The Spouter of Lies
Leave a comment
Why I Removed A Post Calling the President A Piece Of S#!*
I removed an earlier Facebook post because my succinct and colorful comment about our President didn’t lend itself to the friendliest discourse. I know that many of my Facebook friends love him. I find him utterly repugnant in nearly every way. I have intimately (not necessarily sexually) known liars, the compulsive type, in my life and I can tell all of you with full certainty that President Trump is a compulsive liar. That’s why he has to type his responses to the Mueller investigation, because dry runs proved he is incapable of not perjuring himself. Let that sink in.
I fear that with his reckless language he has driven a wedge in this country so deep that we will never be the same. I fear that he has so thoroughly brainwashed, or hypnotized, or executed whatever command it is he has over his followers, that if any investigation concludes that Donald Trump has committed serious crimes, they, like he will simply deny the factually supported conclusion’s validity. Trump has already done as much. Gone are the days of our country unifying behind an American principle, like a refusal to allow the Executive office to operate beyond the law. Nixon would not have been impeached in the days of Fox News.
Donald Trump, if he really believes half the things he says is one of the following: very stupid, vastly misinformed (or under-informed), or wildly delusional. And honestly, I think it’s the later. To his evangelical base, Trump is no more an ambassador of God than is the wall he’s trying to build. Trump is his own God. If God were to materialize before him and try to tell him what to do next, Trump would say, “what are you doing here? I got this. Shoo.” He doesn’t seek higher council because to him there is no higher council. He is always the smartest man in the room. He knows more about the military than the generals. He knows more about technology than the people involved in its development. He knows more about everything than anybody, and everything he does is always the world’s best ever. I just want to scream it, “DON’T YOU SEE!? THIS IS DANGEROUSLY DELUSIONAL BEHAVIOR!!” Supporting him, devotedly so as so many do only panders to his psychosis. It’s only making him more monstrous. You know not what you do.
These are just a few of my many, many concerns about D.T. My hopes are few: that he not be re-elected, that he not take us to war, either foreign or civil, that none of his detractors kill him, as that would surely start a civil one, that America survive his Presidency in tact, and lastly, that conservative voters stop confusing arrogance, belligerence, and bluster for good leadership.
Our Barometric Windows
A society with windows is good, indeed. I didn’t forget to capitalize the “w.” I mean actual, glass windows, as on homes, as in rather than bars or plywood, as in windows that have walls to hold them up in the first place. Having glass windows in our homes, municipal buildings, and commercial skyscrapers means that, as a society, we are at relative peace. It says that whether we like each other or not, we at least trust each other enough to house the things we love and cherish behind something as flimsy and breakable as glass.
What enables windows is more than just mutual trust. The majority of us have to be relatively un-miserable, at least most of the time. Man gets antsy when he feels trapped in discomfort. Chronic starvation, prolonged cold, or intense oppression are examples of circumstances that can quickly become intolerable. If relief never comes, mobs of otherwise ordinary people may form as a force for change. They may skip peaceful demonstration all together and go straight to kicking in windows to steal food, wine or anything they feel alleviates their suffering. Windows definitely require a base level of societal contentedness.
If we like having our windows, as I do, it is helpful to understand what we need to do to keep them. A good first question might be, what enables us to remain “relatively un-miserable” (or better), and keeps us from slipping into “miserable?” I’m going to bet that Maslow’s top 3 in the hierarchy of needs: food, clothing, and shelter, are high on this list. A society with windows needs to ensure that its citizens can secure an adequate share of the resources needed to provide these essentials. We need a steady supply of healthy food, and the materials to make and maintain our shelters. We’ll need energy for tasks like transporting these items to our job sites and to our refrigerators. And unless we like our windows blasted out by bombs and artillery fire, we must establish peaceful means for acquiring these things.
The way we do this amicably, without invading, pillaging, and kicking in the windows of others, is ultimately by trading. Today, many of us trade our work for wages. We may make stuff or provide a service and get paid in some form of exchange currency. I suppose an alternative is to live in a cave on a mountaintop as a hermit. In that case, one simply trades their efforts more directly for a slain bird, a built fire, or a drawn pail. But as inherently social creatures, we’ve found that, rather than killing everyone who has something we want, we’ll just trade with each other, most of the time anyway. I’m glad we’ve rounded that corner together as a species as it’s much less stressful for everyone, I’m sure.
