18 APR

As shameful as it was that almost all U.S. Republican senators voted against the bill for limited background checks for gun purchases, how much more disgraceful was it that five of the senators voting "no" were Democrats. Given their whole party's tilt to the extreme right, Republicans had more of a political reason for opposing the measure than did these cowardly Democrats, who essentially caved to NRA intimidation.

Just to be clear, here are the senators who have done such an embarrassing disservice to the nation, to say nothing of their party:

Max Baucus, Montana

Mark Begich, Alaska

Heidi Heitkamp, North Dakota

Mark Prior, Arkansas

Harry Reid, Nevada

While Reid voted "no" in this case so that he could potentially bring up the measure again at some point in the future, his cowardice was apparent earlier this year when he opposed substantially rewriting senate rules so as to prevent Republican filibustering and a related requirement that some legislation have a 60-vote majority in order to pass. He did virtually nothing to stop this trend:

16 APR

As the New York Times reported today, "A nonpartisan, independent review of interrogation and detention programs in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks concludes that 'it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture' and that the nation’s highest officials bore ultimate responsibility for it." And what about the long-standing canard—pushed by those who refused to accord basic human rights to detainees—that torture made us safer and led us to the doorstep of Osama bin Laden? The report unequivocally puts such garbage to rest, where it should stay while the U.S. comes to terms with its moral failures over the past decade:

The use of torture, the report concludes, has “no justification” and “damaged the standing of our nation, reduced our capacity to convey moral censure when necessary and potentially increased the danger to U.S. military personnel taken captive.” The task force found “no firm or persuasive evidence” that these interrogation methods produced valuable information that could not have been obtained by other means. While “a person subjected to torture might well divulge useful information,” much of the information obtained by force was not reliable, the report says.

Charlie Pierce summarizes the findings and its significance, and explains why we all should read the report:

10 APR

There's much being discussed on the web about Brad Paisley and LL Cool J's new duet, "Accidental Racist." Once we get past the song's artistic and intellectual drivel, I don't think much else is there. Most of the talk concerns what the song suggests about racism in the United States, including the notion that it's merely "accidental" on the part of many whites. In situations like these, my first and foremost reference point is Ta-Nehisi Coates, who knows plenty about said subject. Once more, I am not disappointed by what he has to say:

In an artform distinguished by a critical mass concerned with racism, LL's work is distinguished by its lack of concern. Which is fine. "Pink Cookies" is dope. "Booming System" is dope. "I Shot Ya" is dope. I even rock that "Who Do You Love" joint. But I wouldn't call up Talib Kweli to record a song about gang violence in L.A., and I wouldn't call up KRS-ONE to drop a verse on a love ballad. The only real reason to call up LL is that he is black and thus must have something insightful to say about the Confederate Flag. 

The assumption that there is no real difference among black people is exactly what racism is. Our differences, our right to our individuality, is what makes us human. The point of racism is to rob black people of that right. It would be no different than me assuming that Rachel Weisz must necessarily have something to say about black-Jewish relations, or me assuming that Paisley must know something about barbecue because he's Southern. 

In discussing the song and the controversy surrounding it, Paisley has queried how a southerner could legitimately express his or her "southern pride"—aside, perhaps, from bearing the Confederate battle flag. Coates offers a few suggestions:

9 APR

More encouraging news out of Nashville, Tennessee today: "Authorities say a 4-year-old boy grabbed a loaded gun at a family cookout and accidentally shot and killed the wife of a Tennessee sheriff's deputy." Apparently the deputy was showing off his weapon to a relative when the toddler came into the room, picked it up, and inadvertantly killed the deputy's wife. I guess we're supposed to be comforted by the fact that "the gun was not [the deputy's] service weapon and the sheriff says the deputy's weapons are normally stored in a safe."

