As An Interesting Follow-Up: Personification And Systems-Thinking

I really encourage you to check out Matt Taibbi’s pwn-tastic takedown of Obama’s economic team (Obama’s Big Sellout).

I’d be remiss however if I failed to mention the severe criticism he’s taking from Tim Fernholz (The Errors of Matt Taibbi) and Andrew Leonard (Matt Taibbi Goes Obama Scalp-Hunting).  Their main issue is that there are some pretty glaring factual fuck-ups and misrepresentations that mar an otherwise representative progressive piece.  Here’s Fernholz:

Is it disconcerting that employees of the financial industry make a ton of money? Yes. Is it the revolving door between Washington and Wall Street problematic? Yes. Does the Administration take it too easy on the banks? Absolutely. Are White House advisers too centrist for progressive tastes? Sure. But when you try and tell that story with a lot of lies and innuendo, and misunderstand the basic policies that these people are producing, you don’t hurt them. Now anyone who criticizes the Administration will just be lumped in with Taibbi’s meandering conspiracy. (Sidenote, I thought it was Goldman Sachs we all had to be worried about?) The problems Taibbi tries to describe aren’t some kind of ridiculous cabal. They come from group-think and structural influences and as a result of a complex interplay of interests and institutions; the policies they produce aren’t either good or evil, they’re in need of analysis to determine which help regular people, which hurt them and how to change the latter into the former. (Emphasis added by me)

In defense, we have Digby (Stop Making Sense), Felix Salmon (Fernholz vs. Taibbi), and Taibbi himself (On Obama’s Sellout).  Salmon and Taibbi proceed to fact-check Fernholz’ fact-check, and end up arguing that what is claimed as misrepresentation is largely a difference of opinion, not of fact.  Digby makes the point that while Taibbi is a “flamethrower and polemicist”, he:

has a way of making people understand complicated issues, which used to be something to which journalism aspired… he gets to the heart of things in a way that most journalists do not… It’s why a good number of them turn to Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. What those charlatans say may not be true, but at least it emotionally “makes sense.” (Emphasis again added by me, I thought it tied in to the last post well)

The above gets to what I think is most interesting- where do we draw the line between simplistic models that are misrepresentative and destructive versus ones that are illustrative and legitimately provocative?  How much do we accomodate what ‘makes sense’ to what is true?  I would argue that in many ways the Obama model (however you define it) remains the best way of motivating people to act.  In an era that demands action, that’s extremely valuable.  But what happens when people feel that what they were sold- what emotionally makes sense- does not get backed up by what is delivered- what is ‘true’ in the ramifications of the policy?

I return to Fernholz’ line bolded above.  Is the personified model of the cabal a useful identification people can relate to that stands in for a complex recognition of system-wide, structural failure at play?  Granted, such a simple model suggests a too-simple solution- get rid of the Rubinites.  But I think it provides something that packs an emotional punch that our reasoning fails to provide, while being decently representative of the problem- a point Taibbi makes in his defense I linked to above.  Which is also why ‘Change’ is more compelling than a policy laundry list to those who have felt unaddressed by our political discourse.  In an era that demands action, we can’t discount emotional punch and accessibility.

The question that crystallizes the moment for me is how do we deliver ‘Change’ ™ we can believe in?

Peace,

Joel

Barack Obama = Sarah Palin And Bipartisan Authoritarianism

Authoritarian, adj: favoring complete obedience or subjection to authority as opposed to individual freedom.

Check out this Glenn Greenwald piece, My Friend The President.

If not, at least check this out:

I’ll go a step further than Glenn.  When I watched that video, I saw myself, circa March 18th, 2008 (Barack Obama’s ‘race speech’ if you don’t follow the link).  I knew finally why I supported Barack Obama.  It wasn’t his (and Hillary’s, and Edwards’- Kucinich is another story) policies.  I trusted him.  I knew that I could count on him to do what I’d do if I’d work harder to learn about the issues and make up my own mind.  But how different is that from Palin supporters’ faith in her character, faith that she understood them and would do what she could for them?

I know I come off as harsh when I offer this assessment, but I mean for this, if anything, to recognize the universality of the skepticism that we can change our political environment, and the feeling that we can only succeed through celebrities we think we ‘know’ (good politicians), who we trust to represent us and don’t hold accountable.  The impulse to give in to listening to an authority rather than doing fact-finding and engaging in independent thought.  There are major-league differences between conservatives and progressives (I think the early dissatisfaction with Obama is a testament to our discomfort with having a trusted source act against our ideals).  But we are all human and susceptible, in this over-complex world and country, to the temptation to absolve ourselves of civic responsibility, to trust when we should inquire, to accept when we ought to reject.  I would argue however, that nothing will get done in this country until more of us take up the mantle and go back to the arena to fight for what we believe in.  Distrust power, and build your own.

