The Case Against Bush: Evidence A
Monday, March 22, 2004 8:37 AM:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13607-2004Mar21.html

If this article is accurate, and Clarke is indeed an honest writer, then this needs to be circulated to everyone so that we know the truth about why we went to war with Iraq.

Gay Marriage
Thursday, February 26, 2004 10:55 AM:

For anyone confused, troubled by, wanting to learn more about this issue, see this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3055-2004Feb24.html

Probably the most thoughtful, compassionate, and rational discussion on gay marriage I have read so far.

Political Correctness
Thursday, February 19, 2004 5:11 PM:

(Inspired by an article in my alma mater school newspaper: http://www.cavalierdaily.com/CVArticle.asp?ID=18820&pid=1118)

Every so often, I see an article or an opinion written about political correctness where an enterprising young author rails against our sterile “PC” culture.  Invariably, he or she makes a remark that offends somebody somewhere and is denounced as an insensitive bigot, at which point our author feels a sense of bittersweet validation – that no one can say anything truly interesting without being shouted down, proving his original point.

First of all, we need to examine the phrase “political correctness” and determine what it really means.  From the words themselves, we can deduce that the phrase originated from a set of standards applied to politicians or those in power.  It makes sense to hold our elected officials to a higher standard of conduct; after all, their purpose is to represent their constituents, and if they fail to do so adequately – by making disparaging comments or implying that one group is somehow inferior to another – they will suffer the consequences in the polls.

The effect of political correctness has been exaggerated by the development of instantaneous news media that causes over-stimulation and spawns attention deficit disorder in the general public.  We have seen countless examples of media clips of public figures made to look absolutely villainous thanks to splicing and editing (i.e. Howard Dean, post-Iowa).  For a recent example, look at Colorado football coach Gary Barnett’s comments about the female kicker who was allegedly raped while a member of his squad.  Barnett’s disparaging comments about Katie Hnida’s ability to put a ball through the uprights were utterly inappropriate given the serious nature of the crime; yet, they were in response to a reporter’s (probably repeated) questioning that was not shown.  Out of a press conference that probably lasted several minutes, all that made it into CNN’s headlines was a 20 second clip that made Barnett look downright mean.  I’m not defending Barnett, but I do not believe that he (or anyone, for that matter) should be judged on a few words taken out of context.

This new art of twisting words has caused those whose words are carefully watched – such as politicians – to become exceedingly careful with what they say, tiptoeing along a thin line of political correctness.  As a result, the media must intensify its scrutiny to the degree with which investors scrutinize Alan Greenspan.  Trent Lott’s undoing was partly a result of this dynamic.  When he fervently proclaimed, with tears glistening in his eyes, that the country would have been better off with Strom Thurmond as president, it was natural that people would study those words carefully to determine some kind of hidden motive.  In order to access any politician, one must get past the fog of platitudes and the veneer of clichés that surround our senators and congressmen.  Whether Lott is truly a segregationist who let his guard down or just a guy who chose his words poorly is hard to determine; yet, he should have known better, and he paid the price for his words.  Furthermore, Trent Lott was no Joe Schmo state legistator; he was one of the most powerful men in national politics and his deepest thoughts have national importance.

In this new era of intense public scrutiny, political correctness is a natural and inevitable phenomenon.  My problem with the notion of the term “political correctness” is that its usage has crossed the political realm into places it should not be.  Art and music cannot be, by definition, politically incorrect.  Talk show hosts cannot be politically incorrect.  Offensive, yes.  Bigoted, sure.  Misguided, often.  But “politically incorrect”? I don’t think so.  This usage of “PC” implies is that there is some kind of standard of speech to which ALL of us have to adhere to make this a pleasant and inoffensive society.  This goes against the very notion of a pluralistic and open society.

Furthermore, the enforcement of political correctness is not driven by fair and equitable codes; it is driven by sheer utilitarianism.  What do I mean by this?  In the realm of politics, if a Congressional candidate from a 99% White district of Mississippi can get elected by running on a segregationist platform, then there is not much one can say.  However, candidates have realized that political correctness is a dictum to which they must adhere if they want to capture as many votes as possible. 

