Speed Screed: Barack Star

Other than the fact that a presidential election is a de facto popularity contest, pretty much by definition, the appeal of Barack Obama has been staggering – so much so that people are apparently already attempting to scalp non-existent tickets for his inaugural address – the interest is so staggering that as many as 4 million people have already expressed a desire to attend this event live. This number is huge. Clearly, that many people can’t attend, but you can imagine the battle for attendance this might entail.

Of course, the GOP was essentially lambasting Obama for being popular, and his election has naturally intensified this feeling. The media has crowned him with “rock star” status. By “the media,” though, I am referring to political obsessives like Rachel Maddow and not necessarily the mainstream media. While I definitely think it’s undeniably a good thing that people are excited about are new president, and am relieved that we can look to our Commander-and-Chief as a role model rather than a national embarrassment, I do think it’s somewhat irresponsible of the supposedly disinterested media to jump on the frenzied bandwagon here.

We all love Barack and we wish him well. We hope he will be able to be accomplish much – he certainly has the intelligence and temperament to handle this job. But I do hope that the media will not once again hand over a free pass to any President (like they did with Bush on the Iraq War) on principle. I sincerely believe that close media scrutiny must be restored – not because I don’t trust Obama, but because it is an absolutely critical component of any functioning democracy. The media need to sharpen their teeth again. What better time them with a President who has promised transparency and honesty? They need to get their groove back so when a stonewaller takes office they won’t be cowed into submission.

So when the media starts hitching a ride on the zeitgeist, I always get a little bit worried. As I said, we all deserve to celebrate and feel joy and renewed zeal at this historic time. Even the media may not be able to hold back its excitement for a little while. But what I don’t want to see is Barack’s popularity interfere with the media from doing its vital work, because the press needs to redeem itself for eight years of jingoism and underreporting.

Sometimes I wonder if we need a new generation of journalists. This old one hasn’t done much to help my faith in the media along.

Speed Screed: Litigation Nation

No, I don’t need help out with my single two-pound grocery bag. Thanks for the offer though.

Not that I’m offended, despite my strapping young man status. But I am annoyed. I shop at Vons all the time and apparently it has become company policy to ask everyone, regardless of gender, age, or general fitness if they need help with their groceries. It could be a pack of gum, or a fifty-pound sack of potatoes. The customer could be a little old lady or a two-time world kickboxing champion. The same question must always be asked. Never mind the fact that grocery carts exist for the purpose of piling on the purchases and still being able to easily wheel them around.

Of course, there is logic to this. You don’t want people to feel excluded. Why only ask women? Why not ask men? Well, first of all virtually every non-disabled man is not going to ask for help with practically any amount of ordinary groceries. He’s even less likely to accept help from a female attendant. If you made it company policy not to ask men if they need help, I don’t think it’s going to matter.

But I somehow suspect the real reason was some lawsuit in the recent past. Some poor fool threw his or her back out trying to lift some groceries, sued them for selling groceries that were too heavy, won, and now Vons has instituted Operation Overkill: ask everyone if they need help. Or maybe even more likely, some woman behind the counter freaked out when the old lady in front of her was offered help but she wasn’t, and decided that it was discrimination other than, um, common sense. And now to cover their ass legally, they have to ask everyone the same damn question.

Even if I’m wrong about there being a lawsuit in this particular case, it’s the story of this country: legal action can be pursued even when it is you, the “victim,” that is clearly in the wrong. Many companies, like Mickey D’s, find it much easier to throw money at the problem until it goes away than actually defend itself from frivolous lawsuits. Make no mistake: McDonald’s can afford some extremely good lawyers, but the publicity from squelching these people’s pointless lawsuits would probably be worse financially than offering someone a few hundred grand to quietly go away. It’s a beautiful system, in its way.

Of course, for most of these register people, it’s become a mantra: they don’t actually think about the words that are passing out of their lips, they just say them because they have to. I suspect that if I actually said “yes” they would probably reel in disbelief. I have no desire to do that, though, because these people’s jobs are irritating enough without me wasting their valuable time to prove a point for a self-indulgent blog.

Bye.

