Category: American Culture
Our JFK Moment?
We finally have our Kennedy Moment in the current political climate. Saturday, January 8th, 2011, is likely to go down as exactly that in the “Where were you when?” canon. On that day, Jared Lee Loughner, age 22, went on a shooting rampage at a supermarket parking lot in Tucson, Arizona, killing six people and [...]
The end of the American Dream
Here’s how the German magazine/website Spiegel sees the decline of America:
The Tea Party, that group of white, older voters who claim that they want their country back, is angry. Fox News host Glenn Beck, a recovering alcoholic who likens Obama to Adolf Hitler, is angry. Beck doesn’t quite know what he wants to be — maybe a politician, maybe president, maybe a preacher — and he doesn’t know what he wants to do, either, or least he hasn’t come up with any specific ideas or plans. But he is full of hatred. And so is Dinesh D’Souza.
Indeed, the United States of 2010 is a hate-filled country . . .
This is the climate in the country leading up to the Congressional elections on Nov. 2. It isn’t shaped by logic or an interest in rational debate. The United States of 2010 is a country that has become paralyzed and inhibited by allowing itself to be distracted by things that are, in reality, not a threat: homosexuality, Mexicans, Democratic Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, health care reform and Obama. Large segments of the country are not even talking about the issues that are serious and complex, like debt, unemployment and serious educational deficits. Is it because this is all too threatening?
Beware of the graphics accompanying the article. These statistics on the United States economy are not for the faint of heart.
Scalia’s Problem
Recently, Justice Antonin Scalia shot his mouth off about another bit of “social” judicial opinion and managed to be correct to a fault again. Here is the article. Basically, he is of the opinion that if a specific term or phrase does not appear in the Constitution, then that subject is simply not covered. Most famously, this goes to the continuing argument over privacy. There is, by Scalia’s reasoning (and I must add he is by no means alone in this—it is not merely his private opinion), no Constitutionally-protected right to privacy.
As far as it goes, this is correct, but beside the point. The word “private” certainly appears, in the Fifth Amendment, and it would seem absurd to suggest the framers had no thought for what that word meant. It refers here to private property, of course, but just that opens the debate to the fact that there is a concept of privacy underlying it.
The modern debate over privacy concerns contraception and the first case where matters of privacy are discussed is Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965. That case concerned the right of a married couple to purchase and use contraception, which was against the law in that state (and others). The Court had to define an arena of privacy within which people enjoy a presumed right of autonomous decision-making and into which the state had no brief to interfere. Prior to this, the Court relied on a “freedom of contract” concept to define protected areas of conduct. Notice, we’re back in the realm of property law here.
People who insist that there is no “right to privacy” that is Constitutionally protected seem intent on dismissing any concept of privacy with which they disagree, but no doubt would squeal should their own self-defined concept be violated. Therein lies the problem, one we continue to struggle with. But it does, at least in Court tradition, come down to some variation of ownership rights—which is what has made the abortion debate so difficult, since implicit in it is the question of whether or not a woman “owns” her body and may therefore, in some construction of freedom of contract, determine its use under any and all circumstances.
[More . . . ]
Five minutes in Afghanistan
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch recently touted a “One Million Dollar Grant” that St. Louis will soon receive for developing trails for bicycling and walking. I’ve long been a bicycle commuter and this new trail is truly a great idea. One million dollars is a lot of money. Too bad there’s not money for more of these infrastructure improvements, including bridge repairs and many things that are far more pressing than bicycle trails. Or at least this is what the politicians tell us.
In actuality, we’re pouring more than $2 billions dollars down the drain every week in Afghanistan. We have nothing to show for ten years of “progress” in Afghanistan. Our strategy mostly seems to consist of shooting at poor people who resent our presence in their county. And we’re committed to supporting a known corrupt leader. And we’re committed to overseeing a vast illegal drug trade. Our current “peace president” is likely keeping the troops over there for political reasons, not because there is any hope of accomplishing anything for Americans or the people of Afghanistan. Our imperialist adventure in Afghanistan is horrifically expensive, and its foundation is the “sunk costs fallacy.
How expensive is our “war” in Afghanistan in terms of the new St. Louis bicycle trail program? In Afghanistan, we burn through one million dollars every five minutes. It is a needless war that is making us poor.
[Here's the math: $2B per week equals almost 12 million per hour. Which equals $1 million every five minutes].
