Quotulatiousness

October 19, 2009

The American social contract

Filed under: History, Religion, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 12:45

L. Neil Smith received some anti-Arab, anti-Muslim, and anti-Iranian material recently. He tries to point out to the Christian who sent it to him that the United States was not intended to be a Christian country:

As I’ve testified often, I’ve known many Arabs, many Moslems, and more than a few Iranians, and found most of them to be extremely likeable, if not downright admirable people. What I see in my e-mail is an obvious product of ignorance and prejudice, and even worse, it fuels the evil machinations of the murderous warmongers in government.

Accordingly (with a few later additions), I wrote back to my correspondent:

We’ll all do better at getting rid of this administration if we face the truth, even if some of us find it unpleasant. This is not a Christian nation, nor was it ever intended to be. It was founded by a coalition of various Christians and deists (which is what atheists and agnostics back in the 18th century called themselves to avoid getting burned at the stake). It was bankrolled by a Jew, Haim Solomon. Look him up. None of this information is secret. It’s freely available to anybody who possesses the courage and integrity to click on Google or Wikipedia.

The deal between all of them is that religion would be separate from politics, that we would not make public policy on the basis of our mystical beliefs. Christians are trying to break that deal now, which is too bad. People in other nations, historically, have murdered each other over theological disputes. We have not, but we might start, if the Christians won’t stop welching on the bargain their ancestors made.

September 29, 2009

QotD: Confessions

Filed under: Quotations, USA — Tags: , , , — Nicholas @ 09:01

Whew, I’m pooped. Jimmy Carter has got me run ragged with all the hating I’m supposed to do. Jimmy says I’m a racist because I oppose President Obama’s health care reform program. Even Jimmy Carter can’t be wrong all the time. And since Jimmy Carter has been wrong about every single thing for the past 44 years, maybe — just as a matter of statistical probability — he’s right this time.

I hadn’t noticed I was a racist, but that was no doubt because I was too busy being a homophobe. Nancy Pelosi says the angry opposition to health care reform is like the angry opposition to gay rights that led to Harvey Milk being shot. Since I do not want America to suffer another Sean Penn movie, I will accept that I’m a homophobe, too. And I’m a male chauvinist due to the fact that I think Nancy Pelosi is blowing smoke — excuse me, carbon neutral, biodegradable airborne particulate matter — out her pantsuit.

Also, I’m pretty sure Rahm Emanuel is Jewish, and you can’t be against (or even for) President Obama without the involvement of Rahm Emanuel, so I’m an anti-Semite. Furthermore, although I personally happen to be a libertarian on immigration issues, I do agree with Joe Wilson that you can’t say you’re expanding health care to the poor and then pretend you’re going to turn those poor away if their driver’s licenses look a little Xeroxy and what’s on their Social Security cards turns out to be a toll-free number for a La Raza hotline. Thus I’m prejudiced against Hispanics as well.

P.J. O’Rourke, “Outsourcing Hate: The burdens of conservatism in the Obama age”, The Weekly Standard, 2009-10-05

September 15, 2009

The Tea Party protests, summarized by their opponents

Filed under: Politics, USA — Tags: — Nicholas @ 10:49

Matt Welch sat on a panel the other night, where he learned some interesting things. Specifically, that some of the other panelists had diagnosed (to their own satisfaction) the racist roots of the Tea Party protests:

1) The Tea Parties are experienced by many black Americans as a “racial assault.” This was posited by a white “anti-racism writer,” though the black Tea Party organizer on the panel didn’t seem to agree.

2) The “Don’t Tread on Me” flag, historically, is inseparable from white racial resentment against blacks.

3) My pointing out that the racial-motivation interpretation of the protest was not manifested in the overwhelming majority of signage I saw and conversations I had was directly analogous to white Americans believing that race relations were just fine 50 years ago.

4) Glenn Beck has described Obama’s health care plan as intentional “reparations” for slavery.

September 11, 2009

If you look hard enough for racist comments, you’ll eventually find . . .

Filed under: Media — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 12:34

. . . that you end up in rather ridiculous situations like this one:

In my column about Barack Obama’s health care speech yesterday, I described the president’s “we will call you out” warning to lying Republicans as “a nearly Snoop Doggesque display,” linking to a great new Snoop video whose chorus is “we will shut you down.”

DING! DING! DING! We have a racial nut! Salon Editor in Chief Joan Walsh is on the case:

Every time I think I’m exaggerating the nature of the racial nuttiness that Obama faces, an ostensibly tolerant, smart guy like Welch does something boneheaded like this. What in God’s name does Snoop Dogg have to do with Barack Obama (besides the obvious). Snoop’s chorus is some variation on, “I run this town, act loud, get wild, we’ll shut you down!” Oh, I get it: Obama runs Washington, and he threatened to call out people who lie about his proposals, and…that’s the same thing?

