Anti-immigration and hate groups

One of the things that people get upset about every year when Randy Blazak comes to speak to class is when he points out that anti-immigration politics feed and strengthen hate groups. Southern Poverty Law Center , one of the great non-partisan, non-profit organizations in the countries, has the research that succinctly supports that little bit of what seems to me some obvious logic: Target an ethnicity and groups that thrive on hate will embrace your cause. Randy's point is simply, understand the company you keep.

Love and War

Thanks to Dave Dellerba, I was turned on to a couple of profound pieces about the state of national security in the United States and the gaps between what we're being told, what is actually happening, and what we want to believe about ourselves as a nation. The book is called Citizen's Dissent, but you can read abridged versions of the essays here:

Wendell Berry's essay A Citizen's Response to the National Security Strategy of the United States of America and David James Duncan's essay When Compassion Become Dissent.

Just so you don't think they or I want you to take any of these statements out of context, here is the National Security Strategy, which most significantly created the official and "legitimate" notion of pre-emptive war: The National Security Strategy

The most important question these essays beg is the idea of who are we? Berry deals with "the royal 'we'", where more and more it just refers to a small cabal of ruling elite. They create these documents, policies, and laws in order to further strengthen their economic and political standing, either by convincing the public that more consumption is in "our" best interest, or that campaign finance restrictions violate "our" freedom of speech, or that universal health care will destroy "our" health system as "we" know it. In each of those cases, the only people negatively affected are those in power.

It is unfortunate that I can't seem to find on-line the most powerful part of the book, Duncan's postscript he wrote after the invasion but before chaos fully settled in Iraq (though you would never know that last part -- it is eerily prescient that way). He calls Gerri Haynes, to whom he speaks at the end of his essay above. They discuss how to stay in touch with the peaceful, loving center at a time when anger and violence make us (me, I suppose) so tempted to hate. She answers in three phases.

First, she says, "If I move outside that peace, if I give way to anger or rage due to what I see as patently wrong, then I have lost touch of my covenant with peacefulness, and with a life promise to be of love." Genius, but vague.

She expands: "[A]nger always covers sadness, and that sandess always covers something we're unable to do. So, whenever I feel anger I've trained myself to ask, 'What is it that I'm unable to do here?'" Holy moly. With small things, it's easy. I get angry in traffic because I am unable to control the flow, to control what is happening around me, and I have failed to come to grips with the fact that what I can control is my attitude, and I have given that over to someone else. It seems to relate to the old Bhuddist concept of unasking the question. So I am unable to get through this piece of traffic, but what is the real question I'm asking here? It's not how do I get through this traffic, it's how do I get where I'm going. This concept is where we get bogged down on details and the big picture disappears. How do you accomplish what you need without the distraction of the details in front of you now?

The problem, it seems to me, is that on something as huge as war, particularly a war where those acting in our names refuse to give us the information we need and refuse to listen to, now, even members of his own party about what needs to happen next, how do we discover what we are able to do?

So Gerri tries a third time: "If we believe that God is love [as I do], then anything we do must be of love in order to reflect God. This is the standard I use to monitor all my thoughts, my words, and my deeds. Not just my actions. It's a standard I apply to everything." Unending vigilance. And not keeping an eye on people I can't control. I can only control myself, my thoughts. If I start thinking on people with hate, I am playing their game.

This makes me think of an a-ha moment I had with regard to Dick Cheney, thanks to my dear friend Audra, whom I love and trust and respect. She also happens to be significantly more conservative than I am, seeing as how she does come from a family whose parents are friends with Dick and Lynne Cheney themselves. She asked her father why I would see Cheney as evil while he sees him in such an opposite light. The response had nothing to do with me, but with Cheney. When Audra's mom had a relapse of cancer, Dick and Lynne Cheney visited her in the hospital. Now I'm not saying this excuses any of the repugnant, traitorous, self-serving policies Cheney has over seen, but when I start to label people as "evil," I am failing in the need to apply the standard to everything.

