Midnight on the Forecastle

I'm not dead.

This blog lives! I pay for it.

Urban Planning & Turning the Other Cheek

The debate about the Park51 Islamic community center and mosque is mostly an irrelevant cacophony of bigoted foolishness, and yet it provides an opportunity for us to address many important cultural issues that are of vital importance to our nation and the world as a whole.

In the discussions that I have had with those who are sympathetic to my own views on the subject, there tends to be a consistent theme: those who oppose Park51 are ignorant. They're ignorant of American principles of religious freedom, of the relationship between Islam and terrorism, of religious history, etc. While there are doubtless ignorant people in every crowd, I think that the argument for ignorance in discussions of religion and/or politics is usually fallacious. It relies on the well-intentioned, self-aggrandizing yet naïve view that if only so-and-so knew the facts, they would think differently about an issue. This keeps us talking to (or at) one another, and it is an essential motivator of civic debate... but it's quite often empirically false.

People generally don't adhere to puzzling ideological views because they are generally ignorant (e.g., "[An] examination of the backgrounds of 75 terrorists responsible for some of the most damaging attacks found that 53 percent had attended college, while 2 had doctorates from Western universities and 2 others were working on Ph.Ds."¹). The highly accomplished and well-educated individuals who oppose the Park51 project include U.S. Senators, Governors, professors, and widely-respected public intellectuals. While there are a myriad of reasons that individual protestors oppose Park51 (e.g., political, religious, emotional, etc.), to ascribe ignorance - or even "Islamophobia" - as the overarching one is, in my view, a mistake. [For the record, I hold it as a personal article of faith that Pamela Geller is an ignorant, Islamophobic hate-monger and world-class bigot.]

If we look instead at what those who oppose Park51 have in common with one another, it quickly becomes apparent that political affiliation is - at least as far as media reports are concerned - a reliably consistent metric. Conservatives (be they Republicans or Democrats) oppose Park51 more readily than do liberals.  This makes complete sense and is to be expected. As the presidential campaigns of George W. Bush made clear, lassoing American Christians - including purveyors of Dominionism - into a durable political coalition was a manifest goal of conservative politicians.  Those who support "Reclaiming America for Christ," for example, can hardly be expected to support the construction of an Islamic center anywhere in the country. At least in this regard, a radically divergent set of values probably provides a better explanation of opposition to Park51 than mere ignorance.

Among those who don't align themselves with a staunchly Christian brand of American Exceptionalism, there are explanations for opposition to Park51 that I find to be more credible than those frequently proffered by media (including confessional accounts). For example, an unemployment rate of almost 10% is a natural incubator for ultra-nationalist, xenophobic sentiments.  I don't think that Arizonans suddenly woke up one day and decided that Mexican immigrants were any more threatening to white hegemony than they were the day before; rather, popular support for Arizona SB 1070 was influenced more by changing economic conditions than by naked racism or any imagined uptick of illegal border crossings. If racism or Islamophobia were as determinative as they are being portrayed by intellectuals on the left, protectionism and nationalism would certainly have been more prominent in September of 2001, when unemployment was at 4.7%.

There is, however, a more central (though less conspicuous) aspect of opposition to Park51 that isn't getting much attention at all. First, here are two quotes that set the stage for our military invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq:

“The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. These terrorists don’t represent peace. They represent evil and war.”  — Remarks by the President at Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C. September 17, 2001

“Islam is a vibrant faith. Millions of our fellow citizens are Muslim. We respect the faith. We honor its traditions. Our enemy does not. Our enemy doesn’t follow the great traditions of Islam. They’ve hijacked a great religion.” –  Remarks by President George W. Bush on U.S. Humanitarian Aid to Afghanistan Presidential Hall, Dwight David Eisenhower Executive Office Building, Washington, D.C. October 11, 2002

Unfortunately for us, we didn't have sole proprietorship of the casus belli in either war. Our enemies had a say in the matter too, and they have spoken unequivocally: they claim to represent Islam in its truest and most noble manifestation. Our enemies believe that they are fulfilling the will of Allah and his Prophet. We may not like it, but over these many years we have been fighting more non-terrorist Muslim warriors (Mujahideen and some Fedayeen) than we have the "evil" terrorist-types who populate our imaginations. Nearly ever day someone praises Allah just before firing their weapon at U.S. troops - and this has been going on for years. How long can we maintain the fiction that we are not engaged in religious war?