This same cost-benefit analysis is applied in other realms to simulate “political correctness.”  When a certain Rush Limbaugh voiced his opinions on Donovan McNabb, he immediately found himself in the hot seat not because of the inflammatory nature of his comments (I’m sure by Limbaugh’s standards, they were quite tame) but because he was on ESPN.  He was speaking to a diverse national audience.  When ESPN hired him, they were thinking only of one thing: increasing ratings and viewership.  And when they fired him after his comments, they were thinking of preventing a drop in ratings and viewership.  It was all business. 

Similarly, a few years ago when Abercrombie unveiled its line of t-shirts with blatantly offensive Asian stereotypes, it was not trying to make any kind of political statement.  It was merely trying to make a profit, and regardless of how offensive they seemed to some of us, those shirts did sell.  It was only after it realized that it would be in their best interest to take those items off the shelves because of public outrage from the Asian community that Abercrombie relented.  In a way, the ability to label something as “politically incorrect” is a measure of the political strength of the offended party.  The executives at Abercrombie underestimated the willingness of the Asian-American community to voice its collective opinion.  Perhaps they were thinking of their own stereotypes of the meek, submissive Asian man or woman.

I am not saying this is a bad thing; indeed, some time later when American Eagle came up with sandals featuring the Hindu god Ganesh on the soles, I was shocked.  For a Hindu, showing one’s feet to another is as disrespectful a gesture as one can imagine, so it is understandable that there was some outrage at the thought of millions of people stepping on the face of a deity.  For the Indian community to have the ability (and purchasing power) to force American Eagle to discontinue this particular product was a unique source of pride for me.

However, let us not confuse this power to influence corporations and politicians with a moral imperative.  A perfect instance of thriving political incorrectness is found right in the heart of our Nation’s Capital.  The Washington Redskins – by far my favorite sports team – has by far the most offensive name, a term that is derived from the scalping of Native Americans by early European settlers.  For a long time, Native American groups have protested the name to no avail.  The Redskins are the heart and soul of D.C.’s sports franchises and the economic power wielded by that name far surpasses any kind of clout that Native Americans have on the East Coast.  Thus, a truly offensive name barely registers on the scale of political incorrectness because the political issues are virtually nonexistent.

The point I’m trying to make here is that we should recognize “political correctness” for what it is; a force that deals primarily with the self-censorship of public figures.  Political correctness operates on the same laws that drive our capitalist society.  With the consolidation of media companies – AOL and Time Warner, ABC and Disney and possibly Comcast – we see political correctness seeping into all aspects of entertainment and culture, creating a bland and sterile environment.  Seeing this effect is what causes so many people to complain about those who constantly wield the devices of political correctness as weapons.  Certain religious and social organizations use these devices to demonstrate their political power, and there is nothing wrong with that provided that we learn to separate that which is “politically incorrect” from that which is “immoral” or “wrong”.  

For example, if Al Sharpton made anti-Semitic comments, they would come back to haunt him in his push for political office.  But if Outkast happened to offend Native Americans, would people still buy their records?  Maybe, maybe not.  If so, then why should Andre care?  He is an artist, and while he should not be insensitive, the First Amendment supercedes any laws of censorship.  If people did stop buying his records, the would have to make a choice: continue to be un-PC and end his career, or apologize and move on to repair the damage with a good PR staff.  The bottom line is that these conflicts are ultimately decided by political and economic consequence, not by principles of some overarching morality or sense of justice.  There are no absolute standards for offensiveness.  If our fictional Congressman from Mississippi were to be confronted by the NAACP for his racist views, he could just as easily tell them to go to hell, as long as he can get re-elected.  So long as that Congressman’s views are kept to impotent ramblings and theoretical musings, they pose no harm.  Because after all, words don’t really matter.

Or do they?  I tend to side with the old “sticks and stones” adage, and I have yet to be persuaded otherwise.  For all I care, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly can talk until they are blue in the face; unless they maliciously lie and deceive people (for which they can be prosecuted), they have the constitutional right to offend whomever they please.  If they go too far, however, and the Nielsen meter starts to dip into the red, they will have no one to blame but themselves and the laws of political correctness.