The ability to feel secure behind windows tends to increase in proportion to the number of people who have “jobs,” or some way to procure trade currency. It also helps, pursuant to the prevention of discomfort, to have this exchange be somewhat equitable. If a lot of people spend a lot of hours doing hard, physical labor and get very little trade currency in return, and a lot of other people spend very little time doing very easy work yet get paid a boatload, then the likelihood that the former moves from “relatively un-miserable” into “miserable” increases. And we all know what that means, no windows, except for the people who can afford to cover theirs with bars, situate them behind gates, or constantly guard them with sentinels. And for me, that kind of chips away at the whole appeal of windows in the first place.
You may not know it to look at them, but the luxury of windows is under constant siege, and it isn’t from miserable people, earthquakes, or sliced golf balls. It is a trembling mind that rattles our panes far more regularly. Fear’s destabilizing influence is a grappling hook in our backs, always pulling us downward from our highest achievements toward our lowest depravity. Fear leads us to hoard resources, mistrust each other, and, in the extreme, kill for its own sake. Clearly, without a way to manage our fear, or at least the behavior that comes from it, we’re screwing plywood over our windows, and maybe cutting little embrasures through which we can point our gun barrels.
Recognizing the dilemma, societies eventually agree to create laws to live by, and perhaps constitutions to enshrine their values. Here, in America, for example, we have laws that say nobody can smash our windows. If someone does, we can call the police who are supposed to come and enforce the law that says they can’t. And thus the system appears to work, so long as the majority of us are living relatively comfortably. If we’re not, we become restless and more prone to react to our paranoia. If enough people are uncomfortable and frightened, rebellions or wars break out. In the midst of either, windows become a big liability, for bombs and mobs are not known for their civility or discrimination.
I am thankful for my windows through which I occasionally peer at the outside world, and through which the sun’s rays enter to light and warm. I’m thankful that the shiny, reflective squares that adorn the houses in my neighborhood are all unbroken. It’s a good sign. It is easy to take for granted the safety I feel when I lock my doors, kiss my sleeping child’s forehead, and retire to bed for the night. I am surprisingly unconcerned that I have so many holes in my home filled only by flimsy bug screens and a substance that can be easily shattered by any one of the many rocks in my yard.
Yes, a society with windows is good, indeed.
What I Think Conservatives Really Want
Yesterday was a tough one. I got really angry. The trigger ultimately had little to do with what it became: an over-the-top, emotional meltdown about Trump’s America and all things conservative. Cathartic though it may have been, indulging rage really isn’t any fun. I’m hoping the purge will sate me for a good while to come.
After the dust had settled, I thought more calmly about the conservatives I know, and how they are all essentially good people, just like me (only maybe a little less angry on any given day since November 2016.) I believe that what American conservatives would love is a healthy alternative to Donald Trump, someone who gives them the same sense of authority and leadership, and who advocates for smaller government and greater, fiscal responsibility, but without all the nonsense. They need somebody who, maybe during a debate, after Trump has bellowed his final insults and sneers, will point at the president and say,
“You, the American conservative, are better than this.
Don’t let him appeal to the worst in you, which is what he is doing. That appeal is exactly what drew the KKK and other white supremacists to him like flies to a bug lamp. America is better than he is. You are better than he is.
Conservatives, and Americans in general, are kind, loving, helpful people who extend their generosity and kindness regardless of one’s skin color, faith, or nationality. Whether you learned it from Jesus or it just arises from a deep place within you, you don’t let people in your presence suffer if you can do something about it. If an old man falls out of a wheel chair, you don’t hesitate to scoop him up, help him back in, dust him off, and make sure he’s ok. If someone gets in a car accident and you’re the 1st one on the scene, you get out and see if you can help. You call 911 or maybe pull someone from a vehicle just before the cabin is engulfed in flames. If a child wanders a shopping mall alone and crying, every single decent American stops and asks what’s wrong and whether they are lost. I know because I see you do it. I do it myself. We do it because it is unquestionably the right thing to do.
It is to this sense of American decency that your president should appeal. It is this shared morality that your president should inspire, and celebrate with you. He should exude that spirit so strongly that it can’t but bring it out in all of us. Not this. (Points at Trump). You are far better than this.