I'll give the last word to Charlie Pierce on the news that this was just an innocent accident:

Really? And I thought he might be a tiny hit man, a juicebox button man. A gun is big and shiny and looks interesting to toddlers. If you put a lug wrench down on the bed, the toddler would pick that up, too. It's just that a lug wrench can't go off and actually kill somebody standing across the room. And this guy was a deputy sheriff. I certainly have great faith in the NRA's plan to arm Waldo, the Middle School Janitor to the teeth and send him out into the halls some Monday morning when he's had a rough weekend at deer camp.

Meanwhile, what's going on in Washington? On Monday, during the course of President Obama's speech in Connecticut, which called for a vote on gun-control legislation in the U.S. Senate on behalf of those killed in Newtown, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell announced that he would help those senators who want to fillibuster gun legislation, thereby not even allowing for a vote on a mandatory background check of anyone seeking to purchase a gun.

Good times. You know that our political system is inextricably broken when over 90 percent of the American people support background checks on all gun purchases, yet such a proposal can't even make it to the floor of the U.S. Senate for a vote.

26 MAR

I want to take this opportunity to post the text of a commentary that I delivered at my local public radio station, Tri-States Radio, regarding an egregious miscarriage of democracy in the town where I live, Macomb. Never—not even the 2000 presidential race, nor last year's attempts by Republicans in numerous states to deter many from going to the polls—have I seen such blatantly anti-democratic politics in the United States as that which occurred in Macomb last month. That's why I took to the airwaves and stated the following:

As a history professor, I often look for ways in which the past can inform the present.  One belief that led me to my profession is that history imparts crucial lessons that can help us make sense of events unfolding in the here-and-now.

One part of the past that I find helpful for the present is the French Revolution.  It marked one of the first attempts to enact the idea that the people are sovereign, meaning that a government’s authority derives from citizens alone.  But the Revolution also fostered great repression.  Thus while in some cases it accorded human rights, allowed for fair elections, and made politics more transparent, in other cases it did the exact opposite.

If I had to choose one lesson from the French Revolution and apply it now, it would be this: democracy is as fragile as it is complex.  Like all things fragile, it must be protected and handled with care.  Democracy’s complexity is found in its many interconnected parts, any one of which—when that part fails—can lead to a systemic collapse.  Amid this complexity, however, democracy must have three core elements.  It must accord individual rights to citizens, it must uphold the rule of law, which means that all are subject and accountable to the same law, and it must have state officials who heed the rights of the people, follow and enforce the law, and thus are answerable both to the law and to citizens.

All of this serves as prologue for what my profession might call a teachable moment in Macomb on February 26.  Steve Wailand won the election for the second ward position on the city council over Kay Hill by one vote.  We know this because in the United States—as many of us learn from a very early age—“the majority rules.”  But the official responsible for certifying the election’s results, McDonough County Clerk Gretchen DeJaynes, claimed that the winner of the election had to have not only a minimum of fifty percent of the total votes cast, but also one vote beyond that percentage.  Steve Wailand’s vote total did not qualify.  Yet as some local news outlets have responsibly reported, such a requirement legally does not exist.

Given these facts, it is clear that the three core elements of democracy were violated in Macomb: the rights of voters in a free and fair election were ignored; the rule of law was neither followed nor enforced; and at least one official became unaccountable both to the law and to the people.  In other words, it was a systemic collapse of democracy.

When such a collapse occurs, it is the duty of each and every citizen to hold into account those responsible.  This is why—as one who reveres the right to vote, understands the vital role of the rule of law, and is historically aware of how fragile democracy is—I have called on the county clerk to step down from her position.

In calling for this, however, I am also bearing in mind democracy’s complex nature.  At stake here is not merely one position on the city council or one mistake made by local officialdom.  More broadly, democracy itself is cast into doubt.  And if indeed the past is any guide, this will make citizens—including many of my students—more distrustful of government and more cynical about the democratic process.

