In Defense of Hate

At the time of this writing there is a controversy about Rush Limbaugh, and most of his detractors are feigning outrage and condemning him for hate speech. I say feigning outrage because I am willing to think the best of them: that they are not being intentionally blind to the irony inherent in the words they use to vilify him. There are indefensible statements being regularly made and heralded by people as they cheer each other on. References are consistently made to his weight, his drug dependency, his general stupidity and his vitriol. Of them all, only the last is still true... he used to be obese but has slimmed to average weight and has, to the best of anyone's knowledge, abandoned the drugs after multiple failed attempts to get clean. He's certainly not stupid, but he is vitriolic.

And so are his detractors; moreso than him, usually, and as noted far less accurately. And I'm not going to condemn that. I applaud the honesty of their hate, even if I don't agree with it.

Now, I'm not actually happy that people hate. But I recognize that it happens and that it can be justified. I am not surprised that Avram Davidson hated the German people, when you consider what had recently happened to Jews in Germany. In this case, both Rush and his detractors hate each other's opinions and philosophy. For some, that bleeds over into personal attacks as the hate of opinion extends into personal hatred. That's the part that I don't agree with, but at least I can understand it. It's exactly what created the current effort to drive one host off the air for saying something they'd have lauded were it said against an activist or politician they disagreed with.

Myself? I hate willful ignorance, and there's been more than enough to go around recently. People are condemning Rush while ignoring others who make equally or more despicable comments, merely because they agree with the others, whether they be Keith Olbermann or Bill Maher. They're bringing up comments made decades before while ignoring comments made by others decades before, such as Senator Al Franken's appreciation of kicking a gay man to death in the late 1970s. I'm not against taking aim at Limbaugh for being out of line in civil discourse; I'm against selective outrage and unearned sanctimony. I have heard once too often someone deriding the "teabaggers" in the same sentence where they are blasting hate speech.

Lest anyone think this is some sort of screed against the Rush-bashers, let me expand: First, Rush was wrong in his analysis, as admitted today on the radio that he knew it was wrong when he said it. This leads to one of two possibilities, neither of which reflect well on him:

1) He was manipulating his audience - the same group that he claims is all-important to him. He wanted to generate some publicity for himself and simultaneously denounce the relatively unknown career activist who had testified before a House subcommittee.

2) He's lying about knowing it was wrong at the time and is willing to subvert the trust of his fans rather than admit such an error in judgment.

Either way it demonstrates that a certain level of distrust is healthy when considering what Rush says. That this should have to be said amazes me, but there are people who place absolute trust in him, in Maher, in Hannity, in Olbermann, Coulter, Franken, O'Reilly, Stewart, Beck, Rhodes, Ingraham, Colbert etc... Absolute trust indicates a willingness to abandon critical thinking. I do not appreciate that, although again I understand it.

Second, Rush has on many occasions insisted he does not make personal attacks. This was a demonstrable lie well before he hurled invective at the activist. If he's going to be caught up short in that way he deserves the result.

Then there are the Rush supporters. I admit to falling somewhat into that camp, but I'm not willing to plant a tent there. First, for the reason given above: in this one instance he was wrong, and he was shown to be duplicitous. Second, because many of his supporters have been just as inane and bile-filled as the detractors have been. I can't count how many times I've seen people assert, for example, that the activist in question truly is a slut. This, despite the simple fact that nobody knows about her sex life but her. This is independent of the argument of what constitutes slatternly behavior today (is it more than one partner in a year? Sex outside of wedlock? Someone who has sex with an entire football team or merely someone who dresses attractively despite being physically chaste? Ask ten people for an exact delineation point, you'll get ten different answers.) and the argument of whether or not it's even an inherently bad thing. What has been lost is the simple fact that we don't know, and absent a lawsuit we will never know, and that's probably a good thing for all involved. But it hasn't stopped dolts from commenting on her sexual history.