Insist that your president be one who doesn’t react to every single criticism with “I know you are but what am I” style tweets that only show a lack of self-discipline and maturity. Insist on someone who doesn’t badger or engage in duels of arrogant bravado when it comes to other world leaders who threaten nuclear aggression. Demand a president who will engage in diplomacy, and not assume that military muscle flexing is the only way to handle some of our problems. Demand a president who values the constitution and the rule of law over loyalty to himself. (Points at the president)
In divisive times such as these, say to any candidate, we demand a president who proves that he is willing to work across the aisle with Democrats by not having Republican-only, closed-door luncheons or law-making sessions. We demand a president who will represent us well abroad, not just as an ambassador of American interests, but one of peace, good will, and healthy alliances, for that is what truly promotes our safety. We demand our president be someone who knows how to convey respect and doesn’t project neediness for it in return. (Points at the president)
We are decent, God-and-country loving conservatives and we demand a president whose vision extends beyond simply undoing everything the previous administration had accomplished. We insist on a president who doesn’t childishly call people names like “Little Marco,” “Lyin’ Ted,” or “Crooked Hillary” every time he feels attacked, as it is embarrassing to see such reality-show antics brought into the hallowed walls of Washington.
In other words, we conservatives aren’t following you anymore, Mr. Trump, because we are better than what you bring. We demand a president who behaves at least as decently as we. And we sure don’t want America, or the rest of the world to think that you are who we are.
And that’s why I am running for the President of the United States of America. Thank you and God bless.”
I like to believe that this kind of candidate appeals to the vast majority of conservative voters in America, but maybe not. If a candidate like that shows up on the Republican ticket in 2020, and the Democratic candidate doesn’t have it all together, okay, I’ll probably still vote for the Democratic candidate, but if he or she loses, I’m sure that I and the rest of the world will breathe a lot more easily than we do today.
Donald Trump hasn’t just lowered the bar for America; he’s cast it to the ground like a rib bone that he’s gnawed clean. It is precisely our highest office where such lowering should not, and cannot occur. He is doing the Republican Party and our country irreparable damage. Surely you see it, as did Senators Flake and Corker, and probably countless others too afraid to speak out. Trump was the wrong choice on so many levels, and I believe that all decent conservatives know this deep in their hearts. Keep your beliefs, my fellow conservative Americans, but please, in the name of all things decent, admit the mistake and call for his immediate removal, because you are better than he!
American Healthcare and its Broke Hostages
At some point we Americans decided, if only tacitly, that it is okay to profit, and grossly so, on the treatment and healing of the sick in our country. The reason healthcare costs so much in America is simple: nearly every industry involved in its delivery is raking in the dough. This might not seem so bad if we ignore that the ultimate source of their prosperity is real people who were unfortunate enough to get cancer, or some other terrible malady.
Americans have been bread to believe that healthcare is no different from shoes, video games, and bananas, and should therefore be governed by the same forces of market Capitalism, i.e. the quest for profit. A glaring difference, though, is that unlike the later, the healthcare industry caters to a hostage market. The sick or ailing must have what healthcare provides to avoid actual suffering or death, and often, there just aren’t other options. That’s a lot different than the suffering that comes from not having the latest iPhone, or choosing oranges instead of some expensive bananas.
Since this market of infirm is typically desperate for what a hospital, physician, drug company, or machine manufacturer can provide, (often as the sole, patent-protected provider) these providers can charge as much as they like, and they like a lot. If you or someone close to you has ever been treated for cancer, then you know that it is financially out of reach without health insurance, and far from cheap even with it. The latest Hep C drug emerged at as high as $94,500 for 12 to 24 pills, all to keep the investor class on the golf courses or on hunting trips with fine scotch in their glasses. But trading illness for impoverishment isn’t healing at all. It’s trading one affliction for another.
Our healthcare costs will never come down significantly unless and until we say to everyone involved, “Healthcare is different! It is immoral to charge so much for the healing of the sick!” Fortunately or otherwise, there already exists a democratic entity with the authority to do just that. It’s called the United States government. Only government has the power to regulate the unchecked greed of the richest industries, and even that power has been severely watered down by money’s influence over our politicians. Capitalism, an engine for which greed and ambition are its rocket fuel, does not self-regulate when it comes to either. To the contrary, Capitalism just burns this fuel faster and faster until it reaches its malignant, or harm-causing state in the society. We are experiencing this now in our current healthcare predicament, and have been since long before Obamacare arrived on the scene.
Only well-regulated Capitalism can serve the majority without eventually concentrating wealth and power into the hands of a very small minority. The Parker Brothers game Monopoly was invented to show just that. Yet I doubt that America is to be free of Capitalism any sooner than it is the glut of assault rifles across the land. If Capitalism is to be ever pounding at healthcare’s gates, it is perhaps there more than anywhere that we need Federal protections in place that at least guarantee that neither you nor I, nor any fellow American will ever go broke or become strapped with crushing debt because somebody in their family got sick. Perhaps something akin to Canada’s single-payer system of national healthcare for all its citizens from birth to death would be a huge step toward that security. I certainly don’t hear any of them complaining about their healthcare.
