Every night, one of the last things I do before turning the computer off is check the New York Times website. Living at the other end of the country gives me the advantage of seeing the newest edition of the paper late at night rather than waking up to it. It also means that no one has commented on the op-ed articles yet. I have this burning desire to be the first to comment. But I haven't done it yet. There are two very simple reasons for this; (1) I have nothing much to say in response, and (2) I prefer well-thought out comments which have correct facts in them.
Why am I talking about this? Well, I just saw a comment claiming that Lousiana governor Bobby Jindal was a Muslim. This, coming from a university teacher, was sort of funny and ridiculous. Funny because Gov. Jindal is actually Roman Catholic! His family hails from India and he was born Hindu and converted in high school. But he has never been a Muslim. Ridiculous, in a sad kind of way, because the person making the claim should have been better informed.
I should have added that the comment was responding to an article regarding Colin Powell's defense of Muslims in America and the mistaken claim of Obama's being a Muslim. Irony, my friend, we meet again...
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
A pale yellow envelope
...was pushed under my door today. In bold red capital letters it's entitled:
OFFICIAL ABSENTEE BALLOTING MATERIAL
With a curious lack of fanfare (except in my mind), I've just filled in my first ever ballot for the 2008 United States election.
It was a somewhat breathtaking (in the literal sense) moment, even though words cannot quite describe the quiet moment in my apartment, as I sat with the ballot, chose an ordinary black ballpoint pen and filled in my votes for president and congressional representative, sealed and signed my declaration of choice as a citizen of this democratic nation.
OFFICIAL ABSENTEE BALLOTING MATERIAL
With a curious lack of fanfare (except in my mind), I've just filled in my first ever ballot for the 2008 United States election.
It was a somewhat breathtaking (in the literal sense) moment, even though words cannot quite describe the quiet moment in my apartment, as I sat with the ballot, chose an ordinary black ballpoint pen and filled in my votes for president and congressional representative, sealed and signed my declaration of choice as a citizen of this democratic nation.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Excerpt
An excerpt from former Secretary of State, Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama:
"I'm...troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said, such things as, "well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well the correct answer is, he's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president?...This is not the way we should be doing it in America."
Enough said...
"I'm...troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party say, and it is permitted to be said, such things as, "well you know that Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well the correct answer is, he's not a Muslim, he's a Christian, he's always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president?...This is not the way we should be doing it in America."
Enough said...
Friday, October 10, 2008
The Decline of the Intellectual
For the past decade, there has been an increasing divide between the highly educated and the barely graduate (if even that) classes in America. We all see this in the consistent push by the Republican party to sneer at elites and intellectuals as a method of gaining popular support.
Today's New York Times has an article by David Brooks called "The Class War Before Palin" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin), which provides a succinct description of the evolution from what he describes as "disdain for liberal intellectuals" to a denigration of educated Americans as a whole. Now, Mr. Brooks is the Times' conservative columnist and represents traditional Republican values, not those mired in moral politics but those concerned with fiscal conservatism and small govenments (lets not be deceived that the McCain/Palin ticket stands for either of these latter values), and his criticism of the Republican party comes of as far more weighty than many other liberal columnists' work would.
I have bemoaned for a long time this anti-education push in American politics and society. It's antithetical to the values of a country which prizes ambition and progress. Reading the responses to the column, I found one which accurately pinpointed the unfortunate consequence of this class battle:
"What a pity, indeed, that the Republican party, as a result of this sort of truculence, has alienated thinking people, even as it devoted itself to the destruction of its unthinking allies' lives, as the last week has shown. Proud and defiant ignorance may win votes among the ignorant--they identify with it-- but it hasn't done much for their pensions, mortgages, or their children's futures. The current administration, whose titular head shows an arrogant lack of curiosity and contempt for any intellectual endeavor, has sold the American people down the river for generations to come, by appealing to the stupidest among them. The Founding Fathers didn't envision government by the most easily duped; as a result we are now rather worse off than some South American countries we were used to describe as tin-pot dictatorships. We are now a whole nation that is owned by the company store.--M Carter, Endicott, NY"
I also want to point out that Republicans are very hypocritical about their stance on the educated class, sneering at candidates who are well-educated and pushing their "ordinari-ness" and simultaneously proclaiming America as a technologically superior nation during Presidential debates etc. It's not Joe Sixpack who is achieving the breakthroughs which have made America a leader in scientific discovery, nor who has caused American scientists to be the most frequent recipients of Nobel prizes, nor made America the location where science students flock to for the best possible higher education in the world.