I believe we can- in fact, we already did.  That’s how Obama got elected.  So we’ve got it in us.  We need, if anything to keep fighting for Obama (our mythic version of him, or the ideals of a resurgent progressivism) even when Obama the man isn’t.

Further reading: Matt Taibbi- Sarah Palin, WWE Star

Peace,

Joel

Progressive Reading Roundup 11/30/09

This is the first of these segments I’m running so I ought to say at the outset that this is by no means authoritative.  It is a small slice of the progressive internet media offerings of the day, the segments that I found particularly interesting.  I’ll be tagging the authors of pieces and hopefully developing a good library of particular writers and communities.  I’m categorizing by source, because with the issues I’m covering there is going to be overlap, and I think it’s useful to highlight the online communities I learn from and participate in when the spirit moves me.  This will inevitably be biased towards the stories I’m following on a day by day basis, so expect a lot of finance, jobs legislation, and copenhagen/global warming in the next few weeks.  There’ll also be a healthy dose of ‘can we fire Obama’s economic crew already’ invective (from other people, not me, I swear).  We’ll see what else develops as this segment runs.  Without further ado, here’s the best from the last of November:

OpenLeft

I say unabashedly that OpenLeft is my number one source for progressive news.  Firedoglake may have more contributors, and may do more in terms of actual progressive action (fundraising, petitions, and the like), but OpenLeft has the most incisive analysis as far as I’m concerned.  David Sirota, who I listed above, writes regularly for them and the other writers don’t disappoint.

Today we have parallel views from Mike Lux and Chris Bowers.  Mike Lux argues in Death Wish Politics that the Democratic party is acting very unresponsive to the ultimate concerns of most voters, and certainly the base, and is inviting electoral disaster in 2010.  By the way, Mike Lux is what I’d call the most ‘optimistic’ of the writers at OpenLeft (if by optimistic you mean still having faith in the basic integrity of the Democratic party as a whole, and Barack Obama and other leadership in particular.)  Chris Bowers responds in Democrats Are In Electoral Trouble; Progressives Are Not that while the Democratic party may be in trouble, this is only a problem if you’re counting on conservative Democrats like Blue Dogs to help us pass a truly progressive, transformative agenda.  But if you are of the belief (as am I) that the Democratic party means little until it becomes united around a progressive agenda, this shouldn’t be a cause for huge worry.  With 1/4 of all Democrats voting for the Stupak amendment, what do I care if some of them lose their seats?

Below the flip, selections from the Huffington Post and assorted other voices:

Walgreens FAIL! Update: Retailers Target And Walgreens Are Dropping The Costume. In Other News, Fox Is Staffed By Morons

[Update At Bottom: Even More Halloween Foolishness I Found At Racialicious]

Good looks folks, Walgreens and Target have, at the very least, dropped the ‘illegal alien’ costume. Of course, they issued the classic non-commital apology, displaying they have no idea why the costume was offensive, they just want to avoid the fuss:

Target halted sales. “It was never our intent to offend the consumers with the products we offer,” Target said in a statement.

Walgreens spokeswoman Vivika Vergara said the costume was never in its stores and was pulled from its Web site. “We received feedback from customers and decided it was best to stop carrying it so it would not be subject to varied interpretation,” she said in an e-mail message.

Bravo, I’m glad offending customers isn’t franchise policy.  While it’s possible the “I’m sorry we released a product that is dehumanizing towards HUMAN BEINGS, and offended an already brutalized and persecuted population” apology got lost in the mail, I’m going to interpret this as another case of people completely avoiding anything like responsibility for their actions.  Below the jump, Steve Doocy  and Michael Steele lack faculties resembling common sense!

The Republicans, and Beck, Aren’t Fucking Up Health Care

I know, shocking right?

I’m working on another post right now, but I just saw one story today on The Huffington Post that kind of perfectly encapsulates where I’m at right now, and I thought I’d briefly take the opportunity to highlight it and strongly agree, with a minor qualification, below the jump.

David Brooks Is A Polite Idiot

A lot of people got pissed when Maureen Dowd claimed in her Times column that racism played a part in Confederate apologist Joe Wilson’s “you lie!”-gate, but folks really started flipping a shit when Jimmy Carter said that an “overwhelming” amount of the anti-Obama activity is racially motivated.

While there are an enormous number of conservative responses I could deal with, I return to my friend David Brooks. David Brooks has a reputation as a ‘moderate’ conservative despite consistently saying polite-sounding yet absurdly stupid shit couched in anecdotal evidence and sweeping assumptions about the nature of our country that reflect a profound ideological gulf between us. He has also recently used an argument I’ve found from a lot of other conservatives, so I think it’s safe to say that it’s fairly representative of the conservative “damn liberals seeing racism everywhere” response.

Obama FAIL! So… What Happened?