As citizens, we must all stay mindful of how fragile and complex democracy is, as well as what happens whenever it is abused.  So say lessons from the past.  The only question is whether we in the present will take heed.

I don't know Steve Wailand from Adam. It doesn't matter even if I did; what was done to him by officials in Macomb should be offensive to anyone who professes to be a democratic citizen. I wish him complete and utter success as he pursues legal means to attain the justice denied him and his voters on February 26. This case is nothing short of outrageous and completely unacceptable in a modern democratic state.

10 MAR

For the past month or so, my blogging has had to take a back seat to writing a paper that I'll be delivering at a history conference in Cambridge, Massachusetts next month. The paper came to about 8,700 words, so it was a bit of a do. Over that time my daughter's fifth birthday came and went. It is easy to forget one's own history and the imprint one is leaving on the earth when concentrating on a whole stack of notes and copies of documents from the eighteenth century. The past five years have been nothing short of miraculous, beautiful, and wondrous. Thinking of this, I came across this blog post from Conor P. Williams this morning. It perfectly captures how I felt when I held my daughter for the first time:

Humans are many things; we are users, choosers, planners, dreamers, and so much more. No one of these roles defines us on its own. We are a multitude of different potentials.

And many of these roles reveal us to be cruel and selfish. We are entropy’s agents—we undermine stability in pursuit of shallow, myopic things. Perhaps worse still, we hide our ugliness from each other (and ourselves) behind shabby delusions. For example: we tell ourselves that our selfishness is magically, even invisibly, conducive to the good of others. Or alternatively, we tell ourselves that our best intentions are sufficient to justify any number of ill-considered plans. Or alternatively once more, we assume that we know those close to us better than they know themselves. And so on and so forth. We are ingenious justifiers of our basest instincts. We are destructive dissemblers, though we rarely recognize it.

But—and now I’m finally getting back to you—we are best when we are creators. We have strange, unpredictable capacities for transcending our own petty selves and their concerns. From time to time, we astonish ourselves by making something that is unquestionably good. From time to time, we produce beauty that is almost wholly illuminated by the wild possibilities therein contained. From time to time we produce such shining potential that the daily grind of human life becomes not just tolerable, but comprehensible. From time to time, we produce miracles. 

It is no accident that our most sublime moments usually burst forth from partnership. Human love is the only antidote to our selfishness. . . . We are best when we love. Again, forgive me the cliché, when two people love each other very, very much. . . they create astonishing things. These aren’t always babies—love’s creations are more varied than that—but children are among the most profound things we can make.

And so here you are, you sleepy little bundle of future. Here you are, full of unsullied promise and staggering innocence. At this moment, you are blessedly healthy and wholly able to live out any one of a number of full, extraordinary lives. The bulk of the world’s doors are (still, briefly) open to you, you glorious little thing. . . . And even though you’re here for you—not us—we’re far better now that you’re here. And that’s astonishing. It’s a miracle.

The entire post—which struck me as highly Montaignesque—is worth a read, especially if you are a father or a mother. What does this have to do with the past, the present, and the connection of the two? I'm not exactly sure. It was just something that this historian had to write. Happy birthday, love.

31 JAN

How good was Tina Fey's impersonation of Sarah Palin and her ideological fundamentalism? Apparently, even better than we once thought:

"I believe marriage is meant to be a sacred institution between two unwilling teenagers,"—Tina Fey as Sarah Palin, September 13th, 2008.

"It is no exaggeration to say that the institution of marriage was a direct response to the unique tendency of opposite-sex relationships to produce unplanned and unintended offspring ... Only opposite-sex relationships have the tendency to produce children without such advance planning (indeed, especially without advance planning),"—Lawyer Paul Clement, January 22, 2013, making the Republican House's argument for keeping civil marriage exclusively for heterosexuals.