Think about it. One million dollars every five minutes to accomplish nothing but to provide make-work for the military-industrial complex. Could your community use one million dollars for anything these days? Perhaps to hire new teachers? Or to fix a collapsing bridge? Or to retrain workers?
Indiana crackdown on snow sculptures of penises
A mere sculpture of a mere body part is obscene, according to authorities in Indiana. Listen to these victims, who appear to be scarred for life. I feel scarred for life merely by hearing about this display of a human body part.
I can understand those who think it is in bad taste. Terror Management Theory offers me an explanation for the extent of the outrage. And see here: “We are gods with anuses: another look at ‘terror management theory.’”
What 2010 Meant
The Lame Duck Congress has ended the year with a Marathon of Epic Legislation. I can’t help being impressed. Obama said he wanted Congress to do with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, to repeal it legislatively, and not have it end up as a court-mandated order. I can understand this, especially given the rightward shift of the judiciary. But the way in which he went about it seemed doomed and certainly angered a lot of people who thought he was breaking a campaign promise. (The puzzling lunacy of his own justice department challenging a court-led effort must have looked like one more instance of Obama backing off from what he’d said he was going to do.) I am a bit astonished that he got his way.
A great deal of the apparent confusion over Obama’s actions could stem from his seeming insistence that Congress do the heavy lifting for much of his agenda. And while there’s a lot to be said for going this route, what’s troubling is his failure to effectively use the bully pulpit in his own causes. And the fact that he has fallen short on much. It would be, perhaps, reassuring to think that his strategy is something well-considered, that things the public knows little about will come to fruition by, say, his second term.
(Will he have a second term? Unless Republicans can front someone with more brains and less novelty than a Sarah Palin and more weight than a Mitt Romney, probably. I have seen no one among the GOP ranks who looks even remotely electable. The thing that might snuff Obama’s chances would be a challenge from the Democrats themselves, but that would require a show of conviction the party has been unwilling overall to muster.)
The Crash of 2008 caused a panic of identity. Unemployment had been creeping upward prior to that due to a number of factors, not least of which is the chronic outsourcing that has become, hand-in-glove, as derided a practice as CEO compensation packages and “golden parachutes,” and just as protected in practice by a persistent nostalgia that refuses to consider practical solutions that might result in actual interventions in the way we do business. No one wants the jobs to go overseas but no one wants to impose protectionist policies on companies that outsource. Just as no one likes the fact that top management is absurdly paid for jobs apparently done better 40 years ago by people drawing a tenth the amount, but no one wants to impose corrective policies that might curtail what amounts to corporate pillage. It is the nostalgia for an America everyone believes once existed that functioned by the good will of its custodians and did not require laws to force people to do the morally right thing. After a couple decades of hearing the refrain “You can’t legislate morality” it has finally sunk in but for the wrong segment of social practice.
[More . . . ]
Working on Christmas Day
The air is still, holding now the beauty that was nascent in the sublime fury of yesterday‘s blizzard. It is seven in the morning, and I’m driving to town to get bread and eggs for Christmas breakfast.
The third convenience store I come to emerges from the pre-dawn darkness with its bright lights and full shelves, and it is open! The clerk behind the counter welcomes me warmly. I find eggs and bread, buy them and then head back to the car, but not without first thanking the clerk for working on Christmas Day. I remember her smile as I drive back home along the icy country roads.
This is the darkest time of the year, yet light emerges from the darkness and not just the neon brightness of a pre-dawn, convenience store sign. True light lies nascent in the smiles of friends, loving family and hard working convenience store clerks.
[More . . . ]
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame – Fair and Balanced?
Scanning the headlines today, I saw in my peripheral vision one announcing the latest list of inductees into the Rock and Rock Hall of Fame. I’ve heard stories about the selection process, but haven’t paid much attention because I guess it’s most like the Wallaces’ (and Wallechinsky’s) Book(s) of Lists – based on opinion, not quantifiable metrics.
Just who is Darlene Love anyway? No matter. I don’t really care, but on a whim,I checked to see if my favorite group Rush is in. Nope. Conspicuous in their absence were also Kiss (I’d heard about that before).
I consider Rush to be the most talented trio in the history of rock music. Rumor has it that Jann Wenner doesn’t. Still, as opinionated and usually hermitlike as I am on music, I know I am not alone in my assessment (of Rush), plus I have multiple musicians in the family that agree with me. I’m not a fan of Kiss, but how are they any less influential than some of the others? Ah…Jann Wenner. True or not, both their absences make the Hall a joke because look at the list of past inductees.