I don’t mind anyone making a living in the healing arts, but I have a big problem when they make a killing off the dying.
How To Peacefully Separate… If All Else Fails
If America can’t pull it together, if we ultimately divide into camps and abandon all willingness to work together, if we become too resistant to compromise on anything anymore ever again, then before we break out into full-on civil war, I want to present an alternative solution, a failsafe against mass violence. I don’t think we’re there yet, but if the time comes, maybe someone will remember seeing this possibility, this way out, and raise it.
First, we must ask if America really is a place where polar opposites in worldview can peacefully co-exist? If yes, then wonderful. This writing becomes a meaningless exercise in excessive precaution, because that means that no matter how wide the chasm grows between our ideologies, lifestyles, or convictions, the framework of America provides space for that. I hope that our founding fathers were so brilliant. I suppose it remains to be seen.
But if the people of a nation can reach a point of irreconcilable differences that are clear and enduring, then, like a married couple, we should resort not to killing each other, but to embarking on a legal, and hopefully amicable separation.
In that event, the goal will be to divide the United States into 2 newly independent nations along a geographic boundary: America 1, and America 2. The conservative, Republican, Libertarian, right-wing camp is America 1 (because I don’t think they could stand being America 2), and the liberal/progressive, Democratic, Green camp is America 2 (because they don’t give a shit).
For starters, we agree that we’re not going to kill each other. In fact, if only for the paperwork, we sign a binding Peace Treaty right away. We agree upfront to peaceful and fair negotiation, and that the agreed upon terms will be binding. A panel of democratically elected judges will ultimately adjudicate without bias. Their charge will be simply to ensure fairness and equality in the division of the nation.
Equality of division is guaranteed because, during this process, no one will know which half of the country either side will get. A Separation Committee, formed of both liberal and conservative members, will be created and charged with working together to hammer out where the border is drawn. The committee will contain experts in natural resources, demographics, geography, the power grid, transportation, asset valuation, economics, defense, law, religion, etcetera. Halving the United States doesn’t necessarily mean splitting it into equal acreage. All factors will be considered in the pursuit of equality. The goal is to create 2 halves, either of which are just as satisfactory and acceptable to both camps.
The committee will have 1 full year to reach an agreement. If they can’t agree, the panel of judges will make a final determination. A coin is minted that is heads and tails, and evenly weighted on both sides. The coin will remain under constant public surveillance once minted. A lottery of all Americans will determine who flips it. If they are unable, a new name will be selected. Then, at a very public event, this person will flip the coin to determine who gets which half. And once the coin lands, it’s set.
The transition will be gradual, spanning seven to ten years. Both America 1 and America 2 will start with the Constitution and all laws, as they now exist. No new changes to Federal law are to be made during the transition period. Federal aid will be available one time to every American who wants to move to a place that is in their chosen nation. All Federal agencies, including the military will divide equally, duplicating themselves in both new Americas. Corporations will ultimately become incorporated in the land of their choosing but they must have a physical headquarters or base of operations in that nation. The devil is always in the details but decisions can always be made when they must be.
Once the transition is complete, the people of each new sovereign nation are free to modify their nation according to their collective will. America 2 might change its name to The United States of Cascadia, provided they wind up with the Pacific Northwest. They can have universal health care, well-funded public schools through four years of college, net neutrality, legal marijuana, 0 assault rifles, and strict regulations on monopolies and banking if they so choose. America 1 might elect to change its name to ‘Merica. They can have private everything, public nothing, guns galore, 0 regulations on commerce, 0 legal abortions, and they can do away with the separation of church and state clause. In the beginning, both sides will use the existing mechanisms of American governance and democracy that they have inherited to effect any change. If either wants to dissolve, modify, or add something to their new nation, they put it on the ballot. If they want to do away with ballots all together, it first goes on the ballot.
The end result is that we then have 2 nations, bound to peace by treaty, each made up of friends and family members with whom we engage in mutual peace and defense efforts, and in daily commerce, being each other’s strongest ally, yet free of the obstructionism and the constant foiling of the other’s political influence. And we did it all without firing a single shot.