The End of Dean
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 5:59 PM:

Someday, years from now, I think I will look back on this day, February 18^th 2004, as the day something was changed, changed utterly.  I’ll remember sitting in the HIV clinic of the VA Hospital, trying to recruit patients among the veterans who were dealt the cruel blow of having a terrible virus coursing through their blood, slowly taking away their lives.  I will remember how intently they watched the TV in the waiting room, tuned to CNN, as Howard Dean announced that he was throwing in the towel.  I will remember sitting down, turning my attention away from my job, from the other research assistant who was asking me a question, from the patients, and feeling a momentous sense of desperation, what Kundera might call “the unbearable lightness of being.”  Perhaps this is what so many young people felt like when McGovern lost in 1972, or when John Lennon died. 

It’s hard to snap out of this melodrama.  Politics has held little drama for our generation, so I suppose I have to milk this for what its worth.  I did not think I was counting on Dean to revive my faith in America.  Still, Howard Dean represented an idea in American politics (see my last blog for an explanation) that was new; it was an idea that a lot of people felt was long overdue.  And that idea has been soundly rejected as being unpractical and unobtainable.  Why did the “Dean movement”, as it has been called, have to end?  If you listen to CNN it has to do with electability and personality.

What is Electability?  From all indications, it seems that Dean lost essentially on this criterion; that he could not be elected.  To me, this is Catch-22 type of logic; it’s absolute nonsense.  If you don’t vote for someone merely because he “cannot win,” then of course he won’t win, because he’s not getting votes!  Moreover, one of Dean’s selling points (to me, anyways) was that he wasn’t the kind of candidate who would do anything or say anything just to be elected.  It is a cruel joke of American politics when a candidate is labeled “unelectable” after one pseudo-election in a pseudo-important state, and this label prevents him from winning anywhere, thus fulfilling the original prophesy.

His personality was another issue.  A commentator said after Dean’s speech that while his message was inspiring, the man himself was not.  Dean was not polished or professional.  He appeared comical at times.  The post-Iowa speech was unfortunate because of the way it was handled in the media and because it came at a time when Dean’s campaign had nowhere to go but down.  His wife was nowhere to be seen.  He was not outwardly spiritual, nor did he have a southern drawl.  From all appearances, Dean was not your typical candidate.

Yet, neither was he like John Kerry who bears an uncanny resemblance to an oak tree, even when wearing a hockey uniform.  He was certainly not John Edwards, who seems like an actor trying to play Bill Clinton in a made-for-TV-movie about the 1996 election.  I argue that Dean’s personality was his selling point and source of inspiration to his supporters.  He presented us with a Cinncinatus-like figure, unpreparedly entering the world of politics, a man who would be just as happy to return to Vermont and practice medicine with his wife if it weren’t for that nagging voice in his conscience that could not let him watch his country and society be overrun by an ideological agenda.  He came out with energy, anger, passion, optimism, and above all else, conviction.  He allowed the media to analyze him because he did not possess the carefully constructed defenses that come from years of being a politician.  In short, he came across as a real live human being. 

Dean’s departure says less about Howard Dean than it does about America.  Perhaps this is why I felt so forlorn watching him give up.  I was always waiting for that victory, for the thousands of people to come out of the woodwork and stand united in support of him.  I looked forward to the California primary, with the only regret being that I only had one vote to cast.  But I suppose I will have to face up to the reality, that in a way, I was counting on Dean to restore my faith in America.  As it turns out, America is too big, too ignorant, too divided up into self-interested factions to unite behind one person.  Perhaps this election will be a war itself, a contest that shows how truly divided this country is between Right and Left, Republicans and Democrats; between those who fear God and those who believe in Science; between those who believe that might makes right, that the ends justify the means, and those who believe that no price is too high to pay for justice and peace.  We know on what side Bush and Cheney stand.  Like the Greeks invading Troy, they are poised for the attack.  And we just lost our Hector.

