Idiots Who Vote

The practice of using literacy tests to qualify (or, more likely, disqualify) voters got a very bad name in the United States during the years (roughly from the 1870s through the 1960s) when such tests were used to deny the vote to African-Americans. From what I’ve read, even quite well-educated black people generally failed the tests (which were, of course, administered by whites), while white people who could barely write their names were routinely judged literate.

My goodness, do we not want to go back there!

If, however, a literacy test could be administered in a truly color-blind way, with the results tabulated by judges who did not know the race (nor the political affiliations) of the person being tested, would it be desirable, as a matter of public policy, to require that those who are to vote in elections be able to demonstrate not only basic literacy but a basic understanding of the world in which we live? This is a question that I think can legitimately be debated.

If you’re going to cast a vote on matters that affect fiscal policy, shouldn’t you be required to demonstrate that you know how to balance a checkbook? That you understand the manner in which interest on a loan is compounded?

If you’re going to cast a vote on matters that affect foreign policy, shouldn’t you be required to demonstrate that you know the names and locations of, perhaps, twenty prominent foreign nations, the names of the languages spoken there, and the names of the current leaders of those nations?

If you’re going to cast a vote on matters that affect the environment, shouldn’t you be required to demonstrate that you know a bit about water circulation, toxins, microbes, and the role of the oceans in the life cycle of the planet?

Shouldn’t everyone who aspires to have an opinion about public policy (starting with newspaper reporters) be required to demonstrate an understanding of statistics? The science of statistics matters. The “statistics” reported in most newspaper stories are meaningless. They’re gibberish. Why? Because the reporters, even if they understand statistics themselves, know perfectly well that their readers don’t understand statistics and don’t see why they need to. As a result, the level of alarmist misinformation being spread around is just staggering.

And if you’re going to cast a vote on any matter at all, shouldn’t you be required to show that you can read a newspaper and understand the content of newspaper stories? Not only that, but if you’re going to vote in the United States, would it be too much to ask that you demonstrate

No Use

I don’t own a TV, and try to stay as far away from politics as I can. Every time I hear one of the vicious lies the “conservatives” are spreading, it just makes me ill. And I can’t stop them. They’ve got the adrenalin running, they’re impervious to logic, they’re shredding civil discourse, and it all makes for good video. It’s just too awful for words.

Now for the really cynical bit:

I don’t think these people are aberrant in any way. I think they’re human. They’re not doing anything that human beings haven’t done for thousands of years — and not infrequently with great success. Human beings lie. They hate. They butcher one another when they can manage it. And the result is quite often that those doing the lying, hating, and butchering end up on the top of the heap and get to grind their boot-heels into everybody else’s faces.

I don’t think it’s useful any more to talk about Nazis. The word has been beaten into a pulp. I’m not sure it’s useful to employ words at all. “Conservatives” use words like bullets — to wound, to frighten, to tear down. It’s impossible to have a rational discussion with them, because they’re wrong on the facts, but they refuse to admit it. So they resort to name-calling, shouting, grandiose lies, scare-mongering, sneering, sloganeering, and other charming tactics.

One of their favorite tactics — and this is something Jung understood very well; it’s called projection — is to claim the other guy is doing what they themselves are doing. Sarah Palin is accusing Obama of setting up a “death panel” because she wants a death panel. She craves it. She just wants to be the one sitting on the panel, that’s all.

What I think is that Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin are going to win. They’re going to win because, first, the people to whom they’re appealing are both numerous and incredibly stupid; and second, because they’re being bankrolled by multinational corporations whose only interest is in using the big pliers to extract as much profit as possible from us peons. Corporations want a government that routinely employs lies and secrecy. That’s pretty much what they’ve got right now, but there are still inconvenient voices murmuring the truth now and then. Limbaugh and Palin and Exxon and Bank of America are not going to stop until all of the dissenting voices are silenced. They’re not going to stop until they are completely in control of public “discourse” in the United States.

George Orwell knew about this shit. The title of his book, 1984, happens to be the year Ronald Reagan, the saint of the “conservative” movement, was elected to his second term. That’s only a coincidence, of course. There were vicious “conservatives” in the 1950s too. And in the 1920s, and in the 1880s. But Orwell saw what was coming.