August 25, 2009

QotD: The Race War that Isn’t

Filed under: Liberty, Media, Quotations, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 18:15

These are indeed “profoundly troubling” charges, which makes one wonder why they’re being bandied about with such flippant regard for historical plausibility.

The “jackboot” analogy, for starters, breaks down at the ankle: The footwear was favored by enforcers for totalitarian governments, not random Ron Paul supporters flashing Thomas Jefferson quotes outside political events. Weimar-era brownshirts were an organized Nazi paramilitary group perpetrating calculated violence against political opponents in a hyperinflationary, recently humiliated country that had never enjoyed liberal democracy; not a dozen-plus scattered gun nuts in one of the world’s oldest democracies peacably (if jarringly) exercising their Second Amendment rights by keeping their guns holstered (not “brandishing” them, as Rich and countless others have claimed). The last actual lynching in America, depending on who you ask, took place in 1981; the atrocious practice had been all but dead since the 1960s.

To fear the Weimarization of America, or the return of lynching, is to fundamentally lack confidence in the very real progress the United States has made over the past several decades. Conditions have improved exponentially even since the post-lynching 1980s, when I was coming of voting age. Back then there was still a politics to be had in bashing Martin Luther King, supporting apartheid South Africa, whipping up fears of black ultra-violence, and otherwise appealing openly to white resentment against blacks. It was gross, it was reckless, it led to terrible policies, and it was the reason I permanently swore off joining the Republican Party. It’s also largely an artifact of the past.

Matt Welch, “The Race War That Isn’t: Media anxieties over ‘lynch mobs’ and ‘brownshirts’ demonstrate a telling lack of faith in contemporary America”, Reason Online, 2009-08-25

Update, 27 August: Matt Welch posted a follow up to the article from which this QotD was abstracted. He writes: “The assertion that the Esquire piece was promoting the “racial-resentment” narrative was inaccurate, and I have corrected the article accordingly.”

August 21, 2009

More on DNA as a crime-fighting tool

Filed under: Law, Liberty, Technology — Tags: , , — Nicholas @ 10:10

Charles Stross looks at the situation in Britain:

NDNAD, the UK’s National DNA Database, run by the Forensic Science Service under contract to the Home Office contains DNA “fingerprints” for lots of folk — 5.2% of the population as of 2005, or 3.1 million people. Some of them are criminals; some of them are clearly innocent, but were either charged with a crime and subsequently found not guilty, or had the misfortune to be detained but not subsequently charged (that is: they’re not even suspects). The Home Office takes a rather draconian view of the database’s utility, and objects strenuously to attempts to remove the records of innocent people from it — it took threats of legal action before they agreed to remove the parliamentary Conservative Party’s Immigration spokesman from the database (which he’d been added to in the course of a fruitless investigation into leaked documents that had embarrased the government) — so if senior opposition politicians have problems with it, consider the prospects for the rest of us.

In use …

Whenever a new profile is submitted, the NDNAD’s records are automatically searched for matches (hits) between individuals and unsolved crime-stain records and unsolved crime-stain to unsolved crime-stain records — linking both individuals to crimes and crimes to crimes. Matches between individuals only are reported separately for investigation as to whether one is an alias of the other. Any NDNAD hits obtained are reported directly to the police force which submitted the sample for analysis.

Now, this in itself is merely a steaming turd in the punchbowl of the right to privacy: but its use as a policing intelligence tool is indisputable. While there are some very good reasons for condemning the way it’s currently used (for example, its use in the UK has sparked accusations of racism), I can’t really see any future government forgoing such a tool completely; a DNA database of some kind is too useful. So what interests me here is the potential for future catastrophic failure modes.

Now that we’re pretty certain that DNA evidence can be easily faked, the focus of how it can be used in investigations must shift from “presence proving guilt” to “absence implying innocence”.

August 20, 2009

Is the US still a racist country?

Filed under: Politics, USA — Tags: — Nicholas @ 07:54

Matt Welch gets a bit het-up about an academic’s easy characterization of the racism and hatred he feels is still a malignant, powerful force in American politics: “Hate, if it ever truly threatened to leave the political stage, is most definitely back, larger and nastier than ever.”

To get all journalistically theoretical for a moment, what is the definition of journalism? Well, I don’t know, but I do know that one thick chunk of the idea is to write or say (or aim to write and say) things that are unequivocally 100 percent true, and hopefully verified in some way. This is even more true, if such a thing is mathematically possible, for those who deliver lectures on all that should be true and good about journalism.

