When Bill Watterson retired from writing the Calvin & Hobbes comic strip on December 31, 1995, I was just one of the millions of people who were heartbroken.
In his biography of Watterson, "Looking for Calvin and Hobbes: The Unconventional Story of Bill Watterson and his Revolutionary Comic Strip", Nevin Martell tells us what we already knew: I was not alone in that state. But in reading this book, I discovered something that hadn't ever occurred to me before about Watterson's retirement. This discovery hit me between the eyes as I read about Watterson's life, and saw the interviews recounted by Martell; it wasn't just a discovery about Watterson, or about myself, but about all of us.
What I discovered was what Bill Watterson tried to tell us, both before and after he left us behind and went off to do whatever it is that he's doing now.
Chances are that you found Calvin and Hobbes to be a deeply resonant piece of American art. It wasn't just funny, or "sweet", or merely entertaining - it was important to us. His biographer moans about how difficult it is to "track down" the elusive artist, but Watterson's work gave us everything he wanted to say to us about himself, and we loved it. This comic strip is one of the few things that people say they love that they truly DO feel love for. It's one of those few things that we can all instantly picture or can retell to our friends. I've been an office worker my entire adult life, and of all the comic strips hung on walls or doors, Calvin & Hobbes is the only one I have seen in *every* office (even some where such personalizations were strictly forbidden).
And this is as true in 2010 as it was in 1995... all without much in the way of promotion or marketing.
A lot of people may remember Watterson's position on licensing; for those who don't, I can tell you that Mr. Martell does a great job of conveying it through Watterson's words, and through the words of his publishing syndicate. I know I have always felt a little disappointed that there is no C&H merch to be had anywhere; no key chains, no magnets, no plush toys or plastic figurines. And even before picking up this book, I knew as well as anyone that there were literally millions of dollars to be made from such licensing.
A comic strip "Garfield", by comparison, makes literally Billions of dollars from sales, licensing, endorsements, movies ... the list goes on. Martell talks a bit about that, too, to give us an idea of the level of industry that can be generated around a strip, and to give us an idea of the amount of pressure on Watterson to take this path. All of the "big name" strips have some level of this going on... But when was the last time you bothered reading a Garfield comic strip? Or any of the Brand Name strips, really. Did you laugh? Smile? Remember anything about it after putting it back down?
Watterson tried to tell us how he felt about all of this, and he was nearly universally criticized for it. He told us through interviews, in the strip itself, and in one of the rare speaking appearances he made before going into self-imposed exile. Whether the criticism came from other comics writers snubbed by his words, or from would-be marketers wishing he'd let Calvin hawk cereal or allow Hobbes's face on a line of kid's underwear, or even from casual fans like myself who thought they'd look witty and cool with Calvin's class photo pictures on a t-shirt - no one really understood that Watterson had a very clear idea of the gift he wanted to give to us. More importantly (and more to the point of posting this blog): no one understood what he wanted in return.
Bill Watterson only wanted to write his comic strip, and be successful enough at it to support his family.
But, you will argue, why couldn't he do that AND give permission so we could have all the stuff, too? The answer to this is the epiphany I had reading this book. I have written before about how the internet is changing our economy, and have spoken privately to my friends about the ways in which I feel our hyper-marketing "free" market system destroys the very things we find to be of value.
Some of you have heard me talk anecdotally about how hard it is for us to find products that we can all eat (due to allergies) or fruit juices that have actual fruit in them. There are multiple movies and books available to describe the ways the food industry corrupts the products we try to buy in the name of efficiency and "broad appeal". And we all know how often (and awfully) it happens in the entertainment business - do I need to queue up some Disney sequels or the Star Wars Christmas Special?
It was Watterson's personal and professional integrity and his complete focus on and control over his strip that made it what it was. And he was right that industrializing it would have destroyed it.
Our obsessions with celebrity are not news. The desire of industry to exploit that obsession is not news. Even the story of someone trying to avoid the corrosive influence of fame and money is not news. Kurt Cobain put a shotgun in his mouth in 1994 for the same reasons that Bill Watterson cited when he walked away from his world renowned comic strip, and many of us shrugged and said, he's just another spoiled rock star. So where's the "so what" in this? What's the big lesson?
The lesson is that it can be done. Watterson did exactly what he wanted to do with his life: he gave us 10 years of top-notch art, in daily 3-panel and weekly 9-panel installments. He changed us; he affected us; and, as friends often do, he moved on to do something else.
Bill Watterson achieved the real American dream. He did it with class and grace, said thank you, and then walked away. He never exploited us, nor has he allowed anyone else to do so. And when the world sat at his feet begging him to take millions of dollars more to keep going - he knew that doing so would be a lie and a cheat. It wasn't what he wanted to do, and I have no doubt that if I sat at my desk sticking pens into my Hobbes(tm) pencil sharpener, I would not be any happier than I am when I find a copy of "Something Under the Bed Is Drooling" tucked under my kid's pillow.
There are two ways to lose your dream. One is to try and fail; the other is to succeed so wildly that you destroy everything you wanted in the process. I'm glad that Bill Watterson got his dream; and I'm grateful for the 3,160 dreams that we got from him.
We need to learn to be happy with enough.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
A Decent Man I Happened to Disagree With
A few weeks ago, a Facebook friend described George W. Bush to me as "a decent man you just happen to disagree with politically."
I would tend to describe just about anyone in our elected government that way - though their "decency" may be a fragile thing at times. But her dismissal of the very real problems that I had (and still have) with the Bush Administration bothered me, and I wanted to find a way to address them without being snarky or simply argumentative. Contrary to the picture some of my friends like to paint of me, I never "hated" George W. Bush. I think it's important to remind people of that, but it's hard to separate my strong disagreement with the things he did from the man himself.
Today, that same friend posted this video, which gave me something direct to address:
Since Mr. Bush laid out the points that he seems to think are most important, and capture the best snapshot of his terms in office, I'd like to address them - Point by point:
Quitting drinking at age 40 - this is, of course, an admirable thing to do. It shows a strength of character, and he clearly relied on his strong relationship with his wife and his faith in Jesus to make this change and make it stick. From where I sit, I can see that he essentially replaced the crutch of alcohol with the crutch of his relgion.
That's fine in and of itself - I'm a big proponent of letting damaged people use the tools they need to use to overcome their shortcomings. I also disagree with those who say that a President should not wear his faith on his sleeve the way Mr. Bush often did; if it is truly a part of you, your faith should not be something you hide or avoid mentioning. My only "disagreement" with Mr. Bush's religion is that it is not right for me, and there are other Points where it affected his Decisions in ways that it should not have done.
Running for President - When Mr. Bush ran for President, I was a tired, shift-working burnout serving in the USAF in England. As a distant ex-pat grappling with how I felt about Libertarianism, and wearied by years of anti-Clinton rhetoric, I wasn't ready to vote for the Republican party's theory of "reducing government", but I figured that it would either be a) successful, and therefore worthy of consideration, or b) a failure which might prod the country in a more Centrist direction.
Later, I read about Karl Rove's underhanded tactics (told from John McCain's POV in David Foster Wallace's "Up, Simba" essay), and the cutthroat dishonesty that Mr. Bush engaged in to get the GOP nomination; it was an illuminating discovery, but by then, of course, the damage was done. None of it was, technically, "illegal", but it was dodgy, and I recognized enough of the same in 2004 to be doubly angry at our so-called "two party" system.
But you can't deny that the American populace finds the idea of an affable "good ol' boy" to be appealing, and W. was thoroughly qualified to play that part.
Selecting senior staff - I allowed myself to be optimistic in 2001 when Gen. Colin Powell was added to the Bush team. Never mind that he was one voice among a dozen others that included already-discredited former Defense Secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney (an essay for another day, I'm afraid). Never mind that Karl Rove was already known as "Bush's Brain" and that Grover Norquist - the man who said "My goal is to cut government...down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. " - was planning the destruction of the American government from within.
After Gen. Powell's UN speech and Mr. Cheney's dishonest tactics in coralling U.S. Congressional votes, it became clear which "half" of the staff was in charge of these important Decision Points.
Education reform - "No Child Left Behind" is often touted as the Bush Administration's one success. Holding teachers accountable for their students' performance and breaking the Unions' death grip on any reform effort are both admirable goals, in my opinion. But as a single "success" it is hardly compelling.
Over the years, I have asked everyone I find who liked and supported Mr. Bush to tell me what else he accomplished. So far, no one has come up with an answer.