Indeed, I give our country credit for learning from our mistakes and not repeating the fiasco of Japanese internment camps during World War II, and for not indicting by association the countless millions of Muslims who reject the tactics and goals of their militant brothers. To be sure, I support both the right and the appropriateness of building an Islamic cultural center at Park51; but the World Trade Center wasn't just the site of a terrorist attack - it was also a battleground in an explicitly religious war with Islam as a self-proclaimed combatant.

Whatever the outcome of this controversy, I have no doubt that history will be clear on this point: in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, a crisis erupted across the globe in large part because a major world religion incubated a militant, hostile and occasionally terroristic community of adherents. Acknowledging this is neither ignorant nor bigoted.  It does, however, give the ignorant bigots in our midst a handy bit of political ammunition.

Personal Responsibility is Owning Your Vote

Much has been (and will be) made about the partisan nature of the healthcare vote.  Republicans, proud of their unanimity in opposition, delight in casting blame for this unanimity at the feet of the Democrats; as if Democrats are ultimately responsible for how Republicans choose to vote.  The New York Times comes as close as it can to pinning the blame on Obama himself:

...there is no doubt that in the course of this debate, Mr. Obama has lost something - and lost it for good. Gone is the promise on which he rode to victory less than a year and half ago - the promise of a "postpartisan" Washington in which rationality and calm discourse replaced partisan bickering.

Never in modern memory has a major piece of legislation passed without a single Republican vote.

Republicans can (and should) receive credit for maintaining party discipline, but we have an obligation to recognize that this discipline is an institutional feature of coalition government designed to serve the political interests of members of a particular caucus, and not, as some would have us believe, an intrinsic service to the larger polity of constituents. 

Far from signaling that certain legislation may not be in the best interest of the country, party-line votes tell us absolutely nothing beyond the obvious: that the issue at hand is both political and polarizing.  If one wishes to avoid party-line votes, therefore, the only clear course of action would be to avoid polarizing issues altogether - hardly a good strategy with which to accomplish meaningful change.

But let's get back to this business of zero Republican votes and what that means.  It's hard to take seriously the idea that Obama and the Democrats are responsible, given the avalanche of concessions and obsequious gestures offered to the GOP as the bill was being built.  A more plausible explanation is that over the last few administrations conservatism's right wing has become a sideshow of fringe extremists, with the healthcare vote finally pulling the veil off of this foul excrescence.  Eight long years of George W. Bush, concomitant with the final touches being applied to the cultish myth of Reagan, created a GOP that is indistinguishable from the most authoritarian, martial, bloodthirsty snarls of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove; this is not the boring conservatism I grew up with.

Healthcare didn't garner any Republican votes because Republicans are no longer interested in dialogue with their colleagues across the aisle.  Their better, more moderate judgment has been hijacked by pundits, bloggers and teabaggers.  The legacy of this transformation, now that this historic bill has been passed, will be a huge embarrassment to future Republicans trying to widen their appeal... especially since future generations will owe their gratitude for equitable healthcare exclusively to Democrats.

The Business Class & Community of Investors

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Here's a pretty good breakdown of what the Republican party considers sacrosanct in American political life and what it considers a betrayal of our founding principles.  Michael Steele: 

...this is a President who believes fundamentally in an activist government, not an activist business class, not an activist community of investors and, and those who will create the wealth in an economy.  He sees that being centered - coming out of the federal government, using the institutions and the apparati [sic] of, of federal government to achieve those ends. 

Steele, like most Republicans, would like the government to go Galt.  What's astonishing here is that he seems to be completely oblivious to the fact that 5/6 of our citizens are employed in the retail and service industries; we're not CEOs or small business owners or entrepreneurs.  We're mostly a country of low-level employees.  We're the people that run the show, clean the floors, do the laundry and make the food.  That such a hoard of proletariat scallywags could enfranchise themselves to the point of actually influencing the government to act in their interests as opposed the interests of a "business class" or a "community of investors" is an unthinkable monstrosity.

What's germane about this view is that it deliberately recasts the most salient feature of American government as Capitalism rather than Democracy.  Furthermore, it demands that the fulcrums of Capitalistic power throughout our country economy be given proportional representation in Congress as a function of that power.  This is the New Republicanism. Recall the recent decision of Texas Board of Education to excise "democratic" from the curriculum and re-define America as a "constitutional republic."

The Republican party is morphing into a hardcore constitutionalist haven.  Gone are the divisive social issues, the influence of Christianist thought, conservative economic values and - most importantly - any trace of sympathy for democratic institutions.  