This all brings me around to what I hate, and what I have admitted hating for a long time: willful ignorance. It's being demonstrated all around me right now and it's doing little but diminishing my respect for people, particularly those who are decrying those who enjoy Rush's commentary or, on the opposite side, those who will not completely support him as being stupid or foolish.

Why would those two bother me more? Because as opposed to attacking some millionaire who doesn't know them from Adam, those willfully ignorant people are attacking me.

I'll just put out some credentials, not to aggrandize myself but merely to undermine that common contention. I'm a former nuclear reactor operator who consistently tested between 142 and 165 on IQ tests (averaging around 150) during the school era when those tests were regularly administered. I am a bookseller who can provide the author, publication date, and title of thousands of books given any one of those pieces of information or part of the cover art (although I admit to sometimes being a year or two off on the exact date of publication.) I've also had an interest in politics for some time, and can rattle off twenty current US Senators, twenty current US House members, twenty former US Senators, twenty former US House members, and the names and countries of twenty foreign leaders. It's a relatively straightforward test that I expect most of the people calling me an idiot cannot do.

Was Slavery Really A Bad Thing?

Yes.

And that's a very important lesson. Not about slavery... most people with more active brain cells than a hamster have already figured that one out. But that just because there may be two sides to every story, not both of those sides are necessarily of equal merit.

One of the ongoing themes of education is "The other side". We're taught in English class to compare and contrast written works. We're taught in social studies to look at the effects of cultural meetings on both cultures. And this important lesson... to examine a topic or question from as many viewpoints as possible... sometimes leads to a basic logical fallacy.

Just because there may be multiple views on a topic doesn't mean that all of those views are equally valid.

There is little more useful in an argument or a debate than being able to see another point of view on a topic. It enables you to find the flaws in your own arguments, and also enables you to anticipate likely responses to your statements, which allows you to be ready to counter their replies. In that respect, at least, the concept holds great value.

I could even go off for a while on the question which heads this blog post. I could point out that slavery helped fuel economic growth, or that the lives of the descendants of those slaves is far and above what the lives of the descendents of those who weren't slaves, either in Africa or South America. And then I'd counter that the economic growth could have been seen anyway, based on the bountiful acreage available and the open market system in place at the time....

... and all of it gets away from the underlying point. Slavery was evil. Period. All of the arguing back and forth in the world about this effect or that motivation bypasses the big, glaring truth in favor of the argument itself.

Sometimes it's helpful to step back from the small argument, and take in the big truth.

Faux News vs. the Communist News Network

Who do you trust?

Most people place varying layers of trust in others. That trust is based on a few things, but mostly it's based on how much we like them, and how trustworthy we think they've been in the past.

And that's screwed up, at least in part. I'll explain.

We tend to associate with people who share things with us. Our beliefs in religion and societial structure, our appearances, our likes and dislikes for entertainment. Because of that, if enough people in a group get something wrong, they'll not only believe it's correct, but that belief will be strengthened by the support of the others.

That's how we get ingrained bullshit. Talk to a bunch of White Supremacists, and they might explain to you how Hitler was slandered. They don't view this as incorrect, because all of their friends believe it too. What's worse, if you tell them they're wrong, they'll get upset with you because you're obviously trying to lie to them.... and they "know better".

The same thing holds for other groups. I spent some time last week talking to a person I have some respect for, who was telling me that this was one of the worst economies in US History. I told him that the numbers don't back it up, and his response was that he didn't care about the numbers, he cared about what he could see, and people he knew. Part of that is caused by an error in logic explained in an earlier post ( http://drinkingdeep.blogspot.com/2007/02/world-is-murfreesboro-tennessee.html ) but part of it is simply his trust of his associates. I asked him what information sources he believed, and he responded that the media could lie, and he'd learned that. So I asked him if he believed the government reports, and he told me that he didn't trust any of that stuff.