Today’s Rant: One Step At A Time…I Guess

I think I have “straight white guy” guilt.

As many newscasters have pointed out, the country did take a step backward in a few places during the election, astonishingly including my beloved California. It would seem that many of the minorities who voted for Obama also voted in favor of banning gay marriage just a few months after it had been fully recognized as legal by the state.

Now I know little about gay culture, and that which I do know involves white people, who generally are somewhat culturally blank. I know nothing about the interaction between latino culture and gay culture, for example. So I make no claims to say anything factual here; I’ll just be putting out a few ideas for consideration.

Consider the gung-ho masculinity of mainstream black culture (i.e. hip hop). You can be damn sure you’re never going to see a gay black guy in a hip-hop music video riding around in a limo with a bunch of gigolos with him, or whatever. I would guess that there would be a definite homophobia attached to hip-hop culture.

Also, though I’m too lazy to look up statistics, it’s probably a safe bet to assume that a higher proportion of these “minorities” (latinos are hardly a minority in California anymore) are Christian than whites hereabouts. Obviously a few sects of Christianity are fine with gay marriage (or at least the existence of homosexuality), but not the big obnoxious ones. And Catholicism? Fuggedaboutit.

So I would guess that a confluence of factors probably makes these minority groups more prone to vote against gays than they otherwise would. Keep in mind I’m not trying to make any assumptions here, I’m simply trying to reason out the numbers.

But it’s important not to confuse the issue and lump all equal rights as part of the agenda of a “progressive” voter. While all movement towards equal rights is progress in the literal sense, there is no reason to assume that someone who’d vote for a black man must therefore be committed to civil rights and therefore could not in good conscience vote to ban gay marriage. There are plenty of people who broke out in tears of joy that a black man finally got elected and then pulled out their “God Hates Fags” signs and got back to humiliating and generally making life hell for people who have no more control over their sexual preference than their shoe size. Well, hopefully not plenty. But I can posit there are enough of them out there.

Ultimately, all issues of equality are godawfully complicated. For example, we broke the color barrier, and to a somewhat lesser extent the gender barrier with this election. We can all generally accept the fact that a woman or a minority could be President at this point. But what about an atheist? Other than the fact than I’d personally want my politicians to be avowed atheists, everyone has to pander to McCarthy-era leftovers and be a Christian of some sort, or else kiss your prospects goodbye.

And how about a gay president? Even as I revel in our moving forward in terms of electing Obama, I feel like the opposition to a homosexual president at the moment would be so much more violent and horrible than it would be for a black person or a woman. I mentioned before that I think racism is going out of style, but sometimes I feel like the haters have simply picked up the banner of anti-gay rights. Denying gay couples identical rights under the law is public discrimination, and laws of that sort are inevitably struck down by any supreme court judge that has even mild respect for the Constitution. I think that eventually all states will have to come around, but it might not be soon.

The gay community probably sees the election as slightly tarnished by these Stone Age propositions. California will come around. Apparently the Mormon church donated some twenty million dollars (tax-exempt my ass) to make gay marriage illegal in California. When this news got out, people really started to get peeved (people generally do when the Mormon Church gets involved). Protesters are going nuts. As well they should.

Later.

Today’s Rave: Yes, We Can. Yes, We Will.

Man, what a great moment in history. The entire Republican hate machine couldn’t stop this tide.

Truth be told, the historical significance of this moment was a little lost on me at first, because I saw nothing particularly novel about an African-American being elected myself. My generation is much less likely to be racist because racism has to be taught, and racism is rapidly going out of style. But this morning it just occurred to me just what a huge step in the right direction this has been. We used to have an entire group of people who were denied practically all their fundamental rights in this country, and who were subject to centuries of discrimination,  but the “hold these truths to be self-evident” clause just got a little more accurate last night, as America took a major step in closing the book on slavery and racism and elected a black man to be President. It’s got great narrative sweep. I can never even hope to understand what this must represent to the black community as a whole, but I do know that internationally we just got HUGE bonus points. Except from Russia, who has been cranky recently. You know, I really hate these has-been empires throwing their weight around. Which is, I imagine, why much of the world hates us for Iraq. America was generally subtly imperial (that is, after we took an entire subcontinent and wiped out most of the native population) but still was creating banana republics and shifting “friendly” dictators into power in other countries. You know, like Saddam Hussein (we didn’t put him there, but we helped keep him there).