Defending Dean (part 2 of many, many more)
Thursday, January 22, 2004 4:42 PM:

For those of us who were Dean supporters or even sympathizers, no week was more disappointing than this past one.  Not only did John Kerry, a boring, spineless, stiff politico win the Iowa caucus, but Howard Dean came in 3^rd.  What is worse, judging by his post-Iowa caucus speech, Dean does not lose gracefully.  If you have not seen it, it’s a video clip that must be watched, if for no other reason than that it is tremendously funny (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/mmedia/politics/012004-2v.htm for a clip).  Dean’s speech has been the talk of the week, with some speculating that this is the end of his campaign, but fortunately for Dean, the speech looks less bad every time you watch it.  He was certainly only speaking to his supporters and painfully oblivious of television cameras.  The only criticism I can offer is that Dean was simply trying to be someone he’s not.  He’s not the fiery rabble rouser that the media have made him into.  He is simply angry at the state this country is in.  He is an intelligent guy who is sure of himself and confident that he could do a better job running this country than anyone else in the race.

Dean is not a bizarre phenomenon.  He is an ordinary person who feels the same way a lot of young, college educated professionals do.  He feels the way I do.  If he comes across as cocky and self-assured, it’s because many of us who have an education, who read the newspapers, and who have some sense of what is going on all confidently believe that we know what’s best for this country.  We are not exceedingly wealthy, nor are we in danger of losing our jobs.  We prefer to go about the business of our daily lives, shaking our heads at the politicians we see in Washington, but not really thinking that we could do anything about it.  We watch elections go by every four years and recite the same joke, that the only thing wrong with American politicians is that one of them has to win.  In 2000, we looked at Bush and Gore and essentially thought, “Does it really matter who wins?  Does it really matter who I vote for?”  The “my vote doesn’t matter” philosophy was not rooted in apathy but in a resigned judgment, that we really did not believe either candidate would affect our life to any significant degree.

Then, after September 11^th, 2001, we saw how wrong we were.  I believe that the anger off of which Dean’s campaign has been fueled is not only anger at Bush and the right-wing government, but at ourselves for allowing our country to slip out of our hands.

Dean is transparent.  There is no glossy John Edwardsian veneer over him.  He is short, intense, and he cannot smile without seeming creepy.  At times he looks like an older, white version of Carlton from the “Fresh Prince of Bel Air.”  In a phrase, Dean is all substance with no style.  When I see candidates like Kerry, Gephardt and Edwards denounce the war that they voted for, it makes me sick.  All of them secretly believed in the war, believed in the rightness of its outcome.  Only Lieberman has the conviction to say that he supported the war effort all along.  Dean was against the unilateral nature of the war from the beginning.  When he claimed that the world was not necessarily safer after Saddam Hussein was captured, he was right. (His capture was in many ways irrelevant; the relevant fact was that Hussein was ousted from power, and no one can deny the world is better off without him in power).  Yet, because Dean “shoots from the hip,” he is prone to misinterpretation.

Vacation
Monday, December 22, 2003 7:59 AM: I'll be on vacation until January 12, 2004, travelling in India.  Happy holidays to all! (0 comments , 9836 views)

The Spoils of War
Tuesday, December 16, 2003 3:07 PM:

(My new website is up and utterly Neanderthal - www.ninad.net)

The issue of doling out contracts to different countries brings up the extraordinary hypocrisy of war and world politics.  Let's start with a criticism of the Bush administration: by excluding those countries that had not supported the war, Bush implicitly makes this a war about money and profits.  It already reeks of cronyism that Haliburton was awarded such a monstrous no-bid contract.  Before the war, Bush had said that the invasion was about weapons of mass destruction and war was vital to our security.  Well, it has become painfully obvious that our security was not imminently at risk.  So the next justification - a noble and altruistic one - was relief for the long-suffering Iraqi people.  Relief would come by removing Saddam Hussein, instilling law and order, and building a foundation of freedom and democracy from which peace and prosperity can grow.  (I suppose 1 out of 3 isn't bad at this point, but it certainly isn't any kind of victory.)  Now, President Bush said, quite explicitly, that the countries that "gave lives" to the Iraqi cause should be preferentially awarded contracts.  And in theory, no one can dispute this as being fair.  But then the question that begs to be asked is, "Why were those lives given?"  If the first two justifications fall through, it becomes clear that the real motive for this war was profit, and this war was little more than a 21st century colonization expedition, the plundering of a rich country with no defense.

