My Superpower

We all have ridiculous superpowers that are worth nothing. No practical value at all. One of mine, I apparently inherited from my father.  The power to spot minor celebrities every time I leave the house on a trip. I've seen Larry King, Lee Corso, Jon Gruden, etc. Today, I saw Newt Gingrich and his wife in Chicago's O'Hare airport.

I don't agree with him politically, but independent of that, I noticed a few things about the pair:

1) They travel light. There wasn't an entourage, they didn't have much luggage (I bet they checked it).

2) They're smaller than I thought. They're both about the same height and seemed much shorter than me (I'm six foot).

3) They're made for television. His hair was big. She was very bright (hair color). They both look severe in a way. Like they've been specifically built for the camera, but lose something in real life. 

A number of years ago, while he was still my Senator, I met John Edwards in the airport. The person I was with knew him (they lived in the same neighborhood). The difference was a bit startling. Edwards was charismatic from across the room. It felt like you wanted to be around him. He felt like a leader. Newt, on the other hand, did not. He and his wife had an air around them that said something else. Not quite, "go the hell away," but something like that. 

What Have You Done for ME?

I've recently noticed a strong sense of selfishness in America. I understand that when the economy gets bad, people naturally turn to their own self-interests. It's shown up often in the political discourse and how individual citizens talk about the direction our economy and our country is headed. What have you done for me, what will you do for me, and why are you helping those people seem to be more and more common attitudes (though not necessarily in that order all the time). The one place it is popping up and I don't understand it it the case of the freed American hikers, Josh Fattal, Shane Bauer, and Sarah Shourd. 

If you read comments on stories covering their long overdue release, people are actually saying they got what they deserved. I'm seeing comments like:

another prime example of people demanding freedom without accountability and or suffering the consequences of their actions

or

Dear government of Iran, we would really appreciate it if you kept idiots like these.  We don't want them back.  We are more than happy to have you feed, clothe and house them for the rest of their lives.

While likely not the safest activity in the world, those who attempt to climb Everest or engage in other, similar activities, don't receive this type of scorn. Other comments are unhappy with their criticism of any US policies (which so far have been very soft) and strike a definite love it or leave it tone. These attitudes seem to be a reflection and extension of the economic, what have you done for me lately idea permeating policy discussions. The idea that young Americans might go to a strange part of the world to experience culture and nature is so foreign to some people, that it's wrong. 

As Americans we should be happy that US citizens are home. We should be happy that our government cared about them enough to work for over two years to bring them home. This is exactly what our government is for. To protect the rights of the individuals, to work on behalf of its citizens. These young people don't deserve our scorn because they now criticize a corrupt Iranian regime that holds political prisoners for speaking out and asking for the same rights protected by our Constitution. 

Too many Americans seem to have forgotten what Democracy means. It doesn't mean we live in a society where we say all the time, "there oughta be a law..." it means we should be looking for opportunities to say, "there shouldn't be a law." It also means that our government doesn't imprison people and strip them of their rights (like we do in Cuba to many young people who are not terrorists), it means that it should be protecting rights of citizens against larger interests be they corporations, those who would impose a theocracy, or countries like Iran.

Regardless of how you feel about these young people and their comments since coming home, our protection of free speech means that we as a society need to tolerate these ideas. These young people went through a horrible ordeal that is not due to them being reckless or irresponsibility. They're out there experiencing the world before they have responsibilities or expectations on our society (mortgage, social security, Medicare, etc.) and really represent the best of our youth.  Why? Because they want to understand how the world works and make it and the United States better despite living through a horrible experience. 

There is nothing wrong with seeing the world. There is nothing wrong with being young and having a sense of adventure. There is nothing wrong with speaking out against an injustice (be it in a foreign country or here at home). But there is a lot wrong with having a closed mind that only thinks of one's self and thinks that if others receive help it means that they're losing something. 

What Makes Racism?

Real_americans

As we approach the mid-term elections, I've had a few thoughts nagging at me regarding the Tea Party movement and the rise in populist anger. The tactics, the anger, the rhetoric has led me to believe that not only is the Tea Party movement racist, but racism is more alive and well in America than any of us suspected. 

Many people have claimed that the election of Barack Obama as President proves that racism is dead. We've killed it and moved on.  Woo hoo! I think his election has done more to shine the light on racism in this country. The problem is how you define racism.

If you define racism as using racial epithets and systematic discrimination to deny one group of people the same rights as those in power, then racism might be dead. 

If you define racism as an unfair, improper, or incorrect categorization of a people in a negative light due to the color of their skin coupled with an attempt (conscious or otherwise) to disenfranchise them from the current political or economic system then racism is alive and well.
 
While no one is out there using firehoses and dogs to prevent people from voting, there is a giant us versus them undercurrent in American society. White middle class people are angry because they don't have jobs or healthcare benefits.  They're in debt and are rightfully fearful of their futures. However, their anger is turned towards African Americans and Latinos. Those people are stealing our rights, our money, our taxes, using up our health benefits, etc. The supposed logic is that by giving minorities or the poor something, you're taking it away from someone who may have earned it (think Medicare).

The problem is that this faulty logic has been extended to assume that:
  1. Minorities are either in this country illegally or are inherently lazy
  2. The Other is somehow different and out to get the majority.
Case in point is President Obama. He has fallen victim to both of these points of faulty logic. First the assumption was that the President was not qualified because he was allegedly not born in this country. This was supposed in a number of different ways, including ideas ranging from being born in another country to Hawaii doesn't count as part of the continental United States. At the same time no such controversy was brought up regarding John McCain (to his credit he dispelled the theory publicly), who was born into a military family stationed overseas at the time of his birth.

Once you get past the idea that it is legal for him to be President, the racist logic has to make his ideas foreign and dangerous. Often, the President's policies drew odd comparisons to Nazi ideology. The words "Death Panel," was used to describe his healthcare plan. He is described as socialist, anti-American, non-Christian, etc. He is the Other. As such, conspiracy theories have arisen that President Obama is going to enforce different laws, morals, ideologies, etc. on the United States and fundamentally change everything. The rallying cry used against him and the Democrats is, "Take the country back."

My question is take the country back from whom? As the sign in the photograph claims, there is a sense that some Americans are real and some are not. So-called watchdog groups are going to polling places in the guise of ensuring that all are qualified to vote. However, history has shown us that these tactics are thinly-veiled ploys to intimidate select groups from voting. This week a group of Rand Paul supporters (men) chased down and attacked a protester (a woman). It's been said (and widely accepted) that violence against women by men is really a symptom of sexism.

So this brings me back to my main point, what constitutes racism? This little essay is brief, but my point is you don't have to shout slurs or expect a group of people to drink from different water fountains to be a racist. When a group of older white people (the Tea Party) attacks women, has candidates dress as Nazis (for fun), talks about African American men preferring drug dealing and crime to going to college, uses the idea of personal responsibility to imply that the poor are just lazy, what do you call it? Racism is still racism when it arises from ignorance. The attitudes and damage it does are not as overt, but still exist.

Racism is more than name calling and it's alive and well in this country. Regardless of how loud they shout and protest the label, their attitude and behavior prove that the Tea Party is largely racist.

Essay on Fascism

My wife posted a link to a great essay by Umberto Eco regarding Facism on her blog today. It's an easy read and enlightening in many ways (especially when you consider many of Obama's critics claim he is a facist). That being said, point number three seems to be the philosophy du jour in America today.  As people decry a liberal elite that doesn't exist, one line from Eco's piece jumped out at me:

Thinking is a form of emasculation

It reminds me of the seventh grade.