Regardless of where we might pinpoint the beginning of this vast divide between left and right ideology that we have today, I’m not sure there is any putting the genie back in the bottle. Maybe a new version of the Fairness Doctrine would help keep the hard-right and hard-left from becoming so firmly indoctrinated. But it feels like it’s too late for that. So can we divide further, yet still remain under the same, limited umbrella? If so, is there a limit? Is there a point where we say, “you know what, this just isn’t working. I love you, but I can’t live with you anymore. We need to separate.” If there is, then we need a contingency plan in place now. We may be nearer that point that we think.
The Angry American
I have spent the better part of my adult life feeding my own anger. It has become an unfortunate go-to response for me. And really, the more trivial and meaningless the trigger, the more upset I tend to get. It’s not usually the big stuff. For me, it’s spilling the coffee, dropping the greasy spatula onto the kitchen floor, or not being able to find my keys. I hate losing things. I can get screaming-angry because an 18-year-old, true-freshman made an unwise decision on the football field. The cat, the dog, the news, the politics, the world in general have all been food in the sustenance of this intense, scary, and unpleasant response to things that I find annoying- anger.
My anger has been taking center-stage more frequently since Donald Trump became our president. It is truly amazing how all-in-one Trump is as the embodiment of so much that I find utterly repugnant in a politician. I don’t know that I could have invented a more complete caricature. He blusters like a carnival barker with a healthy dose of bad comedian; he calls just about everyone names; he holds no value in diplomacy, and he appears to want to nuke North Korea into oblivion (hopefully it’s just a tactic, and if so, that it doesn’t backfire on him). He’s a classic narcissist and arrogant as all get out. He makes bold accusations that are absent any supporting facts, and will insist he’s right even when there is evidence to the contrary (like his record-breaking inaugural attendance). He is fire beneath the cauldron of civil unrest in which brews the tensions between white supremacists and minorities, liberals and conservatives, pro-choicers and anti-abortionists, gun control advocates and gun rights proponents, Christians and Muslims, immigrants and the communities into which they have settled, etc. He clumsily treads upon long-standing ties with allies and believes in some extreme, alt-right, bizarro world where I suppose the rich ultimately rule by oligarchy. And then there’s the posturing, the pompous poses he strikes like a child pretending to be important, putting on the face of cartoonish regality. Oh, and he’s fat.
I’m learning that anger is a peace-time luxury. Its potential for destruction warrants a tighter lid when the immediate circumstances are more precarious. Lately, it sometimes looks like we Americans are under a kind of cultural siege, one that extends beyond the general buffoonery and ineptitude dripping from the White House. It makes no more sense to me that Donald Trump is our President than it does that Stephen Paddock senselessly opened fire on a crowd of country music concert-goers with nary a clue as to how or why. In both cases, something stinks; I’m just not sure what. Regardless, anger is feeling more like an inappropriate, weak, or worse, manipulated response.
We know of the indisputable efforts by Russia to hack our last election, and of their use of social media to spread propaganda that was designed to foster deeper division among us. And we know for a fact that Trump was unquestionably Russia’s man, the one they felt furthered their agenda. I can only imagine Fox News’ response if the same had been true of Barack Obama.
What could Russia’s endgame be in trying to divide us further? Simply to weaken? The trajectory of attack is always toward war, and it is to war that it will lead if allowed to run its course. But war with whom? War with Russia? War with some other, like China or North Korea? Or war with ourselves? An examination of what Russia has done already clearly supports one of these ends. They want us fighting each other. Might they still be actively pursuing their goal? And is it working?
I suppose it could just be paranoia, the fear that hides behind anger. Most conspiracy theories aren’t true anyway, right, or so we’re told? But some big ones have been. There has clearly been a cover-up surrounding the assassination of JFK, and until someone can counter the claims by a growing number of engineers who say that World Trade Center 7, a building into which no planes flew, could not have collapsed in such perfect, controlled symmetry due to a couple of office fires, I’m going to continue to cry foul about 9/11.
We watched our nation fall under attack near the beginning of Bush Jr.’s presidency. Hyper-vigilance on the part of every American may be needed at this time, along with a pre-determination to be skeptical and cautious when we next find ourselves under the pressure of attack. Let’s decide now not to let our fear frighten us into knee-jerk, angry retaliation, or worse. We the people must agree to let facts rather than rumor, and wisdom rather than emotions rule the day. And that’s not easy for me, the guy who gets bent out of shape if someone goes out of sequence at the 4-way stop.