Cloak & Dagger

I became a 9/11 conspiracy nut when I watched the video. [But see the response from Marco, below.] Okay, there are some facts that don’t add up, but in the real world there are always facts that don’t add up. The real world is messy.

What got me thinking there was something in the conspiracy theory was that the tower collapsing didn’t look anything at all, to my admittedly untutored eye, like a building that had been hit near the top by an airliner and was now losing its structural integrity. It looked a whole lot like a building that was being demolished, suddenly and efficiently, by explosives planted throughout the structure.

Understand — I don’t spend a lot of time on 9/11 conspiracy websites salivating over the latest rumors and theories. I never visit those sites at all, and I’m not going to post links here or rehash the details. I watched the video, read a few thoughtful analyses by people who were obviously bright and not visibly foaming at the mouth, “got it” that the whole operation was a CIA black bag job, was horrified but not really surprised, shrugged, and went on with my week.

The only plausible argument I can think of against its being a CIA operation is, they’re not that good.

I was reflecting on the above this morning after reading some conservative commentary on recent revelations that the CIA was quietly developing a program to assassinate bin Laden and other prominent figures, but had failed to notify Congress of the existence of said program. “The program never became fully operational,” the conservatives point out. “So what’s the big deal?”

I’ll leave that debate to those who enjoy mud-wrestling and other grand but meaningless Washington sideshows. I predict: Congress will hold hearings, the facts will remain in dispute, and nobody will ever be held accountable.

Now here’s an interesting story about spying, which I read recently. It has the ring of truth, and I have reason to believe the author did her homework. During World War II, the British had broken an important German code. They could

Who’s on First?

A guy I know took one of those stupid Facebook polls, the question being, “Would you support Sarah Palin for President in 2012?” He said yes, he would. So I asked him to tell me why. Here’s his response, in its entirety: “She has proven that she will fight against the political establishment. Many more reasons too, but [I] don’t have the time to get into it now.”

I’ve followed up by asking him how exactly Palin has proven to him that she will fight against the political establishment. So far no word on that.

Has she perhaps proved it by running for national office? No, joining the political establishment at the very highest level doesn’t sound like a way to prove you’ll fight against it. Was it because she quit as Governor of Alaska? That’s not fighting, it’s quitting. Did she perhaps refuse to accept campaign donations from the large corporate donors who are ladling money out to the political establishment? Somehow I doubt it.

Has she supported an open-door policy in the executive branch by speaking out forthrightly against the illegal secrecy and illegal surveillance carried out by the Bush/Cheney administration? It seems unlikely, doesn’t it?

Assuming my friend comes up with any explanation for his statement, there’s a good chance it will boil down to Ronald Reagan redux — the doctrine that says, “Big government is the enemy. The way to maintain our freedoms is to shrink, hobble, and dismantle government.” (Except in the area of managing women’s reproductive rights, of course, where active government intrusion is very much on the agenda.)

The fact that so many people actually believe this load of tripe is a tribute to how successful the machinery of fascist propaganda has been in this nation.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Government is messy, inefficient, often corrupt, and not infrequently dead wrong. But government is the only protection we have against the tender mercies of the giant multinational corporations — the AT&Ts, the Chevrons, the health insurance industry, agribusiness, and all the rest of them.

Those corporations, and the faceless men (mostly men) who rule them, are the political establishment. On the day when Sarah Palin stands up and says, “I’m not taking a nickel of corporate money, and I support universal health care. I’m standing up for the little guy” — then I’ll believe she’s fighting against the political establishment. And not a minute before.

Another, more sinister explanation for my friend thinking that Palin “will fight against the political establishment” would be that he thinks the political establishment in the United States is dominated by liberals and progressives. This amazing distortion is popular, I believe, among the worshippers of Rush Limbaugh and similar simian sickos. There’s about as much substance in it as the paranoid idea that the Jews run everything.

The government of the United States is solidly right-wing, and has been since the 1950s. Bill Clinton was not a liberal, and Obama isn’t either. They’re both solidly in the middle of the road. The reason Clinton drove the right-wing-nuts crazy was simple: He was a moderate Republican! He stole the middle of the road from them and left them marginalized and furious. When Obama isn’t kissing the ass of Wall Street, he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth about gay rights or defending secrecy and executive privilege.

The level of cognitive distortion that’s needed to believe the U.S. is being run by liberals is … well, it’s evidence of clinical insanity, what else can I say? If you believe that, you’re a freakin’ nut job.

