Sometimes Irony Is Not Delicious

Now that Rush Limbaugh and Michael Steele are having a public feud (they'll kiss and make up before the next election, of course), one wonders...

Remember when Rush said that Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama was invalid, essentially because Powell was African-American, and therefore couldn't be trusted when he endorsed another African-American?

There's a fair chance the Republican party will be fielding African-American candidates at the local, state, and perhaps even national level in future elections. Should we expect Rush to say that Steele's endorsement of those candidates is meaningless?

I'm not holding my breath....

Everybody Knows...

With apologies to Leonard Cohen. Here are a few more things that "Everybody knows..." but not everybody admits.

1) People know what is right and what is wrong.

2) It's hypocritical to whine about "welfare queens" scamming a few food stamps while turning a blind eye to the massive white collar crime that completely dwarfs welfare fraud in this country.

3) Hard work and talent will give you a comfortable living, but it will not make you extremely wealthy.

4) To become extremely wealthy, you need to be lucky, manipulative, and/or corrupt.

5) Ken Lay, Bernie Madoff, and many other white-collar criminals have caused more harm than an entire prison full of drug dealers. But white-collar criminals are rarely -- if ever -- given the sentences they deserve.

6) Regular people have a lot more power than they think. Those who benefit from the status quo do not want large numbers of people to stand up for what's right.

7) For that reason (#6), a lot of talking heads divert our attention from issues that really matter, and ridicule or harass any attempt to organize.

Are Ancient People Less Human than I Am?

In this post, I rattled on about a disturbing political trend of valuing the lives (or well-being) of foreigners as less important than our own.

Now let's talk about religion. It's not surprising that religious perspectives are so closely related to political stances on such matters of "foreign relations." Open a Bible, read a few pages, and you'll be smack-dab in the middle of the argument.

Some Christians contrast the "Israel-centric" nature of the Old Testament with the "universal" audience of the New Testament. And, in fact, it's true. The Old Testament is, in large part, a history of the wars that Israel fought against anyone and everyone. Sometimes they attacked, sometimes they were attacked. Sometimes God ordered Israel to kill civilians, sometimes God used Israel's enemies to slaughter Israel's civilians. Or to be more accurate, in God's eyes, no infidel was a civilian.

While there are some notable exceptions, the idea that people in ancient Israel were more valuable than anyone else is fundamental to the Old Testament.

Much has been claimed about the religious revolution the New Testament writings initiated. But foreigners had always been permitted to join the Hebrew religion, as long as they joined the nation of Israel. If the New Testament really was revolutionary, perhaps it was not so much in a religious sense as in an ethnic sense. In a culture whose religion preached that non-Jews were worth little, Jesus and his followers suddenly asserted that human value is (at least relatively) independent of nationality or culture.

In modern politics and religion, the liberal-conservative split still seems to revolve around this issue. How much is your life worth compared to mine?

Are Foreigners Less Human Than I Am?

In a recent interview, Dick Cheney criticized the new political climate in which people "are more concerned about reading the rights to an Al Qaeda terrorist than they are with protecting the United States."

That statement is worthy of ridicule. Cheney pretends that a large majority of US military captives are "Al Qaeda terrorists." But the real concern is that non-terrorists may be locked away without a fair trial. The US military has no business snatching up people and incarcerating them (and perhaps worse) for an indefinite time period. The time has long since passed for the US military to either put up solid evidence against those folks, or to let them go.

The bottom line: Dick Cheney wants you to assume the folks in Guantanamo deserve to suffer until it's proven otherwise. You don't know them, and they haven't been given a fair trial. The Bush administration convinced us that those prisoners do not deserve (what many Americans would consider) the basic human right of a fair trial.

Here's a related, all-too-familiar story. Hamas shoots rockets into Israel. Israel responds disproportionately, and many civilians are killed because they "got in the way" of the lesson that Israel needed to teach Hamas.

The bottom line: Any "disproportionate response" that involves civilians requires a calculus of human lives. Israel made a decision that the lives of Palestinian citizens were of small value compared to the lives of Israelis.

I'm sure there are terrorists incarcerated at Guantanamo, and I have sympathy for Israel and other nations that are attacked by terrorists or otherwise. But, Cheney aside, there's more to the story.

It's well-known that, in wartime, demonizing the enemy will stir up public support of the war. But in these cases, the demons are not soldiers or political leaders. We have demonized ordinary people who were unlucky enough to get in the way.

The distinction is as fundamental as the American creed "innocent until proven guilty."