That constant vigilance requires that we continue to speak out, continue to attempt to educate people, continue to try to get people to open up their minds. But to continue to do so with love. I fail to do so with love frequently, especially but not exclusively when I think on some of these people with hate. So then I get angry.

Duncan closes his postscript, again, remember this is before chaos settled in to Iraq, with this: "There will be decades of solid work, centuries of solid work, to be done in the wake of all this. But even in this time of war on the imagination, the body wants to follow where free imaginations lead. In our moment of seeming helplessness, our sending [love] helps save us."

Amen.

What the NRA is about now-a-days.

We talk in class every once in a while about how the NRA in itself is not a wretched organization. Historically, they served an important role in terms of both civil liberties protection and firearms safety education. In the past dozen or so years, they have gone off the deep end, though. Hopefully, this is the moment most Americans wake up and realize that they no longer serve those roles. They are now blindly all about "guns for everybody."

THEY WANT TERRORISTS TO HAVE FREAKING GUNS

My favorite part is where the assistant attorney general says that it doesn't automatically mean that suspected terrorists won't have guns. If the ACLU had come out with anything close to this, right wingers would by crying that they are protecting terrorists. "America Haters! America Haters!" they'd cry. "Don't care about security!" they'd cry. But it's the NRA, so what they say instead is, "Woah! We're not taking their guns yet." Rrrg.

Diversity rant

This is a response I wrote to a student's email. She expressed the ever-present frustration of white students who think that because we celebrate MLK Day, African American History Month, Cesar Chavez, the NAACP, and other things we are somehow debasing whites. I don't know why I feel the need to share with the three of you who will read this, but here it is. If it seems out of context without the original email and the list of "white pride" complaints, I'm sorry. I just don't want to perpetuate it. Also please understand that this student is not in any definition of the word racist. She is struggling to understand how some new ideas fit in to what she wants to believe about herself and the people she loves. She has had to deal with some issues no teenager should have to deal with, and I suspect hasn't had a lot of guidance in learning how to deal with these notions. I believe this is true about a lot of people who parrot those frustrations without thinking about the true implications of centuries of oppression. That's why respectful dialogue is so blooming important, rather than yelling, screaming, and finger pointing that passes for political or sociological dialogue these days. Education, not accusation.

Anyway, enough of my rambling. Here's more rambling, my response to the email:



That stuff has been all over the place. In fact, I think Randy Blazak addressed several of those things specifically and the attitude in general. There is nothing wrong with being proud of your heritage, no matter what that is. The problem arises when it is more difficult to celebrate some roots of heritage than others. When people try to respect non-Christian celebrations in December, it's called a war on Christmas. Genocide in North America is called Manifest Destiny. Attempts to address long-standing inequities is called "reverse racism." It comes back to the Invisible Knapsack thing. The challenge is to celebrate yourself while recognizing that for centuries now others have been unable to do so, and those things don't change easily. I feel strongly that our diversity club has been doing a nice job. They include some of the various European cultures in their diversity week every time. That is exactly what needs to happen: celebrate heritage. Some white folks' insistence that their only ethnicity is "American" is where people cry foul. Especially, as far as I'm concerned, since "American" ethnicity means celebrating the European, Latino, African, Asian, Middle Eastern and all other cultures' influence on our every day lives.

Quite honestly, some of those things in the list piss me off, for that very reason. Martin Luther King and the civil rights era made all of our lives better, not just one ethnic group. His courage and leadership was one we should be doing more to remember, not less, in an era where we are being told that we can spread "American ideals" at the barrel of a gun (and when it fails, try sending more guns). Cesar Chavez made working conditions in the US better for everybody, not just one ethnic group. He, too, prescribed to the non-violence that allowed him to survive in a system where he had numbers of people against a power structure that had the guns (a face-off which the guns will win every time). We should celebrate his achievements more and louder than we do, but because he was fighting against run-away profits on the backs of the working folk, he's called "Socialist" or worse "Communist" and written off. And why do people have problems celebrating these two examples of humanity at its best? Other than this vague economic thing, it's their ethnicity. Bah.