Stem Cell research - This is not a debate I enjoy. Finding a legal precedent for the beginning of human life is emotionally wrenching, and the impact of the decision on other lives is horrifying, no matter which way it falls. The only thing in this debate - like the debate over the legality of abortion - which seems certain is that the law must either trust individual doctors and women to make the right decision in each case, or must arbitrarily decide in advance what that "right decision" is, and find a way to intrusively enforce it.
It's a lose-lose situation.
9/11 - There was a moment after the attacks when all Americans were on the same page, and felt the same way. For me, that ended on 9/15/2001, when Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced (without any evidence) that he intended to get revenge on Saddam Hussein for the attacks. I can't find a reference to that speech, but CBS dug up notes that were more revealing in 2002.
The following points Mr. Bush mentioned in his video all stem from bad decisions made at the urging of his most trusted advisors. Going into combat was debatably the correct move in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. The lasting debacle that is Homeland Security is a testament to the kind of "big government" that Mr. Bush was elected to bring down, and while in the context of "winning" (an idea that was never defined or given a tangible goal) in Iraq the Troop Surge was the right decision, it would not have been necessary if not for the earlier mistake of invading Iraq in the first place.
Re-election - 2004 was a frustrating time for me. Everything I had seen the Bush Administration do to that point told me that the next four years would be equally, if not more awful. And yet, when the Democrats handed us the turd sandwich that was John Kerry, and the American people failed to demand a third option that wasn't on the menu, I began grasping for hope. In the debates, Kerry dismantled Bush point by point, while perversely making him look like the better candidate; Bush spoke of love for each other and our fellow man, and actually gave me a glimmer of hope that his second term would be marked by humility and compassion.
It wasn't.
Tax cut plan - When we got our check - which my lovely bride still refers to as our "Dirty Bush money" - we had to ask: where does this money come from? Did it come out of the welfare checks that would have gone to the "welfare queens" that conservatives hate so? Nope; they're still ahead of us in line at the grocery store buying foods we can't afford. Did it come from subsidies that we shouldn't be paying for "oil exploration" or for small farmers - like ConAgra?
Apparently it came from all of those places where you don't see spending happening; roads, bridges, schools, state and local services, and infrastructure.
At least we got a big screen TV out of the deal, right?
Global AIDS initiative - This really does seem to be a success; at least the 1.7 million Africans benefiting from it might think so. What I find interesting is that no one seems to think of it when they talk about Mr. Bush's successes. Obviously, his opponents wouldn't want to admit that it's a Good Thing(tm)... but it's worth wondering why his supporters wouldn't tout it more loudly.
Unless it simply goes against everything they believe in; tax dollars going to save the lives of brown people in foreign lands without any discernable profit to the U.S.
Mr. Bush: I applaud you for this success.
Then there are the areas where Mr. Bush regrets his failings:
Social Security - I've written and spoken many times about how I agreed with Mr. Bush's approach to this, and how it bears a more rational look from all sides.
Immigration - This, too, is often overlooked as part of the Bush Administration's plans. A real Comprehensive Immigration Reform which would welcome those who want to become a legitimate part of our Dream, and find ways to secure our border against criminals, thugs, and smugglers is still needed. I still hope that we'll be able to look past our racist and nationalistic instincts, and past our petty desire for some kind of "justice" against those who have committed a relatively minor crime, and come up with a solution.
Katrina - This was a difficult issue for everyone. On the one hand, the U.S. President doesn't control the weather, and obviously can't be expected to anticipate every emergency that crops up. Personally, I ignored a lot of the criticism of the immediate response from the White House because so much of it seemed to come from political animosity and misdirected fear; at the same time, there were a lot of bad things that happened or didn't happen because the government was unable to perform its mission.
I saw Katrina as a symptom of the success of Grover Norquist's goal to reduce the government to something that could be drowned in a bathtub. New Orleans showed us that a bathtub is the least of our worries. If we don't invest in public infrastructure, and ensure that the organizations that oversee its maintenance are kept up to date and efficiently managed, we could all end up in a similar situation. There is no way to know in advance whether it will be a hurricane, an earthquake, wildfires, or some other disaster. Global Climate Change scientists have been warning for decades that storms and weather patterns will become more severe AND more unpredictable. Without good government, we will be unprotected.
Katrina did not show me that the Bush Administration was "bad"; it showed me that good government is important.
"...Putting ideology aside" during 2008 economic crisis - This is a point where I agree with Mr. Bush. I agree with him wholeheartedly that the ideology he espoused did not have the answers needed to protect us from the economic crisis. He may not be willing to admit it - his GOP successors certainly don't - but the ideology of "unregulated financial products" that he championed throughout his presidency caused the crisis, just as clearly as uncontrolled speculation caused the 1929 crash.
Thanks to Annie for posting Mr. Bush's video. I intend to read his book, and if moved to do so, may write about it. But I am grateful that Mr. Bush was able to lay out the points that are important to him. It gave me what I have long needed to help define his presidency, and to rationally describe my reaction to it.
I would tend to describe just about anyone in our elected government that way - though their "decency" may be a fragile thing at times. But her dismissal of the very real problems that I had (and still have) with the Bush Administration bothered me, and I wanted to find a way to address them without being snarky or simply argumentative. Contrary to the picture some of my friends like to paint of me, I never "hated" George W. Bush. I think it's important to remind people of that, but it's hard to separate my strong disagreement with the things he did from the man himself.
Today, that same friend posted this video, which gave me something direct to address:
Since Mr. Bush laid out the points that he seems to think are most important, and capture the best snapshot of his terms in office, I'd like to address them - Point by point:
Quitting drinking at age 40 - this is, of course, an admirable thing to do. It shows a strength of character, and he clearly relied on his strong relationship with his wife and his faith in Jesus to make this change and make it stick. From where I sit, I can see that he essentially replaced the crutch of alcohol with the crutch of his relgion.
That's fine in and of itself - I'm a big proponent of letting damaged people use the tools they need to use to overcome their shortcomings. I also disagree with those who say that a President should not wear his faith on his sleeve the way Mr. Bush often did; if it is truly a part of you, your faith should not be something you hide or avoid mentioning. My only "disagreement" with Mr. Bush's religion is that it is not right for me, and there are other Points where it affected his Decisions in ways that it should not have done.
Running for President - When Mr. Bush ran for President, I was a tired, shift-working burnout serving in the USAF in England. As a distant ex-pat grappling with how I felt about Libertarianism, and wearied by years of anti-Clinton rhetoric, I wasn't ready to vote for the Republican party's theory of "reducing government", but I figured that it would either be a) successful, and therefore worthy of consideration, or b) a failure which might prod the country in a more Centrist direction.
Later, I read about Karl Rove's underhanded tactics (told from John McCain's POV in David Foster Wallace's "Up, Simba" essay), and the cutthroat dishonesty that Mr. Bush engaged in to get the GOP nomination; it was an illuminating discovery, but by then, of course, the damage was done. None of it was, technically, "illegal", but it was dodgy, and I recognized enough of the same in 2004 to be doubly angry at our so-called "two party" system.
But you can't deny that the American populace finds the idea of an affable "good ol' boy" to be appealing, and W. was thoroughly qualified to play that part.
Selecting senior staff - I allowed myself to be optimistic in 2001 when Gen. Colin Powell was added to the Bush team. Never mind that he was one voice among a dozen others that included already-discredited former Defense Secretaries Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney (an essay for another day, I'm afraid). Never mind that Karl Rove was already known as "Bush's Brain" and that Grover Norquist - the man who said "My goal is to cut government...down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub. " - was planning the destruction of the American government from within.
After Gen. Powell's UN speech and Mr. Cheney's dishonest tactics in coralling U.S. Congressional votes, it became clear which "half" of the staff was in charge of these important Decision Points.
Education reform - "No Child Left Behind" is often touted as the Bush Administration's one success. Holding teachers accountable for their students' performance and breaking the Unions' death grip on any reform effort are both admirable goals, in my opinion. But as a single "success" it is hardly compelling.
Over the years, I have asked everyone I find who liked and supported Mr. Bush to tell me what else he accomplished. So far, no one has come up with an answer.
Stem Cell research - This is not a debate I enjoy. Finding a legal precedent for the beginning of human life is emotionally wrenching, and the impact of the decision on other lives is horrifying, no matter which way it falls. The only thing in this debate - like the debate over the legality of abortion - which seems certain is that the law must either trust individual doctors and women to make the right decision in each case, or must arbitrarily decide in advance what that "right decision" is, and find a way to intrusively enforce it.
It's a lose-lose situation.