In all fairness to the Bush administration, the leaders of France, Germany and Russia are even worse.  Outspoken in their opposition to the war, they now feel somehow entitled to the rewards.  It is possible that they are merely trying to draw attention to America's greedy stance, but more likely, they are trying to steal someone else's cake and eat it too.

If I were President Bush, I would extract as much as possible from these three undeservedly influential countries - such as concessions like forgiving the Iraqi loans - and then opening up the contracts to all countries and letting the Iraqi governing council decide on how to hand out the money.  Throw the fodder to the trough and let the pigs scramble for the scraps.  After all, how can France object when billions of dollars are flowing through their cobblestone streets and pastry-filled shops?  And what does another $18 billion matter to a country that is already facing a huge budget deficit and whose Congress is trying to spend another $350 billion to build golf courses for school children? 

Symbols
Tuesday, November 18, 2003 6:52 PM:

I love symbolism. That’s part of the reason I became an English major.  My favorite book is Ralph Ellison’s Invisible Man because it is rich with metaphors, allegories, and symbols that represent larger, more complex issues.  From the standpoint of realism, the book often doesn’t make sense.  But that’s okay with me; I love symbols because they are like pictures, speaking a thousand words in the place of only a few.  One can write a beautifully complex novel in 1000 pages or only 50 depending on how one uses symbolism.

One of the most prominent symbols of the past few decades, especially in the South, is the Confederate Flag.  (You knew I was going here, didn’t you?  And incidentally, I apologize for the long delay in posting a new rant.  I’ve been traveling and busy, but more significantly, uninspired.  But as long as Howard Dean keeps talking, I will never completely run out of material.)  A few weeks ago, Howard Dean proclaimed himself to be the candidate who will represent “guys with the Confederate flag in their pickups.”  Naturally, the other candidates used this opportunity to pounce on him.  Unfortunately for Dean, an off-hand comment became something controversial that made everyone look ridiculous.  All at once, Dean was labeled a supporter of a racist symbol and an arrogant northerner who is stereotyping poor white Southerners.  Meanwhile, people like Al Sharpton come across as the divisive and obnoxious snowball’s-chance-in-hell candidates who go for the sound bytes and the one-liners without having a thoughtful or articulate platform.

What I really want to talk about, though, is the ol’ Johnny Reb, the Stars ‘n’ Bars.  When the Confederate flag was hoisted up in front of the state Capitol in 1962 in South Carolina, it was in protest of federally mandated desegregation and the civil rights movement.  In that moment, the Confederate flag became a symbol of the George Wallaces of the day; it stood for racial inequality and divisiveness.  Or rather, the flag gained the added significance of segregationist defiance, in addition to all the other things for which it stood – the Old South, the Confederacy, the ancestors of many Southerners alive today who are not racists.  If the Confederate flag stood for Robert E. Lee, it would be a testament to a virtuous man who was loyal, courageous and dedicated to his state. 

No image or icon gains symbolic status on its own.  It must be associated with a poignant memory or event so that it triggers a response, whether that response is laughter or a visceral anger.  The swastika is the perfect example of a symbol that evokes a gut level response.  Since the end of the Nazi era, it has stood for everything evil and hateful in this world.  And yet, growing up in a Hindu family, we would routinely decorate our front porch with swastikas in celebration of Diwali, the holiest of celebrations in Hinduism.  I never looked at the swastika as a symbol of hate until I became aware of World War II history and the Holocaust.  In fact, the swastika is an ancient Aryan symbol that spread through India during the Aryan invasion and was adopted by Hitler many thousands of years later.  What if Hitler instead had chosen the number 3 as the symbol of the Third Reich?  Or the Greek letter Pi?  Or a cross? 

Another example of an icon that has taken on symbolic meaning is one that is quite dear to my heart.  It is the profile of a Native American man with dark skin and two white feathers in his braided hair.  What does this symbol mean for me?  Does it signify the oppression of the Native Americans?  Of years of suffering and hardship, of smallpox ravaging a vulnerable population?  Do I get riled up thinking about this image?