Full Disclosure: I love President Obama. I love Van Jones. I don’t think revolution is a bad word, though violence and hate are. Glenn Beck is like a squirrel that has lost its nuts who has been given a national platform on television to spout hate and lies that would give Minitrue a warm tingly feeling reminiscent of a first kiss or a really nice batch of cookies.

Because this will be a lengthy post(s), I’m gonna say that if I get a request for elaboration on any of those points that serve as the background for this entry, I’ll explain further. But for now, just trust me when I say that November 4th will probably remain the best night of my life and will remain so unless humanity ever discovers magic or aliens. I’m kind of a nerd. See, transparency!

So what happened?

While I had heard tiny bits and pieces about the ongoing right-wing scorched earth campaign targeting Van Jones’ character, this story basically blew up in my attention over the last couple of days. Maybe a month ago I saw a clip where Glenn Beck drew a diagram showing us that Van Jones is a communist, the Apollo Alliance is evil, and by the way, did you know that they wrote the stimulus bill?

David Brooks is Not a Revolutionary (Duh)

I’ll admit that with a second and third read I’m less frustrated with David Brooks’ most recent column, The Great Gradualist, than I was the first time. But not that much less.

Kennedy’s life yields several important lessons. One is about the nature of political leadership. We have been taught since, well, since the days of Camelot to admire a particular sort of politician: the epic, charismatic Mount Rushmore candidate who sits atop his charger leading transformational change.

We’re getting off to a great start here with soft dismissal of demands for substantive change as naive, superstitious, and steeped in myth. This is particularly convenient when you’re a contemporary Republican, considering that the Republicans’ charisma-ometer has been in free fall since the Gipper. But I digress.

But the founders of this country designed the Constitution to frustrate that kind of leader. The Constitution diffuses power, requires compromise and encourages incrementalism. The founders created a government that was cautious so that society might be dynamic.

I’d contest this with a pretty direct Zinn-lift, that the founders created a government that was cautious so that they wouldn’t lose too much of a grip on their privileged playground of a newly-independent burgeoning empire. I mean for Christ’s sake, the Senate wasn’t even popularly elected until 19 fucking 13! But tomay-to tomah-to. I’m sure the founders were complicated individuals capable of both great idealism and hegemony. But I digress again…

Washington Post FAIL!

I know, I know, I’m really setting myself up for disappointment by expecting anything more than moronic from the periodical that brought us thousands of words of climate science obfuscation from a baseball aficionado who doesn’t really bother to check his facts, but this is just really fucking stupid.

Now, as a White Man (Robin Givhan being a Black Woman), there are some race-critical criticisms I am not prepared to make. That would be over-stepping my bounds, and I admit that wholeheartedly.

But:

clothes are part of our broader aesthetic obligation to each other. That commitment pushes homeowners to mow their lawns and not be a blight to the neighborhood. It makes them think twice before painting their houses in psychedelic stripes. The desire to be aesthetically respectful means guests give consideration to what they wear to a friend’s wedding or mourners take care in how they dress for a loved one’s funeral.

I’m sorry, but who the fuck is the imperial-objective arbiter in this court of fashion? Who got appointed as the taste police? That shit is straight up elitest garbage.

And another thing: to equate dress on vacation with dress at a wedding or funeral is completely fucking ridiculous. I will absolutely accept that at a wedding or funeral there are people to whom respect is owed, there are traditional codes that ought to be adhered to. If a person grants you the privilege of inviting you to a celebration of their life (wedding) or an honoring and farewell (funeral) than yes, maybe that’s a circumstance in which conformity to their wishes is valuable.

But the woman is on god damned vacation. In fact, that is probably the last place she ought to give a shit what some pundit at the Washington Post has to say. The only obligations my public officials and symbols have to me is that they fix the oppressive and destructive systems of this country and challenge the bullshit that allows those processes to survive. They are damn sure not obligated to wear anything on vacation for my sake.

Fuck the Washington Post.

Movie Screening on Monday: Trouble the Water

Please welcome Sarah Frank, of Sankofa school/Gather at the Table fame for her first post here at Citizen Obie. Here’s me hoping for more in the future! -JS

The film’s tagline reads, “It’s not about a hurricane.  It’s about America.”  Trouble the Water is a highly acclaimed documentary about the struggle for survival before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina.  Directors Tia Lessin and Carl Deal incorporate footage filmed by Kimberly Rivers Roberts, a New Orleans’ resident who survived the storm in her home.  

The film will be screened on Monday, April 20th at 7:30 PM in King 106 and will be followed by a discussion with director Carl Deal.  

Hurricane Katrina has been all but lost from our social justice radar in the years since it occurred.  But residents of New Orleans, both in the city and scattered all over the country, are still struggling to recover from the devastation. Hurricane Katrina was not a natural disaster.  In fact, everyone knew just how much of a disaster it would be, particularly for New Orleans’ poor and black residents.  For your social justice event of Monday, come see this very moving film and hear from the director!