The end result is that he only trusts facts which support his position, and his friends agree with him, so he believes he's right. That's a hideous trap for a thinking person to fall into, discounting provable reality in favor of personal belief, and there's an easy way out of it: compare sources.

It all comes down to that. If you're discounting one group as "Faux News" and "The lying right-wingers", you may not be an idiot, but you are a gullible fool. If you're discounting the other group as "Communist News Network" and "The lying left-wingers", the same holds true. In point of fact, most news sources do not lie, because it's too easy for them to get called on it. Just harken back to the fake document scandal of Dan Rather if you can't remember. Instead, they color the news by reporting the parts they wish to push, and burying the parts they don't. It all comes down to training yourself to question what is NOT in a story that could be, and to learn the difference between opinion and fact.

Summing it up, a quote from a deceased world leader: Trust, but verify.

Survey says...!

A research study by a group of scientists proves that oat bran is good for you. Then another group proves that it's no better than any other type of bran.

Butter is bad for you, while margarine is good. Shortly afterward, margarine is worse than butter. Then both butter and margarine are bad, and you should use oil if possible. But only sunflower oil. Or non-hydrogenated fats.

A group puts out a study that shows a greater tendency toward mental retardation and brain injury in children who aren't quickly removed from the womb. Later studies demonstrate there is no evidence to support the initial claim.

These aren't unique; it happens often. There will be a study result trumpeted throughout the world, and actions will be taken as a result, such as banning saccharine or silicone breast implants, or forcing more women to undergo Caesarian section. Sometimes, such as with Thalidomide, the study results are accurate, and the resultant actions are a boon to society. Sometimes they're merely a way for people to gain money, prestige and power.

Here's the problem: nobody walks into a study with nothing to gain. If it's a corporation that's funding the study, they're hoping for results which will help the corporation. If it's the government that's funding the study, often through a university grant, the people conducting the study are getting free money from the government. They have a personal stake in producing results, because inconclusive results drastically reduce the likelihood of their getting money for future projects. Moreover, truly radical results could result in personal fame and wealth... just look at the famous "Hockey Stick" graph for global warming. The Hockey Stick has been demonstrated to be a complete fraud, but its creator is now famous and wealthy.

The end result is that all researchers have a material motive to lie, skew data, or misinterpret. Thankfully, peer review... that tendency for other scientists to look over published results... tends to reveal the frauds. But in the time between initial reporting and verification, a lot of crap gets a chance to become fixated in the public mind. There are still people who believe that it's safer to drive without your seat belt on, because of the risk of getting trapped in an accident. Or that compact cars are safer for their occupants in a collision than SUVs.

Then, to make matters worse, an interesting study will be reported by one media source, then another... and then media sources start using each other for the background on a story. 'Experts' crop up who are little more than charismatic celebrities who know less about science than the average person does about calculating road tar densities for expected degradation due to time, weather and usage stresses. Other 'experts' wind up being people who are gaining personally due to the proliferation of the topic; Oat Bran's version of community spokespeople.

Do yourself a favor. If you hear about a study and think it's interesting, fine, let it breeze by or tuck it away as interesting information. But if you're about to change your lifestyle due to a report, or five reports, or twenty, look into it yourself before you shift your habits. There are people out there who undoubtedly regret the extra surgery they underwent to remove their silicon breast implants (and no, I'm not even going to touch on why they wanted them in the first place), and people who regret losing their wives, daughters, or mothers due to complications from a Caesarian section which didn't really need to be done in the first place.
And when I say look into it, I mean just that: really take a good hard look into the sources, claims, and viability of the studies. A sampling of 6000 people is more impressive than a sampling of twenty-seven. Who paid for it? Who conducted it? Did they approach it from an angle which looks like they were trying to get a particular result?

And if it's too complicated, and much of it will be, try to find the people who are claiming the study is wrong, and listen to their explanations. As always, having all the information available to you before you decide is going to result in you making better decisions.