Not at all.  Because when I see this image, I think of the logo of the Washington Redskins, a team that I grew up watching and rooting for as a kid.  I think of spending long afternoons waiting in line to catch a glimpse of my favorite players.  I think of time I spent with my father or my sister, sitting in the stands, feeling the excitement of the crowd on a cool, crisp autumn afternoon.  When Native American groups started protesting against the name, “Redskins,” I was deeply conflicted.  On one hand, the term “Redskins” is a deeply offensive word, almost as much so as “Nigger.”  Yet, the name Redskins has become inextricably linked with a sports team that has done much to foster racial unity.  The Redskins were one of the last teams to be integrated, thanks to a notoriously racist owner.  But since then, no one symbol has done more to unite the citizens of the nation’s capital – black and white – than the Redskins.  Pro sports has a way of creating such a community of people all cheering for one team.  So what is the right answer?

In this instance, I’m not sure I know.  But in a larger sense, we have become a nation that places too much emphasis on the political correctness of symbols, images, and words to the point where we are missing the bigger picture.  Protesting the Confederate flag flying over the South Carolina capitol is one thing; the flag is a direct symbol of segregationism, and as such, taking it down is symbolic of racial unity.  But scraping Confederate flag bumper stickers off of John Q.’s pickup truck is not doing anything to solve the larger problems of racial discrimination.  The same symbol does not mean the same thing in each instance or to each person.  When I draw a swastika on my door as a Hindu symbol, it is not the same as Aryan Nation marching through the streets with a swastika on a flag.  Aryan Nation’s purpose for the swastika is intimidation; my purpose is to celebrate my religion. 

Perhaps there is a gray area; perhaps some people are offended by my swastika.  But no one has the right to never be offended.  And if words are misconstrued and symbols are misrepresented – as is bound to happen in a highly polarized society – well, then we have to be able to explain ourselves in an articulate manner (which Dean did not do, calling the flag a “loathsome symbol” in a later semi-apology) and more importantly, we have to be willing to listen.  Furthermore, we cannot accept the kind of ruthless, selective attacks that people like Al Sharpton and John Edwards used to assail Dean after he made a statement which really just needed further explanation.  I truly believe that to do so is, quite frankly, undemocratic and un-American, and people like that deserve no respect.  Yet, in a culture in which puns take precedence over platforms, no one has the time to hear someone defend a statement that can so easily be twisted around.

The Sound of Freedom
Sunday, October 19, 2003 10:04 PM:

I spent the better part of this hot, sunny Sunday on a Marine Corps air base seeing the products of an inflated military budget caused by forty some years of Cold War spending.  As the infamous B1-B bomber appeared on the horizon, the announcer proclaimed over the loudspeaker, “Ladies and gentlemen, everyone stand up and listen to the sound of freedom!”  A few seconds later, the giant grey monster cut through the air with a deafening roar, sending air molecules reverberating for hundreds of yards before reaching my ears.

I’m a little ashamed to admit this, but I never knew what freedom sounded like.  I had always assumed that if freedom had a sound, it would be quiet, like a gentle breeze through long grass in an open field.  To be perfectly honest, I didn’t even know freedom had a sound, and I started wondering: Does freedom have a taste too?  What about a smell?  I spent the rest of that day trying to discover the wonderful ways freedom can delight the senses.  I spent $10 on a meal of chicken fingers and fries, along with a Pepsi.  That felt pretty close to the taste of freedom, although I think maybe I should have substituted the Pepsi for a Coke. 

After the feelings of confusion and shame wore off, I became worried.  The fact that I knew so little about freedom scared me.  I am told every day that people are fighting and dying for my freedom.  I am enjoying this freedom every day, they say, and yet I cannot really sense what I am enjoying.  I vowed that I would not rest until I had figured out what this freedom was all about.  I waited until the day’s football games were done, got the highlights on ESPN, checked my fantasy team (yup, still in last place), and then proceeded to do some heavy thinking. 

The first conclusion I came to was that my freedom – our freedom – is a big deal.  I ran through clips of Braveheart and saw how important freedom has been to so many kinds of people.  William Wallace loved his freedom, even as he was strapped to a table with his intestines spilling out into an audience of British commoners.  For Mel – excuse me, William Wallace – freedom seemed a little painful.  But I had heard that freedom could be painful.  (I mean, come on…all freedom can’t be as fun as getting your eardrums blown out by a sonic boom.)   

