It was very easy for her not to lie, be batshit, or propose something goofy because she didn't really say anything at all. Her rebuttal was a little like "Story-time on the Couch with Cathy". And that's okay, and I don't think that having a ladyperson do the rebuttal (even a lady-person who has never voted in favor of a woman's reproductive rights) was condescending at all. Although I hear if this doesn't work for them, the GOP will have two ladypersons give the rebuttal in a kitchen! (Seriously--"The true state of the union lies in our hearts"? What is that? It would look nice on a needlepoint.)

I really didn't pay attention to Sen. Mike Lee, because really. Just. Really.

And finally, Sen. Rand Paul. I understand he read economics books for fun as a teen. He read all the wrong ones and didn't understand them. This is why he thinks the Fed somehow caused the recession. It's gonna be a long couple of decades before that kind of crackpottery is going to look cute and quaint on little old man Rand Paul, rather than eye-rollingly oblivious from a presidential hopeful.

The State of the Union Address--I thought it was pretty good.

I really have to say this--watching the State of the Union was like the antidote to the primary debates I've been watching lately.  I couldn't even start to blog about the debate last night, because I bailed to look for show tunes on YouTube. (We all have hobbies, and I'm an ex-Choir Geek.)  This address was an excellent reminder of not just why I would vote against any of these GOP candidates, but why I'd vote for Barack Obama once again.

Of note, I think his strongest points of the evening were the policy points he made about correcting the tax code to stop rewarding companies for off shoring jobs and making the individual income tax code fairer for earners at all levels. Also, the points about reforming our financial industry and ending the grave moral hazard of bailouts show that he really is listening to the people, because these issues are dear to Tea Partiers and Occupy Movement people alike.  I liked much of what he had to say about education--although the part about drop-outs was a head-scratcher: sometimes life events simply make it impossible for someone to continue in school, sometimes temporarily, but dropping out of high school isn't a choice students make in a vacuum.  There are often social and economic motivators for dropping out that need to be considered--I'm just not 100% with that. (I'm thinking of bullying, teen pregnancy, familial hardships--there has to be a game plan to support these youngsters.)

Obama also showed, pretty effectively, I think, that he's ready to answer to the criticisms that his possible election opponents have been launching at him.  He very definitely made clear that he is not standing in the way of various forms of energy development, touting the expansion of oil drilling and his intent to open up resources for more exploration, as well as support for shale natural gas exploitation--as long as it can be done transparently, safely and cleanly. In the meanwhile, his rhetoric on energy policy did not back down from a commitment to renewable, locally-sourced energy investment--that's the kind of innovation I'm glad hes supporting, and serves as, IMHO, a good enough answer to "Solyndra?"  As in "So? Jobs." He tied most policies back to how they would affect the average American and/or create jobs pretty well.  Also, he pointed out that his administration has not been the originator of so-called "job-killing regulations", but clarified that some regulation that protect consumers and the environment are necessary, while stupid regs are stupid--very on-point and true.  His discussion of the rebound experienced by the US auto industry gave him a nice opportunity to slam Mitt Romney without naming him--there's certainly one notable person who said that Detroit should be allowed to fail!

But I think his foreign policy--insofar as he has experienced some admirable successes in that department, were his best selling-points. He did end the war in Iraq (well, he withdrew troops according to plan, but he DID IT, OK?) And also, Bin Laden--dead.  Gaddafi--dead.  But even though his vocal support for Israel, his support also for the sanctions against Iran, and his warning to Syria's Al-Assad were all signals of his leadership and positive involvement, his language definitely echoed the "American Exceptionalism" the pundits look for, even if he did not use quite those words.

What he did say was:

The renewal of American leadership can be felt across the globe. Our oldest alliances in Europe and Asia are stronger than ever. Our ties to the Americas are deeper. Our iron-clad commitment to Israel’s security has meant the closest military cooperation between our two countries in history. We’ve made it clear that America is a Pacific power, and a new beginning in Burma has lit a new hope. From the coalitions we’ve built to secure nuclear materials, to the missions we’ve led against hunger and disease; from the blows we’ve dealt to our enemies; to the enduring power of our moral example, America is back.

Anyone who tells you otherwise, anyone who tells you that America is in decline or that our influence has waned, doesn’t know what they’re talking about. That’s not the message we get from leaders around the world, all of whom are eager to work with us. That’s not how people feel from Tokyo to Berlin; from Cape Town to Rio; where opinions of America are higher than they’ve been in years. Yes, the world is changing; no, we can’t control every event. But America remains the one indispensable nation in world affairs – and as long as I’m President, I intend to keep it that way.

In other words, whenever any country in the world wants to borrow a cup of awesome sauce, they see us first. Suck it, Romney--no apologies!

Ahem. Anyway, I though it was a clear picture of what Obama has done and still means to accomplish.  The focus was on jobs and how we can continue to build this country, together, with teamwork and setting aside differences.  I thought it was all in all a pretty good message.  Also, Messrs Boehner and Cantor on the video of the speech at times looked like they would go sick. Well done, Mr. President. Very well done!