Unknowns

I've read it several times, several places: People who are outraged over the money spent on the stimulus bill have no idea what was actually in it; and when they are informed, they like pretty much everything about it. Except, I guess, to the extent they still believe the Reagan/Bush lie that they can have it for free, that we can survive as a nation without even the teeniest of sacrifices.

Along those lines, there's an informative piece in a recent Time Magazine:

.....Yes, the stimulus has cut taxes for 95% of working Americans, bailed out every state, hustled record amounts of unemployment benefits and other aid to struggling families and funded more than 100,000 projects to upgrade roads, subways, schools, airports, military bases and much more. But in the words of Vice President Joe Biden, Obama's effusive Recovery Act point man, "Now the fun stuff starts!" The "fun stuff," about one-sixth of the total cost, is an all-out effort to exploit the crisis to make green energy, green building and green transportation real; launch green manufacturing industries; computerize a pen-and-paper health system; promote data-driven school reforms; and ramp up the research of the future. "This is a chance to do something big, man!" Biden said during a 90-minute interview with TIME.

For starters, the Recovery Act is the most ambitious energy legislation in history, converting the Energy Department into the world's largest venture-capital fund. It's pouring $90 billion into clean energy, including unprecedented investments in a smart grid; electric cars; renewable power from the sun, wind and earth; cleaner coal; advanced biofuels; and factories to manufacture green stuff in the U.S. The act will also triple the number of smart electric meters in our homes, quadruple the number of hybrids in the federal auto fleet and finance far-out energy research through a new government incubator modeled after the Pentagon agency that fathered the Internet....

...The stimulus is also stocked with nonenergy game changers, like a tenfold increase in funding to expand access to broadband and an effort to sequence more than 2,300 complete human genomes - when only 34 were sequenced with all previous aid. There's $8 billion for a high-speed passenger rail network, the boldest federal transportation initiative since the interstate highways. There's $4.35 billion in Race to the Top grants to promote accountability in public schools, perhaps the most significant federal education initiative ever - it's already prompted 35 states and the District of Columbia to adopt reforms to qualify for the cash. There's $20 billion to move health records into the digital age, which should reduce redundant tests, dangerous drug interactions and errors caused by doctors with chicken-scratch handwriting. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius calls that initiative the foundation for reform and "maybe the single biggest component in improving quality and lowering costs."

Any of those programs would have been a revolution in its own right. "We've seen more reform in the last year than we've seen in decades, and we haven't spent a dime yet," says Education Secretary Arne Duncan. "It's staggering how the Recovery Act is driving change."

..... .... Obama has spent most of his first term trying to clean up messes - in the Gulf of Mexico, Iraq and Afghanistan, on Wall Street and Main Street - but the details in the stimulus plan are his real down payment on change. The question is which changes will last. Will electric cars disappear after the subsidies disappear? Will advanced battery factories migrate back to China? Will bullet trains ever get built? The President wants to extend transformative programs like ARPA-E. But would they be substitutes for the status quo or just additions to tack onto the deficit? And would they survive a Republican Congress?

Polls suggest the actual contents of the Recovery Act are popular. But the idea of the stimulus itself remains toxic - and probably will as long as the recovery remains tepid. "Today, it's judged by jobs," Rogers says of the act. "But in 10 years, it'll be judged by whether it transformed our economy."

There's enough meat in the quite-long article to feed both sides of the debate -- if, that is, it actually were a debate. Needed? Necessary? Let's argue. But where is there evidence in any of it -- ANY OF IT -- that this is some sort of evil plan to take down America? The opposition, rather than adding value, is reduced to hyperventilating and making up ghost stories; taking words out of context, sending paranoid emails back and forth among themselves (having to use their non-dominant hands, I'd assume.) Manipulating sheeple at will.

So who is more likely to take us down? Those that are actually trying to improve education, energy, health care, transportation, all of it, effectively or not; or those making stuff up and screaming about it, without proposing a damn thing other than tax cuts for the wealthy? Which, y'know, worked out so well when Ronnie and GWB tried 'em.

Breakup

If I sound even more irascible than usual lately, it's because I've been through a messy divorce.

Well, that's a little dramatic, I suppose, since I'm talking about a former friend and not my wife of thirty-nine years (in two days). It's a guy with whom I've always shared major disagreements on all the things they say break people up: birth certificates, mosque locations, religion, politics, civil rights, gay rights, church and state, global warming, which way to hang the toilet paper, and where you squeeze the toothpaste tube. But for several years, because of other things in common -- including, I thought, inquisitive and skeptical minds -- we'd managed to maintain a rewarding friendship. Notwithstanding the occasional blowup, we could discuss these issues in ways that some might consider rational.

Suddenly, it's not that Obama is simply wrong about everything. (There have been times when my former friend actually admitted he'd done certain things well, including his much greater attention to the needs of vets of Bush's wars than Bush ever gave.) Now, Obama is an Islamist plant, controlled by unseen forces, deliberately trying to destroy our country, and it's unconscionable that I don't recognize it. Now, I'm not just a blind apologist for this treasonous incarnation of pure evil (yes, he's used terms like that), it's that I'm a Jew; and Jews, he averred, collaborate with the enemy. (In that little pearl, he began by talking about Michael Bloomberg, but then, fully knowing my background, generalized.)

Yike. (Which rhymes...)

He seems to think that pictures -- sent to him by his fellow wingers, forwarded to me with relish -- of Obama on a bicycle at Martha's Vineyard, juxtaposed with some (non-simultaneous) of Bush at a VFW hall, prove something very, very important. I implored him to argue about policies, not bicycles, especially since, when he wasn't posing for cameras while "clearing brush," Bush rode his bike all the time and since at the same time in his presidency, Bush had taken twice the vacation days. I didn't -- but I wish I had -- point out that Bush can visit VFW lodges until the troops come home, and it will never make up for sending them, unprepared, into an unnecessary and unplanned war, making Afghanistan immeasurably worse for the kids fighting there by abandoning it prematurely, and standing for woefully inadequate care for the returning troops.