Kirsty MacColl is Still Dead

Kirsty was a talented singer who wandered musically all over the UK scene in the 1980s, both performing her own work and as backup or guest singer to other artists. She worked with many UK country bands... but, being UK country music, they are virtually unknown to anyone save British country music fans. She also worked with many UK rock bands, many of which were considerably more famous than their country counterparts. She performed with The Smiths, Simple Minds, The Pogues, Billy Bragg, and far, far more. She grew more popular during the 1990s, but worked almost exclusively with the Pogues and her solo efforts during that time period. By all reports, she was friendly and pleasant.

And in 2000, she was run over and killed.

She wasn't run over in the normal way, however. Safe from the cars or trucks which are the usual culprits in hit and run accidents, Kirsty was killed by a powerboat while swimming with her sons. Her sons escaped physical injury.

So far, this sounds tragic, but not exactly fodder for a political blog. There is a point to be made, however.

Kirsty MacColl was deeply into left-wing politics. She decried the crass devotion to capitalism of the United States and UK, and adored the rampant socialism available in South and Central America. The cover to her final album of original material featured a picture of her dressed in a classic Fidel Castro uniform and lighting a cigar with a flaming dollar bill.
She was not a stupid woman; she was aware of the corruption endemic to the governments she adored. That corruption, however, did not diminish her love of the countries, and the people. Like many, she believed that the corruption was not a necessary byproduct of socialism, and that the people would be better off in the long run under a Marxist style of government.

The fact that all historical evidence has shown that not to be the case was not, apparently, enough to sway her viewpoint.

On December 18th, 2000, Kirsty was in one of her beloved countries... actually, one of the least corrupt of the lot, Mexico... swimming, as mentioned before, with her two sons. The place where they swam was restricted, with no boats of any type allowed. The law did not prevent a powerboat driver from killing her.
And, unsurprisingly to anyone who has dealt with a South or Central American government, the law was unable to locate the guilty party. Whoever the culprit was, they were Mexican... one strike against the foreigner... and they were rich enough to be able to afford a powerboat and a beachfront docking location, which means they were undoubtedly rich enough to be able to bribe the local constabulary, the second strike against the foreigner.

Her mother has been trying ever since to get some answers, and a prosecution. The poor woman deserves some justice, as do Kirsty's family and friends. There's even a web site devoted to it: http://www.justiceforkirsty.org/

Ultimately, this isn't particularly surprising. Kirsty knew the way the law was enforced in the tropical socialist countries she adored, and she supported it.

But the justice she ignored for others is now being denied to her family and friends.

Real vs. Ideal

A very bright man I know was recently told his job would be going away. He's worked at his place of employment for a number of years, and the reason his job is disappearing is that the manufacturing for his company is going to shift to China.

He was angry and frustrated. He's worked there for years, after all, and doesn't look forward to finding a new position elsewhere. But that much, he could stand; what steamed him was the fact that the decision was, blatantly, a suicidal one for the long-term prospects of the company. The place he works is consistently on the cutting edge of developmental tech, and the domestic plants had, in the past, has Chinese scientists quit suddenly, only to have a nationalized Chinese organization pop up with identical new tech a few weeks later. Industrial espionage is always damaging to a tech company; moving the company's research into a place where the espionage will be constant is akin to jumping into a pool without knowing how to swim. If you're surprised that damage ensues, you've made the ghost of Charles Darwin happy.
Meanwhile, the CEO and the Board received not only their standard huge paychecks, but raises and bonuses as well.

My acquaintance, a hardcore right-wing conservative, was trying to square his belief in the success of free markets with the contemporary robber baron aspects of some CEOs. There has to be something, he said, to keep them from killing a company and profiting off of it. And, he pointed out, while the investors theoretically fill that role, in reality they don't, for two reasons. First, a majority of investors don't vote, because their investments are small and diversified; and Second, the institutional groups who control large percentages of stock automatically vote with the CEO.