9/11 - There was a moment after the attacks when all Americans were on the same page, and felt the same way. For me, that ended on 9/15/2001, when Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced (without any evidence) that he intended to get revenge on Saddam Hussein for the attacks. I can't find a reference to that speech, but CBS dug up notes that were more revealing in 2002.
The following points Mr. Bush mentioned in his video all stem from bad decisions made at the urging of his most trusted advisors. Going into combat was debatably the correct move in Afghanistan, but not in Iraq. The lasting debacle that is Homeland Security is a testament to the kind of "big government" that Mr. Bush was elected to bring down, and while in the context of "winning" (an idea that was never defined or given a tangible goal) in Iraq the Troop Surge was the right decision, it would not have been necessary if not for the earlier mistake of invading Iraq in the first place.
Re-election - 2004 was a frustrating time for me. Everything I had seen the Bush Administration do to that point told me that the next four years would be equally, if not more awful. And yet, when the Democrats handed us the turd sandwich that was John Kerry, and the American people failed to demand a third option that wasn't on the menu, I began grasping for hope. In the debates, Kerry dismantled Bush point by point, while perversely making him look like the better candidate; Bush spoke of love for each other and our fellow man, and actually gave me a glimmer of hope that his second term would be marked by humility and compassion.
It wasn't.
Tax cut plan - When we got our check - which my lovely bride still refers to as our "Dirty Bush money" - we had to ask: where does this money come from? Did it come out of the welfare checks that would have gone to the "welfare queens" that conservatives hate so? Nope; they're still ahead of us in line at the grocery store buying foods we can't afford. Did it come from subsidies that we shouldn't be paying for "oil exploration" or for small farmers - like ConAgra?
Apparently it came from all of those places where you don't see spending happening; roads, bridges, schools, state and local services, and infrastructure.
At least we got a big screen TV out of the deal, right?
Global AIDS initiative - This really does seem to be a success; at least the 1.7 million Africans benefiting from it might think so. What I find interesting is that no one seems to think of it when they talk about Mr. Bush's successes. Obviously, his opponents wouldn't want to admit that it's a Good Thing(tm)... but it's worth wondering why his supporters wouldn't tout it more loudly.
Unless it simply goes against everything they believe in; tax dollars going to save the lives of brown people in foreign lands without any discernable profit to the U.S.
Mr. Bush: I applaud you for this success.
Then there are the areas where Mr. Bush regrets his failings:
Social Security - I've written and spoken many times about how I agreed with Mr. Bush's approach to this, and how it bears a more rational look from all sides.
Immigration - This, too, is often overlooked as part of the Bush Administration's plans. A real Comprehensive Immigration Reform which would welcome those who want to become a legitimate part of our Dream, and find ways to secure our border against criminals, thugs, and smugglers is still needed. I still hope that we'll be able to look past our racist and nationalistic instincts, and past our petty desire for some kind of "justice" against those who have committed a relatively minor crime, and come up with a solution.
Katrina - This was a difficult issue for everyone. On the one hand, the U.S. President doesn't control the weather, and obviously can't be expected to anticipate every emergency that crops up. Personally, I ignored a lot of the criticism of the immediate response from the White House because so much of it seemed to come from political animosity and misdirected fear; at the same time, there were a lot of bad things that happened or didn't happen because the government was unable to perform its mission.
I saw Katrina as a symptom of the success of Grover Norquist's goal to reduce the government to something that could be drowned in a bathtub. New Orleans showed us that a bathtub is the least of our worries. If we don't invest in public infrastructure, and ensure that the organizations that oversee its maintenance are kept up to date and efficiently managed, we could all end up in a similar situation. There is no way to know in advance whether it will be a hurricane, an earthquake, wildfires, or some other disaster. Global Climate Change scientists have been warning for decades that storms and weather patterns will become more severe AND more unpredictable. Without good government, we will be unprotected.
Katrina did not show me that the Bush Administration was "bad"; it showed me that good government is important.
"...Putting ideology aside" during 2008 economic crisis - This is a point where I agree with Mr. Bush. I agree with him wholeheartedly that the ideology he espoused did not have the answers needed to protect us from the economic crisis. He may not be willing to admit it - his GOP successors certainly don't - but the ideology of "unregulated financial products" that he championed throughout his presidency caused the crisis, just as clearly as uncontrolled speculation caused the 1929 crash.
Thanks to Annie for posting Mr. Bush's video. I intend to read his book, and if moved to do so, may write about it. But I am grateful that Mr. Bush was able to lay out the points that are important to him. It gave me what I have long needed to help define his presidency, and to rationally describe my reaction to it.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
I Don't Like the Democrats Either
"Then why," you may ask, "do you seem to always pick on the Republicans?"
That's a valid question, and I think the reason is simple and obvious. If you want to skip down to the bottom and see what it is without bothering with all of my blathering on and self-justification, go ahead. But, if you really want to know why, I will tell you what I know.
I know that the Democratic party is, as a rule, a loosely related raggle-taggle group of frustrated progressives, corporate glad-handers, smarmy con artists, deluded ex-hippies, and (occasionally) well-meaning people who are trying to fix problems using the government as a tool to do so. The most visible and successful of them tend to become vaguely (but not provably) corrupt and disconnected from whatever movement launched their career in the first place. It is this, and the smug condescension that they exude when they contrast themselves with challengers, that annoys me, and that is the most often cited criticism of Democrats that I hear from their opponents.
In fact, the one thing I most often hear as criticism of any given Democrat is that they "are smug elitists who think they are better and smarter than anyone else." The other favorite old trope to drag out is that the "love to spend money", or to put it into modern mis-speech, "they're socialists". (They're not, for the most part... but that's not to say that there isn't a separate and distinct socialist movement out there.)
When I think about individual Democrats - like John Kerry, Howard Dean, the Clintons - I see those traits that I don't like: unprincipled, pandering, unreliable, and generally... well, "political", in the sense that they are more interested in manipulating the vote count than in making sensible policy (a whole essay in itself, and a very boring one). In fact, until Barack Obama came along and began saying the things about our government that I have been thinking for years and years, there wasn't a single visible Democrat that I could point to and identify with.
Now, I have spoken before about my background as a fundamentalist conservative kid, growing up in the Reagan era, and how I outgrew a lot of the ideas that many people today are embracing and plastering on Tea Party posters at astro-turfed rallies. There were a lot of stupid ideas out there 20+ years ago, and as I grew older and became a voter, I realized that I didn't want to simply flip-flop out of a frying pan of stupid ideas and into a sterno can full of other stupid ideas. What I began looking for was Something Better, and it's really hard to figure out what that is, especially when the only two parties with any realistic shot at winning elections are furiously spinning every fact, report, or incident to their favor.
So why do I seem to pick on the Republicans? I suppose you could call it disappointment. The Democrats are easy to paint as awful people - many of them ARE awful people - and it should be easy to "be better" than any given Democrat candidate. What I see from the Republican party (and many of their supposedly "independent" supporters) is not "better" by any stretch.
Where it is so easy to point out the "mote in the eye" of the Democrats, the GOP has had a seriously difficult time removing the "log" in their own. They have labored to appeal to the worst in us to achieve their goals, taking the cruelest, stupidest, most self-destructive positions on every issue they can find, and they've almost made it a part of their brand to take positions that go against their own stated principles.
My own pet issues of energy independence from oil and reducing defense spending through reform of our horribly broken contract/acquisition system would seem to be easy conservative Wins. Conservative voices could completely disarm their Democrat opponents by taking up against the behemoth Military Industrial Complex, as Republican President Eisenhower cautioned; instead they have focused on attacking "entitlement" spending (while at the same time defending Medicare from any cuts) and defending nation building as if it were a national sport. And conservatism is all about "sustainability", and yet it is rare to find a Republican willing to suggest that the world's supply of oil is something we are far too addicted to (or to recognize that the billions of dollars in oil subsidies we pay should be rethought).
But rather than face any real issues, or take on any real governing tasks, the GOP strategy has been to throw mud - not just at Democrats, but at anyone who isn't "Republican enough". It wouldn't be so easy to pick on them all the time if there weren't always another over-hyped, pathos-laden slander scandal blowing up somewhere. Stuff that wouldn't have been news if reputable reporting were a standard any more is spewed out on one side, and carefully picked through by the other while the rest of us scratch our heads and wonder "why does it feel like the Government doesn't get anything getting done?"
And that's the beauty of the GOP strategy; they want to prove the point that Government is "bad" - ineffective, inefficient, and onerous. All they have to do is constantly. Slow. It. Down. And they win.