I don't know any enlightened person of any ethnic group who thinks it's ok to call anyone cracker, whitey, gringo, etc. This is the disrespect that perpetuates tensions and hatred rather than break the cycles. Denying that, even as society slowly inches toward enlightenment, there are words and phrases rooted in racism, slavery, and segregation also perpetuates the tensions. Also, not enough people recognize that racism involves power. White folks have the power, economically and politically. Not as much so as in the past, but still significantly so. Hateful and narrow-minded words that have power behind them do much much more damage than hateful and narrow-minded words without power behind them (which do damage, none-the-less).

Thanks for sharing. Clearly, I like talking about these things. I think it's really important to not ignore that these frustrations are out there. Sadly, I don't think there are any easy answers to the frustrations, because somebody, rightly or wrongly, is going to feel slighted. Have a fabulous weekend, and I'll see you on Tuesday.

gadzooks.

Reflections on Zinn

Reflections on Howard Zinn's "Machiavellian Realism and US Foreign Policy" in his book Passionate Declarations:

Wow. The Machiavellian model points to so many pieces of what is wrong with the way we do business. First, the notion of the Lion and the Fox. Zinn's interpretation reads that in order to achieve the desired ends, governments (Machiavelli's Prince) have to use force, like the lion. In order to keep the people in line for such force, the people have to be deceived, like the fox. His chief example comes in form of the use of the atomic bomb on Japan. Until a few minutes ago, I was still under the impression that we used the bomb to hasten the end of World War II which was looking inevitable but wouldn't come without an invasion of the Japanese mainland, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths. It turns out, according to Zinn, that Japanese generals testified after the war that Japan was ready to surrender regardless. In fact, a cable was intercepted from Japan to the ambassador in Moscow to ask the Soviet Union to intercede to bring about a conditional surrender, the chief condition of which would be the perpetuation of the emperor, a critical cultural link.

We dropped the bomb on the Japanese in order to inspire an unconditional surrender rather than a conditional one (and, oh, by the way, the emperor still exists), and in order to set the United States up as the leading force as we head in to the post-war world order.

This of course, leads to the second and more widely-known element, the idea that "ends justify means." Since the ends, according to Machiavelli's The Prince, is always more power to those above you, the dropping of the bomb was perfectly legitimate. We maimed, burned, and turtured hundreds of thousands of people because we wanted to position ourselves to be the dominant power in the world after the dust settled.

Of course, the United States has been following this rule since the beginning of time. The Vietnam War was supposedly to stop the red dominos from falling. The Iran-Contra scandal was to keep leftist, democratically elected regimes from taking charge of Latin America. The Iraq War was to eliminate Saddam Hussein (at least by one of countless rationales). In each of these cases, force was perptrated in the names of the American people only because deception was employed in order to either keep people in the dark and to do what those in charge wanted when they probably wouldn't get the response they wanted from the people.

The third Machiavellian element Zinn discusses is the notion that in order for your "Prince" to maintain and grow power, underlings must fall in line. You must put aside your personal feelings in order to do what you are called to do by the Prince. If the parallels to W aren't obvious, you're not paying attention. Anybody who steps out of line is smeared until there is nothing left of their reputation. See: John McCain (pre-recent ass kissing), Max Cleland, Eric Shinseki, Paul O'Neill, Valerie and Joe Wilson, and countless others. It is fascinating to see some brave form Iraq commanders stepping out of their ultimately Machiavellian roles in the US military to say that Emperor Rumsfeld has no clothes. Apparently, the same thing happened in Vietnam, people just didn't hear as much about it as we are hearing now.

Gads. I need to get out of the house and take a walk. I'm going nuts. Have a good one.


Edit: A question for you all: Who is the anti-Machiavelli? Western Civ students (I know there's at least one out there!), is Rousseau the counter example? Where Machiavelli believes humans are bad and can only be led when the prince learns to be bad, does Rousseau believe humans are inherently good, therefor the social contract is based on humans fulfilling that goodness?