The Republican Pary is no longer the same party as founded by William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman and no longer the one that follows the values of Edmund Burke. It's high time conservative intellectuals accept that fact and distinguish themselves from the religious conservative right that has taken over the Republican party.
Today's New York Times has an article by David Brooks called "The Class War Before Palin" (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/10/opinion/10brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin), which provides a succinct description of the evolution from what he describes as "disdain for liberal intellectuals" to a denigration of educated Americans as a whole. Now, Mr. Brooks is the Times' conservative columnist and represents traditional Republican values, not those mired in moral politics but those concerned with fiscal conservatism and small govenments (lets not be deceived that the McCain/Palin ticket stands for either of these latter values), and his criticism of the Republican party comes of as far more weighty than many other liberal columnists' work would.
I have bemoaned for a long time this anti-education push in American politics and society. It's antithetical to the values of a country which prizes ambition and progress. Reading the responses to the column, I found one which accurately pinpointed the unfortunate consequence of this class battle:
"What a pity, indeed, that the Republican party, as a result of this sort of truculence, has alienated thinking people, even as it devoted itself to the destruction of its unthinking allies' lives, as the last week has shown. Proud and defiant ignorance may win votes among the ignorant--they identify with it-- but it hasn't done much for their pensions, mortgages, or their children's futures. The current administration, whose titular head shows an arrogant lack of curiosity and contempt for any intellectual endeavor, has sold the American people down the river for generations to come, by appealing to the stupidest among them. The Founding Fathers didn't envision government by the most easily duped; as a result we are now rather worse off than some South American countries we were used to describe as tin-pot dictatorships. We are now a whole nation that is owned by the company store.--M Carter, Endicott, NY"
I also want to point out that Republicans are very hypocritical about their stance on the educated class, sneering at candidates who are well-educated and pushing their "ordinari-ness" and simultaneously proclaiming America as a technologically superior nation during Presidential debates etc. It's not Joe Sixpack who is achieving the breakthroughs which have made America a leader in scientific discovery, nor who has caused American scientists to be the most frequent recipients of Nobel prizes, nor made America the location where science students flock to for the best possible higher education in the world.
The Republican Pary is no longer the same party as founded by William F. Buckley and Milton Friedman and no longer the one that follows the values of Edmund Burke. It's high time conservative intellectuals accept that fact and distinguish themselves from the religious conservative right that has taken over the Republican party.
Monday, September 22, 2008
A change is gonna come
Well, it's here. I was tired of the old look and thought maybe a change of scenery might refresh this blog...it may not work...
Sunday, September 21, 2008
And the West Wing references continue...
A few days back, the BBC had an article which compared the current [real] Presidential race with the fictitious race portrayed in the last season of The West Wing (minority Democrat vs. hardened Republican maverick--sound familiar?). This week, the New York Times has picked up on the trend with an op-ed piece covering an exchange between Barack Obama and Josiah Bartlett, President in The West Wing universe (played by the incomparable Martin Sheen):
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21dowd-sorkin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I have been thinking for quite a while that the 2008 race is very much like The West Wing so these references come as no surprise. I quite liked the NYT's column by Maureen Dowd, especially the following piece of advice from Bartlett to Obama [after Obama has asked, "What would you do?"]:
"GET ANGRIER! Call them liars, because that’s what they are. Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I’d ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you’re at it, I want the word “patriot” back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn’t know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can’t do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they’ve earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It’s not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It’s not bad enough she’s forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It’s not enough that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist’s baby too? I don’t know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she’s got the qualifications of one. And you’re worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!"