Part of the reason I despise politics so much is that the Bush administration and their mindless Republican cronies have been doing it wrong for almost a third of my life (and for another one-third of it, I wouldn’t have understood or cared much anyway). But Obama gives me reason to think that maybe we can not completely betray the founding principles of this country after all, and maybe we can actually work towards the stated goal of “a more perfect Union.” It will never get there, but that’s the point. Improvements can and must come. A huge one came last night.

The stunning electoral smashing McCain received may have had much to do with Obama’s huge amount of resources and modern style of campaigning, but what galvanized people into giving the money and volunteering is the positive message. If trying to run a campaign positively in a time where hope is rapidly being lost is pandering, then a) pander away and b) you’re too cynical for me. Obama brought and represents a unity that is sorely needed if we are going to undo the damage of nearly a decade of inept and corrupt administration.

I was, I must admit, very impressed with McCain’s concession speech. Who I heard was the old McCain: the honorable, good-humored, self-deprecating and patriotic veteran who loves his country first and has genuine respect for his opponents. If the Republican sleaze machine had tried to make use of these natural qualities of McCain instead of trying to fit him into their usual scumbag tactics, maybe they would have had a shot. It is dead obvious that McCain is relieved that he can stop being an asshole (his discomfort with this entire campaign has been apparent from the first debate and earlier) and go back to doing what he does best: sticking to his guns in the Senate, rather than sticking to somebody else’s guns on the campaign trail. McCain’s speech did much to repair my negative image of him that has built up. Especially when he made it clear that people’s mindless booing of the new president set an inappropriate tone. Perhaps there’s hope for him yet. Let’s all keep an eye on the Senate.

Obama’s victory speech was so great. I liked it better than his acceptance speech even though it had even less informational content. He skillfully put the moment in historical perspective, and generally just did a hell of a job making us think positively about the future, even as he noted that there will be no easy solutions and no quick fixes.

No easy solutions? No quick fixes? Thank God. Eight years of that attitude has done enough damage already.

Congratulations, President Obama.

Congratulations, America.

But be ready. There is much work to be done.

Speed Screed: Polling It Up

I’m off to be a poll worker tomorrow, a grueling day of smiling at people and collecting ballots for the tidy sum of $80. What with the massive influx of voters for this historic election, I expect we’ll be inundated with people. In fact, all you ever hear about from the media (who are continually conjuring up unlikely McCain win scenarios to keep people watching what is nearly a foregone conclusion at this point) is how crowded the polls are and what a problem it represents.

While this is indeed an issue that needs to be addressed, and addressed quickly, the fact that there are enough voters to keep the polls humming from open to close is an extremely positive sign. Assuming the proportion of voters is consistent throughout the day, lines that are backed up around the block are an extremely positive sign as far as Democrats are concerned.

Still, I have the greatest shock of my life coming tomorrow if McCain manages to pull this out of his ass. I refuse to accept it on a gut level, but I know it’s there, taunting me. What vexes me more than the simple fact that we’d be utterly screwed were it to happen, would be the utter denial of narrative causality and common sense it would be. The Republicans are to blame for this horrendous mess we find ourselves in militarily and economically, and had they any shame they would be apologizing to America on bended knee. Instead, they use half-baked attack ads and shameless diversionary tactics to attempt to hold onto a country that they must know, in their souls, deserves much, much better than them. They deserve to be kicked out of the country they have so ignominiously destroyed, and yet they have the balls to lie, over and over again, to the American public.

If McCain was to get elected, I don’t know what I would think, say, or do. There is a blank spot in my mind up there in that possible future. I’m just glad it’s so unlikely.

But if I wanted to keep up the appearance of being “pro-America” (and not pro-America, like I actually am)

1) Put an American flag on every available surface.

2) Hide your college degrees. Frame your high school degree and place it prominently next to a picture of Ronald Reagan.