Ignoring the entreaty, my former friend insisted again that bicycles trump, oh, I guess, efforts for mass transit, energy independence, electric grids, teachers, cops, firefighters, kids with PTSD and TBI, health care, and saving the auto industry as proof -- proof! -- that Obama is evil. And that I'm a black-hearted accomplice. (And now, in his most naked America-hate yet, the president is trying to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The bastard.)

Suddenly, the man says he never knew these things about me, that I was a liberal. Weird. I've been writing this stuff for years, and as recently as a couple of months ago he wished we were neighbors so we could talk it over on his porch, with our favored clear spirits, on ice.

We spent a week together last year. Hardly a stranger to my views, he's visited here, with his wife, most recently earlier this year. He's found my ideas on miracles (who put the geese in the jet engines?) and death (we become what we were before we were born) interesting and challenging, even as he disagreed. Now, he says I constantly bash Christians. (Okay, I sort of do: but only the ones who want to make it the law of the land and substitute it for science in my schools. And I bash all religions. Except Buddhism. I kind of like Buddhism.)

Well, this lost friendship plucks out not even the smallest fiber from the fabric of space-time. My disappointment is not that I can't change his mind, but that we're no longer in the same universe. My greater concern, though, is the extent to which it speaks of where we are as a nation.

Polarized to the point of putrefaction, is where. If two guys who actually knew each other, face to face, talked about old wars and old loves, can't maintain with differing views, who the hell can? And it might just be that the worst possible explanation is really true: there have always been chasms between right and left, but there were also always a few bridge-builders (of which we were, sort of, two). What there hasn't ever been is a black president.

This resorting, by the right, to lies and conspiracy theories about birth and religion and terrorists and not one of us. Where does it come from, if not that? This absolute refusal to argue the issues but to focus on made-up "otherness" -- comes from the same place as the Jew thing, I guess. Looking at Glenn Beck's all-white rally of the aggrieved, it's hard not to believe it.

But I'll take them at their word.

When this person, to whom I've actually said "I love you, man" (and anyone who knows me knows how monumental that is), and who said the same to me along with promises that "I'll never let you down," pulls the Jew card out of his... uh... pocket and claims that had he known where I stood on things he'd have stayed away... well, I actually worry a little for his mental state but a lot more for the country's. We're too far gone, we're past the point, we've set ourselves asunder in ways that are simply irreparable. And it comes at a time when the opposite is needed more than it ever has been and, ironically, when we have a president most suited to have bridged the gaps. (Ain't no R candidate on the horizon who'd try; sure as hell ain't any in the Congress.)

Selective memory of my once and former friend aside, the president did try, hard, when he took office. Congressional Rs literally marveled that they'd had more face time with Obama in a month than they'd had with Bush in eight years. To the outrage of many liberals, Barack Hussein Obama had Rick Warren speak at his inaugural. Remember that? (All part of the plot, I assume.)

And then it dawned on those elected Rs: if we let Obama succeed, we're screwed. Not the country, of course -- who cares about that; the more important things: party and personal power. So they abandoned ship when we needed them the most. Abetted by the RWS™ and their collaborators at Fox "news", they've spewed nothing but fear and hate and lies -- never solutions (other than "second amendment" ones) -- ever since. Knowing they had no cogency or credibility on policy, and realizing that they could make money -- bags of it -- by betting on and stoking the prejudices and fears and zombie beliefs of their base; substituting soilage for substance, they anakined to the dark side. Take down the man, at the expense of the country. How enthusiastically they've been followed.

It's been bad enough to watch the creation and funding and astroturfing of a bunch of frightened, angry, self-sorry, uninformed, gullible, paranoid, deliberately and proudly fact-free teabaggers. But now, out of the blue, like the predator drones that our president fires at (his fellow) terrorists in numbers greater than his predecessor, they got to my former friend, too. If him, then more than enough to bring us -- themselves included -- down.

Jews?

Who didn't know whom?

OTOH, I gotta admit it makes it a hell of a lot easier.

___________________________________

Postscript: as if a gift from the gods, I've received an email from another of my conservative friends. He writes a weekly newspaper column about which we frequently correspond. Arriving just when I'd mostly finished the above, here's what he wrote, in part: "...although we may disagree on some things, I've come to respect your opinions, thoughts, and arguments. In fact, next to Leonard Pitts, yours is the site I visit most often..."

His words are restorative to my dying hope for reaching across divides. It's not enough to save our country, but it could go a little way to saving me. So, thanks, Larry. (When I asked if it was okay to quote him, he said: "Go ahead. We need more people to understand that differences of opinion are still permitted and can, in fact, be enjoyed."

Enjoyed. Imagine that.

We're Sunk

Writes a thoughtful conservative whom I admire:

In the course of American history, if either liberals or conservatives disappeared entirely from the American scene, leaving the right or left to pursue their best ideas and most flawed excesses alike, this country would be in far worse shape than it is today.

And anyone who thinks that completely vanquishing "the other side" in American politics would produce good results for very long is naive at best.

It is to our collective benefit that the competing ideological factions in the United States operate as the best versions of themselves. Criticism that helps them get there is the most useful. On individual matters, one or another faction occasionally ends up being definitively right (or catastrophically wrong). Still, on the whole our ideological opponents are more help than hindrances compared to a world where they didn't exist. This seems obvious to me, but I thought I'd state it since a lot of people disagree, or at least talk and act as if they do.

In finer prose than mine, he's stating a central theme of this blog, severally stated: we need two strong parties in this country, both committed to thoughtful discourse and understanding that disagreement is not only not a sign of hatred of country, but is, in fact, absolutely necessary.

Some might argue that my tone here is incendiary and not helpful. Maybe so, but it's proportional to what I see from the right. And whatever else, it's always rooted in demonstrable (and usually linked) fact. My wrath has never been directed at conservatives who present thoughtful and helpful ideas; I have, in fact, also linked to them when I find them. The author of the above being one of them...

What I find so literally sickening, and worthy of derision in the strongest terms, is the extent to which the RWS™ have descended -- and have dragged their party with them -- into total and abject warfare. No prisoners. With the goal in mind of total destruction of the "other" side, they have abandoned entirely even the pretense of helping: Coulter, Savage, Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck, Palin... you name 'em. It's about hate and derogation, us versus them. Because it's made them millionaires, because they'll evidently never go broke by counting on the gullibility of their listeners, they whip up reactionary fears and deliberately avoid discussing policy or comity in any form. It's all about Obama as terrorist Muslim, liberals as evil, about scorched-earth destruction, wholly based on scare tactics, distortions, and outright lies. This is not anything close to the "finest version" of conservatism. (Would that my criticism could "help them get there.") In the past, they've been better. Now, they're nothing but bunch of angry white people who can't see beyond their conspiracy theories, who can't recognize that in their buying in, they're selling out.

Far as I'm concerned, not to point it out is dereliction.

Teabaggers have allowed themselves to be manipulated; they've swallowed whole the anger, but with no information or ideas to wash it down. They're mad as hell, they see monsters under their beds, they're not gonna take it any more, even as they can't articulate what "it" is or with what they'll replace it. Other than the usual: no taxes, no regulations, and no gays. Or, lately, Muslims. How it would work this time around, well, they can't really say; because it's what failed us most recently, even as they seem to have allowed it to be erased from their minds.

Rather than deriding those with whom we differ, which is the stock in trade of every single right wing screamer, we should be valuing disagreement and using it as a vehicle to solutions. My gripe -- and to call it that is thoroughly to minimize it -- is with the lies and conspiracies of the right, and the fact that they've effectively become beliefs, effacing entirely the foundation of democracy. It's depressing, it's disgusting, it's the willful abandonment of reason, in favor of the easy rewards of hating others instead of looking at oneself. It's shutting out everyone else, including thoughtful people like Mr Friedersdorf, with whom I often disagree but whom I mostly admire. Absent voices like his on the right, even if -- especially if -- the louder ones manage to gain control of Congress, there is no future for us.

I wish the teabaggers could see it. And I wish the few remaining voices like the above weren't so thoroughly drowned out.

Not That It Matters

But then, the less something matters, the more the RWS™ will make of it. Distraction being their main method of unreminding us of the failures of the very things they want to do again.

So it's vacations. That Obama, like all Muslims, takes vacations at a horrendous rate. It's shocking. It's unconscionable. It's ..... half the amount George Bush had taken at this point in his presidency.

Unfair Fight

The deck is stacked.

In the political scene, such as it is, the thing that's depressed and disappointed me the most is the ease with which the RWS™ control "the message," and the ineptitude with which the Democrats deal with it. Here we are in the most uncommon era, with near-fatal calamities all around, and with only one party and its president trying -- and, to a large extent, succeeding -- to deal with them. Just look: the American auto industry -- saved; health care -- reformed for the first time in five decades; Wall Street -- first significant regulation in years; failing economy -- well, okay, at least they've tried. And it's pretty persuasive that absent the stimulus it'd be hell of a lot worse....

People can disagree about the efforts: health care -- too much reliance on insurers; auto industry -- should have let it fail, free markets being more important than jobs and recovery; stimulus -- too little or too much spending, too little tax relief or too much... But it's hard to disagree that efforts were made, and that successes have been seen. Or that Republicans decided early on that Obama's successes would be their undoing; and that if completely stopping him was impossible, convincing people that up is down was most certainly not. Cue the screamers.

To a huge number of people, it's been easily sold as socialism (it isn't), fascism (ludicrous), tearing away the very fabric of civilization. People have been led to believe that Obama has raised taxes on the middle class (he didn't), that the bank bailouts were on his watch (they weren't), that he closed auto dealerships based on political affiliations (totally debunked), and stuff way crazier than that (he's not Kenyan). Or, without so much as a clearing of the throat, the subject has been changed, to mosques and gays. Successfully. Look around: in the midst of actual problems, people are convinced they should be concerned -- they're enraged, I tell you -- about a non-mosque at non-ground zero. Brilliant.

Holding in their hands the fruits of the most productive Congress in ages, the Democrats are letting it spoil, helpless to turn the tide. What's wrong with them? With all the cards, they still can't convince people of the value of what they've done. What a pathetic lot.

Except, wait: they are up against an unprecedented and unbeatable force. There simply is -- and, because of the nature of the liberal mind, there never will be -- no machine on their side comparable to Fox "news" and the RWS™ of the airways. Dedicated without apology to the pushing of a right wing agenda (while continuing to call themselves fair and balanced!), willing to lie and distort to accomplish it, they blanket the public 25/8/366 with pure propaganda. So it doesn't matter what the President or Democratic officials say: it will be countered relentlessly with spin and distortion, stupidity and distraction. And their audience, cultivated and groomed for years, considers it "fair and balanced" or, even worse, prefers to have their prejudices and preconceptions reinforced rather than challenged or exposed as wrong. Ever since Ronald Reagan, right wingers continue to sell people on the idea that you can have everything and pay nothing.

It's an unfair fight that liberals can never win, because whereas there are indeed some shouty liberals on the airwaves, they generally refuse to spread overt lies: and liberals tend not to need or want to have constant reinforcement; at least not in the numbers corralled by the RWS™. Thus, the ratings. Thus, the impossible fight.

It hardly mitigates the frustration that Democrats are unable to get their accomplishments recognized -- much less debated on their merits. But I've come to accept that it's really not their fault. If Harry Reid were Demosthenes, if Nancy Pelosi were Angelina Jolie, if Robert Gibbs were Robert Welch, how could they counter a totalitarian right-wing network that has no scruples? By what means could they get through to a populace carefully groomed for the times: scared, angry, actively and proudly mis- and uninformed, whipped into a frenzy, equating education with treason?

We'll never know.

Briar Patch

The last thing bin Laden and other radical Islamic terrorists want is a Muslim community center, open to all and run by an imam who preaches peace and tolerance, built anywhere near Ground Zero; or, for that matter, anywhere in the US. It defeats their most central message of jihad against the crusaders. Whatever else is true about those guys, they're not unaware of American politics nor of how to play it like an oud.

Remember how B'rer Rabbit got himself flung into the briar patch?

Hamas says the Cordoba Center ought to be built as planned. On cue, suckered, the RWS™ pounce. Then Harry Reid, evidently feeling threatened by one of the most laughable candidates ever, caves.

Game, set, match. Straight sets. We'll never learn.