I invite taking a collective breath and getting clear about something I feel bears re-establishing: fellow American, you are not my enemy, and I am not yours. We may disagree about much, but we are brethren. I may not like your sports team, your politics, or the beer you drink but I have zero interest in taking up arms against you over any of it. Let’s never buy into any argument that frames American against American, no matter who blares that it is so. We are better than that. We have been through one civil war and it was the bloodiest. Not one of us deserves to endure the mass suffering that can only come from another one. We must remember that wars, even civil ones, are easy to start and hard to stop. Let’s not let ourselves become Syria. Who among us would benefit from that? The answer is no one… among us. May my anger never be used in service of an agenda that is not my own.
Peace, and God bless America.
Trump’s Fake News
I had no idea before Donald Trump became president that there is so much “fake news” about. Maybe he’s right. With 6 corporations owning 90% of American media I’ve no doubt that there are certain subjects they just don’t cover: the perils of concentrated media ownership for one, why the rich don’t need further tax cuts might be another.
Saying that corporate owned media controls the message through censorship may be accurate. But saying that the news our journalists do report is categorically false, or fake, may be a bit of a leap. When Trump says that NBC’s news is fake, he is presuming that all of its journalists are either stupid or in on an ongoing conspiracy to lie to the public. Okay, maybe some are stupid, but the truly dumb ones tend to get weeded out long before making it to a national level. As far as the later, not only does the likelihood of a conspiracy diminish exponentially with the addition of each person needed to carry it out, but this very notion is against the grain of what motivates most to be a journalist in the first place. In fact, asking journalists, of all people, to conceal a conspiracy of such magnitude would be like saying, “here, wolf, guard my sheep.”
I don’t buy the President’s reckless claims of widespread fake news. I just think there is news he doesn’t like. Thomas Jefferson wrote: “When the speech condemns a free press, you are hearing the words of a tyrant.” Maybe our President is giving himself away. Or he could be saying that the press isn’t free, and is therefore fake. Hard to say. He’s seldom clearer than a riddle. If so, I haven’t seen any effort on his part to ensure the full and proper functioning of an American free press. Instead he just tells us they are lying, that we should ignore perhaps our nation’s biggest check on Presidential power.
A mild mistrust of any message can be healthy. I have a healthy skepticism about how corporate media owners, all of whom stand to have their growth, income, and power at least slowed by “liberal” regulations, could be running a “liberal media.” I’ve no problem with anyone suspecting my honesty and integrity in this editorial. Just please don’t scream to the world that I’m full of it unless and until you have proof. Not liking what I say is not proof.
No one wants to be gullible or easily mislead. However, using the presidency to tell America that she can’t trust anything that comes from (non-right-wing) journalists is, at the very least, highly irresponsible, and at worst, acid on the already distressed fabric of our civil peace. Trump’s claims are also unbelievable since anyone who cheers and sings his praises, like Sean Hannity, is decidedly not fake news. I suspect that if our president started conducting himself more presidentially he might find that his foes in the media are suddenly reporting more accurately.
“Liberal” Is the New “Polack”
I used to scoff at the idea of taking personal offense. I thought that it was just a way of allowing words to control you, of allowing syllabic utterances to disturb one’s peace. I really used to think, “Why would anyone give a word or slur the power to provoke indignity, defensiveness, and rage?” You know, the old “sticks and stones…” adage.
While it may be the case that verbal violence is easier to ignore than physical violence, syllables do carry an invisible weight. They bring force. Commands, threats, and insults have often preceded physical brutality. If you identify with one group or another, be it along racial, political, sexual, or religious lines, and someone insults that group as being either ridiculous, sinful, evil, or stupid, taking offense can seem a natural, even justified response.
I never had any reason to be offended. I’m not Jewish, Polish, Hispanic, Muslim, Italian, gay, or black. No one was telling jokes about me. I’ve been called an asshole and told to fuck off before, which wasn’t very much fun. But it certainly left me feeling privileged enough to maintain the notion that responding to insult was somehow unenlightened. It may be, ultimately, but I’m no master on the mountaintop, no one to wag his finger at someone for being offended.
At 47, I’ve finally known what it’s like to suffer a degree of insult and ridicule. It happens almost daily and it comes in the form of the conservative, Facebook meme, shared posts with accompanying pictures that say things like “liberals love Bruce Jenner because he’s queer, and hate Tim Tebow because he’s Christian!” This is not an exact quote but a fair paraphrase from one in particular that I remember. “Liberals want to mutilate this baby and scrape it out of a mother’s womb while it screams in pain.” “Liberals boycott Chick-fil-a because the owner doesn’t support gay marriage, but they buy gasoline from countries that execute homosexuals.” “Liberals raise Hell over the confederate flag but buy things stamped ‘made in China.” “Liberals support President Obama who is the anti-Christ and/or second coming of Hitler!” I see these kinds of messages on Facebook every day, stereotyping liberals, drawing false comparisons, employing inflammatory hyperbole and rhetoric. The Liberal has become the new Polack, the idiotic butt of the conservative joke, and more and more, I’m finding it offensive.