3) Purchase a firearm. Keep it loaded, you may need it to keep Mormons off your lawn, and Joe the Plumber away from your kitchen sink.

4) Pour yourself a nice, stiff drink. It’s about the only legal substance in God’s Own Country and you’ll be needing plenty of it while you ride out the next 4 years.

Remember, if people question your patriotism, you can quickly reaffirm it by hatefully and violently depriving someone “ethnic” or gay of their basic rights in the name of Jesus Christ.

The dark era is over. We can see the light at the end of the tunnel. Unfortunately, it’s about twenty years away.

Have faith.

Today’s Rant: To Win, At Any Cost

Think about all the fatuous, delusional people who are actually gullible enough to believe that Barack Obama has some sort of connection to terrorists.

First, let me say that these people are especially delusional because if there was any credence to the connections, don’t you think every branch of the government would be up in arms investigating his so-called “connection?” If he had a dubious background he never would have made it to Senator in the first place! The insularity of these people is so astonishing; they just believe whatever they’re told/want to believe, and cry out “Terrorist!” when everyone else with a grain of reason sees this McCain garbage for what it is: a dangerous and even more outrageous campaign than the swift-boating of John Kerry.

This win-at-any-cost policy causes me violent nausea. Who cares who they step on to get into the White House? They are disgrace to democracy, to America, and to every right-thinking citizen who believe in the democratic process. For all the Evangelical nonsense about common decency these mudslingers like to pretend they have, they sure do a lot of judging, despite the fact that they might be judged in turn. Of course, the Christian Wrong finds it easy to look away when it suits them. None of these really, really loud bastards are Christians in any meaningful way (other than the most superficial aspects, such as going to church five days a week). Any true Christian would deplore McCain’s sleazoid tactics, lack of compassion, and unabashed hunger for power. While these so-called “Christians” believe Mr. Obama is a literal “plague” that God has sent down to punish us for allowing gay marriage.

I got off topic a bit, but the point I’m trying to make is that when Obama wins, there’ll be a small but significant proportion of the country who will actually believe we elected a terrorist to run the country. These tiny-minded morons have had their whole life run by fear because apparently they are unable to reason their way out of a paper bag. It was easy for them to carry their fear of terrorists back home into the arena of politics, and so it suddenly seems feasible that these insidious Arabs (ah, racism at its finest) somehow managed to get a Manchurian candidate in place.

Do you see the value of education now? Frustration and horror!

The fact that the McCain may have formed a small cadre of people who believe it would be their civic duty to kill our next President is quite possibly the most horrible thing any person could do. I like McCain so much less than Bush despite the fact that he hasn’t done anything yet. You see, Bush never had any principles to sacrifice. He didn’t really have anywhere to fall, and I still believe that he is merely the crest of a wave of Neoconservatism that he only believed in because it was all he knew. I’m not absolving him of culpability, but I’m saying that the rot was so much deeper than simply the Presidency. McCain, on the other hand, previously known as a senator with some decency and principles, has thrown them away whole hog in a pathetic grab for a presidency that he has conclusively proved he doesn’t deserve. Bush was a tool his whole life, but McCain wasn’t, and that’s why McCain pisses me off more than Bush.

The new “pro-America” rhetoric that Palin has busted out is manifestly pathetic and once again dangerous. Yeah, I’m sure certain parts of America are “anti-America,” like, none of it. We all live here, bitch, we all pay our taxes, and we’re ALL pro-America. This is our country, and I’ll be damned if some moose-hunting governor from Alaska comes down here and tells 80% of America that we’re somehow unpatriotic because she’s never lived in a town with a population bigger than 40,000. The Republicans have stopped calling being against the administration unpatriotic – now simply by living in places with large number of electoral votes makes you unpatriotic.

This has been the darkest chapter in American politics and perhaps history, and the GOP has decided to cap it off in an orgy of sleaze, hatred, and division. Obama’s message of unity is so much more than an empty slogan. It is an absolute necessity to move past these fear-and-hate mongers and leave them far behind.