What made today unique:

Tully's, ergo Marsee Baking, closed today. It's the end of an era. For at least 8 years I have been eating Marsee Baking sesame bagels every morning. So I scouted out the next era:

Noah's on 23rd and Glisan opens at 7:30 on Saturdays and Sundays. That's doable if it's the only resort. Their bagels are too doughy and fluffy, though.

Kornblatt's also opens at 7:30 on the weekends. They are a serious New York bakery, and their bagels are yummy, so I'm going to give them a shot first. A half dozen bagels are also a dollar cheaper than at Marsee.

Bridgeport has re-opened. It looks extraordinarily different in there. I just peaked. I had forgotten my phone (still getting used to the whole cell phone thing), but it would have been fun to have called Meagan and Alex and those two adults who tag along with them to see if they wanted to try it out. Instead, I continued on to Powell's and Pioneer Courthouse Square, where I read the most of the paper, where I found . . .

The New York Times finally acknowledged the existence of the Fighting Dems. (Try those links. I'm new to this fanciness.) Can you imagine a liberal, anti-war Iraq War Vet caucus in the House of Representatives? I know the Rovians in the Republican Party have no problem slamming war heroes like John Kerry, Max Cleland, and John McCain, but these folks are pissed and aren't going to roll over, at least like Kerry and McCain did (Cleland's been trying to fight back ever since, but he doesn't have the bully pulpit as the other two). As Sam Seder says, any way anyone can support them (cha-ching!) will help re-establish the representative democracy we used to have.

Have a good one.

DeLay

Tom DeLay as much as admitted it yesterday. His Texas redistricting plan was about one thing and about one thing only: getting Republicans elected. Not about allowing the people of Texas let their votes count. According to the Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2575-2005Mar2.html?referrer=email he said, "If you're going to maximize the number of Republicans that are elected, everybody can't have an 80 percent district." Fortunately, he is talking like that because he's scared. It sounds like people are targetting him. For the love of God, I hope you can not do what DeLay has done in the past few years and not pay for it. He is the poster boy of immoral neo-conservative tacticians.

Define the debate

I sincerely hope this Social Security debate finally yields the debate we've really been having since the "Reagan revolution" and the contract on America. What kind of society do want here? Is it a society for the one or a society for all? Do we want to live where "I got mine, you get yours," or where we don't care about what other people are doing, as well as I get more?

There is one very strong piece of this issue that has only become more entrenched in my notions as I get older. Industries which are for the greater good should never, ever, be subject to the whims of profit. Enron proved it with utilities. The health care industry continually proves it. We wouldn't do it with roads, or police, or fire. More and more people want to add the education of our children to the profit-taking world. Now our most successful social program, Social Security, is going to be given over to the world of profit.

More later . . .

The 100,000 people dead in Iraq number is causing trouble, not because I don't believe it, because I do. It's causing trouble because it is impossible to verify. There was an interesting article on Slate . . . http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

I have to believe that the number is greater than the 30,000 they allow for at the end of the article, since in a country with little electricity and little infrastructure in general, the press can not function completely.

The numbers are really a distraction from the real point, though. Even if we concede (which I do not do) that invading Iraq was a good idea, thousands (tens of thousands?) of people have died because of American policy decisions. When Donald Rumsfeld stood in a press conference in April, 2003, and said they were not stopping the looting because free people have a right to make choices, he signalled to the people in Iraq that no one was in charge. When the Coalition Provisional Authority disbanded the entire Iraqi Army and banned Baathists from further duty, the job of training an independent Iraqi force in a reasonable amount of time was made impossible. When the President, the Natioanal Security Advisor, and the Secretary of Defense ignored and "retired" generals who cried very loudly that we did not have enough boots on the ground (by several fold), it allowed for actions such as the theft of the tons and tons of explosives from that bunker. When the President's counsel declared the Geneva Convention "quaint," the Iraqi people saw the same kinds of torture we were supposedly liberating them from.

Tens of thousands of innocent people have died because our policy decisions helped the current insurgency to incubate and explode. Even assuming I was overzealous with the 100,000 dead number, I believe that is worth the same outcry as a natural disaster.