That's also what makes me angry. Because as crappy and flaccid as Democrat-led government seems to be, it is better than the alternative that the GOP offers. I don't like anarchy, and I outgrew the stark, nihilistic objectivism of Libertarianism not too long after I outgrew the sour, acidic version of Christianity that ties itself to the conservative agenda. The party that claims the patriotism title ought not to be seeking to destroy the nation; the party that claims to fight for fiscal responsibility ought not slave itself to the broken defense system or whore itself to oil and coal industries. The party that claims to be on God's side in the trumped up Culture Wars ought not to be selling out the two things that Jesus taught (love thy neighbor and thy God) for political clout.
Most vexing to me is that people I know - my friends and family; people I love - buy into all of this, and come to the conclusion that because I disagree with them, or because I criticize their mistaken beliefs that I somehow "hate" them. The GOP has loaded their rhetoric with so much fear, loathing, bile, and ignorance that it has tainted everyone with this general feeling of weary suspicion. And so it is usually their crap that I see floating through my Facebook feed or RSS reader that I feel I need to address. I can't let it go and imply that I approve or agree with it; and either no one wants to talk about it (which fosters more suspicion) or they jump to a heated defense.
So that's why: the Democrats may be annoying and uninspired, but they don't claim to be much more than that in the first place. The Republicans claim to be a sensible alternative, but behave like spoiled, crazy children and poison the whole environment - literally and figuratively. I want something better, and they keep digging up the worst.
Now, will you please stop calling me a "liberal" and wasting my time by crying about how offended you are that I criticized your stupid, bigoted Tea Party opinions, and start finding some third party alternatives with actual sense?
That's a valid question, and I think the reason is simple and obvious. If you want to skip down to the bottom and see what it is without bothering with all of my blathering on and self-justification, go ahead. But, if you really want to know why, I will tell you what I know.
I know that the Democratic party is, as a rule, a loosely related raggle-taggle group of frustrated progressives, corporate glad-handers, smarmy con artists, deluded ex-hippies, and (occasionally) well-meaning people who are trying to fix problems using the government as a tool to do so. The most visible and successful of them tend to become vaguely (but not provably) corrupt and disconnected from whatever movement launched their career in the first place. It is this, and the smug condescension that they exude when they contrast themselves with challengers, that annoys me, and that is the most often cited criticism of Democrats that I hear from their opponents.
In fact, the one thing I most often hear as criticism of any given Democrat is that they "are smug elitists who think they are better and smarter than anyone else." The other favorite old trope to drag out is that the "love to spend money", or to put it into modern mis-speech, "they're socialists". (They're not, for the most part... but that's not to say that there isn't a separate and distinct socialist movement out there.)
When I think about individual Democrats - like John Kerry, Howard Dean, the Clintons - I see those traits that I don't like: unprincipled, pandering, unreliable, and generally... well, "political", in the sense that they are more interested in manipulating the vote count than in making sensible policy (a whole essay in itself, and a very boring one). In fact, until Barack Obama came along and began saying the things about our government that I have been thinking for years and years, there wasn't a single visible Democrat that I could point to and identify with.
Now, I have spoken before about my background as a fundamentalist conservative kid, growing up in the Reagan era, and how I outgrew a lot of the ideas that many people today are embracing and plastering on Tea Party posters at astro-turfed rallies. There were a lot of stupid ideas out there 20+ years ago, and as I grew older and became a voter, I realized that I didn't want to simply flip-flop out of a frying pan of stupid ideas and into a sterno can full of other stupid ideas. What I began looking for was Something Better, and it's really hard to figure out what that is, especially when the only two parties with any realistic shot at winning elections are furiously spinning every fact, report, or incident to their favor.
So why do I seem to pick on the Republicans? I suppose you could call it disappointment. The Democrats are easy to paint as awful people - many of them ARE awful people - and it should be easy to "be better" than any given Democrat candidate. What I see from the Republican party (and many of their supposedly "independent" supporters) is not "better" by any stretch.
Where it is so easy to point out the "mote in the eye" of the Democrats, the GOP has had a seriously difficult time removing the "log" in their own. They have labored to appeal to the worst in us to achieve their goals, taking the cruelest, stupidest, most self-destructive positions on every issue they can find, and they've almost made it a part of their brand to take positions that go against their own stated principles.
My own pet issues of energy independence from oil and reducing defense spending through reform of our horribly broken contract/acquisition system would seem to be easy conservative Wins. Conservative voices could completely disarm their Democrat opponents by taking up against the behemoth Military Industrial Complex, as Republican President Eisenhower cautioned; instead they have focused on attacking "entitlement" spending (while at the same time defending Medicare from any cuts) and defending nation building as if it were a national sport. And conservatism is all about "sustainability", and yet it is rare to find a Republican willing to suggest that the world's supply of oil is something we are far too addicted to (or to recognize that the billions of dollars in oil subsidies we pay should be rethought).
But rather than face any real issues, or take on any real governing tasks, the GOP strategy has been to throw mud - not just at Democrats, but at anyone who isn't "Republican enough". It wouldn't be so easy to pick on them all the time if there weren't always another over-hyped, pathos-laden slander scandal blowing up somewhere. Stuff that wouldn't have been news if reputable reporting were a standard any more is spewed out on one side, and carefully picked through by the other while the rest of us scratch our heads and wonder "why does it feel like the Government doesn't get anything getting done?"
And that's the beauty of the GOP strategy; they want to prove the point that Government is "bad" - ineffective, inefficient, and onerous. All they have to do is constantly. Slow. It. Down. And they win.
That's also what makes me angry. Because as crappy and flaccid as Democrat-led government seems to be, it is better than the alternative that the GOP offers. I don't like anarchy, and I outgrew the stark, nihilistic objectivism of Libertarianism not too long after I outgrew the sour, acidic version of Christianity that ties itself to the conservative agenda. The party that claims the patriotism title ought not to be seeking to destroy the nation; the party that claims to fight for fiscal responsibility ought not slave itself to the broken defense system or whore itself to oil and coal industries. The party that claims to be on God's side in the trumped up Culture Wars ought not to be selling out the two things that Jesus taught (love thy neighbor and thy God) for political clout.
Most vexing to me is that people I know - my friends and family; people I love - buy into all of this, and come to the conclusion that because I disagree with them, or because I criticize their mistaken beliefs that I somehow "hate" them. The GOP has loaded their rhetoric with so much fear, loathing, bile, and ignorance that it has tainted everyone with this general feeling of weary suspicion. And so it is usually their crap that I see floating through my Facebook feed or RSS reader that I feel I need to address. I can't let it go and imply that I approve or agree with it; and either no one wants to talk about it (which fosters more suspicion) or they jump to a heated defense.
So that's why: the Democrats may be annoying and uninspired, but they don't claim to be much more than that in the first place. The Republicans claim to be a sensible alternative, but behave like spoiled, crazy children and poison the whole environment - literally and figuratively. I want something better, and they keep digging up the worst.
Now, will you please stop calling me a "liberal" and wasting my time by crying about how offended you are that I criticized your stupid, bigoted Tea Party opinions, and start finding some third party alternatives with actual sense?
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Our Duty to Each Other
Major Paul Carron has died in Afghanistan.
I did not know him, but his letter to the editor of the Washington Times (published March, 2006) spoke of the bravery and courage of the young men and women who serve in our military, and it has made him something of a celebrity among veterans. It was written in response to criticisms of our troops, characterizing them as young people without the skills or talent to do anything else; his defense of the sacrifices that these people make is an eloquent statement of a Great Truth about our military.
The context which prompted him to write that letter was a disconnect between what he saw on the battlefield and what people back in the States see in our schools and on our streets. He writes of that Great Truth of our military, which is that our all-volunteer force is made up of people who have offered up their lives in order to do whatever the rest of us have asked them to do - through our duly elected government, of course - forfeiting much of their claim to the everyday conveniences that we take for granted.
I would go farther and say that our military members give up far more than that - they give up more than their own lives. They give up "normal" family life, or any hope of great financial reward, and they submit themselves and their loved ones to exactly the kind of top-down social bureaucracy that many of them believe they are fighting against. The Great Truth that Major Carron wrote about is that the act of joining and serving our military is a transformative act; everyone who decides to serve, no matter what their skills or opportunities were on the outside, must give up the same things and accept the same responsibility to the country, and that means that we all owe them a measure of respect regardless of what they were before they made that choice.
There is something else that we owe them, as well. While not everyone is able to make that same sacrifice, everyone one of us has a duty to ensure that our military is not asked to do things that betray our values. If we are going to separate them from their families and send them into places where the people they are trying to help want to kill them, we need to be absolutely certain that we understand what their mission is, and that our representatives in government are making the decision to use our forces to accomplish that mission only after everything else has been tried.