I’m so glad that no one except a tiny group of idiots is buying any of his crap. The era of win-at-any-cost politics is coming to a much belated end. At least until the country is doing well again. Then we’ll get resentful that we’re paying money for things like roads and schools, when we could use that money to buy Dancing With The Stars Season 3 on DVD. Then it’s back to the ‘Pubs.

Let’s hope that, by then, they’re not the same assholes they used to be.

A person is smart, but people are stupid.

Today’s Rant: Flag-Wavers vs. True Patriots

I was watching a Penn and Teller Bullshit! episode about world peace and nothing get my hackles raised as much as people who wield the flag like a battle axe.  I have covered this topic indirectly on a number of occasions, but I think I will elaborate on it slightly here. I say with all conviction that our founding fathers intended patriotism to include a heavy dose of rational thought. People that treat love of your country as a tenet of belief, a la religion, and who believe that even questioning your government casts doubt on the USA’s greatness and hence is unpatriotic, are idiots.

I will say it again. These people are very, very stupid.

The very essence of a democracy is the ability to change that which you don’t like. The very core of the founding of America is that we must critically examine our government, and take steps to correct it when it gets out of line. I will bet you dollars to donuts that half our founding fathers would be surprised there hasn’t been at least one armed insurrection to date (unless you count the Civil War).

What’s truly patriotic is to ask the government the hard questions, and to keep it in line. Not to wave the flag and tear up during the national anthem. Patriotic sentiment is fine, as long as you understand that democracy is a contract. A contract between the governed and the governors: you represent our interests, we play the game. You don’t represent our interests, we don’t. At least, in theory.

This particular episode of Bullshit! compares a bunch of end-the-war protesters to a bunch of right-wing “patriots” who think they are providing a counterargument by saying that they “support our troops.” These people are like children, unable to understand that it is possible to support one’s troops while simultaneously calling for the end of the way because they believe the war is a mistake. That is clearly already too much for these mindless drones to handle; they don’t even realize the inherent hypocrisy in calling for the continued and pointless death of our brave men in women in an occupation started on false pretenses supporting the troops.

Nothing makes me angrier than people who take a concept and use it as a bludgeoning device, attempting to use ignorance as strength. Bible-thumpers, flag-wavers, the list goes on. How can anyone with a halfway decent education see the world in such childishly black-and-white terms? Oh wait, they can’t.

See, I’ve only recently come to understand the true value of education. It has nothing to do with getting a decent job and everything to do with making you a better citizen. The better command of facts and critical thinking the average citizen has, the far more likely that we will take reasonable steps to move towards a more perfect union. The more morons the citizenry consist of, the more likely we can be tricked into voting against our own best interests, supporting a trumped-up war, and generally just mindlessly waving Ol’ Glory above their heads and bursting into tears about how great America is while it goes to hell in a handbasket all around us.

Education is so much more mandatory in a democracy than I realized. It’s not even a right, it’s a goddamn responsibility. This country was founded by the intellectuals; but then, I suppose by definition a streak of anti-intellectualism was built in from the beginning.

If I sound like a bastard, I am. You can’t be a skeptic and be a warm and fuzzy person at the same time. This is what I realized: if you want to be a skeptic, you have to be a bit of an asshole.

It’s worth it.

Today’s Rant: The Intellectual Conservative

Institutions like the College Republicans tend to mystify. Here you are, most likely getting some kind of liberal arts education, yet there are these small groups of perfectly smart people who are inexplicably conservative. Other than a predisposition to a conservative temperament, or having been raised Republican, you’d think that they would treat their conservative philosophy with the same critical thought that they apply to all their classes.

And perhaps they do. At least, partially.

Intellectual conservatives like David Brooks, William Kristol, and even the late William F. Buckley Jr., are not stupid people, though they may hold views that make you think they are. But these are the people that appeal to these college Republicans because they act as a well-read, well-spoken mascot for a party that is increasingly represented by hillbillies/Christian fundamentalists/megacorporation CEOs. That easily explains the love affair with Buckley, who had scads of negative qualities, such as being an overt racist until it hurt his book sales.