As Andrew Sullivan concluded, "I'd say you can't make this shit up, but Tina Fey actually did!" The argumentative contortions that Clement is making here only underscore just how weak the Republican House's case against same-sex civil marriage is. But what does it mean when a comedic skit, which purposely exaggerates in order to draw laughter, becomes actual political culture? My Answer: it shows the length to which ideologues can go to rationalize their own absurdity.

28 JAN

In the most recent online edition of the New York Review of Books, Garry Wills has a very thoughtful essay about the American south. It is by far no coincidence that this region of the country remains the foremost stronghold of defiance against everything that President Obama represents:

I was made aware of the odd mix of gain and loss when I went back to Atlanta to see my beloved grandmother. . . . Once, when she took me to Mass, she walked out of the church when a black priest came out to celebrate. I wondered why, since she would sit and eat with a black woman who helped her with housework. “It is the dignity—I would not let him take the Lord in his hands.”

Tradition dies hard, hardest among those who cannot admit to the toll it has taken on them. That is why the worst aspects of the South are resurfacing under Obama’s presidency. It is the dignity. That a black should have not merely rights but prominence, authority, and even awe—that is what many Southerners cannot stomach. They would let him ride on the bus, or get into Ivy League schools. But he must be kept from the altar; he cannot perform the secular equivalent of taking the Lord in his hands. It is the dignity.

This is the thing that makes the South the distillation point for all the fugitive extremisms of our time, the heart of Say-No Republicanism, the home of lost causes and nostalgic lunacy. It is as if the whole continent were tipped upward, so that the scattered crazinesses might slide down to the bottom. The South has often been defeated. Now it is defeating itself.

The title of Wills' essay, "Dumb America," is no coincidence either. But far from painting an entire region of the country with as broad a stroke as this title implies, Wills skillfully argues that the South is now cutting off its nose to spite its face. As he points out, no other region of the country is more in need of federally mandated health insurance—yet nowhere is there more opposition to Obamacare. The South will probably be the region most adversely affected by climate change, but it is also where climate-change denial is most pervasive.

Wills' most recent book, Why Priests? A Failed Tradition, also happens to be the focus of Frank Bruni's column in today's New York Times. Bruni explores why, despite all the fallout from case after case of sexual abuse committed by the Catholic clergy, the Catholic hierarchy remains arrogant and seemingly unrepentant. Both Bruni and Wills hit the nail on the head:

"It can’t admit to error, the church hierarchy,” Wills told me on the phone on Thursday. “Any challenge to their prerogative is, in their eyes, a challenge to God. You can’t be any more arrogant than that.”

“We Catholics were taught not only that we must have priests but that they must be the right kind of priests,” he writes in the book, which argues that priests aren’t ultimately necessary. “What we were supposed to accept is that all priesthoods are invalid ones except the Roman Catholic.”

That’s an awfully puffed-up position, and there’s a corresponding haughtiness in the fact that bishops can assign priests to parishes without any real obligation to get input or feedback from the parishioners those priests serve. This way of doing business in fact enabled church leaders to shuttle priests accused of molestation around, keeping them one step ahead of their crimes.

It has also helped to turn many Catholics away from the church, while prompting others to regard its leaders as ornamental and somewhat irrelevant distractions. They cherish the essence and beauty of their religion. They just can’t abide the arrogance of many of its appointed caretakers.

18 JAN

As before, Adam Gopnik brings clarity to what contemporary politics seeks to obfuscate:

Two clarifying points, at the risk of repetition: one, that we know, as certainly as one can know anything in the social sphere, that gun control works to reduce and eventually eliminate gun violence. Common sense tells us that this is so; we need only look at the world outside America and see how other countries, at least as “rugged” as our own, with histories just as frontier-filled, have dealt with gun violence by legislating to control guns—and how little gun violence they have as a result. (The right-wing Australian politician John Howard contributed a piece to the Times this morning outlining just this truth.) We have thousands of gun deaths—eighty-four teens and children are among the nine hundred slaughtered by guns in the blink of an eye since the Newtown massacre—while the other countries that most closely resemble our own, from Australia to Canada to Britain, have something close to none. All that separates us from other lands is our guns and the deaths they cause.