In: Steely Dan ????? (Oh, the words I could not use in public to describe what I think of that!); David Bowie?;
James Taylor? Come on!
Not in: Boston(??!); Yes (???!!); B-52′s – Hello? Not Boston? Not Yes?
In: John Paul and George (no Ringo) are in it as individuals and as the Beatles; Metallica; Aerosmith; AC/DC – all no brainers
Not in: Kansas; Journey; Styx; Emerson, Lake and Palmer
In: Stevie Wonder – are you serious?; John Mellencamp ??; Buffalo Springfield ?; ABBA ???; Paul Simon and Simon & Garfunkel;
The director of the Rush documentary “Rush: Beyond the Lighted Stage” commented to Entertainment Weekly
“It’s unfortunate,” says Scot McFadyen, …“We were hoping a lot more people in the [nominating] room had seen our documentary, and maybe that would have given them a different perspective on the band. But there are just some people that are holding out.”
As disappointing as Rush’s latest snub was, McFadyen wasn’t necessarily surprised. “They’ve never been a critics’ band. The industry people that are involved with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, Rush has never been cool enough for them.”
I think Wenner and the Hall should adopt the slogan of another media entity that also isn’t: “Fair and balanced”
Last year, one list of snubs included Alice Cooper, who made the cut this time around. So who is missing in the Hall from your list?
Obama justice and the lies about Wikileaks
Glenn Greenwald has been working around the clock to shed meaningful light on the media claims, many of them lies, regarding Wikileaks. Here’s Greenwald’s comment on the biggest and most common lie one hears these days:
Anyone listening to most media accounts would believe that WikiLeaks has indiscriminately published all 250,000 of the diplomatic cables it possesses, and Gitlin — in the course of denouncing Julian Assange — bolsters this falsehood: “Wikileaks’s huge data dump, including the names of agents and recent diplomatic cables, is indiscriminate” and Assange is “fighting for a world of total transparency.” The reality is the exact opposite — literally — of what Gitlin told TNR readers. WikiLeaks has posted to its website only 960 of the 251,297 diplomatic cables it has. Almost every one of these cables was first published by one of its newspaper partners which are disclosing them
Greenwald also exposes a corrupt frame being pushed by the media – that Wikileaks is perpetrating a massive injustice. This has it upside-down, according to Greenwald:
To recap “Obama justice”: if you create an illegal worldwide torture regime, illegally spy on Americans without warrants, abduct people with no legal authority, or invade and destroy another country based on false claims, then you are fully protected. But if you expose any of the evils secretly perpetrated as part of those lawless actions — by publishing the truth about what was done — then you are an Evil Criminal who deserves the harshest possible prosecution.
You’ll find a hot list of media lies exposed by Glenn Greenwald here. And you’ll find much more at this same link. See also, the video interview of Greenwald by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now.
What are the government attacks on Wikileaks really about? Greenwald argues that these attacks on WikiLeaks constitute “a literal war over who controls the Internet and the purposes to which it can be used.” Western governments have made it clear that citizens cannot freely band together to launch honest and blistering criticism against their government. Without even being accused of any crime, western governments, led by the United States, have used extra-judicial means to take Wikipedia off the Internet. And see here. You can sense the government end game in your bones: The Internet will be for sports and entertainment, not for free-wheeling citizen journalism. In short, the U.S. government will use its massive power to make sure that the Internet becomes just like most newspapers and radio and television stations. Don’t you dare tell citizens that we are pumping out an unrelenting stream of lies! Don’t you dare tell them that we are killing twice twice as many civilians as we are admitting! Don’t tell them that we are spilling blood and treasure to prop up corrupt leaders. Go back to your sports events, soap operas and so-called reality shows!
Greenwald also points out the hypocrisy of the mainstream media:
Journalists cheering for the prosecution of Assange are laying the foundation for the criminalization of their own profession, or at least of the few who actually do investigative journalism. There is simply no coherent way to argue that what WikiLeaks did with these cables is criminal, but what the NYT, the Guardian and other papers did is not.
In conclusion, Greenwald mentions that the U.S. Department of State is purportedly preparing to celebrates “World Press Freedom Day.
Connect with Dangerous Intersection
If you click on the Facebook icon (below) and send me (Erich Vieth) a FRIEND REQUEST, you'll receive updates to DI's newest articles. And, of course, RSS is available. DI's Twitter and Youtube links are also below.