What gets these people so riled up, I’m pretty sure, boils down to racism and a love of firearms. There are bound to be other factors as well, but those two would seldom be absent.

Liberty and Lunacy

I agree with about half of the platform of the Libertarian Party. The other half is just an amazing farrago of crap. Why should a bunch of intelligent people mix good sense with nonsense in such a lumpy souffle? Because they’re guided by a rigid, unyielding set of doctrines, that’s why.

I love their support for freedom of speech. I love their support for an end to prosecution of victimless “crimes.” Their support for abortion rights is a little mealy-mouthed, but they manage not to choke on it. They oppose the use of the United States Armed Forces to invade other countries, which is stellar. Too bad we’ll never see a major political party take that stance!

Here, on the other hand, is an example of Libertarian lunacy — their party position on health care: “We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care….”

The problem is, freedom isn’t guaranteed to be cheap. “The freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want” is meaningless when so many people can’t afford the insurance, or can’t qualify for insurance at all. The Libertarians have no opinion on how the individual is supposed to pay for health insurance, other than, I suppose, “That’s up to each individual.” If you’re too sick to work, you’re free to be thrown out of your home by your landlord and dig for food in the nearest dumpster

Us vs. Them

This morning I saw a bumper sticker in a parking lot that said “Liberalism is a Mental Disease.” This made me angry, of course. As the anger subsided, I started to feel sad — and sorry for the poor schmuck. Not too sorry for him; he drives a Cadillac, so he can take it. But still, it must be awful living inside his head.

On the other hand, having posted a couple of months ago, in this very blog, an only slightly tongue-in-cheek essay suggesting that conservatism might be a form of mental illness, I’m hardly in a position to complain. Everybody has a right to free speech, even idiots.

Without, for the moment, trying to figure out who’s right and who’s wrong, is it possible for us to dispassionately analyze the differences that are causing such tension? I think maybe it is.

First, let’s admit that we’re all wrong sometimes. The world is a really, really complicated place, and nobody has

Move along, folks. Nothin’ to see.

The human brain is not good at absorbing, understanding, and acting on the basis of abstract information that arrives from distant places. There’s no reason why evolution should have equipped our ancestors with that ability. In sub-Saharan Africa, where our ancestors lived, there was no abstract information arriving from distant places!

The only information that was important in the passing on of one’s genes was immediate and concrete. Lion over there, gotta run.

So here we are, living in a vastly different world from the one our ancestors lived in. Abstract information reaches us daily from distant places — and some of it is vitally important to our survival. But we don’t have the capacity to process it and act on it. We act like nothing is the matter. We just stroll onward, averting our eyes.

Here in the U.S. (I can’t speak very knowledgeably about other nations), we have, in no particular order:

– An entirely corrupt Congress and Administration, in which our nominally elected officials are all accepting enormous bribes on a weekly basis from

Why I Like Government

The other night a conservative friend asserted more or less baldly that the government has no legitimate function other than national defense. When I said, “The government has many legitimate functions,” my friend snapped, “Name two!”

I can name a lot more than two. For starters, how about inspecting meat-packing plants? You and I are not in a position to go into those plants and make sure that rat droppings are not getting into our sausage. So we authorize a government agency to do the inspections.

I’m not saying the Bush administration’s inspectors are actually doing a credible job of it. I’m just saying, that’s what government is for — to do the things for us that we can’t reasonably do as individuals. To provide for the common good.

How about traffic laws? I asked my friend, “Do you really want to live in a town where there are no speed limits and no traffic lights? Where anybody can drive as fast as they like or up over the sidewalk?”

He said, “I’ll have to think about that.” With a little smirk on his face, as if to say, “Oh, you’re being irrational, but it would take too long to explain it to you. The free market would insure that safe drivers triumphed over reckless ones.” Or perhaps, “Oh, dear, I’m trapped, but I don’t dare admit I’m wrong.”

Come to think of it, the government operates the court system and the prisons, doesn’t it? Does my friend think they should be dismantled? What would we do with murderers? And how would we catch the murderers, if there were no police?

If I remember my high-school history correctly, in the 19th century private fire companies were the norm. If your home caught on fire, several fire companies might arrive on the scene. You would then have to negotiate a deal with one of them before they would start the pump and put out the fire. If you didn’t have your checkbook handy, they would let the house burn down. On occasion the rival companies were too busy fighting with one another even to bid for the job. Again, the house burned down.