Feeling offended is not tantamount to suffering torture, hunger, or illness. It is, however, a realization that someone else thinks, “you are different and I don’t like that difference,” or worse, “I don’t like you for that difference.” I’m not saying you can’t criticize us liberals. I’m not crusading to make “liberal” the new “n-word” (though it’s often spat from the mouths of conservatives with just as much contempt.) I am, however, shining a light on this relatively new phenomenon (or maybe it’s not that new). It’s apparently okay to liberal-bash, and this bashing knows no discretion, restraint, or basic civility.
To the people who share these memes, maybe consider affording the same respect that you expect. I am an American liberal/progressive, and proud of it. I could just as easily chastise, sneer and belittle conservatives on Facebook because, quite frankly, sometimes I do think they are anywhere from just plain nuts to dangerously foolish. On Facebook, I raise points, take issue, even express outrage, but I try not to mock. I do share memes that are in line with my political views, and ones favoring candidates that I support.
And for the record, I think it was ridiculous that Bruce, now Caitlyn Jenner won ESPN’s Arthur Ash Courage Award considering the competition. I hate Tim Tebow, not because he’s a Christian, but for playing for the University of Florida and the Denver Broncos (but mostly for the University of Florida). I think that women’s access to safe, legal abortion services is a social necessity (and that there is a point in the pregnancy beyond which it shouldn’t be done). I didn’t boycott Chick-fil-a because I support the owner’s right to his opinions AND he wasn’t trying to pass any anti-gay legislation. I buy gasoline because I have to, and I get it from whatever pump has the lowest prices. (I don’t have to buy chicken sandwiches, hence, the false comparison). I haven’t raised Hell at all over the battle flag of confederate Virginia. I have shared my opinion about it when someone took the time to ask. I do try to support local businesses whenever I can but our trade policies (which lack US trade tariffs) keep Wal-Mart’s shelves full of products “made in China.” I think for myself and I endeavor to stay relatively informed. So tease me for my beliefs if you must, just be aware that your words, and those in your shared posts, carry weight. My parents taught me that teasing is wrong, that “the pen is mightier than the sword,” and that, “if you can’t say something nice about somebody, don’t say anything at all.”
Our Electronic Chains
I just got a new smart-phone. It’s my second one, though unfortunately, the user isn’t any smarter. I thought I’d replace some of the apps that were on the device I’m ditching and so surfed over to the virtual Play Store, apparently my only option for downloading apps on an Android. (If you have an iPhone, your only option appears to be iTunes.) There, I found the free Facebook app, and clicked “Install.” To my surprise, the next screen told me that “Facebook needs access to (my): Device and App History, Identity, Contacts/Calendar, Location, SMS (texts), Phone, Photos/Media/Files, Camera/Microphone, Wi-Fi Connection Information, Device ID & Call Information.”
From the automobile to the personal computer, and everything in between, consumers’ indulgence in the latest and greatest in technology had always lacked something that comes standard with today’s purchases, the forfeiture of privacy.
According to the Edward Snowden revelations, everything that everyone in America has ever done on-line, or with a cell phone, is being recorded. If someone ever draws the spotlight, piques the interest of the National Security Agency (NSA), then the treasure trove of information that is our digital life, preserved for indefinite posterity, is at their disposal. By researching our computer’s IP address, our cell phone number(s), email address(es), Twitter/Facebook/Instagram accounts, and anything else we’ve ever done on a glowing screen, a Federal agent can know more about us than our own families or therapists. A personal selfie emailed to a girlfriend or boyfriend is stored forever in “the cloud.” Will it ever return to haunt? Who knows? We don’t know who has access to this information, or what they might do with it.
My first question after reading Facebook’s terms of use, the ones I needed to “agree” to in order to install its smart-phone app, was “why?’’ Why does Facebook, or any app for that matter, need access to anything of mine on either my computer or my smart-phone? If I want to share something like a photograph with my Facebook friends, I’ll upload it to Facebook. Otherwise, it should be end of fucking story. I don’t need them having access to the photos that I don’t upload. Yet it wants this access and more. It wants to be able to look at my contacts, read my texts, basically see any and everything I do on my smart phone, everywhere I go, and that’s just Facebook.