In any case, it’s not that these sorts of conservatives lack intelligence, they just lack imagination. Or to put it another way, they lack empathy. A useful oversimplification of the basic way of looking at how problems ought to be solved conservatively versus, um, liberally (I guess) is that the conservatives see the universal in terms of the singular and the liberals see the singular in terms of the universal. In other words, for conservatives, “What’s good for me is good for everyone” versus, for liberals, “What’s good for everyone is good for me.”

These are far from slight differences in opinion. Trickle-down theory is a patent manifestation of this sort of self-oriented thinking. Universal healthcare, on the other hand, is the idea that by aiding everyone, we aid ourselves. Conservatism (in its current manifestation, the one that angers the few real conservatives left in the House and Senate) is basically a philosophy of selfishness, and what separates this view from a truly libertarian one is that a libertarian has a much keener grasp of his responsibility to himself and everyone else. As I’ve said, libertarianism is an almost laughably optimistic philosophy about people taking full responsibility for their lives, which is why I like it on a philosophical level. I do believe that if everyone took 100% responsibility for themselves it would solve a host of problems; I just know for a fact that it will never happen.

On a vaguely related note, I’m tired of tax cut rhetoric. Last I checked, taxes were the main (and some would say only responsible) source of revenue for a government. The idea that taxes always need to be cut and never raised is an insanely fatuous one. If we’re up to our ears in debt and constantly borrowing to fund our misadventures abroad, we clearly need more money, and money that does not come with interest payments. Palin was saying that it was not considered “patriotic” to pay your taxes. Tom Friedman wrote an article about his irritation with that sentiment, and I will upgrade it to disgust. Taxes pay for your roads, your schools, your police, your public works, your programs for the homeless, your army, your social security, and a host of other things that you probably don’t even realize. These are things we get because we all put in money. I’d say paying your taxes is plenty patriotic.

I can’t blame Obama for using tax cut rhetoric. I wouldn’t care if a politician said “we have to raise taxes or we’re fucked” especially if he said it like that, or more likely if I actually thought he was going to do something responsible with the extra dough, like pay down our foreign debts. But Obama scores a double whammy by actually cutting taxes to the working class when McCain isn’t, so I can hardly blame him for leading a Republican candidate on tax cuts.

I mean, Obama is dead center (not that I care) so it’s not totally surprising he might buy into that philosophy. But in any case, I suspect we will have to raise them at some point in the future. We need that money! Remember that war in Iraq? If paying more taxes could halve the time it took to recover from this financial spiral, I’d be first in line! You hear me, Capitol Hill? First in line!

Ahem. Back to my original point, I remarked on Brooks’ inability to divorce himself from the party line despite being a man of no small intelligence. His cognitive dissonance is at once irritating and saddening. Even William Kristol, the heir apparent to William Buckley knows that McCain is going to lose this election (barring a “miracle.” What’s the Satanic equivalent of a miracle? A curse?), and said as much. It must have been a major relief for intellectual conservatives to hear him say that, so they could finally divorce themselves from McCain (I mean, even if they vote for him). They can say he messed up his campaign, they can say the Republicans are unpopular, they can rationalize away the reason they will lose the election, but manage to keep their worldview safe in all the confusion. Ready to bust out again when the pendulum swings back this way in eight years’ time.

And this is the most dangerous thing of all: if we don’t learn our lesson about deregulation and about imperialism by seeing what an utter, utter failure this administration has been, if we repeat this tragic folly again and again and again because financial and political hacks refuse to learn their lessons due to simple greed, then this is as far as the USA is going to get towards a perfect union. And we can do so much better, if we try.

Today’s Rave: Old-Fashioned Board Games

I can’t remember whether I mentioned this before, but I’m a big fan of board and card games. I like video games a lot, obviously, but I would choose a board or card game over them much of the time, providing I had the proper people to play it with, which I did in Chicago, or way back in the mists of time when I was in college.

(sniff)

But, at any rate, I have been reacquainting myself with a few old classics that I never or rarely played in the past. I’m playing them against computer players, though (in Hoyle Board and Card Games, ironically a PC game). First off, Backgammon is actually a fairly interesting game, one of its virtues being that it tends to go pretty quickly. It’s not particularly complicated, but there’s more strategy than meets the eye; as it’s a dice game, strategies are sort of extemporaneous, simply doing what you can with the roll you are given. There’s still quite a bit to be done, though, and there are definite ways to play offensively or defensively. I won’t go into the rules of Backgammon, even though they aren’t particularly complicated, but suffice to say this is a good game that nicely balances luck and the fun of dice rolling with enough strategy to keep people interested in the moves they make.