I don't believe we have done that.
This is not about whether war is right or wrong; this is about whether we have done everything we can do to honor the sacrifices of our veterans. This is about whether you, as a voter, have bothered to find out whether the bills our Congress passes pay for armor or to treat those injured in our adventures. This is about whether you bother to seek out the news of the wars we are in, or simply switch over to a "reality" show and complain the next day about the lack of coverage.
This is about whether you are fulfilling YOUR duty to our servicemembers. That may mean disagreeing with some of them; many of them gain a lot of wisdom in their service, but none of them are perfect. But what makes them heroic and honorable is that they fulfill their commitments. You have commitments, too, and one of them is to stay informed and use your voice to keep this country on track.
I have seen a lot of polls and a lot of articles lately, decrying America's "direction". I have seen a lot of anger directed at our elected officials. Some of them deserve it, others are doing the best they can. But they are all a reflection of us. When I look at how messed up Congress is, and how ignorant many of our representatives are, I am looking into a mirror; and so are you.
Major Carron has died in Afghanistan. He was doing what he thought was right, and carrying out our orders. What orders did you give him? And what will you decide to do next?
And who will your decision honor?
I did not know him, but his letter to the editor of the Washington Times (published March, 2006) spoke of the bravery and courage of the young men and women who serve in our military, and it has made him something of a celebrity among veterans. It was written in response to criticisms of our troops, characterizing them as young people without the skills or talent to do anything else; his defense of the sacrifices that these people make is an eloquent statement of a Great Truth about our military.
The context which prompted him to write that letter was a disconnect between what he saw on the battlefield and what people back in the States see in our schools and on our streets. He writes of that Great Truth of our military, which is that our all-volunteer force is made up of people who have offered up their lives in order to do whatever the rest of us have asked them to do - through our duly elected government, of course - forfeiting much of their claim to the everyday conveniences that we take for granted.
I would go farther and say that our military members give up far more than that - they give up more than their own lives. They give up "normal" family life, or any hope of great financial reward, and they submit themselves and their loved ones to exactly the kind of top-down social bureaucracy that many of them believe they are fighting against. The Great Truth that Major Carron wrote about is that the act of joining and serving our military is a transformative act; everyone who decides to serve, no matter what their skills or opportunities were on the outside, must give up the same things and accept the same responsibility to the country, and that means that we all owe them a measure of respect regardless of what they were before they made that choice.
There is something else that we owe them, as well. While not everyone is able to make that same sacrifice, everyone one of us has a duty to ensure that our military is not asked to do things that betray our values. If we are going to separate them from their families and send them into places where the people they are trying to help want to kill them, we need to be absolutely certain that we understand what their mission is, and that our representatives in government are making the decision to use our forces to accomplish that mission only after everything else has been tried.
I don't believe we have done that.
This is not about whether war is right or wrong; this is about whether we have done everything we can do to honor the sacrifices of our veterans. This is about whether you, as a voter, have bothered to find out whether the bills our Congress passes pay for armor or to treat those injured in our adventures. This is about whether you bother to seek out the news of the wars we are in, or simply switch over to a "reality" show and complain the next day about the lack of coverage.
This is about whether you are fulfilling YOUR duty to our servicemembers. That may mean disagreeing with some of them; many of them gain a lot of wisdom in their service, but none of them are perfect. But what makes them heroic and honorable is that they fulfill their commitments. You have commitments, too, and one of them is to stay informed and use your voice to keep this country on track.
I have seen a lot of polls and a lot of articles lately, decrying America's "direction". I have seen a lot of anger directed at our elected officials. Some of them deserve it, others are doing the best they can. But they are all a reflection of us. When I look at how messed up Congress is, and how ignorant many of our representatives are, I am looking into a mirror; and so are you.
Major Carron has died in Afghanistan. He was doing what he thought was right, and carrying out our orders. What orders did you give him? And what will you decide to do next?
And who will your decision honor?
Sunday, August 29, 2010
How to Restore Honor
There is a relatively new trend in the U.S. to call for a "return to traditional values." I say "relatively" new because we've only been hearing it since the early 1600s, and on a geologic scale, that's pretty recent. Since the early colonies in Massachusetts and Plymouth were started by Protestant outcasts seeking a place where they could bring about a society built on values that they thought were lost on a decadent contemporary society Americans have been on a quest for that elusive Tradition of... something.
Considering that Traditional has different meanings for different people, it is worth asking those who demand a return to Tradition what, exactly, they think they are asking for. Some are vague, longing for a nostalgic period from their childhood that didn't really exist; others are adamant and focused on a particular set of rules or behaviors... which they hesitate to admit to because they know admitting to those rules won't go over well with those who will have to live with them.
No two individuals you ask will be able to agree on what Traditional Values are. Try me on that one - find two people who you think are in agreement, and they will find something to fight over. But there are two fairly consistent "trump cards" that those who want to stump for Tradition will play: The U.S. Constitution, and The Bible.
I find this to be frustrating, because in almost every case, those who insist on "returning" to the system of values and behavior enshrined in those documents have read neither. Thus, the links.
Sure, they've skimmed - we all have. Human animals are social creatures with a long history of oral communication, and we have traditionally ruled ourselves through rumor and word of mouth. How many times since toddling onto your first playground have you heard or used the "you can't make me, it's a free country" defense? I've had the First Amendment on the tip of my tongue as a response to anyone told me to shut up since First Grade (along with the Seventh Commandment).
The problem with ruling by Oral Tradition is that a lot of error creeps in. We are ephemeral beings, only here on Earth, if we are very careful, and very lucky, for about 100 years. (And only being here mentally for less than half of that time.) Some clever blokes in Sumeria about 4,000 BCE figured out how to etch their thoughts into lumps of the hardy clay found in local marshes (a practice which became known as "bogging"), and noticed that it was a good way to pass down exactly what they said so that later generations wouldn't screw up their pithy quotes. So, while writing is also relatively new in the geological sense, I think it's safe to call it a "Traditional Value".
The Bible is a difficult document to live by, at best. Historically, it is (if you believe what people say) as old as writing itself. In its way, it is rather like Wikipedia; a collaborative effort of hundreds of writers and editors which is sometimes really useful, but needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It's hard to tell which Traditional Values in it are useful, but most Traditionalists seem bent on emphasizing those Ten Commandments; which is odd considering how few of them make good, enforceable laws. Even if you accept the "this is a Christian nation" tradition, how does that make sense? If we are supposed to be Christians, shouldn't we include something that Christ actually said? How about the Beatitudes?
But The Bible is a controversial thing to base American traditions upon. Nevermind the fact that for the approximately 6,000 years of its traditionally accepted existence, no two groups have ever agreed on what it means or how to apply its tenets. And never mind that the polls showing the majority of Americans are Christians count people who would not be considered "real Christians" at all, if proving a political point weren't on the line.
That is why the Founding Fathers though it better to trade that tradition of strife and disagreement and non-inclusion for a simpler, modern document focused on secular laws. Better to create some basic boundaries between religion and government, and create a safe "arena" within which we can quibble and fight. And we can call those rules and boundaries: The Constitution.
Of course, for its youth, the Constitution is just as difficult for people to understand. It's full of words, clauses, and concepts that... well, the confusing part is that it's full of words, clauses, and concepts. Fortunately, it includes instructions on how to pick people to read it and interpret it FOR us! Unfortunately, that means that we still rule ourselves by rumor, and that people who want to return to a strict reading of it usually haven't.
Don't take my word for it. Traditionalists are just as lost and confused about what the Document means as the rest of us. That's why there are Traditionalists who protest the U.S. Census, even though the 4th paragraph of Article 2 Section 1 clearly spells out how and when it should work. There are Traditionalists who rail against the "immoral" practice of taxation - though Article 1 Sect. 2, Sect. 8, Sect. 9, and Amendment 16 all clearly spell out how and when THAT should work. Traditionally, these things are managed by Congress - the direct representatives of the population.
Traditionally, the Congress hasn't been very good at representing the general populace. It's hard to do, what with all of the ignorant masses yelling out their ideas and throwing things at you when you're trying to figure out the best way to divide your time between getting into bed with lobbyists AND getting into bed with anyone impressed by your awesome elected power. Most people - traditionalists and non-traditionalists alike - rightly view the Congress as a congregation of whores, only out to satisfy the next John carrying a fat roll of money. The problem with this view is not that it is inaccurate, but that We the People are the "John" and we keep coming back for more. (Talk about maintaining a market!)