I declined. It seemed a little much.
What Facebook wanted opened my eyes to all of the different forms of information my cell phone/device is recording about me. We, the buying public, have tacitly agreed to carry around tracking devices in exchange for the conveniences they offer: texting, remote email access, on-line shopping, GPS, Solitaire, phone calls, just to name a few. This didn’t used to be the case. When I bought Boston’s first LP, all the record store knew was that another unit had moved from its shelf. No one knew if, when, or where I played it once it left their hands. This appears to have become an intolerable shortage of information about consumers to the modern corporation.
The technology that threatens the privacy we have always taken for granted in America didn’t exist until relatively recently, and it wasn’t until the Snowden revelations in 2013 that we found out that our most paranoid and Orwellian of fantasies were true. Now, regardless of how sensitive or private, more and more data is being gathered about each of us through constant, electronic surveillance. It appears that we surrender our right to this information by agreeing to the “terms of service” found in the mini-novelettes attached to everything we download or purchase these days. Perhaps we refuse to believe that any harm could come from it, but I think the number one reason we check the box beside “I agree to the terms and conditions” without actually reading them is that we can’t proceed otherwise.
Our passive acceptance of an app’s “terms of service” is actually fairly insignificant against the larger backdrop. We can be found more easily today than ever before, most readily through the GPS features in our pocket devices. No smart-phone? No problem. The network of video cameras strewn across our cities and roadways can utilize facial recognition software to spot just about anyone. We’ve already logged our faceprints with the photos we’ve naively uploaded to apps like Facebook, and now, apparently, even with the ones we haven’t. Passports have had Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) chips in them since 2006. More and more cars are sold with preinstalled GPS tracking devices and remote kill-switches that enable someone to render the vehicle inoperable should one fall behind on their payments, or at the request of law enforcement. Also, according to the Snowden revelations, our devices can now be activated remotely to record video and sound with the built in microphones and video cameras, at any time and without our knowledge.
Aside form the ”ick” factor, why should anyone be concerned about the mass surveillance network that is metastasizing across the United States and our planet? For one, people behave differently when they know they’re being watched. I remember being fairly free with my electronic speech when I thought that only my “friends” or intended recipients were reading it. Now, I’m fairly restrained. I self-censor.
“Get used to being watched.” Apparently, this is the new message that the information collectors hope the world will embrace. Who gets access to this information? How many people can see it? How is this information being used? How is it safeguarded? What are the limits on how it can be used and with whom it can be shared? How long will this information be stored? Might it be used by established power to blackmail someone who runs for political office, or leads a social movement? How hard will it be for someone to make a real difference in the Unites States of America from here forward given the indelible, electronic trail that each of us forges during our lifetimes, an ever growing chain to be borne like the one that yokes Marley’s ghost in Dickens’ A Christmas Carol?
Is this okay with us? Is mass, ongoing, indiscriminate, anonymous surveillance and data collection something that belongs in America? Would the founding fathers approve? Is this practice in line with our values? Are we really so afraid of terrorists that we’re willing to acquiesce to being constantly watched and recorded? Should checking Facebook, playing Angry Birds, or using the flashlight feature on a smart-phone be costing us our privacy on any level?
These are the questions Americans, and the world at large should be asking. I dare proclaim that it’s not okay. It’s too far. They may as well just tag us with little transmitters that beam whatever information they want to know, whenever they want to know it. While they’re at it, they might as well install a “kill switch.” You know, just in case. I’m only half kidding. I find the trajectory that we’re on to be alarming.
I want our protectors: the FBI, CIA, NSA, and US military to find the real bad guys, the guys that blow shit up, the whack-jobs, the extremists. Honestly, I’m more interested in our elected representatives finding ways for Americans not to have so many enemies in the first place, but this seems to be way down on their list of priorities. I believe that the NSA can do its job without casting an unending, round-the-clock information dragnet across the American citizenry. But since they are anyway, and since the amount of information they’re collecting will just increase in scope and complexity with time, at the very least, we need to draft and pass legislation that protects us from the harm that can result from their activity, an Information and Surveillance Protection Act, if you will, one that grants all Americans the right to legal redress for any suffering one might incur from the misuse of privileged, and presumed private electronic information, such as private emails, text conversations, or browsing and download histories. There is no way to predict how much more invasive and pervasive surveillance and data collection will become, but an Act of Congress might be all that can save us from power’s worst intentions.
Life's Whistle Blower 