Thank you President Bartlett, you're pretty cool for a fictional president.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/opinion/21dowd-sorkin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
I have been thinking for quite a while that the 2008 race is very much like The West Wing so these references come as no surprise. I quite liked the NYT's column by Maureen Dowd, especially the following piece of advice from Bartlett to Obama [after Obama has asked, "What would you do?"]:
"GET ANGRIER! Call them liars, because that’s what they are. Sarah Palin didn’t say “thanks but no thanks” to the Bridge to Nowhere. She just said “Thanks.” You were raised by a single mother on food stamps — where does a guy with eight houses who was legacied into Annapolis get off calling you an elitist? And by the way, if you do nothing else, take that word back. Elite is a good word, it means well above average. I’d ask them what their problem is with excellence. While you’re at it, I want the word “patriot” back. McCain can say that the transcendent issue of our time is the spread of Islamic fanaticism or he can choose a running mate who doesn’t know the Bush doctrine from the Monroe Doctrine, but he can’t do both at the same time and call it patriotic. They have to lie — the truth isn’t their friend right now. Get angry. Mock them mercilessly; they’ve earned it. McCain decried agents of intolerance, then chose a running mate who had to ask if she was allowed to ban books from a public library. It’s not bad enough she thinks the planet Earth was created in six days 6,000 years ago complete with a man, a woman and a talking snake, she wants schools to teach the rest of our kids to deny geology, anthropology, archaeology and common sense too? It’s not bad enough she’s forcing her own daughter into a loveless marriage to a teenage hood, she wants the rest of us to guide our daughters in that direction too? It’s not enough that a woman shouldn’t have the right to choose, it should be the law of the land that she has to carry and deliver her rapist’s baby too? I don’t know whether or not Governor Palin has the tenacity of a pit bull, but I know for sure she’s got the qualifications of one. And you’re worried about seeming angry? You could eat their lunch, make them cry and tell their mamas about it and God himself would call it restrained. There are times when you are simply required to be impolite. There are times when condescension is called for!"
Thank you President Bartlett, you're pretty cool for a fictional president.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
"You've come a long way" or have you?
It has been almost five months since I blogged. Partially because I've been away and had forgotten that the blog existed, and also because while there seemed to be a lot to blog about, there was also plenty of news out there reporting the same things that I was seeing during my stint in Pakistan. Rising fuel prices, soaring inflation, power cuts, yada, yada, yada...
Today's post is not at all about that. It was going to be about my apprehensions about the 2008 US Presidential elections, but instead has shifted to a more general discourse (read: rant) about democracy and freedom.
Recently, I saw Craig Ferguson's (the guy who does the Late Late Show, the one after Letterman) monologue about voting and the duty of all Americans to do so. If you want to see it go to YouTube, it's all there, of course. It was an excellent, non-partisan commentary about taking part in democracy, I won't go into details because I think when most people hear the monologue, they will find themselves in agreement with Ferguson. What I did do after seeing the monologue was check out news articles about it. There were some interesting articles and, finally, one with reader comments. And as always, there was one that I just read and was stupefied by:
"Voting in and of itself is not a solution-- it may set us up for a bigger problem. When young, naive, pop-culturists vote because they're worked into a frenzy of irrational exuberance by well-marketed, fork-tongued devils, what might be the outcome? Let's start with a serious focus on educating our young on economics, history, world affairs, the Constitution and political science. The biggest drawback of democracy is the right of ignorant and stupid people to vote. The educated and aware will vote. The apathetic and foolish do us a service when they don't vote."
First of all...(imagine face of shock--jaw dropping)
Second of all...what?
Third of all...whoa...
I mean, where do you get off suggesting that young, naive people only vote for the "cooler" candidate? Given that statistically more elderly vote in elections and that elections are often characterised by people voting for the better-looking/more-charming etc etc candidate, really that isn't just a young phenomenon...
When I read posts like this, I wonder where the poster (postee?) gets the right to claim that by not voting people are doing a service to their country. I mean the last two presidential elections certainly prove that inadequate voter turnout, and apathy are not good things. And please, don't think that it's just stupid and ignorant people who don't vote, although I suppose one could argue that not voting and taking part in democracy is a mark of ignorance...
The implication that the fault of democracy lies in it's ability to give everyone the opportunity to participate in shaping the land and the laws that govern it is an insult of the highest order to all the people who fought to make democracy a reality in this country, from the founding fathers, to the suffragettes, to civil rights workers in the 20th century. Talk like this is eerily like an argument for eugenics or some such form of prejudice that coloured the late nineteenth and early twentieth century in America (oh yes, the Nazis weren't the first to tread this path).