Lonely Voice

I've referred to him before, if obliquely, in my never-ending search for a reasonable conservative, an entity all but disappeared from the national scene, even as it's sorely needed. He, Ronald Reagan's former chief economic advisor, has spoken again:

.... In my own mind, I have the same political philosophy I've always had--basically libertarian but tempered by Burkean small-C conservatism. But I am no longer a member of the Republican Party and no longer consider myself part of the "conservative movement." That's not because I changed, but because I believe that they have. The Republican Party of today is not the party of Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan that I was once a member of; it stands for nothing except the pursuit of power as an end in itself, with no concern whatsoever for what is right for the country. In a recent interview with The Economist magazine, I characterized the Republicans as the greedy, sociopathic party. I stand by that.

I think Russell Kirk and Bill Buckley would be absolutely aghast at the things it stands for today and the people that are acclaimed as its leaders. When clowns like Glenn Beck are its leaders and right-wing bigots pander to ignorant yahoos about a planned mosque in lower Manhattan, I want to be as far away from any such movement as I possibly can. And readers of this blog know what I think of the know-nothing tea party movement, which conservatives have latched onto en masse.

What he says is self-evident, except to those who need to hear it most. "... no concern whatsoever for what is right for the country."

From the mouth of the ultimate Reaganite, one who sat at the right hand of God: "... no concern whatsoever for what is right for the country." Readers of this blog have read virtually those exact words before.

"... the greedy, sociopathic party."

"... stands for nothing except the pursuit of power as an end in itself..."

We need a strong conservative party. I'd pray for it if, well, you know... Our form of government is predicated upon discussion, dissent, argument. But it also presumes good faith and a sense of common purpose, namely a shared desire to find a way through the woods. Absent that, I suppose we could live -- tenuously -- if it were only the leaders of Republicans who refused to be thoughtful and to present credible ideas. But we can't live -- it's becoming more and more clear -- with voters in numbers that now exist, who gobble up the ghastly gruel they're being sold by Sarah and Glenn, by Mitch and John and Newt and Louie. Wholesale. In Costco quantities. Without so much as a final flicker, a terminal twitch, a rictus, a death rattle.

The Man Behind The Smear

As the RWS™ carry out their usual hatchet job, retracing the bloody footprints they left after destroying Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, and many others less well known, it might be revelatory to get to know the victim of their latest attack, Donald Berwick, nominated to head Medicaid and Medicare. To them, he's evil incarnate. To the reader of his recent graduation speech at the medical school in which his daughter was among those graduating, a different man emerges.

.....Let me read to you an email I received on Thursday, December 19, 2009. It came from Mrs. Jocelyn Anne Gruzenski – she goes by “Jackie.” I did not know Jackie Gruzenski at the time; she wrote to me out of the blue. But I have since connected with her. And, she gave me permission to read her email to me to you. Here's what she wrote:

…

“My husband was Dr. William Paul Gruzenski, a psychiatrist for 39 years. He was admitted to (a hospital she names in Pennsylvania) after developing a cerebral bleed with a hypertensive crisis. My issue is that I was denied access to my husband except for very strict visiting, four times a day for 30 minutes, and that my husband was hospitalized behind a locked door. My husband and I were rarely separated except for work,” she wrote. “He wanted me present in the ICU, and he challenged the ICU nurse and MD saying, "She is not a visitor, she is my wife.‟

.....What might a husband and wife of 19 years, aware of the short time left together, wish to talk about – wish to do – in the last days? I don‟t know for Dr. and Mrs. Gruzenski. But, I do know for me. I would talk about our children. I would talk about the best trip we ever took together, and even argue, smiling, about whose idea it was. .... We would have so much to talk about. So much. The nurses would pad in and out of the hospital room, checking i.v.s and measuring pulses and planning their dinners and their weekends. And none of what the nurses and doctors did would matter to us at all; we wouldn‟t even notice them. We would know exactly who the visitors were – they, the doctors and the nurses. They, they would be the visitors in this tiny corner of our whole lives together – they, not us.

..... [T]oday you take a big step into power. With your white coat and your Latin, with your anatomy lessons and your stethoscope, you enter today a life of new and vast privilege ..... [S]ociety will give you access and rights that it gives to no one else. Society will allow you to hear secrets from frightened human beings that they are too scared to tell anyone else. Society will permit you to use drugs and instruments that can do great harm as well as great good, and that in the hands of others would be weapons. Society will give you special titles and spaces of privilege, as if you were priests. Society will let you build walls and write rules.

......... But, now I will tell you a secret – a mystery. Those who suffer need you to be something more than a doctor; they need you to be a healer. And, to become a healer, you must do something even more difficult than putting your white coat on. You must take your white coat off. You must recover, embrace, and treasure the memory of your shared, frail humanity – of the dignity in each and every soul. When you take off that white coat in the sacred presence of those for whom you will care – in the sacred presence of people just like you – when you take off that white coat, and, tower not over them, but join those you serve, you become a healer in a world of fear and fragmentation, an “aching” world, as your Chaplain put it this morning, that has never needed healing more.

Congratulations.

Read the whole speech, then tell me: is he the devil the screamers say he is?

If, as I said recently, the worst thing the right-wingers have done to our country and our world is the killing of climate legislation, then the runner-up is their characterization of health care reform as "death panels" and "genocide" (as a group of Larouche supporters, complete with Obama-as-nazi signs, claimed a couple of days ago, parading near my local post office). In the latest of uncountable examples, these people, the screamers, the radio guys, the talking headless of Fox "news", Congressional Rs, teabaggers who've dipped and drunk deep, who have no desire or ability to enter the marketplace of ideas, would rather don the vestments of hate and hyperbole, and blow themselves up like al Queda in a farmers' market, taking down as many innocents as possible. What, I wonder, do they expect to see when they find their imaginary paradise?

More importantly: why do so many people buy into the lies, rally around cynical people who treat them like idiot sheep? Using scare tactics and buzzwords like "rationing," taking reality-based remarks out of context while advocating tax cuts for the rich and unspecified spending cuts, how has it been so easy to convince so many, with so much evidence to the contrary, that they're on the right side of the argument?