The Power of Nightmares

It's an old BBC documentary that you've probably already watched, but I'm posting it again because I've found that there are many, many people who haven't seen it. Over the years, I've thought about this film a great deal. There are some points herein that are possibly dead wrong, or that fail to assimilate countervailing influences or misdiagnose the causal effects of others... however, the film is an important and provocative contribution. I hope you watch it: The Power of Nightmares.

Health Care Reform as Radical Political Bellwether

So they're going to pass some version of health care reform.  Like any big legislative initiative, nobody really knows how it will interact with reality once it takes effect.  Most political partisans seem pretty unimpressed with it; which is weird, since the final bill will be very impressive... politically speaking.  I haven't seen this kind of belief in the power of government to make positive change in the lives of average Americans in my lifetime.  In recent decades, Americans have voted for (and seemingly preferred) a government that has not only abdicated its charge to work in the interests of civic good, but has actively set about dismantling every institution of collective betterment.  I wouldn't go so far as to declare the era of Laissez-faire governance over, but I do think that we're moving in the right direction for the first time in a long, long time.

This is the real reason that the Republicans have united in opposition to the health care bill: it represents an ideological shift away from official neglect and towards participatory activism.  The specifics of the bill never really mattered to those that opposed it.  The "public option," abortion provisions, "death panels," Medicare buy-ins... all of these contentious provisions were resolved with deference to the preferred solutions of hardline conservatives, and they still opposed the bill unanimously.  The truth is that they simply don't believe that the government can play a useful regulatory role... in anything.  The defeat of congressional conservatives herein represents a defeat of that worldview; this may not be the next "New Deal," but it's a great deal more hopeful and progressive than anything we've seen make it's way through the legislative process since the days of LBJ.

Contrary to the incessant whine from committed leftist ideologues, this really is the change we voted for.  It's not fast, it's not pretty, it's not perfect, and it's far from being done... but if we keep at it we can, over time, become a more equitable and a more just country.  Yes we can.

Blogging Books at the New York Times

Top 5 at a Glance
1. GOING ROGUE, by Sarah Palin
2. STONES INTO SCHOOLS, by Greg Mortenson
3. HAVE A LITTLE FAITH, by Mitch Albom
4. ARGUING WITH IDIOTS, written and edited by Glenn Beck, Kevin Balfe and others
5. OPEN, by Andre Agassi

via www.nytimes.com

I'm testing the "Blog It" feature on TypePad.  To do so, I've clipped the above selection of bestsellers from the NYT nonfiction list.  Apparently, you're supposed to add a comment of some sort when you clip from another website... so here's mine: the most "emailed" and "blogged" book-related stories on the NYT website clearly indicate that the readership of the paper isn't very interested in NYT bestsellers.

This could be charitably interpreted to mean that readers of the NYT books section have more discriminating literary tastes than your average book-buying bumpkin (i.e., a Regnery aficionado). Most people who use sites like YouTube are, presumably, the same people responsible for rocketing garbage to the top of bestseller lists.  When they go online, they offer no original content; they merely absorb material provided by others. 

If the "Blog It" feature I'm using for this post is any indication, the modern blogger is also loathe to provide fresh, original content.  Even the most astute bloggers seem to be deeply dependent on the content of others.  These aren't new observations, and this post is yet another example of the low-culture snark that dominates online discourse... but can it really hurt to mention it again?  I don't think so.

I don't think that people are, generally speaking, bone-ignorant jackasses.  I just don't think that online discourse is anywhere near achieving its potential because the brightest minds are simply not participating.  There are so many people who read carnivorously, think about the big issues, and derive great satisfaction from being well-informed... but, for whatever reason, they choose not to voice their opinion or their expertise online.

What we're left with are the voices of the most exhibitionistic, extraverted, egotistical blowhards and wannabes. Glenn Beck has an audience and a fortune.  Anyway, these are some passing thoughts.  I'm posting them because I'm online and I'm testing a new feature on my blogging platform.  Now I need to get back to cruising the Internet for mindlessly entertaining bits of digital chum.

Testing the App... Again

I've re-loaded the Typepad App on my iPhone and am hereby testing it, again. I've included an iPhone picture I took this weekend of a famous sculpture of George Washington. I know. Exciting stuff.