Will we continue to follow Cheney's lead in assuming that foreigners are guilty until proven innocent? If we do not consider other nations and ethnic groups to be worthy of the human rights we claim for ourselves, who will defend us when we are in need?

Good Riddance to the Machiavellian "Bush Doctrine"

Two days from the US election, it's time to start looking toward the future. Unfortunately, recent stories of military strikes in other nations, including our "ally" Pakistan, have focused my attention on the ugly present.

The "Bush Doctrine" essentially asserts (in its various forms) that America has the right to attack another country if it thinks that country is harboring a threat to the USA. Recently, troubling news stories (barely reported in American media) have come to light indicating that the US has been launching attacks inside Syria and Pakistan. In defense of its actions, the White House has said little to nothing substantive.

As an American, I am offended that my President thinks "No comment" is an acceptable answer to the question, "Why are Americans invading so many different countries and killing their soldiers/civilians?"

What about all the reports that civilians are being killed in these attacks? Does the Bush Doctrine include the right to kill civilians and innocents?

The 9/11 terrorists perceived a threat to their own cultures from America. Are they allowed to invoke the Bush Doctrine to justify their attacks on America and its allies?

The current administration must be morally tone-deaf, in that they see no reason why others should be allowed the same moral privileges that America has. Only America has the right to strike other countries when it feels threatened. No one may attack America if they feel threatened by us. If you attack our civilians, you will be attacked. If we attack your civilians, they must have gotten in the way.

Bottom line: the Bush Doctrine, coupled with the actions of the US military, makes no rational or (especially) moral sense. God forbid that other nations should treat us the way we treat them.

The Bush Doctrine has nothing to do with moral or ethical arguments. Once the pretext of self-defense is stripped away, we are left with the stark truth: what the Bush Doctrine really asserts is that "Our military can do what it wants, because you can't stop us." You know, this almost sounds like "Asymmetric Evangelism."

Let us hope that the next administration is able to reign in the US military and to address international crises with human decency, respect, and transparency.

Election 2008: Bias in the Media (Viewers)

Charges have been swirling recently (i.e., over the last twenty years... or perhaps decades) that the American media are biased. Here's one journalist's response to those charges.

All in all, it's hard to come up with a quantitative measure of fairness or bias, although some studies have tried.

Instead, let's look at a related question: Are the consumers of media biased? Let's play around with Google Trends.

Fox News is associated with visits to rushlimbaugh.com, newsbusters.org, weeklystandard.com, and searches for Drudge, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity.

MSNBC is associated with newsweek.com, the Huffington Post, Keith Olbermann, and Daily Kos.

NPR is associated with tnr.com, thinkprogress.org, and talkingpointsmemo.com.

(Yes, I know some of the associations are personalities associated with a given media outlet.)

Whether or not the media outlets are biased, it does appear that the viewers (or readers) tend to travel in disjoint communities. I'd opine that the Fox News community is characterized by conservative pundits, while the MSNBC and NPR communities have liberal pundits.

MLB Cheated the Phillies Out of a World Series Win

Last night's baseball game was called due to rain in the middle of the sixth inning. The Rays had just scored a run to tie the game. Any regular baseball game would have been called earlier, as the field was unplayable due to the heavy, steady rain. (A rain-soaked field greatly increases the chance that players will make game-changing errors or, worse, injure themselves.)

The umpires clearly waited until the game was tied before suspending it. To see why this is a biased decision, consider a game in which you flip a coin ten times. At the end, you declare "heads" or "tails" the winner, depending on which side came up more. But then you add a new rule that if "heads" and "tails" are tied at any point, you will suspend the game. You will find that you get a lot of tie games with this new rule. The rule biases your flipping in favor of tie games.

The umpires waited until the Rays tied the game before they suspended it. If they had suspended it after, say, five innings, the Phillies would have been declared World Series champions. There is no question that the game should have been called earlier based on field conditions.

It's very reasonable to assume that the umpires were collaborating with the baseball commissioner in their decisions. Why would baseball bias its own World Series? Hard to say, but just speculating, here. It's all about money. An anti-climactic Phillies victory in a rain-shortened game damages the image of the game. Allowing the Rays to tie, and perhaps to play games six and seven, also gives networks much more time to play lucrative advertisements.

"Country First" Is a Slogan for Two White Guys

From Politico's Playbook for October 26th: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), top McCain adviser, on why he would have preferred Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) for V.P.: "I was pushing Joe because it would transcend politics as we know it -- two people who put country ahead of party."