Simple; and I've said it again and again: we've become a nation of selfish and stupid people, too lazy to think for themselves, unwilling to do the hard work of living in a democracy. Giving lip service to "patriotism" while in fact espousing the very ideas that have brought us down, as a way to justify their selfishness, which is exactly what it is: selfishness. Wrapped in the Shroud of Turin.

The right wing has recognized it, stoked it, counted on it, and is ready, once again, to take the money and run.

Mosque Deaf

As the usual RWS™ keep adding to the crazy over the Cordoba Initiative (which, by the bye, was just given initial approval), it's worth hearing the occasional voice of sanity. Information-based sanity. (I apologize for using those three words together, in a way that several of my readers -- and we all know who they are -- will be unable to comprehend. Sorry. I wish I could help.)

This seems like such an obvious point, but it is apparently not obvious to the many people who oppose the Cordoba Initiative's planned mosque in lower Manhattan, so let me state it as clearly as possible: The Cordoba Initiative, which is headed by an imam named Feisal Abdul Rauf, is an enemy of al Qaeda, no less than Rudolph Giuliani and the Anti-Defamation League are enemies of al Qaeda. Bin Laden would sooner dispatch a truck bomb to destroy the Cordoba Initiative's proposed community center than he would attack the ADL, for the simple reason that Osama's most dire enemies are Muslims. This is quantitatively true, of course -- al Qaeda and its ideological affiliates have murdered thousands of Muslims -- but it is ideologically true as well: al Qaeda's goal is the purification of Islam (that is to say, its extreme understanding of Islam) and apostates pose more of a threat to Bin Laden's understanding of Islam than do infidels.

I know Feisal Abdul Rauf; I've spoken with him at a public discussion at the 96th street mosque in New York about interfaith cooperation. He represents what Bin Laden fears most: a Muslim who believes that it is possible to remain true to the values of Islam and, at the same time, to be a loyal citizen of a Western, non-Muslim country. Bin Laden wants a clash of civilizations; the opponents of the mosque project are giving him what he wants.

To put it another way:

If Osama bin Laden were to write a script for what he'd like to see happen here, it'd be identical to the one Gingrich & Co. are following. This isn't intended to question their patriotism, but rather, their sanity.

I'd not be that kind. If one's so-called patriotism is so misguided; namely, where there is no religious tolerance, where (briefly to raise another issue) nativism trumps the Constitution, where a democratically-elected president doing exactly that on which he campaigned is seen as fascism -- in short, when that patriotism is directed at a country that doesn't exist -- then it's hard to know the meaning of the term.

Also, Feisal Abdul Rauf is Sufi.

[Far be it from I to go on and on. So let me refer the reader to a knowledgeable and thorough response to the Newt-onian (and we all know what onanism is) lies about Cordoba, which have taken root in the dung. A significant sampling:

The problem is, in order to give that impression of immediacy, Newt elides three-hundred years of Christian and Muslim history. Three-hundred years. The Muslims conquered Cordoba in 712... and the mosque only became "the world's third-largest" late in the tenth century, after a series of expansions by much later rulers, probably around 987 or so.

[...] Muslim historians writing about the Great Mosque don't point to it as a symbol of Muslim triumph over Christians; rather, they treat it primarily as a symbol of Muslim victory over other Muslims.

[...]

The mosque was indeed begun in the wake of a Muslim conquest--just not the conquest of the Christians. Rather, it was ordered built by the Umayyad emir Abd-ar-Ramman I, probably in part to commemorate his successful conquest of Cordoba in the 750's, fought against otherMuslim chieftains loyal to the rival Abbasid Caliphate, and his successful repulsion of subsequent Abbasid attempts to dislodge him by force throughout the 760's.

[...]

Muslim historians of the late tenth century tell that Abd-ar-Ramman bought the church from the Christian congregation after sharing it with them for fifty years "following the example of Abu Ubayda and Khalid, according to the judgement of Caliph Umar in partitioning Christian churches like that of Damascus and other [cities] that were taken of peaceful accord". The Christians, we're told, took their money and relocated their church to the outskirts of Cordoba. Now obviously, these are Muslim historians writing two-to-three-hundred years after the events they describe, so we must always take their accounts with a grain of salt (as we would with any historian's work, Muslim or not) and consider the political motivations responsible for their histories.

[...]

This is the important fact that Newt hopes those who read his polemic will be ignorant of: for a ruler to be legitimate in Muslim eyes in the tenth century, during the time when the Great Mosque was being expanded into its present-day dimensions, it was important to emphasize the peaceful succession of Islam from the other religions in the area. A caliph was expected to have arrived at an accord with the Christians and Jews over which he ruled. Far from "symboliz[ing] their victory" the Mosque was held up by Muslim historians a symbol of peaceful coexistence with the Christians--however messier the actual relations of Christians and Muslims were at the time.

[...] So it's easy to see why a group of Muslims creating a community center in the heart of a majority Christian country in a city known for its large Jewish population might name it "The Cordoba House" They're not, as Gingrich hopes we would believe, discreetly laughing at us because "Cordoba" is some double-secret Islamist code for "conquest"; rather, they're hoping to associate themselves with a particular time in medieval history when the largest library in Western Europe was to be found in Cordoba, a city in which scholars of all three major Abrahamic religions were free to study side-by-side.

Newt is as screamy a RWS™ as they get. His bullshit just smells a little better at first whiff, because he drapes himself in academe like a bacon-wrapped date stuffed with Boursin. Which is delicious, by the way, and can be done over a campfire as my wife recently demonstrated.]

Well (if a little strenuously) Said

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

I don't watch Olbermann any more, because unlike Foxophiles I don't need constant reinforcement of a narrow point of view, and I finally got turned off by his over-the-top self-righteousness and his tendency (as opposed to Rachel Maddow, whom I also stopped watching but highly admire for her actual journalism) to have only yes-men on his show. Which is not to say I disagree with him.

The above is exactly what I've been saying about Fox "news" and the RWS™ and all of those like Blue (I exclude Frank because I think he's huffing his hoses so much he doesn't know what he just said at any given moment and as a liberal I must empathize and hope he gets help) and teabaggers and the silent sea of softheaded seekers of solace from cerebration who enable them by defending them or simply ignoring the obvious: they're liars. All of them. Every single one. Deliberate liars. They're inimical to functioning democracy. They've taken the idea of journalism and perverted it, intentionally. Knowing the value of a vigorous and free press (protected by the Constitution the ignoring of which they supported for the prior eight years), they've chosen to destroy it by discredit. It's like those programs to control mosquitoes by releasing sterile ones into the population. I can't speak for the mosquitoes, but this plan is working well.