Anthony Weiner on Morning Joe

I know.  MSM Internet detritus.  But I like it.  I like Anthony Weiner.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Medicare for All Americans

It’s always harder to gain public support when you’re pushing a positive value as opposed to a negative one. Fear is still number one. Want to pass a huge spending bill? Tell people that The Great Depression Redux is the only other option. Want to invade a sovereign nation that poses no immediate threat to our national security? Tell people that they might send over unmanned drones to spray us with Anthrax. It’s not called the Department of Defense for nothing. Many Americans get queasy when it is suggested that we use our power and resources to actively nation-build or improve living standards or do anything that isn’t framed as a defensive action aimed at eliminating a terrifying threat.

This is how the debate over health care is being framed. Reform has got to be stopped because it’s a terrifying threat. It’s not a threat, of course, but the truth of the matter is as irrelevant to this debate as it was to the coverage of Anthrax drones. Well, that’s not exactly accurate. Health care reform does pose a terrifying threat... to insurance companies. Using the age-old alchemy of American industry, insurance companies have convinced large numbers of citizens that they [the citizens] have the same interest in this debate as the [insurance] companies. They don’t. I don’t. You don’t. 

Are you a fan of big business? That’s nice. Please, by all means, keep being a fan. But know this: your interests are not the same as theirs. Do you work for a family business? Is it your own family? If not, then don’t believe them when they say that you’re “like family.” You’re not. They’re not going to be loyal to you. They don’t care about you. They’re not even human. Really. They may be collectivist entities with the rights and privileges of humans, but they’re not actually human. Seriously. I apologize for assuming a simplistic and belittling tone, but this is actually a very important point that is easily and often forgotten.

The point I’m trying to get around to making here is that insurance companies are more interested in making a profit than they are in positive health outcomes. Doctors and other health care providers are interested in making a profit too, but, unlike insurance companies, they also have a serious interest in positive health outcomes. From time to time I hear people brag about how wonderful our health care system is. I understand that. We have some fine facilities in this country. But did you know that the Mayo Clinic, one of the finest, pays its physicians set salaries regardless of assignment or productivity? It has a professional focus on health outcomes rather than fiscal bottom lines. The highest paid physician in the country (like the highest paid talk-radio host) is not necessarily the best.

Remember all those folks who lauded the last few Republican Presidents (and one very ornery Vice President) for not allowing themselves to be pulled like a windsock in the direction of each new Gallup poll? Well, where are the encomiums of that leadership model now? It seems that they have withered a bit under the righteous onslaught of town-hall protests and “tea parties,” no? The government, I hear, is too incompetent to run “Cash-for-Clunkers” or the Post Office, let alone a single-payer health care system. I’m hearing this, oddly enough, from the same people who frantically insisted that I trust the government to run secret CIA prisons, detain “enemy combatants” indefinitely and without trial (or even a writ of habeas corpus), pillage my phone, Internet and library records, and capriciously unleash the hounds of war. Forgive me if I don’t take these people seriously.

The interest in killing comprehensive health care reform is coming from those who are benefiting the most from the status quo. The insurance industry is using its leverage as a large corporate concern with its ideological allies in the conservative movement to foment resistance. This is unequivocally true and unsurprising to the point of being blasé. The interests of Pfizer and Kaiser Permanente are as transparent as those of Sean Hannity or Britney Spears. What are your interests? Do you want your health care to be forever coupled with your employment situation? Do you want insurance providers to have the right to deny you coverage based on their own actuarial calculations?

During much of this last decade I’ve had top-of-the-line health care coverage through my employer. It was terrific. My employer paid a huge sum every month and all my health care needs were met. These years spanned my late 20s through my mid 30s: I was healthy. I didn’t need serious medical attention. Then I got laid off. Did I accrue any interest or equity or savings towards future health care costs during that time? No. The insurance company just pocketed untold thousands and that was that. I had box of knick-knacks and a cold goodbye. I suppose medical bills will one day gobble up my 401(k), but that’s not what it’s intended for. I also paid into Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security… and those payments still make sense to me. I still own a piece of that. 

I’ve always wanted to go to Tuscany, so I’ve been reading a book about traveling in Italy. I came across this passage earlier today:

If you are in need of urgent medical attention, go to the Pronto Soccorso (outpatients) department of the nearest main hospital. Patients staying in hospitals are expected to supply their own cutlery, crockery, towels and toilet paper, but not bed linen. The nursing staff will also expect either friends or relatives to help feed and wash hospital patients.

I remember reading tips from 20 years ago on how to keep health care costs down. Eat your own food. Bring your own aspirin. Use your own [insert commonplace item here]. We need a more affordable, saner health care system. We can decide to live in a country where every injury doesn’t spark a lawsuit instigated with the sole purpose of alleviating the cost of health care. We need Medicare for all Americans.