Another game of note is Fives, also knows as American Dominoes or Muggins. It’s a dominoes variant. Personally, I never really saw what the fuss in dominoes was all about; I mean, there was some strategy in which pieces you play, but there wasn’t a lot of opportunity for planning more than two moves ahead. Fives, however, is actually a fairly deep variant where you score points every time the end pieces on the board total a multiple of five (the version I play gives you one point per multiple of five; some versions simply award you that number of points). If you can’t play, you must draw until you can, and if you play out your hand, you win the round, and receive a number of points equal to the pips on the other players dominoes divided by five. It sounds simple, but the depth of strategy in terms of a sort of “thrust-counterthrust” is definitely there. If you don’t believe me, check out this site which goes into the strategy of Five in-depth:

http://www.chessandpoker.com/dominoes-strategy.html

And that’s about it for today. Check out some of these old classics if you get a chance.

Today’s Rant: Anti-Defamation?

Alright, time for something a bit controversial. I mean, I hope it’s not, but you never know. Let me first point out the existence of (nearly) free speech in our country. It is a right (not a privilege) but it carries with it certain responsibilities. One of these is that we have a responsibility to allow the good with the bad, and that means people can be assholes, can generally say racist things without getting carted off to jail, and can just be rat bastards, and we have to put up with it, because it’s the price we pay to be able to say whatever we want, whenever we want.

So Anti-Defamation strikes me as a strange institution. I was reading an ad placed be the Anti-Defamation League (I guess either the original was anti-anti-Semitism, or maybe it’s the general purpose one), which posted an excerpt from one of Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israel invectives, which claimed something along the lines of Zionists running things “furtively” or “with collusion” or some such generic dross. It was a moderately unimpressive piece of “hate speech” at any rate. He’s said worse things than that in the past.

The ad asked “Where is the outrage?” and made a whole bunch of connections to Anti-Semitism. First of all, let’s get something straight. Ahmadinejad is almost certainly an Anti-Semite, or at least he is for political expedience, which is pretty much as bad. But let’s not get confused here. Attacking Zionists is not attacking Jews, and that is often used by Zionists as a blanket way to condemn people that disagree with the establishment of an Israeli state, notwithstanding the fact that the world’s Jewish population is in fact quite divided on the issue. I myself think the whole thing is a horrible mess that could have been avoided, and the blame for even making it possible lies squarely with Britain, who, similarly to what they did to Iraq, completely ignored the history and religious background of the area and just imperially claimed countries to be parceled out after World War I.

At the same time, I agree that a Jewish state needed to be established somewhere. I’m just not sure that slapping it right down in the middle of seven openly hostile countries was such a good idea. I feel like there’s some kind of desire for challenge here; Diaspora Jews were often sequestered in a particular area of a city surrounded by vaguely hostile people; the same thing has been created on a geopolitical scale, ironically and somewhat unfortunately. And the people are somewhat less vague in their hostility.

That issue aside, what good would come of “taking outrage” at this attack? What’re we gonna give him, a public censure? This dude is going to push his luck past the breaking point with the international community because he knows the USA has zero international credibility at the moment, so we condemn this speech and then he gives us another one tomorrow because he likes to see big ol’ America railing about in impotent fury.

So what do we do, in this day and age? Well, we know free speech. So we, as a country, do what we do with our every day offensive free speech. Ignore it. The diplomats and politicians can and should worry about the implications of his speech, as he has publicly stated that Israel ought to be wiped off the map, but us as citizens? We just sadly shake our heads and move on with our lives. He wants to piss us off.

Why give him the satisfaction?

Edit: I’m not saying I don’t care about this issue: I get pissed off not only because he wants to wipe out Israel, who is our ally, but also because he wants to wipe out any country whatsoever. There are plenty of reasons to be angry about it. I just don’t think getting angry will do any good.