I'll say it again: if you heard it on Fox "news" or from any of the RWS™, it's a lie. It's a deliberate falsification based on a destructive agenda and it's predicated on the belief -- for which there remains no disproof -- that its listeners and supporters are too stupid or too needy or too lazy or too uneducated or too hidebound by their preconceptions to figure it out. And, of course, on the knowledge that among those who do figure it out, most won't care. Will, in fact, love it for that very reason.

Democracy depends on an educated electorate. Education depends on good public schools and a functioning, intelligent, well-intentioned and skeptical press. And so, systematically, brilliantly, cynically, the right wing has been amputating every leg of the stool. And they've been doing it for a single simple purpose: fool the rest of you so they can take the money and run.

Give me another explanation, and I'll consider it.

It Will Never End. Never.

Especially if even the White House acts as stupidly as the deepest-dipping teabagger. But the biggest fault (except that he did it on purpose!) is with that RWS™ of all RWS™, Andrew Lynch Breitbart, who, once again and in concert with the lying liars at Fox "news," deliberately edited footage to make it appear that the exact opposite of what happened, happened. They are despicable liars, who have no regard for truth, democracy, or the most basic levels of decency. And THAT is demonstrable fact. Where are we now, and where will we be, if one or our major political parties can only gain power by lies and obfuscation? Where are we now, and where will we be if (when) they succeed?

Add this to the previous statement of fact: if you hear it on Fox "news" or from the mouth of any of the RWS™, assume it's untrue. Without exception. And, to those who continue to disagree: wake the f*ck up!!!

Want even more mind-blowing amusement? Glenn Beck, he of the many scalps taken by deceit, innuendo, and judgement without data, evidently thinks such character assassination is only okay if it's he who does it. Really. No kidding.

Or this: O'Reilly apologizes for taking her words out of context, then, animating the defintion of assholery, takes her words out of context again.

I believe it was Thomas Becon who asked, "Shall this man live?"

It bothers the hell out of me that, with or without Obama's approval, someone in the administration forced the lady out before the turds dropped by Breitbart had even had time to equilibrate to room temperature. But more -- much much more -- it disturbs me deeply that there's anyone one left in the country, even the most unschooled or home-schooled or credulous and ill-equipped to think for him/herself teabagging faux patriot, who buys the crap the right wing is selling.

If you don't like what Obama is doing, say so, and say why. Say what you'd do differently, how to get it done, and how to pay for it. Specifically. Propose alternatives; better still, propose alternatives that have a chance of working. If, on the basis of such discussions, people are convinced that the Republicans deserve to return to power and to return is to the EXACT POLICIES that got us into the mess we're in, fine. Well, not fine, of course. But at least we could all say it's democracy, it how things work. But if it happens because of the relentless lying of the RWS™ and the stupid, empty, and entirely unmeritorious acceptance of it by the worried masses too lazy and too unable and too unwilling to stop and think for themselves, well, it'll be pretty damn sad.

Because, whether done on the basis of "informed" discussion or disinformed, either way it'll take us down the tubes. So, at least, as we sink under the waves, I'd at least like to think it wasn't because the lies of guys like Andrew Breitbart were the reason.

(I'm not the only one wondering when serious people on the right, assuming there are some, which remains an open question, will say "enough.")

[Update, 7/22: here's a damn good summation of the whole thing.]

[Update, 7/26: it should be noted that timelines have shown that the firing/resignation took place more or less before Fox "news" starting hyping the story. This is evidently taken by some as somehow exonerating Fox: if she quit before Fox starting pumping the venom, they have no responsibility. Well, for the firing, maybe. But for the non-stop coverage and claims of racism in Obama's government before other media sources finally did the due diligence required... yep, it's on them. And my fundamental point, that if you hear it from Fox or any of the other RWS™ you should consider it false until proven otherwise, most certainly still stands.]

Data For Deniers

The above graphic is from an article whose title tells it like it is:

Critics Still Wrong on What’s Driving Deficits in Coming Years

Economic Downturn, Financial Rescues, and Bush-Era Policies Drive the Numbers

From the article:

The events and policies that have pushed deficits to these high levels in the near term, however, were largely outside the new Administration’s control. If not for the tax cuts enacted during the presidency of George W. Bush that Congress did not pay for, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were initiated during that period, and the effects of the worst economic slump since the Great Depression (including the cost of steps necessary to combat it), we would not be facing these huge deficits in the near term.

Also, because it's a credible and balanced article:

While President Obama inherited a dismal fiscal legacy, that does not diminish his responsibility to propose policies to address our fiscal imbalance and put the weight of his office behind them. Although policymakers should not tighten fiscal policy in the near term while the economy remains fragile, they and the nation at large must come to grips with the nation’s long-term deficit problem. But we should not mistake the causes of our predicament.

Among the titles of other paragraphs in the article:

Financial Rescues, Stimulus Add to Deficits in Near Term

And:

Bush Tax Cuts, War Costs Do Lasting Harm to Budget Outlook

Another article makes mostly the same point, if a bit skeptically:

The dire outlook from CBO today is not the fault of the current administration or any one administration (LBJ may be the most to blame I guess for starting Medicare). In fact, if the Medicare cuts in the health care bill are to be believed and CBO's estimates pertaining to the health care bill are to be believed, Pres. Obama has already done more to reduce in magnitude the long-term budget problems for the U.S. than the previous administration, who undoubtedly made the problem worse. That's true despite the amount added to the deficit from the stimulus bill and the costly coverage provisions in the health care bill. The obvious question is whether or not you believe the large cuts to Medicare will ever pan out. If not, Obama's fiscal record thus far is about as bad as the previous administration's.

Yet, in their usual disingenuous (at best) and cynically dishonest (for sure) or deliberately destructive (in reality) manner, the RWS™ remain in force and on message, claiming that the merest suggestion that GWBush has the tiniest shred of connection to our perilous situation is politics of the worst (if not unfamiliar to them) kind.