Democracy is messy, there's no denying that. That is the glory of the system--it allows people the chance to disagree. A country of 300 million odd people will never all be satisfied at the results of an election--that is the nature of the beast. They can be satisfied, however, that they have been given the ooportunity to make their voice heard, even if in the end, their's was the "losing" side. The bottom line is democracy gives you freedom where other forms of government don't. "By the people, for the people" and all that jazz.
The only part I agree with in this ridiculous post is the bit where he/she says that we need to better educate the young about this country, it's history and it's current situation. Yes, we do need to move beyond a high school course of US history and government, and start encouraging youth to be more aware of world affairs and how the US is involved in the world as well as better knowledge about the political process both on the national and state level and on the city level.
But even in the absence of this, let's not suggest that there are people who shouldn't be voting. There are many problems with American governance, but these faults do not lie in giving each and every adult in this country the option to vote.
Today's post is not at all about that. It was going to be about my apprehensions about the 2008 US Presidential elections, but instead has shifted to a more general discourse (read: rant) about democracy and freedom.
Recently, I saw Craig Ferguson's (the guy who does the Late Late Show, the one after Letterman) monologue about voting and the duty of all Americans to do so. If you want to see it go to YouTube, it's all there, of course. It was an excellent, non-partisan commentary about taking part in democracy, I won't go into details because I think when most people hear the monologue, they will find themselves in agreement with Ferguson. What I did do after seeing the monologue was check out news articles about it. There were some interesting articles and, finally, one with reader comments. And as always, there was one that I just read and was stupefied by:
"Voting in and of itself is not a solution-- it may set us up for a bigger problem. When young, naive, pop-culturists vote because they're worked into a frenzy of irrational exuberance by well-marketed, fork-tongued devils, what might be the outcome? Let's start with a serious focus on educating our young on economics, history, world affairs, the Constitution and political science. The biggest drawback of democracy is the right of ignorant and stupid people to vote. The educated and aware will vote. The apathetic and foolish do us a service when they don't vote."
First of all...(imagine face of shock--jaw dropping)
Second of all...what?
Third of all...whoa...
I mean, where do you get off suggesting that young, naive people only vote for the "cooler" candidate? Given that statistically more elderly vote in elections and that elections are often characterised by people voting for the better-looking/more-charming etc etc candidate, really that isn't just a young phenomenon...
When I read posts like this, I wonder where the poster (postee?) gets the right to claim that by not voting people are doing a service to their country. I mean the last two presidential elections certainly prove that inadequate voter turnout, and apathy are not good things. And please, don't think that it's just stupid and ignorant people who don't vote, although I suppose one could argue that not voting and taking part in democracy is a mark of ignorance...
The implication that the fault of democracy lies in it's ability to give everyone the opportunity to participate in shaping the land and the laws that govern it is an insult of the highest order to all the people who fought to make democracy a reality in this country, from the founding fathers, to the suffragettes, to civil rights workers in the 20th century. Talk like this is eerily like an argument for eugenics or some such form of prejudice that coloured the late nineteenth and early twentieth century in America (oh yes, the Nazis weren't the first to tread this path).
Democracy is messy, there's no denying that. That is the glory of the system--it allows people the chance to disagree. A country of 300 million odd people will never all be satisfied at the results of an election--that is the nature of the beast. They can be satisfied, however, that they have been given the ooportunity to make their voice heard, even if in the end, their's was the "losing" side. The bottom line is democracy gives you freedom where other forms of government don't. "By the people, for the people" and all that jazz.
The only part I agree with in this ridiculous post is the bit where he/she says that we need to better educate the young about this country, it's history and it's current situation. Yes, we do need to move beyond a high school course of US history and government, and start encouraging youth to be more aware of world affairs and how the US is involved in the world as well as better knowledge about the political process both on the national and state level and on the city level.
But even in the absence of this, let's not suggest that there are people who shouldn't be voting. There are many problems with American governance, but these faults do not lie in giving each and every adult in this country the option to vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)