Suddenly, I had a flashback to my college days.  I was in a class discussion group when our discussion leader asked us each to name what was most precious to all of us.  I didn’t hesitate to say that my sister, mother, and father were the most precious gifts in my life.  When it was time for our moderator – who was, incidentally, a law student – to speak, he said, “To me, the most precious thing in the world is freedom.  Without our freedom, nothing is possible.”

I had always felt cheated by this answer, and now thinking back on it, he never explained what “freedom” meant.  We cannot live for a single day without hearing about how important freedom is.  We are fighting a war for freedom.  We have everyone from politicians to soldiers to the most powerful man in the world reaffirming that our freedom is the most important thing in the world – so important that sometimes you have to kill people in order to preserve it.  It seems like preserving life is not always necessary for preserving freedom.  To Patrick Henry, the next best thing to being free was, well, being dead.  After all, he didn’t say, “Give me liberty or give me a million dollars, or a thousand acres of land, or a hundred slaves, or a new horse – and if none of that works out, well then, hell, give me death!”

I am ashamed to be living in a society in which freedom is taken for granted and then used as a synonym for every single motivation we have to continue living our lifestyle of convenience.  Somehow, in the name of freedom, we can carry out any conceivable action because, after all, freedom is the highest goal known to man.  To say that America is the birthplace of freedom is a downright lie that makes me choke on my own bile.  This country had a system of slavery so vile and yet so inextricably vital that it took four score and seven years to rip it forcibly out of our arms and throw it away for good.  But that was a long time ago, you might say.  Maybe we should ask the steel mill workers and coal miners who work long hours in hazardous conditions to provide food for their family if they are enjoying their freedom or still trying to earn it.

I’m not down on America.  I love this country.  To me, the freedom that I so desperately seek is the freedom to find the truth.  It is even deeper than that; it is the freedom to believe that there is a truth and that nothing can stop me from knowing it – the freedom to think for myself.  This is the kind of freedom that has existed throughout society, the kind that all people crave and all people have strived for, the kind that is irrepressible.  The United States did not invent this freedom but it has tried to nurture it ever since, tried to live up to its own foolishly bold standards of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.  At times it has failed, and at times it has triumphed beyond what was possible at the time. 

Ultimately, I’m glad to have heard the sound of freedom, because that sound tells us about ourselves.  In the 1840’s in Virginia, the sound of freedom to a young runaway slave may have been the whistle of a locomotive taking him North.  Or perhaps the foghorn of a steamship pulling into Ellis Island as a boat full of crowded immigrants craned their necks to gaze at the statue of liberty - that is what freedom sounded like to them.  Now, our freedom is associated with the terrible, glass-shattering ripple of air waves that accompany our weapons of mass destruction.  Our freedom is having our money spent to bomb to rubble a country half a world away that we have never seen with our own eyes, never smelled, or never heard.  We are duped into thinking that our freedom depends on such actions.  I’m always amazed by the inane logic that people use in response to war protesters: “Well,” they might say, “I think it’s ironic that these people are protesting and exercising the very freedom that we are providing with the war.”  What freedom are we talking about?  Is it the freedom to watch sports on Sunday and drink a cold beer?  To stand on our porch with a legally bought M-16 rifle and wave the American flag at our terrified neighbors?  If we throw around this word “freedom” any more, we are in danger of confusing the kind of freedom that gives true meaning to our life with the kind of freedom that trivializes our life.  It is not “freedom” to shop where you want to shop.  It is not “freedom” to be able to buy gas at less than $2 a gallon.  And as hard as it is to accept, it is not “freedom” to live as you please – without fear or insecurity.

In the movie Dead Poets Society, Robin Williams rhymes, “Only in our dreams were all men truly free / ‘twas always thus, and always thus will be.”  Perhaps Rousseau was right when he said that men were born free but are in chains everywhere.  Or Perhaps Janis Joplin said it best, when she sang, “Freedom’s just another word for nothing left to lose.”  Someday, once we have labeled all meaningless banalities with our generic Freedom Stamp, we might understand what she was talking about.