The solution to corruption has always been the same: remove money from the equation. Even if you think I'm overstating the level of corruption, it takes absurd amounts of the stuff to run an election these days. Recent Presidential campaigns have run into the billions - with a B - and some high profile Senate races run into the double-digit millions. There's really no getting around how ridiculous this is.
We're doing it now, too; complaining about government spending while wasting obscene amounts of money to watch our pet whores trash each other in TV attack ads. Remember the big flap over President Bush not signing off on $35 million dollars funding health insurance for poor children? The Minnesota Senate race cited above would have almost paid for that bill, and chances are, we STILL would have been treated to the spectacle of the race, courtesy of the media whores desperate to cash in on Al Franken's controversial celebrity.
I know it doesn't sound "traditional", but how about we try something new? We've already seen how easy it can be to get a message out to people using free platforms. I could shoot a campaign video with my $100 iPod, and with a bit of savvy social networking, get it to go viral. I could use a Public library computer to photoshop a compelling campaign poster, sell it as a bumper sticker, and fund my registration fees. Why don't I? Because I like my current job, and am forbidden to run.
Of course, there's nothing stopping any of you from trying this. There's a lot of drivel about "grass roots" campaigns out there, but the truth is, no one has had the cojones to abandon their two-party system, turn their backs on their pimps, and vote for the "unknown". Never mind that it's easier than ever to get to know the "unknown" - I'd link you to examples, but for the Hatch Act; you have Google. Never mind that it's easy to find out how "write in" candidates work in your precinct; what's stopping you from picking someone you think would represent you well and campaigning FOR them? That's traditional, at least.
George Washington didn't even run for President; he was elected, and then agreed to take the job. He is also the only President who never chose a party, explaining on many occasions that he thought partisan politics would ruin the Republic. It seems we have ample proof that he was right about that.
So, even though the practice seems decidedly "non-traditional", I would argue that starting a new Tradition is the most traditionally American activity of them all. What's to stop us Restoring our Honor by demanding that money - corporate or otherwise - be removed from our electoral system? Only the 330 million of you, my friends, and your willingness to wait for the Congress to reform itself for you, out of a sense of honor that none of you believe exists.
Considering that Traditional has different meanings for different people, it is worth asking those who demand a return to Tradition what, exactly, they think they are asking for. Some are vague, longing for a nostalgic period from their childhood that didn't really exist; others are adamant and focused on a particular set of rules or behaviors... which they hesitate to admit to because they know admitting to those rules won't go over well with those who will have to live with them.
No two individuals you ask will be able to agree on what Traditional Values are. Try me on that one - find two people who you think are in agreement, and they will find something to fight over. But there are two fairly consistent "trump cards" that those who want to stump for Tradition will play: The U.S. Constitution, and The Bible.
I find this to be frustrating, because in almost every case, those who insist on "returning" to the system of values and behavior enshrined in those documents have read neither. Thus, the links.
Sure, they've skimmed - we all have. Human animals are social creatures with a long history of oral communication, and we have traditionally ruled ourselves through rumor and word of mouth. How many times since toddling onto your first playground have you heard or used the "you can't make me, it's a free country" defense? I've had the First Amendment on the tip of my tongue as a response to anyone told me to shut up since First Grade (along with the Seventh Commandment).
The problem with ruling by Oral Tradition is that a lot of error creeps in. We are ephemeral beings, only here on Earth, if we are very careful, and very lucky, for about 100 years. (And only being here mentally for less than half of that time.) Some clever blokes in Sumeria about 4,000 BCE figured out how to etch their thoughts into lumps of the hardy clay found in local marshes (a practice which became known as "bogging"), and noticed that it was a good way to pass down exactly what they said so that later generations wouldn't screw up their pithy quotes. So, while writing is also relatively new in the geological sense, I think it's safe to call it a "Traditional Value".
The Bible is a difficult document to live by, at best. Historically, it is (if you believe what people say) as old as writing itself. In its way, it is rather like Wikipedia; a collaborative effort of hundreds of writers and editors which is sometimes really useful, but needs to be taken with a grain of salt. It's hard to tell which Traditional Values in it are useful, but most Traditionalists seem bent on emphasizing those Ten Commandments; which is odd considering how few of them make good, enforceable laws. Even if you accept the "this is a Christian nation" tradition, how does that make sense? If we are supposed to be Christians, shouldn't we include something that Christ actually said? How about the Beatitudes?
But The Bible is a controversial thing to base American traditions upon. Nevermind the fact that for the approximately 6,000 years of its traditionally accepted existence, no two groups have ever agreed on what it means or how to apply its tenets. And never mind that the polls showing the majority of Americans are Christians count people who would not be considered "real Christians" at all, if proving a political point weren't on the line.
That is why the Founding Fathers though it better to trade that tradition of strife and disagreement and non-inclusion for a simpler, modern document focused on secular laws. Better to create some basic boundaries between religion and government, and create a safe "arena" within which we can quibble and fight. And we can call those rules and boundaries: The Constitution.
Of course, for its youth, the Constitution is just as difficult for people to understand. It's full of words, clauses, and concepts that... well, the confusing part is that it's full of words, clauses, and concepts. Fortunately, it includes instructions on how to pick people to read it and interpret it FOR us! Unfortunately, that means that we still rule ourselves by rumor, and that people who want to return to a strict reading of it usually haven't.
Don't take my word for it. Traditionalists are just as lost and confused about what the Document means as the rest of us. That's why there are Traditionalists who protest the U.S. Census, even though the 4th paragraph of Article 2 Section 1 clearly spells out how and when it should work. There are Traditionalists who rail against the "immoral" practice of taxation - though Article 1 Sect. 2, Sect. 8, Sect. 9, and Amendment 16 all clearly spell out how and when THAT should work. Traditionally, these things are managed by Congress - the direct representatives of the population.
Traditionally, the Congress hasn't been very good at representing the general populace. It's hard to do, what with all of the ignorant masses yelling out their ideas and throwing things at you when you're trying to figure out the best way to divide your time between getting into bed with lobbyists AND getting into bed with anyone impressed by your awesome elected power. Most people - traditionalists and non-traditionalists alike - rightly view the Congress as a congregation of whores, only out to satisfy the next John carrying a fat roll of money. The problem with this view is not that it is inaccurate, but that We the People are the "John" and we keep coming back for more. (Talk about maintaining a market!)
The solution to corruption has always been the same: remove money from the equation. Even if you think I'm overstating the level of corruption, it takes absurd amounts of the stuff to run an election these days. Recent Presidential campaigns have run into the billions - with a B - and some high profile Senate races run into the double-digit millions. There's really no getting around how ridiculous this is.
We're doing it now, too; complaining about government spending while wasting obscene amounts of money to watch our pet whores trash each other in TV attack ads. Remember the big flap over President Bush not signing off on $35 million dollars funding health insurance for poor children? The Minnesota Senate race cited above would have almost paid for that bill, and chances are, we STILL would have been treated to the spectacle of the race, courtesy of the media whores desperate to cash in on Al Franken's controversial celebrity.
I know it doesn't sound "traditional", but how about we try something new? We've already seen how easy it can be to get a message out to people using free platforms. I could shoot a campaign video with my $100 iPod, and with a bit of savvy social networking, get it to go viral. I could use a Public library computer to photoshop a compelling campaign poster, sell it as a bumper sticker, and fund my registration fees. Why don't I? Because I like my current job, and am forbidden to run.
Of course, there's nothing stopping any of you from trying this. There's a lot of drivel about "grass roots" campaigns out there, but the truth is, no one has had the cojones to abandon their two-party system, turn their backs on their pimps, and vote for the "unknown". Never mind that it's easier than ever to get to know the "unknown" - I'd link you to examples, but for the Hatch Act; you have Google. Never mind that it's easy to find out how "write in" candidates work in your precinct; what's stopping you from picking someone you think would represent you well and campaigning FOR them? That's traditional, at least.
George Washington didn't even run for President; he was elected, and then agreed to take the job. He is also the only President who never chose a party, explaining on many occasions that he thought partisan politics would ruin the Republic. It seems we have ample proof that he was right about that.
So, even though the practice seems decidedly "non-traditional", I would argue that starting a new Tradition is the most traditionally American activity of them all. What's to stop us Restoring our Honor by demanding that money - corporate or otherwise - be removed from our electoral system? Only the 330 million of you, my friends, and your willingness to wait for the Congress to reform itself for you, out of a sense of honor that none of you believe exists.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
When Does Magic Die?
"Oh, no... my tooth is still here!"
My heart fell. My littlest pulled her tooth out Saturday morning, while I was still lying in bed (recovering from Friday night), and here it was, time to tuck her in on Sunday night... and the Tooth Fairy had failed her.