Americans quite wisely decided that Free Enterprise wasn’t producing the desired results. So today we have publicly funded fire houses. Socialism, in other words. And it works.

There aren’t so many homes burning down as in the old days. Partly that’s because electric lights replaced candles, kerosene lanterns, and gas lamps – but it’s also because government inspectors (bureaucrats, in other words) have to sign off on the construction of your home before the builder is allowed to sell it to you. If there were no bureaucrats, faulty wiring would start a lot of fires.

How about regulating financial institutions? In the 19th century runs on banks were distressingly common: Depositors’ savings could disappear overnight. Today we have the FDIC, a government agency, which offers you some protection both from panic and from embezzlement.

And how about truth in advertising? Should corporations be allowed to make false claims for their products, so as to sell worthless or harmful items to unsuspecting consumers? You and I as individuals don’t have the resources to be able to investigate the claims made in the dozens of ads we see every day. We rely on government regulations to protect us from liars, thieves, and scoundrels.

At the moment the liars, thieves, and scoundrels are running the government, but that’s a slightly different problem.

Don’t get me wrong: I’m not saying I like the government we have. It’s full of incompetence. Our leaders routinely lie to us. But the solution is not to get rid of government!

Who’s Minding the Store?

After yesterday’s post on how to defeat Calif. Prop. 8, I started wondering why I should hide my bits of alleged wisdom under a bushel basket. Why not share these ideas with others?

So I went hunting for websites where the activists in this campaign hang out. They’re not easy to find. Eventually I spotted Equality For All. But after an email exchange, I’m starting to think the Equality For All site might be a front for a Mormon hit squad who are planning to use the contact information submitted by the unwary in order to round people up and put them in concentration camps.

But maybe that’s insulting to the Mormons, who are nothing if not thorough. Mormons would probably do a better job putting up a thick layer of bullshit.

The site asks for your donations, but gives no indication whatever of any activities that will be funded by the donations. There’s no links page. And there’s no indication of how one might become personally active in the campaign if one were so inclined.

So I sent them an email.

Inter alia, I asked, “Who is writing the scripts for your TV spots? I’m a professional writer. Maybe I could help.” I asked, “Does your site have a page of links that my blog entry could be added to?” I asked, “What’s going on in your organization, if anything?”

Someone named Rebecca (no last name … and hey, there’s no list of the organization’s officers on the site either) responded to my email. She thanked me for my “advice,” and suggested that I check back at their site regularly to see updates. But she entirely failed to address any of my questions.

On closer inspection, Equality For All isn’t actually an organization. It’s a “coalition.” The list of organizations in the coalition is long, but meaningless. Several ACLU chapters, the Billy DeFrank Center, Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry Action Network, and so on.

These groups aren’t even called “members” of the coalition. They’re just listed. One is bound to wonder about the precise nature of their involvement in Equality For All. If any. Do they even know their names are being used on this site? I think I may look into that.

Footnote: According to the Unitarians, it’s a legitimate coalition. I’m still wondering where they channel the donations, though.

Gay Marriage (How to Win)

If you want to defeat Prop. 8, thereby preserving the right of all adult couples in California to marry, I can tell you exactly how to do it. Take the suggestions below seriously, stir in five gallons of funding for media buys, and bake for three months at 350 degrees or until golden brown and bubbling.

1. Lower the temperature. No matter what the provocation, no matter how incensed you may feel, do not get into shouting matches. Do not indulge in name-calling. Do not vent your emotions. There will be plenty of time after the election to vent your emotions — and win or lose, you’re going to have some emotions to vent! Until then, focus on winning.

2. Do not talk about “the right to marry.” The people who support Prop. 8 do not believe that this right exists. If you insist that it does exist, all you’ll do is polarize the dialog. That is, you’ll shut down any hope of changing their minds. A dialog in which you can find common ground has the potential to draw people over to your side. Confrontation will drive them away. Avoid using the word “right” at all.

3. Instead, talk about wanting to make a lifelong commitment and assume responsibilities. For most people, but perhaps especially for conservative Christians, marriage is a serious matter. Show them that you understand its seriousness, and that you feel the same way about it that they do.