I repeat myself, some might say. But isn't this what it's all about, politically, for the next several months, in the US? In hopes of getting back into power, the robbers return to the scene of the crime claiming they're innocent. This is a willful disinformation campaign by Congressional Rs, the RWS™, and Fox "news," aimed at distracting the disturbed and deceived from the truth: that their policies and their most recent president have left us damaged -- possibly beyond repair. Knowing their faithful and faith-needy and hugely uninformed and formlessly angry and base base will take it in like high-fructose corn syrup, they continue to dish it out and provide the spoons. Common sense and simple facts be damned: there are teacups to be filled, and teabaggers most eager to drink.

The Culprits

Starting with the Republican intellectual leader, Rush Limbaugh; flowing to their pseudo-intellectual leader, Krauthammer; and picked up by their spiritual leader, Palin, is the latest and perhaps the most idiotic (for now) talking point of the season: the oil spill is the fault of environmentalists. With this, they've truly outdone themselves. Which, most certainly, is NOT to say it won't be sucked up and re-mouthed as gospel by teabaggers and the sort of happy harpers that occasionally roam these parts.

It goes like this: those nasty tree-huggers have made it impossible to drill on shore or close to shore and, because they call the shots, have forced the helpless oilmen like the obsequious and pliable Cheney, lacking influence, to take their platforms and slink into the deep waters. Right. Had they let them drill in ANWR, they'd never have gotten wet. Right. Had Palin won she'd have corked those babies and we'd never see an offshore rig again. Right. And, I imagine, had it not been for environmentalists, BP would never have cut corners. Environmentalists have always been delighted to see deep water drilling. Right.

It's not at all surprising to hear this sort of crap from the RWS™. They simply have no regard for reason or and even less -- much less -- for their audience. (When, oh when, will teabaggers realize it?) And, having witnessed the deeply depressing spectacle of that audience slurping up their effluvium and repeating it as if it made some sort of sense, it's not surprising -- not any more -- to see them do just that. Why should the RWS™ stop spreading sewage as long as people think it's chocolate pudding?

Unsurprising it may be; but it's still really depressing. It's a perfect example of the sort of slop that passes for political thought on the right, and is accepted as such, no questions asked, by the masses -- poised to vote in mere months.

Press Release

OBAMA TO SPEAK AT ABRAHAM LINCOLN NATIONAL CEMETERY

Like Presidents Reagan and Bush before him, President Barack Obama will not attend ceremonies, on this one occasion, at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day. Rather, he will give honors at Abraham Lincoln National Cemetery, near Chicago.

"Abraham Lincoln presided over the most divisive time in our history," President Obama said. "In a time when our country's very existence was gravely threatened, he managed to overcome divisions of American against American, and to begin the healing process. I can only aspire to the greatness of President Lincoln, for few if any will achieve it. But in many ways, these are nearly equally perilous times. In attending events this Memorial Day at the national cemetery that bears his name, I honor his memory, the memory of those who fought so bravely in the Civil War, and that of all who have served our country, in all wars, in all times."

There was no such release, of course; no such statement. Had there been, I wonder if it would have made a difference to those who have risen to such anger over President Obama's impending absence from Arlington while ignoring those of our recent Republican (and therefore, by definition, patriotic) presidents.

No.

Idealism

Viktor Frankl: holocaust survivor and shrink.

I find the clip both inspiring and depressing. Inspiring, because I think he might be right, and I should snap out of it. Depressing, because of how low the bar has been set in America, by such people as Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, teabaggers, and the rest of the screeching right-wingers, who appeal only to our basest selves.

Successfully.

Very, very successfully.

What He Said

Conor Friedersdorf is a conservative thinker with whom I don't often agree, but I'd love to talk with him. He's among those rare conservatives nowadays who thinks the power of his ideas is such that they don't require lying to convince people. Like me, he points out the disrespect the RWS™, in their constant lying, show for their audience and, for that matter, the very ideas they promote. He's also been involved in the "epistemic closure" debate, for which he's earned the wrath of the epistemically closed. His talk partner, above, is the guy who first used the term.

If our political debate were on the level he tries to provide, and if the teabaggers would recognize the low esteem in which they're implicitly held by those shining them on, educate themselves (a lot of catching up to do), and think of ways to join a useful dialogue, well, maybe we'd be closer to pulling it off. By "it" I mean surviving.

Whereas it's refreshing to see at least a few conservatives call out the deceptions of the radio clowns and, by inference, the talking heads on Fox "news," and whereas it's nice to hear repeated the very things I've been saying about the disregard for truth, for their audience, for the process of democracy that the aforementioned screamers evince every day, it's also depressing. Because, on the right anyway, such voices are so rare as to round off to zero. And, pretty much by definition, such reasonableness is to teabagging as magnets are to credit cards.

This County Will Self-Destruct In...

States are passing laws allowing people to carry guns in airports. We're becoming a nation of gun-totin' brown-arrestin' citizenship-revokin' paranoid lunatics. Is this really where we're headed? Wild West justice, hang 'em first and shoot questions later? Vigilantes? Are we finally so destroyed by those guys in caves that we have thrown up our hands and said, "You win?" So frightened, so lacking in confidence that we're just turning on ourselves? Seriously.

Adding injury to insult was a show on PBS, part of which was devoted to the "open carry" movement. Featuring lots of guys walking around with handguns on their hips, it gave fair voice to that side of the argument. Mostly, it's that if you have a gun on your person, you might have an opportunity to prevent a crime. I get that; can't really argue with it, per se. In fact, if I had a gun handy were I to come across someone committing rape, for example, I might just pull it and saying something impolite.

Yet I had a surprisingly visceral reaction to seeing those guys packing so smugly, one of whom had the hammer of his weapon in cocked mode. Maybe it's that it took me back to my days in Vietnam, when, on flying missions, I carried a .38 pistol, per regulation, in my survival vest. Some of the fighter jocks added bandoliers with a couple hundred extra rounds. Me, I figured if I was on the ground in a situation where that much shooting was required, with a bitsy sidearm like that, alone, all I'd need was one bullet.