She has been on something of a tooth-pulling spree lately. This is her third lost tooth in two weeks! I told her the Tooth Fairy probably hadn't expected her to lose another so quickly, and she seemed to accept that. "I'll just leave it for tonight," she said. "But I think I figured out who really brings the money."
My lovely bride and I are not religious people, and we try to be practical about child rearing; we don't make up a lot of pretty lies about life. My children know - as much as the innocent can know - what death is, and in general terms they know how babies are made. They know to call a vagina a "vagina" and a penis a "penis" - not a "boom boom" or a "wee-wee" or a "private area," so in an emergency the doctor doesn't have to guess where the injury is. They know that there are Bad People out in the world, and that sometimes the Good People aren't at their best either.
But we've tried to preserve some of the magic in our practical lives through some of the more obvious, persistent myths; the Tooth Fairy, Santa on Christmas Eve, and the Easter Bunny. There is a sweetness in the joy they feel when they get that tangible proof that something Other loves them, and even the bittersweet moment when they realize that it's a lie can be a practical learning moment, too. But that is a moment worth delaying.
I asked her who really brings the money with a quizzical expression, hoping I looked a bit like David Tennant's Dr. Who, and failing miserably, I'm sure.
"Your mom and dad," she said.
"You mean, MY mom and dad?" I asked, hamming it up, hoping to talk my way out of this somehow. "But they're all the way out in Phoenix!"
"No," she explained in her exasperated way. "The mom and dad of the kid who lost the tooth." She's probably not going to be a good second grade teacher with her short temper and her eye-rolling. "That means YOU, Dad."
"Well, I don't know anything about THAT," I said, unconvincingly. "You just put that tooth under your pillow, and see what happens!" I asked to see it, and she proudly raised the pillow so I could. Hard to miss, tiny as it was; it was long, sharp, and still a little bloody, not unlike life itself.
I tucked her in, and kissed her, and went about my business. I had to wait for her to fall asleep, after all. I tucked in the boys - the elder who had seen through our Tooth Fairy ruse years ago, and the younger who knew damn well who was bringing the loot, and was still mad at us for being so stingy, but pretended to believe so the funds would keep flowing.
The teenager and I went in and fired up the Wii so we could enjoy the adventures of the aforementioned Doctor, and I almost forgot about the tooth again. I only thought of it because of magic.
The particular episode we watched involved the Doctor and his companion visiting William Shakespeare in 1599, where they saved the universe by supplying the Bard of Avon with the word "Expelliarmus" at an opportune moment. The Harry Potter reference had us in stitches.
As I kissed the teen goodnight, she said something about how sad she had been on her 11th birthday, NOT finding out that she was a witch, and going to Hogwarts. She's still a dreamer, though, and I am willing to bet she is watching out for a blue Police box to appear on a street corner to whisk her away on an adventure... someday. Those dreams, no matter how silly or obviously false, those are part of us. They keep us going, for some reason.
I have my own dreams, my own private hopes, and if I told you what some of them were, you would think me a fool. You wouldn't believe that I could hold onto some of the things I dream about, as old as I am and as much as I have seen of the world. But I assure you, I do; and even though there is no reason to expect that they will, some of my dreams keep coming true.
I crept by one of my most precious dreams as she slumbered on my bed (waiting for her 0200 alarm). I fetched one of the few remaining gold dollars I have hidden in my sock drawer for emergencies like this one - this one had Andrew Jackson's face on it. I crept up the stairs, in the dark, avoiding the creakier spots in the floor. And even though it's obviously false, and rather silly, I was the Tooth Fairy, and Old Hickory was the golden treasure.
When does the magic die? Hopefully not tonight.
Hopefully, never.
My heart fell. My littlest pulled her tooth out Saturday morning, while I was still lying in bed (recovering from Friday night), and here it was, time to tuck her in on Sunday night... and the Tooth Fairy had failed her.
She has been on something of a tooth-pulling spree lately. This is her third lost tooth in two weeks! I told her the Tooth Fairy probably hadn't expected her to lose another so quickly, and she seemed to accept that. "I'll just leave it for tonight," she said. "But I think I figured out who really brings the money."
My lovely bride and I are not religious people, and we try to be practical about child rearing; we don't make up a lot of pretty lies about life. My children know - as much as the innocent can know - what death is, and in general terms they know how babies are made. They know to call a vagina a "vagina" and a penis a "penis" - not a "boom boom" or a "wee-wee" or a "private area," so in an emergency the doctor doesn't have to guess where the injury is. They know that there are Bad People out in the world, and that sometimes the Good People aren't at their best either.
But we've tried to preserve some of the magic in our practical lives through some of the more obvious, persistent myths; the Tooth Fairy, Santa on Christmas Eve, and the Easter Bunny. There is a sweetness in the joy they feel when they get that tangible proof that something Other loves them, and even the bittersweet moment when they realize that it's a lie can be a practical learning moment, too. But that is a moment worth delaying.
I asked her who really brings the money with a quizzical expression, hoping I looked a bit like David Tennant's Dr. Who, and failing miserably, I'm sure.
"Your mom and dad," she said.
"You mean, MY mom and dad?" I asked, hamming it up, hoping to talk my way out of this somehow. "But they're all the way out in Phoenix!"
"No," she explained in her exasperated way. "The mom and dad of the kid who lost the tooth." She's probably not going to be a good second grade teacher with her short temper and her eye-rolling. "That means YOU, Dad."
"Well, I don't know anything about THAT," I said, unconvincingly. "You just put that tooth under your pillow, and see what happens!" I asked to see it, and she proudly raised the pillow so I could. Hard to miss, tiny as it was; it was long, sharp, and still a little bloody, not unlike life itself.
I tucked her in, and kissed her, and went about my business. I had to wait for her to fall asleep, after all. I tucked in the boys - the elder who had seen through our Tooth Fairy ruse years ago, and the younger who knew damn well who was bringing the loot, and was still mad at us for being so stingy, but pretended to believe so the funds would keep flowing.
The teenager and I went in and fired up the Wii so we could enjoy the adventures of the aforementioned Doctor, and I almost forgot about the tooth again. I only thought of it because of magic.
The particular episode we watched involved the Doctor and his companion visiting William Shakespeare in 1599, where they saved the universe by supplying the Bard of Avon with the word "Expelliarmus" at an opportune moment. The Harry Potter reference had us in stitches.
As I kissed the teen goodnight, she said something about how sad she had been on her 11th birthday, NOT finding out that she was a witch, and going to Hogwarts. She's still a dreamer, though, and I am willing to bet she is watching out for a blue Police box to appear on a street corner to whisk her away on an adventure... someday. Those dreams, no matter how silly or obviously false, those are part of us. They keep us going, for some reason.
I have my own dreams, my own private hopes, and if I told you what some of them were, you would think me a fool. You wouldn't believe that I could hold onto some of the things I dream about, as old as I am and as much as I have seen of the world. But I assure you, I do; and even though there is no reason to expect that they will, some of my dreams keep coming true.
I crept by one of my most precious dreams as she slumbered on my bed (waiting for her 0200 alarm). I fetched one of the few remaining gold dollars I have hidden in my sock drawer for emergencies like this one - this one had Andrew Jackson's face on it. I crept up the stairs, in the dark, avoiding the creakier spots in the floor. And even though it's obviously false, and rather silly, I was the Tooth Fairy, and Old Hickory was the golden treasure.
When does the magic die? Hopefully not tonight.
Hopefully, never.
Saturday, July 10, 2010
The Dismal Science
This is Part IV of a series of posts looking at The Revolution: A Manifesto, by Dr. Ron Paul.
I promised I would write about Ron Paul's economics approach, but I'm having a hard time finding the angle I'm looking for. It seems we don't have the vocabulary yet to express where I think we are in the evolution of economics. I've written before about this new kind of "free market" that we seem to be developing:
Even money isn't really the "coin of the realm" any more. What is money, after all, but a digital record on a computer of a value that has been mutually agreed upon? What was our last decade of supposed "wealth creation" but a gigantic inflation of that value, which failed when enough of us stopped trusting that it was real?
The coin of the realm - the thing that drives our lives and determines our worth to each other - is information. Not just any information, but information that can be trusted. If you think about it, trust is the only thing that has any real value any more; if you don't believe you will get a return on your investment or be rewarded with a safe and comfortable retirement, you won't invest and you won't remain loyal to one company. If you don't believe that your government will protect you and the world in which you make your livelihood, you won't support it.