Gov. Arnold (or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Recall)
Wednesday, October 08, 2003 11:56 AM:

As a registered Democrat in the state of California, I should be angry.  I voted “No” on the recall.  I think that Arnold Schwarzenegger’s campaign was generic and lacking in substance.  I agree that the whole recall effort reeked of partisan politics, of the kind of games that Republicans can afford to play with their treasure chests of campaign funds.  But in the end, now that the smoke has cleared and the dust has settled, there are many reasons why I think democracy is better off because of the recall.

1) Accountability.  Gray Davis was not guilty of any sordid, illegal scandal.  His recall petition mentioned only “gross mismanagement of the state’s funds.”  It’s not like he was stealing money to feed his heroin habit.  Yet, he was guilty of a sense of complacency, of a confidence that stemmed from the fact that as long as he ran against an even more incompetent politician (reference to Bill Simon), he would win.  In having the skills to run a long, drawn out campaign, Davis is second to none.  But in actually governing the state, Davis did not have any kind of foresight – he merely acted according to the circumstances of the time.  Sure, the economy was not his fault.  Yet, the ridiculous spending during the boom, the corruption of the energy companies and the enormous budget deficit are his responsibility.  Most state governors did not have the economic wisdom to realize that the roaring economy of the ‘90’s was bound to crash and then was the time to save up for the future.  However, just because most governors acted this way does not make it less reprehensible.  Perhaps Davis has been the sacrificial lamb for more accountable state and national administrations.

2) Opening up the field.  In today’s elections, it seems impossible to get out of the two-party mold.  I think of that Simpsons episode where aliens impersonating Bob Dole and Bill Clinton reveal themselves right before the election.  To a crowd of voters they say, “You have to elect us.  We are the only two parties available.  What are you going to do?  Vote for a third party?  Go ahead, waste your vote!”  The crowd panics, realizing that the aliens are right.  In real life, the backlash against Ralph Nader’s campaign, which ultimately led to the defeat of Al Gore, has probably convinced voters of the necessity to vote for the electable candidate, not the best one.  Yet, the recall, by its very nature, brought forward over 150 candidates.  Granted, many of these people were unelectable.  But isn’t that the point?  There should be a plethora of candidates representing the great diversity of the state.  We saw several new faces – Arianna Huffington, Peter Camejo – who offered insights into the specific problems facing this state.  Over the course of the race, these candidates have gotten chances to debate and engage each other.  Furthermore, a candidate like Schwarzenegger would never have gotten a chance to run in a normal election; the politics of both major parties essentially lead to the selection of candidates through an oligarchy represented by leaders of the political machines.  Schwarzenegger is not a typical Republican; hence, even up until the final week, the Republican leaders were unwilling to throw their support fully behind him, even though McClintock had no chance of winning.  Similarly, Bustamante did not have the full support of Democrats, yet chose to run anyways.  Rather than being a circus, the recall was the closest we have come to pure democracy in this country, the kind where we have several choices and our vote actually does matter.

3) Putting power back in the hands of the voters.  I admit the recall started off badly.  With a single person bankrolling an effort to get a million signatures, it had the potential to be a victory for the almighty dollar.  But Darrell Issa, for all the money he spent, got nowhere (unless you really believe that he is perfectly happy having Davis recalled and sitting back on the sidelines).  And let’s face it: for any kind of movement to get off the ground, you need money to organize.  Davis was clearly unpopular enough to have been recalled, with a less than 25% approval rating at one time.  To expect the voters to spontaneously organize, waking up from their collective slumber to the theme of Beethoven’s “Pastorale” symphony playing in the background, is pure fantasy.  But once inertia was overcome, it became clear that the voters outrage would sweep Davis out of office.  Given the ability to channel feeling through the polls, voters will respond.  The turnout for the recall was tremendous. 

Ultimately, I’m not worried.  Disconcerted?  Maybe a little.  Amused?  Most definitely.  But the real story has yet to be written.  Will Arnold live up to his words and stand apart from Republicans and Democrats to be a leader with conviction and power?  I hope so.  Yet I fear that sometime in the near future, I will see photos of George W. Bush and Arnold Schwarzenegger, standing shoulder to shoulder, campaigning for the fate of California’s electoral votes.  And in the background, almost unseen, Karl Rove will be prodding them on, waving a cowboy hat in the air and shouting, “Yee haw!”

<--Back Next -->