What, class, do we notice about Davis’ statement above? IT IS DEMONSTRABLY FALSE. We used to have slavery in this country, and Jim Crow laws, and all kinds of officially sanctioned, legalized discrimination against disfavored minorities. And you want to tell me that hate is “larger and nastier than ever”? We had a CIVIL WAR in this country, where people not only brought their legally licensed firearms to townhalls, but they MURDERED THE SHIT OUT OF ONE ANOTHER. How many people died in racially fueled street riots 41 years ago, compared to how many died in racially fueled street riots in 2009? This little couplet, tossed off without evident concern, as if OF COURSE we all know this is true, is blatantly, sophomorically, and insultingly untrue. It’s an advertisement for the author’s fundamental lack of seriousness about the very subject he aims to address.

July 31, 2009

QotD: It’s the institutions, not the people

Filed under: Liberty, Quotations, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 12:16

But after you put down the peace pipe, a legitimate and important difference remains. It’s structural, and cultural, and (over the past four decades of relentless Drug Warring and Constitution-eroding), judicial as well. There is a strain in law enforcement, backed by various vague statutes, thousands of politicians, and everyone who tends to side with authority against an obnoxious popoff, in which it’s considered perfectly acceptable form to arrest, detain, or otherwise punish a non-threatening person for being an asshole. This includes the perceived assholery of yelling about one’s real (and sometimes imagined) trampled rights. If a person is considered undesirable by a police officer, for whatever reason, it’s far too easy to ruin his day, even if no law has remotely been broken. And as Balko has led the world in documenting, the literal militarization of domestic police forces, combined with awful Drug War-related enforcement, has caused grave injustice and the death of innocents.

The past two weeks has been a conversation about race, I guess (I tend to tune out such things pretty quickly, being a privileged white male and all). It’s always appropriate to point out, as in the Drug War in general, that disfavored minority groups (whether defined by skin color, class, lifestyle choice, politics, or whatever) will take a disproportionate brunt of abused power. But thankfully in modern America, when we peel back the general stereotype to the specific individual, most people (least I don’t think) aren’t racists and aren’t assholes. It may take two weeks to make that realization, or two decades, but after that you’re left with the underlying structural problem, one that might be even harder to dislodge. The pendulum of law enforcement in this country, as relates to the individual citizen, has for far too long swung in the same Constitution/individual-disrespecting direction.

Matt Welch, “‘When he’s not arresting you, Sergeant Crowley is a really likable guy'”, Hit and Run, 2009-07-31

July 27, 2009

More on the Gates-Crowley affair

Filed under: Law, Liberty, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 13:44

Radley Balko says that this affair is newsworthy, but not for the reasons you might think:

The arrest of Harvard African-American Studies Professor Henry Louis Gates has certainly got everyone talking. Unfortunately, everyone’s talking about the wrong issue.

[. . .]

The conversation we ought to be having in response to the July 16 incident and its heated aftermath isn’t about race, it’s about police arrest powers, and the right to criticize armed agents of the government.

By any account of what happened — Gates’, Crowleys’, or some version in between — Gates should never have been arrested. “Contempt of cop,” as it’s sometimes called, isn’t a crime. Or at least it shouldn’t be. It may be impolite, but mouthing off to police is protected speech, all the more so if your anger and insults are related to a perceived violation of your rights. The “disorderly conduct” charge for which Gates was arrested was intended to prevent riots, not to prevent cops from enduring insults. Crowley is owed an apology for being portrayed as a racist, but he ought to be disciplined for making a wrongful arrest.

He won’t be, of course. And that’s ultimately the scandal that will endure long after the political furor dies down. The power to forcibly detain a citizen is an extraordinary one. It’s taken far too lightly, and is too often abused. And that abuse certainly occurs against black people, but not only against black people. American cops seem to have increasingly little tolerance for people who talk back, even merely to inquire about their rights.

There are undoubtedly good interactions between police officers and “civilians” (as the police tend to refer to non-police), but much of the interaction is related to actual or perceived violation of the law . . . which means the interaction is fraught with tension, fear, and potential altercation. The police officer feels the need to have the visible signs of respect from “civilians”, yet the more contact “civilians” have with the police, the less that outwardly subservient attitude will be displayed.

July 23, 2009

QotD: The Gates Arrest

Filed under: Quotations, USA — Tags: , — Nicholas @ 07:48

It needs to be said that, though I casually threw it out there, I really have no clue whether race played a role in Gates’ arrest. It’s important to say that. I don’t know what I would have done if I were in [his] shoes, but I don’t know that I’d [have] assumed [it was based on] race. I think the decision to arrest a guy for, at worst, being rude in his own house is shockingly stupid. The thought of someone like that carrying the power of life and death is mind-boggling.

That said, the wind is leaving my sails over this one and I’m not sure why. I keep getting this “doth protest too much” vibe every time I read Gates’s interviews. It’s interesting that it took his own arrest for Gates to decide to make a doc about this. Maybe he’s had a Come To Jesus moment. Who can know? Who can really know?

Ta-Nehisi Coates, “On Gates”, The Atlantic, 2009-07-22

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress