With thanks to the beloved Gluyas Williams. 1920.
Not much has changed in the last 100 years or so…
The Old Wolf has spoken.
Category Archives: Politics
Which America Do You Want?
The above buttons represent sentiments that were commonly seen as bumper stickers during the Vietnam War era. The former was by far the most prevalent, but the latter could be seen on the vehicles of anti-war activists. Then, as now, political polarization was the rule rather than the exception.
Ever the bellwether of social trends (if only to make fun of them,) Mad magazine featured a recurring segment by Al Jaffee entitled “Hawks and Doves:”
Tragically, the politics of the America that I have known (from Kennedy, who was the earliest president about whom I was old enough to care, to the present day) has been defined by the black-and-white fallacy. I recall my mother having said, “If Goldwater wins, we’re moving to Switzerland.”
The typical “love-it-or-leave-it” stance is epitomized in this song by Joyce Shaffer:
Now that’s a really catchy song, and she makes some good points about government transparency, money and special interests taking precedence over the voice of the people, and similar things – but it still sends a strong message: If you don’t agree with our philosophy, you are less-than and not welcome in this country, and you had best get out.
These are my grandparents. They immigrated to this country in around 1900, came through Ellis Island, settled in the great metropolis of New York, and raised a family. They worked their butts off, and although they never were terribly successful at learning English, their kids went to school and did, and became honorable and productive members of this society, all the while injecting some wonderful Italian flavor into the world around them.
This is the cover page from the Wanderbuch (sort of a hiking journal) of my wife’s great-grandfather, who was born in Bavaria and who came to this country in around 1850. My wife’s father spoke no German, so it’s a good bet that the descendants assimilated well, all the while bringing some German feelings, attitudes and philosophies to the general mix.
The thing about the many waves of immigrants that washed upon our shores is that they came to enjoy and appreciate the freedoms and opportunities that our land has to offer, and were not intent on re-making this nation in the image of the lands of their birth.
Immigration has not been without challenges, and I’ve written about some of the specifics before. Strict interpretation of the “love it or leave it” philosophy can lead to such atrocities as Japanese internment camps, which must never again be allowed to happen.
“Many who say “Love it or leave it,” are sincere. But their tersely stated ultimatum smacks of death not life. For if all who love America uncritically were to stay, and all who criticize America were to leave this nation, described by one of its founding fathers as “the world’s best hope,” would fast disappear.” – Dr. Ernest T.C. Campbell
That said, no group who has come to our country must ever be allowed to re-cast our basic laws and/or constitution to suit their particular ideology – any such attempt must be doomed to failure.
On the other side of the coin, America has changed since its inception. The founders had enough foresight to place into the Constitution a way of changing it, but it had to be a difficult way that made sure any changes reflected the will of the people. It’s not easy to get an amendment passed, but it has happened – and mostly for the good.
The Bill of Rights. Emancipation. Voting rights. And 24 others. Over time, change must happen or a nation stagnates.
I firmly believe it’s time for our nation to move forward into the 21st century in spirit and not just in calendar date. There are far too many things still wrong in our country; unequal opportunity, the persistence of racism, over-militarization of police departments, a deeply entrenched culture of misogyny, and a continuing belief by those in power over our lives that fighting for “truth, justice, and the American Way” involves running roughshod over other nations to plunder their resources and subvert their cultures to our benefit.
The above clip is part of a show… how I wish it had been a real speech. And it’s not perfect, because it ignores the economic terrorism that was going on under our noses during the great period of history that was being referred to. But it brings up some critical points, and casts the harsh light of reason on areas where our country needs improvement.
Unadulterated “Love it or Leave It” implies a nation that works for only a very restricted subset of our population, and not for everyone. Rigorous “Change it or Lose It” fails to focus on the things that have made and continue to make our nation a desirable destination for many of the world’s citizens.
As with anything, we need to strike a balance:
Those of us who have been blessed with American citizenship by birth, and those who seek to become members under that head, need to have a deep and abiding love for the Constitution of our land and the principles upon which it was founded. But we also need to take a hard look at our country and make a concerted effort to change the things that only work for a few and exert downward pressure on the many, all the while maintaining and defending those parts of our heritage that (in a positve way) set us apart for so long from the rest of the nations of the world.
Education is key. We need to raise new generations of people who are wanter/needer/finders, people who can look around at problems and say, “I can do something about that” and who truly have the skills to do it. In the meantime, I’m doing what I can.
The Old Wolf has spoken.
Am I Charlie? Or am I just paying lip service?
“The Untouchables 2” – You mustn’t mock us!
In light of the recent tragedy in Paris at the offices of Charlie Hebdo, a discussion sprung up on Facebook when a friend of mine, in reference to this article at the Daily Beast, asked the question, “where does humour cross the line into something rather ugly, threatening and repellent?”
I commented as below:
In some ways, Charlie Hebdo is the Westboro Baptist Church of the literary world. It’s a partially flawed analogy because WBC produces nothing positive whatsoever except hatred and misery, while Charlie Hebdo satirizes many things that deserve satire. Are they offensive? Absolutely… but then so is South Park, which show is afraid to pillory nothing. Mad and Cracked back in the 60s and 70s were very similar [1]; the French outfit simply doesn’t have the same restraints on them as American television or magazines, so they’re free to add all the crude sexual [and religious and political and social] humor they want. It may be this “crossing of the line” that some people find so offensive rather than the actual satire itself.
Nonetheless, the same principles of free speech apply here:
1) You’re free to say and publish what you want, and the government can’t come after you for it.
2) You are *not* free from the consequences of your speech.In this sense, I agree with the thesis of the article. Charlie can be pretty nasty; just look at the comments of Dutch cartoonist Bernard Holtrop (Willem):
“We have a lot of new friends, like the pope, Queen Elizabeth and (Russian President Vladimir) Putin. It really makes me laugh,” Bernard Holtrop, whose pen name is Willem, told the Dutch centre-left daily Volkskrant.
“Marine Le Pen is delighted when the Islamists start shooting all over the place,” said Willem, 73, a longtime Paris resident who also draws for the French leftist daily Liberation.
He added: “We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends.”
The authors and cartoonists who work at Charlie Hebdo are not necessarily nice people, but they know who they are and they know the risks they are taking by being deliberately offensive. Unfortunately, this week some of them paid the price for taking those risks. This is sad, and unconscionable, and they didn’t deserve to die… but in the grand scheme of things this was not totally surprising.
I remember buying some of the first editions of Charlie when I was living in Italy in 1970. There was a parallel publication in Italian called, interestingly, “Linus.” I now wish I still had them – they’d be worth quite a bit.
As part of the discussion, another member of our community indicated she could identify with Willem’s disgust, citing the world leaders who are marching in Paris while pursuing national policies of destruction and/or oppression. And that’s a valid debate. I replied,
It is another debate entirely, and one that needs to continue. There are many who see the outpouring of support for Charlie as a good thing, others see it as superficial lip-service. And certainly, In that crowd of thousands marching in Paris, you would find thousands of reasons for being there.
In this particular case, I see Willem’s reaction (and those of many, many others in the blogosphere) as a confirmation of the axiom that reality is perception. We see things not as they are, but as we are.
Charlie Hebdo in many ways crosses the boundaries of responsible journalism into the realm of “we’re going to be assholes just because we can.” And while that aspect of satirical organs is repugnant to many, even those not the targets of their caustic commentary, it is and must remain protected – because if you shut them down, where does the censorship stop?
What happened in Paris is a tragedy of immense significance, and it has ignited a vigorous debate on the nature and aims of the Islamic extremist movement. In these attacks some have seen more than just revenge for offensive cartoons; journalists and analysts all over the world have chimed in suggesting that the true motive was to actually inflame hatred for Islam, making it easier for the terrorist groups to recruit the uneducated and the ideologically susceptible.
In the end, Charlie Hebdo is a pretty lowbrow publication, but I will defend to the death their right to be that way (as Voltaire’s biographer stated, although not Voltaire himself) – because if I don’t, it clears the pathway to the censorship of all writing, including my own, just because it happens to offend somebody, somewhere. And by the same token, I’m free to read it or not read it, and free to choose whether or not I will be offended.
So, yes. As Albert Uderzo so elegantly said by coming out of retirement:
“I’m Charlie too.”
The Old Wolf has spoken.
[1] Check out this tasteful ad for a revival of Disney’s Snow White from Mad’s December, 1970 issue:
How to get your senators’ and representatives’ attention on any issue without being a wealthy donor
Seen at reddit: Protip from a former Senate intern, with thanks to /u/SomeKindOfMutant.
This is worth sharing, since most of us are not among the 1% who have access to government:
An email to your senator or representative may result in a form letter response and a phone call to the office may amount to a tally mark on an administrative assistant’s notepad. But, for any given policy concern, if you want to get their attention a letter to the editor in one of your state’s 5-10 biggest newspapers that mentions them specifically BY NAME is the way to go. If your message is directed to your representative, pick a newspaper that is popular in your district.
That is the crucial thing to know–the rest of this post is an explanation of why I know this is true.
I know this because, when I interned in the D.C. office of a senator one summer, one of the duties I shared was preparing a document that was distributed internally both online and in paper format. This document was made every day and comprised world news articles, national news, state news, and any letters to the editor in the 5-10 largest newspapers within the state that mentioned the senator by name. I was often the person who put that document on his desk, and it was the first thing he read every morning after arriving to the office.
I began to suspect that this was standard operating procedure because several other senators’ offices share the same printer in the basement of the Russell Senate Office building, and I saw other interns doing the exact same procedures that I was involved in.
Since the internship, I’ve conferred with other Senate and House employees past and present and determined that most–if not all–offices use essentially the same procedure.
Usually when I write or call or email a senator or representative, I get the expected form letter in return. Recently I was actually contacted by a staffer at Orrin Hatch’s office who had some more questions about a letter I wrote regarding the regulation of money-transfer services like Western Union who are participating in so many Nigerian scams. It was gratifying.
That said, this is an excellent tip.
The Old Wolf has spoken.
Political Speechmaking Done Right
… and wrong.
If you’re running for President, don’t plagiarize Wikipedia.
From Newser:
(NEWSER) – If you already thought it was weird that Rand Paul went on a rant about eugenics during a speech in Virginia yesterday, well, the story just got even weirder. Rachel Maddow pointed out last night that parts of the speech were lifted from Wikipedia, Mediaite reports. Specifically, the Wikipedia entry about 1997 sci-fi movieGattaca. Go ahead and compare:
- Paul: “In the movie Gattaca, in the not-too-distant future, eugenics is common. And DNA plays the primary role in determining your social class. … Due to frequent screenings, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way to achieve his dream of being an astronaut is he has to become what’s called a ‘borrowed ladder.’ … He assumes the identity of a Jerome Morrow, a world-class swimming star with a genetic profile said to be secondary to none, but he’s been paralyzed in a car accident. … Jerome buys his identity, uses his DNA—his blood, his hair, his tissue, his urine—to pass the screenings.”
- Wikipedia: “In the not-too-distant future, liberal eugenics is common and DNA plays the primary role in determining social class. … Due to frequent screening, Vincent faces genetic discrimination and prejudice. The only way he can achieve his dream of becoming an astronaut is to become a ‘borrowed ladder.’ … [Vincent] assumes the identity of Jerome Eugene Morrow, a former swimming star with a genetic profile ‘second to none,’ who had been injured in a car accident, leaving him paralyzed. … Vincent ‘buys’ Jerome’s identity and uses his ‘valid’ DNA in blood, hair, tissue, and urine samples to pass screening.”
“Gattaca was a weird topic for a speech in a governor’s race to begin with,” Maddow said, “but what’s weirder is trying to be a candidate for president, which Rand Paul is trying to do, and thinking that you’re going to get away with lifting your speeches from Wikipedia while you’re doing that.”
For Mr. Paul and all other future presidential candidates, I recommend the following speech, written by Norton Mockridge, entitled “What’d He Say? What’d He Say?” It’s guaranteed to generate interminable applause, and send your listeners home wiping away tears of gratitude. They may even go out and buy a kitten.
Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen, my colleagues and comrades. It is indeed an honor and a rare privilege to address you on this memorable occasion. First, I would like to congratulate heartily each one of your assembled here on the attainment of the objectives for which you have worked so hard.
In this connection, I might add that a very strange thing happened to me on the way to this function, which reminds me at this point of a story. The disturbing feature of all this is, despite all the bitter lessons, we know better.
As that great statesman once said, I need hardly remind this audience without fear of successful contradiction that we hand down to posterity as a matter of policy a few words about your splendid hospitality and this great nation of ours. We view with alarm but under our present wise leadership, and, some may be surprised, for above and beyond we begin to see the sun breaking through. We are counting on your continued support because, as you so well know, money must be forthcoming to our way of life.
As we travel the long road ahead down to the grass roots of America, there are those extremists whose voices cry out in the night. In this worthy cause we must not forsake by rather, with wisdom, recall that there are those who say that tomorrow may be too late. Make no mistake—-in our overall approach no one will dispute this fact—-it is a sobering thought. It is perhaps more than coincidence, and honest demands, whether we desire it or not. that we face up to the issues.
This observation has led me to one conclusion. We demand adequate funds. The world looks to us for leadership and we point with pride in considering the credit side of the ledger.
Keeping always abreast of the times , the record shows that we are a young nation. It is gratifying to hear, like all good Americans and these are simple, hard facts. We have no illusions. This is no dream, but a challenge. History teaches us that the period of greatest crises lies before us, and especially disillusioning has been our experience in this worthy cause. Yet, we must not falter. Where then shall we turn? In our judgement we do not wish to confuse the issue. The primary ain has always been to understand the problems better. I do not pretend to know the answers There are unmistakable sign, I submit to you, and in such view we areperhaps more to be applauded than condemned, as the world may one day see.
Another and wiser man has said it far better, for therein lies the common denominator of a people who will never give up. We should then, pause and reflect. It was gratifying to hear in our over-all approach , and as a matter of fact it is this very spirit of unselshishness which is beyond peradventure of a doubt. Whoever would challenge this words of our founding fathers? I say to you, let’s look at th e record as set forth by them.
Of this we can be assured—as those who have gone before us—-and these splendid men and women in this room whose very presence tonight testifies. With heartfelt thanks, and with undying determination as in the immortal words first uttered by my illustrious colleagues, we hear the hallowed voices—–Blue and Grey—-who made it the great common hertigage of the melting pot, sealed with blood in the spirit of those dauntless pioneers, and in this tradition we must and we will —under God. It has been a distinct honor and privilege, and in conclusion let me reiterate once again what words cannot express.
On that note may I leave you with this parting thought which I know will be taken in the spirit in which it is offered for the die is cast before the bar of justice and world opinion.
The Old Wolf has spoken (but not as well as Norton Mockridge.)
Right and Left: Wrong
I saw this posted on Facebook last year and it raised my eyebrow:
This spread like wildfire around conservative circles, but unfortunately its an oversimplification based on a misunderstanding.
The original Hebrew text of Ecclesiastes 10:2 is “לֵב חָכָם לִימִינוֹ, וְלֵב כְּסִיל לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ” (lev hakam lemino ve lev kesil lesmolo), or “wise heart to right, and foolish heart to left.” The historical meaning of right and left to the Jewish nation is more complex than the intructions to World of Warcraft, but if you’re really interested, a good summary is at the Jewish Virtual Library; long story short, from a biblical standpoint, the right has always been the place of honor or wisdom.
We see this concept reflected in many New Testament references (Matthew 25:33 states “And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left,”) but even biblically the analogy is not consistently used. In Mark 10:37, two presumptuous disciples asked Jesus, “Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory.” [1] Thus in this reference, both right and left were considered places of privilege and esteem.
A further disconnect of the biblical usage with modern politics arises when we realize that current usage of left and right began with the French revolution; Wikipedia states that “The terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ were not used to refer to political ideology but only to seating in the legislature.”
Unfortunately, vast numbers of people who see an image like this will say “Oh, wow, that’s cool, I never knew that,” and spread the message far and wide without bothering to question its validity.
It’s hard for me to independently verify everything I see, and these days elections are won and lost with the votes of people who don’t even make the effort. We deserve better.
The Old Wolf has spoken.
[1] “It was regarded as a boorish lack of etiquette to walk on the right of one’s teacher; but when he was accompanied by two, he walked in the middle and the greater of his companions walked on the right (Yoma 37a).”
Stay the hell out of Syria
To whom it may concern in the halls of power:
In 2007, President Obama said the following to the Boston Globe:
“The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat.”
I share with you here a comment I made elsewhere, but which bears repeating:
It is very hard to express the depth of my feelings about the escalating situation in Syria without resorting to blasphemy and profanity. I remain astonished at the obtuseness and pig-headedness of my legislators and my executive branch. They claim that the populace is demanding action; instead, the populace is demanding jobs, is demanding food, is demanding universal access to healthcare, is demanding that we stop throwing away money on unwinnable conflicts in countries where we don’t belong, for the sole purpose of enriching the oligarchs who are heavily invested in oil companies, security companies, and the military-industrial complex.
The people want peace and prosperity, not frivolous military actions. Surely nobody wants the people of Syria to suffer from the actions of a brutal tyrant, but as a nation we simply don’t have the resources or the moral mandate to play global cop any longer. There’s too much wrong at home, and we can’t afford for the Fed to print more fiat money to finance the insanity. I am ready to march on Washington with pitchfork and torch, if I thought it would do any good.
Let me be clear:
The United Nations has not passed a resolution supporting military action in Syria. I do not support action in Syria, and neither do most Americans.
There is no legitimacy to the mistaken conception that “action is demanded” in Syria. The only people who are demanding action are the ones who stand to profit from it, either financially or politically. I refuse to support the spending of my tax dollars or the creation of artificial money or the incurring of additional debt for fruitless military pursuits that threaten to drag us into yet another interminable conflict,
Stop this madness. I demand better; I demand responsibility and accountability to the American people to whom you are duty bound to answer. None of you have political capital to spend; your reputations and approval ratings are already in the toilet. For the love of whatever you consider holy, be it gods or humanity – do not pull the chain.
To the lords of the castle: you are getting closer to this every day. Do not test the patience of the American people.
The Old Wolf has spoken.
Italian satirical map of Europe, 1870
This gives you a sense of what was going on in the geopolitical sphere of Europe in the late 19th century.
Found at Maps on the Web; enlarged and enhanced a bit for visibility.
An Open Letter to Kim Jong-Un
Excuse my French. I usually try to express myself in more civilized terms. For the moron currently running North Korea (at least in name – most of us know that the military leadership is calling the shots), nothing else will do.
Kim, stop being such a 바보[1]. Your country is a shambles, your people are starving, nobody envies you, nobody wants what you have, you are the laughing stock of the world, and you’re just making yourself look like a bloody great wanker. Stand down, open your borders, join the rest of civilization and give your people a chance at happiness and prosperity. There is no other way. “It is no concern of ours how you run your own country – but if you threaten to extend your violence, this nation of yours will be reduced to a burned-out cinder.”
The Old Wolf (and Klaatu) have spoken.
[1] Korean: “pabo” means “fool” or “jackass”.
Must Sell
To look at the country, I’d almost say times are as tough now as they were then. Economic terror is snapping at the heels of far too many of us, and our leaders seem interested in only one thing – fortifying their fiefdoms and filling their re-election war chests. I have a message for them:
“This is not what you were elected for. You were elected to serve the nation and improve the lives of your constituents. Do this, and you shall endure. Do it not, and every last one of you will be out of a job. America is angry. We will not see our Constitutional rights eroded – a storm is coming that even the lobbyists and attorneys of Monsanto and friends will not be able to withstand. The only thing that will protect you is doing the right thing, which is: stop thinking about yourselves, and do the job you were elected to do.”
The Old Wolf has spoken.
Playing in the World Game 