And, despite the attempts of the death lobby to silence them, the American social sciences speak just as clearly to the issue. As the social scientist Matthew Miller was quoted as saying in Slate, “Our firearm homicide rate is an order of magnitude higher than in these other countries. Our rates of homicides with non-gun mechanisms—knives, bats, whatever—is pretty much right where they are in other high income countries.” And the work of Harvard’s David Hemenway is the one to cite, if only for its lapidary conclusions: “Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.” “Across states, more guns = more homicide.” These are as robust as any correlations in all of the social sciences. All the absurd attempts to use statistics to lie about this truth can’t change that fact. (My mordantly favorite bit of misdirection is the claim that since Scotland, post-Dunblane, essentially banned private ownership of guns, gun homicide has increased. Why, it’s almost doubled in the past two years alone! What does this mean? Oh, yes: guns were involved in five killings in all of Scotland in a span from 2011 to 2012, compared with three in the previous year.)

Yes, it is that simple: more guns = more homicide. More availability of assault rifles and high-capacity clips = more civilian mass murder. Politicians and the gun lobby, spin the issue any way you want. These equations remain the same. In the name of humanity—including my 4-year-old child—let's do something about this. Now is the time.

17 JAN

Simply pathetic, but very telling all the same:

A whopping 64 percent of Republicans think it’s “probably true” that President Obama is hiding important information about his background and early life, including his possible birthplace, according to a new nationwide survey of registered voters from Fairleigh Dickinson University’s PublicMind project examining Americans’ belief in political conspiracy theories.

Republicans, however, can't be said to hold the monopoly on conspiracy theories, according to the survey:

So much for the idea that increased access to information via technology means that people have become more informed, to say nothing of more rational. Quite the opposite appears to be true, which tends to poke major holes in some modernization theories.

With numbers like these it's all but impossible to sustain a functional democracy; such little trust in government and its personnel means that all of the air needed for political compromise and cooperation among partisans has been sucked out of the atmosphere. That's what were seeing today.

11 JAN

How seriously is the American media as a whole taking climate change? To no suprise among those familiar with this country, not very much:

When the National Climatic Data Center announced Tuesday that 2012 was the hottest year in recorded history for the contiguous U.S., broadcast networks admirably devoted segments connecting the announcement to climate change. But for most of the year they turned a blind eye to climate change, even while reporting on its consequences. Together, the nightly news programs on ABC, CBS and NBC devoted only 12 segments to climate change in 2012. PBS' coverage stood out, with its nightly news program dedicating 23 segments to the issue.

This video from Fox News is an extreme example of the phenomenon, but it just goes to show how much trouble America is in when it comes to the most serious crisis now facing the planet. This is what happens when scientific fact is sacrificed at the altar of cut-throat politics in the United States. As Andrew Sullivan aptly concluded, "One day, I suspect, people will look back on that attitude and wonder why this kind of denialism only exists in any serious institutional form on the American right . . . No other major party of the right in the West is that crazy."

10 JAN

How does the current rating of the U.S. Congress among Americans stack up against that of brussel sprouts and root canals? Take a look:

As the poll also suggests, right now America's dislike of Congress is in a dead heat with its fondness for cockroaches. I take special note, however, that France's rating among Americans is only nine points higher than it is for their own dysfunctional national legislature. No wonder there is such little student interest in French history these days; the Patrie is seen to be on par with carnival workers and Nickelback.

10 JAN

That's the first word that comes to mind when I look at this graphic on views about evolution, particularly with regard to the U.S.'s position vis-a-vis the rest of the world:

As frightening as this looks, it gets even worse if one reads the accompanying text: "Researchers point out that the number of Americans who are uncertain about the theory's validity has increased over the past 20 years."