But I don't think it was that. It was the simpering macho certitude, combined with the showing of pro-gun rallies featuring speakers saying President Obama is the most anti-gun president ever, with signs saying something like, "Yeah, Barry, you can take my gun. Muzzle first." Because, as anyone should know, the only action Obama has taken regarding guns is to loosen regulation of them in national parks. As with many of the policies of this so-called socialist liberal, he's getting hot criticism from his left over his lack of action on gun regulation. So it's not simply that there's a large segment of the population packing heat openly and proudly. It's that they're Fox-fed, RWS™-brained nutjobs. It's that they're proof paranoid of how far back we're falling, based on falsehood.

I know we'll never be crime-free nor gun-free. But I really doubt the guys carrying are thinking much about being crime-fighters. They're getting off on that thing in their pants; they're reveling in the attention they get and the discomfort it causes. It's about intimidation; and people who need to intimidate indiscriminately are not nice people, or healthy.

Because we already have laws allowing concealed carry. You need a permit, though, which open carry, mostly, does not. (Why, after all, would we want to regulate people who need to walk around all gun-hipped?) So it's not about fighting crime. It's about show. It's about in-your-face. And, parenthetically, it's about taking us to a place where the Second Amendment has never gone.

It's like walking around with your dick hanging out, only not as subtle.

My question is this: was it really al Queda that brought us down so easily, so thoroughly, or was it the specter of a Black Guy in the White House? Whichever it is, or whatever combination of the aforementioned, it sure as hell didn't take much to get us to toss it all overboard.

Oh, Man!

Can there be a more clear demonstration of the insanity of the right wing than this?

If Kagan genuinely believed that the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law was "a profound wrong--a moral injustice of the first order," why would she make herself complicit in implementing the grave evil? Yes, of course, it's true, as the article points out, that "barring the recruiters would [have] come with a price." But, as George Bernard Shaw would have said to Kagan for selling out her supposedly deeply held principles, "We've already established what you are, ma'am. Now we're just haggling over the price."

Here's what this guy is talking about: Obama's Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan, evidently disagrees with the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. Yet, as president of Harvard Law School, she allowed military recruiters on campus. I repeat: SHE ALLOWED MILITARY RECRUITERS ON CAMPUS. And this conservative pundit is offended. He thinks it's terrible that a potential justice would be able to put her personal beliefs aside in making an important decision. I repeat: .... no, I don't. It's just too amazing, too unbelievable, too obviously stupid and UNCONSERVATIVE (so they'd usually claim) a statement from a so-called conservative to take up more ink (or whatever this stuff is) than it already has. Discounting pragmatism or open-mindedness, in his article, which appeared in NRO, a reflexive organ for negativism no matter the issue as long as Obama is involved, the writer suggests the decision was only about money. Really?

It will, of course, get worser and crazier. And the cynicism will have no bounds.

The bony anorexic believes, and the unrepentantly stupid prevaricator agrees, that a fight over any Supreme Court nominee by Obama is a good deal for Republicans. This, of course, was said without knowing the pick. (My best advice is: don't watch the clip if your head isn't well-glued onto your neck. "Everything Obama has done is radical..." Gimme a break.) Consistent much?

So here we are. The objection to Sonia Sotomayor was that she might insert her personal beliefs into her judicial reasoning (yeah, like Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Thomas don't. I only know of one judge who never did. There might be others.) And now it's gonna be that Kagan won't?!?!

If you repeat a lie often enough, people begin to believe it. That piece of political truth and social realism has never been more overtly adhered to than by the current cabal of Republican leaders, their house organ, and the right-wing screamers. (Ironic, isn't it? The freedom-loving anti-communists have adopted the seminal strategy of the Bolsheviks, the sine qua non of totalitarianism: lying. In print, on the air, everywhere, all the time.) There's no question that lying is the agreed-upon response to Barack Obama. The only question is whether it will continue, forever, to find the receptive and malleable audience that is so far has, in teabaggers, whether out of or in their cups.* Is there any point at which even they might say, "You know, events simply don't support the crap they're feeding us?"

Doubt it.

[Reality-based fact: as usual with most of Obama's actions, which, predictably, are anything but radical, there's some unhappiness on the left with his nominee.]

______________________

*Some will get that.

This Should Do It

Yep, all it will take is information like this -- y'know, facts -- and the RWS™ and their brainwashed teabaggers will stop saying Obama is a socialist who wants the government to own the banks and the automakers.

From the beginning, it was obvious to anyone who got information from, say, a NEWS source, that to the extent that government was "taking over" GM and Chrysler it was only temporary, and that taxpayers actually stood to make money on the deal. Same with banks.

So, yeah, any day now I expect to hear all those liars at Fox "news" correcting their disinformation. And within moments, I'm guessing teabaggers will march on Washington with signs (misspelled, but still...) saying, "Sorry Mr President. We sort of got it wrong. Nice job."

And our plum tree will begin producing gold coins.

Oh Well

From The Washington Monthly, a website infinitely more widely read than mine, and actually respected, come words that could have been written by me:

I write a lot about the excesses of Republican rhetoric, in part because I find GOP remarks illustrative of a party gone mad, and in part because of the impact the rhetoric has on the larger political culture/discourse. Most of the time, the temptation is to mock the absurdities.

But once in a while, we find a case like this one, in which a sitting member of the House of Representatives -- not a Fox News personality, not a host of right-wing radio show -- suggests, in print, that the president is a traitor.

Is nothing beyond the pale for Republican officials in 2010? Must there be no difference between GOP lawmakers and unhinged right-wing activists? Are we to believe that we should simply expect and tolerate the casual accusations of treason against American patriots?

It was written in response to this, from a Republican Congressman:

Simply put, President Obama is disadvantaging the United States one step at a time and undermining this country's national defense on purpose. Whether he is catering to the anti-war leftists or truly doing what he thinks is best for our security, the president is leading this nation down a very dangerous path. [emphasis in the original]

What is there to do but sigh, deeply? Just keep writing, I guess, on the off chance that some time some one, or maybe two, will see how fatally such RWS™ are damaging our political process and, therefore, our country. Clearly, there are those that see it, but the question remains, unanswered, for now: which side has the numbers?