4. Praise traditional marriage. Make it clear in every dialog and media message that, far from wanting to undermine the institution of marriage, you yearn to participate in it to the fullest possible extent. Do not talk about the high divorce rate among heterosexual couples!

5. Talk about the practical problems caused by not being able to marry. Talk about hospital visits and custody issues. Talk about inheritance and home ownership issues. Talk about child custody issues. But before you do this, do your homework! Make sure you know what you’re talking about.

6. If you’re religious, show your faith. Do this in positive ways — by talking about your church attendance, Torah study, or whatever observances you practice. Avoid arguments about doctrine. Emphasize the similarities between you and the rest of the religious community, not the differences!

7. If you’re not religious, avoid attacking religion. Religious people take their doctrines and dogmas very seriously indeed. Pointing out the hypocrisy of their doctrines — by quoting the Bible, for instance – won’t work, because they’re well armored with answers to such accusations. If you can respect others’ right to cherish beliefs that are different from yours, and if you can show that respect, you’ll be giving them a real-life model of how they might show similar respect.

8. If you’re in a committed relationship, describe it in ways that anyone can relate to. Talk about paying the bills, doctor visits, gardening, or whatever you and your partner do from day to day. Help others see your essential humanity and goodness. You might want to say, “We hope Proposition 8 is defeated — but even if it passes, it won’t change our love for and commitment to one another.”

9. Deflect crazy talk with a simple, repeated message. If the person you’re talking to starts babbling about pedophilia, S&M, or indiscriminate sex in restrooms, your response should be along these lines: “Most gay people are not like that at all. Most gay people disapprove of those behaviors just as firmly as you do. Most gay people are just like you and me. There are extremes of behavior among heterosexuals too, but you and I don’t have to let a few wife-swapping clubs poison our feelings toward the whole community.” Do not let yourself be drawn into dissecting the details; just repeat the message in a firm, friendly way.

10. No parades. No picket signs. Streetcorner protests are a relic of the Sixties. They don’t change anyone’s mind anymore. If you want to change people’s minds, go where there are lots of people (a street fair, for instance), set up a card table, and talk to people. And don’t make the mistake of putting a big “No on 8″ sign on the card table! If you do that, none of the people you want to convince will come near you. Choose a neutral-sounding name, such as “Gay Life Information.” And don’t wear your damn leather! If you want to be accepted into the mainstream, you need to look like you’re part of the mainstream.

11. Ignore the extremists. You will never be able to get a rabid homophobic bigot to vote your way. Focus on the swing voters — folks who have some concerns (because they’ve been lied to by the extremists) but who also have an essential sense of fairness. Address their concerns in calm, realistic ways, and appeal to their sense of fairness.

12. Avoid demonizing the opposition. Most people, even extreme homophobes, want the same basic things: They want to live in safe, pleasant communities where their dreams and aspirations are supported. Where we differ from one another is mainly in our view of how best to achieve those goals. If you’re talking to a swing voter and you can find something nice to say about his rabid homophobic pastor, you’ve changed his thinking. The next time he listens to the pastor, he’ll listen with less credulity and more skepticism.

13. Be prepared to counter specific stereotypes and misconceptions. Probably the number one misconception held by Prop. 8 supporters is the idea that homosexuality is a “preference” or a “lifestyle.” If these words are used, you need to counter them quickly, but always in a polite, friendly way. Don’t jump on anyone by saying, “It’s not a lifestyle!” Instead, you might say, “You know, I’ve met gay people who practice a wide variety of lifestyles. Some gay people are very conservative. Some are doctors or lawyers or professional athletes. So I’m not sure what you mean by ‘gay lifestyle.’ I don’t think there is such a thing as a single, monolithic lifestyle, any more than there is a single heterosexual lifestyle.” And so forth. Make up whatever responses suit you, but be positive. Provide new information.

14. Agree that protecting children from abuse is important. The stereotype that gay males are pedophiles is deepseated. Simply telling someone that the stereotype is inaccurate probably won’t get you anywhere. Instead, express your own concern with protecting children, and broaden the discussion to a variety of forms of abuse. You might say, “I agree with you that all children should be protected from sexual abuse. I also wish all children had safe playgrounds, adequate nutrition, and at least one parent who was always at home to provide guidance and support. The more stable couples there are in our communities, the better off all children will be. And of course marriage is the best way to give couples stability.”