I don't claim to be very knowledgeable about economics. I understand a lot of the same "basic common sense" things that most of you understand: supply & demand, and interest, and return on investment. But I also understand that there are a lot of concepts that seem to work counter-intuitively. Insurance seems like a bad idea, gambling on whether the money I give to the company will ever benefit me; yet it's the only investment we made that survived the collapse last year. It's tempting to believe Dr. Paul's claim that getting rid of the intrusive and ineffective government will improve our lives, and yet without the government, all of our "free and unfettered" businesses would have dissolved along with their imaginary wealth, taking the rest of us with them.
But again, I don't think we have the vocabulary to describe what is really happening to our world. We talk about Government and Markets, Corporations and Individuals, "special interests" and "activist groups" as if they are not all the same thing: groups of people trying to get by, get along, or get one over. We all fit into those same groups in some fashion, and no matter how innocent or virtuous we try to pretend we are, we all try to balance our own welfare and that of our fellow humans according to whatever beliefs we identify with most strongly. (Some of us even include non-humans in that balance.)
Dr. Paul spends a lot of time trying to identify with a group of people we Americans call our "Founding Fathers." In passages too numerous and generic to quote here, he calls upon all of us to trust in their mutual vision for this country. He calls on us to protect our freedom and liberty, as those founders would have done. Freedom from what to do what, he would leave up to you to figure out, which plays into the American conceit that as long as you leave me alone, whatever you do is your choice. But these Founding Fathers didn't have a unified approach to things, either.
As Sarah Vowell discusses in her exploration of the Puritans who founded Massachusetts Bay Colony, The Wordy Shipmates, there were a lot of contradictions involved in the founding of our country. The Puritans were a people who believed strongly in personal integrity, industry (in the original sense), and morality - but also in self-sacrifice and the common good. Check out this passage describing a government built on their ideals:
That passage is an enigmatic encapsulation of what America is all about. It sums up exactly what I was trying to describe in my earlier post on government, and depending on how you read him, that social compact is either the summation or antithesis of Dr. Paul's entire life of public service. Any American running for public office builds on that idea, whether advancing it or demonizing it. It unifies and divides us, all in one sentence, and that self-contradiction is what makes our country so beautiful and frustrating all at once.
It was written by John Adams in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Reading Dr. Paul's book, I can appreciate his criticism of our government. We've drifted away from John Adams's ideal, whether from the idea of "voluntary association" or from the idea of "common good" - our systems and institutions have been corrupted by the worst impulses of the free market. But I don't trust his solution: to remove Government from the equation.
When you have a government that looks like the one Adams described, it is the extension of the will of the people it governs to operate in everyone's best interests. The reason we don't have that is because of apathy and neglect from the voting public; the participants who ought to be controlling the government. Dr. Paul should be calling for more involvement IN government, not freedom FROM government.
That is where the Founding Fathers agreed. They wanted to claim more direct control over their own lives and affairs, not throw away control altogether. Our government is supposed to be an extension of our own self-control; it is supposed to reflect our will and our desire for integrity, industry, and personal responsibility. I suspect that the reason we are all so unhappy with it is that it is doing just that.
As for economic theories, I think the new coin of the realm - information and trust - will move us in the direction we need to go. In that sense, Dr. Paul is right; no government body can dictate that trust or earn it through corruption or political wrangling. But that will mean we need figure out better ways to determine who and what to trust. Perhaps that will mean less Government, but it will definitely mean smarter government - and a voluntary involvement in the common good.
I promised I would write about Ron Paul's economics approach, but I'm having a hard time finding the angle I'm looking for. It seems we don't have the vocabulary yet to express where I think we are in the evolution of economics. I've written before about this new kind of "free market" that we seem to be developing:
Instead of manufacturing, sales and service are our bread and butter. Marketing, transportation, and information; these are what the U.S. really thrives on, now. Look at our most successful companies, like Google. They "manufacture" a product which they give away for free, and yet their value has continued to rise...
Anyone with a ~$500 set-up can record, polish, and release an album of songs, and can set up a shop online to sell (or give away) their recordings... [several artists] have offered free downloads of their music, and toured "on demand", making money from shows that were sold out before they were booked, and from selling CDs and DVDs online - again, directly to their niche market.
In a way, we have become more purely Capitalist... and at the same time, with the means of production (almost) freely available to everyone, we have also become more purely Communist (without the purges and bread lines). So what gives? What do we call ourselves in an age where you make a profit from giving your stuff away?
-"It's Not Capitalism Any More - But What IS It?", November 22, 2009
Even money isn't really the "coin of the realm" any more. What is money, after all, but a digital record on a computer of a value that has been mutually agreed upon? What was our last decade of supposed "wealth creation" but a gigantic inflation of that value, which failed when enough of us stopped trusting that it was real?
The coin of the realm - the thing that drives our lives and determines our worth to each other - is information. Not just any information, but information that can be trusted. If you think about it, trust is the only thing that has any real value any more; if you don't believe you will get a return on your investment or be rewarded with a safe and comfortable retirement, you won't invest and you won't remain loyal to one company. If you don't believe that your government will protect you and the world in which you make your livelihood, you won't support it.
I don't claim to be very knowledgeable about economics. I understand a lot of the same "basic common sense" things that most of you understand: supply & demand, and interest, and return on investment. But I also understand that there are a lot of concepts that seem to work counter-intuitively. Insurance seems like a bad idea, gambling on whether the money I give to the company will ever benefit me; yet it's the only investment we made that survived the collapse last year. It's tempting to believe Dr. Paul's claim that getting rid of the intrusive and ineffective government will improve our lives, and yet without the government, all of our "free and unfettered" businesses would have dissolved along with their imaginary wealth, taking the rest of us with them.
But again, I don't think we have the vocabulary to describe what is really happening to our world. We talk about Government and Markets, Corporations and Individuals, "special interests" and "activist groups" as if they are not all the same thing: groups of people trying to get by, get along, or get one over. We all fit into those same groups in some fashion, and no matter how innocent or virtuous we try to pretend we are, we all try to balance our own welfare and that of our fellow humans according to whatever beliefs we identify with most strongly. (Some of us even include non-humans in that balance.)
Dr. Paul spends a lot of time trying to identify with a group of people we Americans call our "Founding Fathers." In passages too numerous and generic to quote here, he calls upon all of us to trust in their mutual vision for this country. He calls on us to protect our freedom and liberty, as those founders would have done. Freedom from what to do what, he would leave up to you to figure out, which plays into the American conceit that as long as you leave me alone, whatever you do is your choice. But these Founding Fathers didn't have a unified approach to things, either.
As Sarah Vowell discusses in her exploration of the Puritans who founded Massachusetts Bay Colony, The Wordy Shipmates, there were a lot of contradictions involved in the founding of our country. The Puritans were a people who believed strongly in personal integrity, industry (in the original sense), and morality - but also in self-sacrifice and the common good. Check out this passage describing a government built on their ideals:
"The body politic is formed by a voluntary association of individuals: it is a social compact, by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good."
That passage is an enigmatic encapsulation of what America is all about. It sums up exactly what I was trying to describe in my earlier post on government, and depending on how you read him, that social compact is either the summation or antithesis of Dr. Paul's entire life of public service. Any American running for public office builds on that idea, whether advancing it or demonizing it. It unifies and divides us, all in one sentence, and that self-contradiction is what makes our country so beautiful and frustrating all at once.
It was written by John Adams in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Reading Dr. Paul's book, I can appreciate his criticism of our government. We've drifted away from John Adams's ideal, whether from the idea of "voluntary association" or from the idea of "common good" - our systems and institutions have been corrupted by the worst impulses of the free market. But I don't trust his solution: to remove Government from the equation.
When you have a government that looks like the one Adams described, it is the extension of the will of the people it governs to operate in everyone's best interests. The reason we don't have that is because of apathy and neglect from the voting public; the participants who ought to be controlling the government. Dr. Paul should be calling for more involvement IN government, not freedom FROM government.
That is where the Founding Fathers agreed. They wanted to claim more direct control over their own lives and affairs, not throw away control altogether. Our government is supposed to be an extension of our own self-control; it is supposed to reflect our will and our desire for integrity, industry, and personal responsibility. I suspect that the reason we are all so unhappy with it is that it is doing just that.
As for economic theories, I think the new coin of the realm - information and trust - will move us in the direction we need to go. In that sense, Dr. Paul is right; no government body can dictate that trust or earn it through corruption or political wrangling. But that will mean we need figure out better ways to determine who and what to trust. Perhaps that will mean less Government, but it will definitely mean smarter government - and a voluntary involvement in the common good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)