Hmm, interesting. That "Country First" campaign slogan, which is so awkward for the McCain/Palin campaign, makes a bit more sense for a McCain/Lieberman ticket. Instead of sounding like some arbitrary nationalist slogan, "Country First" would imply that McCain/Lieberman were transcending the boundaries of political parties to do what's best for the USA.

"Country First" would have been a positive, rather than a negative theme, emphasizing new political approaches and shared sacrifices to improve our common standing. A McCain/Lieberman "Country First" campaign would have emphasized the sacrifices needed to "win the war" in Iraq. By placing the good of the country over party affiliations, McCain would also distance himself from his own party affiliation to President Bush.

If this speculation is true, something odd must have happened on the way to the VP selection. Maybe the pressure of flagging polls forced McCain to pick a VP who appealed more to his base, and they decided to keep the slogan anyway. But with Palin's appeal to traditionalists, the slogan has more of a nationalist, than a reformist, ring.

Sarah Palin's Religious Views

Andrew Sullivan finds cause for alarm in a recent New York Times article that questions whether Sarah Palin holds dangerously radical Christian beliefs. That New York Times article is rather badly researched fear-mongering. It dangles threatening terms, such as "spiritual warfare," before the reader without giving any concrete information. "Spiritual warfare" is a term widely used throughout Christianity, often meaning something as benign as "we'll pray for you because we're worried."

It is possible that Palin's religious beliefs may be so radical and militant that Americans would be horrified if they knew what she thought. It is also possible that she is a milktoast pew-sitter who would fit comfortably in most churches in the country. And this is where the New York Times and Sarah Palin have failed us. Folks, if you're going to make a big deal about religion, then do your research and let's talk about relevant facts! (That includes you people who are running on Presidential tickets.)

Here's some questions that Sarah Palin should be answering in detail. If she refuses to answer them, then (hint to the Times) these would be good starting points for a journalist to research. If she refuses to even issue statements on them, then I suppose each of us may assume the worst. (The same goes for other political candidates.)

I want to know...

Broadly: Do you believe that an Executive should use her power to enforce activities that a significant fraction of Americans would consider to be a matter of religious preference? What issues, particularly?

What specific statements does your religious tradition make about contemporary political figures?

Do you consider any political (economic, military, etc.) leaders to be morally corrupt and/or evil? If so, how do you interact with such people?

What are the essential components of a well-rounded education that students should receive in public schools?


Specifically: Do you hold any religious biases that could be construed as "anti-intellectual?" For example, are you suspicious of seminary (or other higher) education? Have you ever "spoken in tongues?" What is your opinion of systematic theology?

Do you believe non-Christians are destined for Hell? If so, what can you say that would encourage non-Christians to vote for you?

Some people say that evangelism is the top religious priority, while others argue that helping the needy takes precedence. What do you think are the top three priorities for Christians to accomplish in the world?

What specific steps do you think America should take to alleviate the tremendous suffering in America and around the world, especially in developing countries?

Many sections of the Christian Bible promise (or even require) punishments for unbelievers. Do you believe that you have any role in carrying out those divine commands and/or prophecies?

Do you believe that God works through human governments? If so, in what ways specifically would you want to be used by God? How would God use you in ways that he would not use an atheist politician?

"Country First" Is No Slogan for a Maverick

Dear McCain campaign,

Bottom line: "Country First" is a terrible campaign slogan. Unfortunately, it's probably too late to change now. But when you start up the McCain campaign machinery for another run in 2016, you may want to reconsider it. Here's a few reasons why.

1) Your campaign slogan should not evoke nationalism. Lots of people associate it with militarism, unchecked governmental abuse, and ethnic intolerance.

2) Your slogan should not contradict your actions on the campaign trail. For example, if you choose a VP candidate who is almost universally viewed to be unqualified, this could be viewed as putting your campaign ahead of your country.

3) Your slogan should not contradict other catchy slogans that are popular with your voter base. As heard on NPR: "When Palin ran for office, did she put her 'Family First' or her 'Country First'?" (And what about "God First," for the religious voters?)

4) Your slogan should not alienate voters who want to hear an optimistic message. Frankly, I'm not that excited about being a cog in the machine that makes the USA a great and terrible force to be reckoned with. I have other priorities.

5) Your slogan should not raise difficult questions about your motivations. If 300 million Americans subordinate their individuality to the abstract entity we call the "USA," won't the people who benefit most be the Washington politicians who wield all that concentrated power?

6) Your slogan should not expose your own shortcomings. Do you really have nothing better to offer or promise Americans than allusions to nationalism? Is "Country First" the most creative slogan your team could come up with?

Fortunately, nobody pays any attention to campaign slogans, right?