And here's the point where it gets important.

THERE IS NO IDEAL SOLUTION. There are only a few less than ideal solutions, and we may well have the best one possible in place. Right now, if the investors get motivated (and the institutional groups change their policies) the people with the most to gain or lose by the inept decisions of the business heads are the ones who have the ultimate power. But when they're not paying enough attention, the opportunity for malfeasance or ineptitude is raised. That won't be fixed simply by transferring power to the corporate heads, or to a governmental agency with no stake in the system outside of its own aggrandizement.

We're such a solution-oriented society that we either forget, or never realize, that some problems simply can't be absoutely solved. It goes against our natures to think like that. But most of the time we're simply faced with a variety of choices, none of which is perfect.

Idealism is a wonderful thing. But when it inspires you to abandon or denigrate successful courses of action because they're not perfect, idealism becomes nothing more than a reason to complain without accomplishing anything.

My fingers are in my ears; I can't hear you.

We refuse to acknowledge terrorism in realistic ways in this country. Like many other contentious issues, there are a few reasons. Here are some of them:

1) The Republicans in power wish to continue to take credit for their domestic success. How often have you heard someone on the right mention that there haven't been any terrorist attacks since September 11th? That claim goes right out the window if any of the attacks by young Muslim men are determined to be terrorist attacks. In an effort to keep their record spotless, the Republican leadership takes a very specific, and inaccurate, definition of terrorism. The historical definition has been associated with assaults on civilian targets for the purpose of creating a political or social change. But, no, the Republican leadership believes it has to be accomplished via a web or network of people who can be linked directly to terrorist organizations. This is the only way they can continue to claim undiminished success domestically.

2) The Democrat leadership wish to convince as many people as possible that terrorism is not a threat. Their actions since shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan have been directed toward minimizing the appearance of that threat. Merely admitting that an aggressive war against terrorism is necessary, because terrorist organizations have already declared war on us, was enough to get Joe Leiberman kicked out of his party. If terrorism does still threaten us, and the Democrats consistently want to appease, surrender, or flee from terrorists, they are not going to be trusted with national security, and they will lose elections. As they are deeply opposed to violent physical conflict with people, even people attempting to kill us, the only recourse is to convince people that the threats aren't particularly noteworthy... and that's tough to do when US citizens are being killed by domestic terrorism.

3) Both sides wish to protect peaceful Muslims. Honestly, the US is one of the world's greatest repositories of Muslim reformers. There are many in the country who reject the more literal interpretations of the Koran's passages calling for violence, and there are yet more who call themselves Muslim, but whose devotion to their holy writings extends merely to attending service once a week, or perhaps stopping by once or twice a year during key events, or who simply call themselves Muslim because that's how their parents were raised, but who haven't been to a mosque in ten years. Muslims are no different from Christians in that regard.
But, there are still a lot of people who do believe that the Koran calls for violence. Those are the ones who either approve, support, or even commit destructive or homicidal acts in the name of Allah. Failing to call them out for their views and actions would be like failing to call out the KKK and its supporters after a lynching in 1950, because to bring it to everyone's attention might cause negative views on the non-racists in that town. The only way pressure can be brought to bear for positive change is to demand the truth.

4) The international political scene is tricky; it's always changing, and allies are often needed to lend a hand in the completion of a goal. Even though they are not firm allies, countries like Kuwait, Turkey and Saudi Arabia are often willing to take action on our behalf, just as they often take action against us. There are large factions in most countries in the middle east... and, in fact, in most countries in Europe as well... who are willing to promulgate any negative story about the US, without any proof whatsoever. These groups are always willing to put out the word that the US is unfairly accusing a sucidal gunman of being a terrorist, while at the same time they praise the gunman for being a proper Muslim and killing Americans. Giving an excessive benefit of the doubt takes away kindling for the fires they wish to stoke.

5) Lastly, there's simple denial. Many people don't want to face the fact that they could be targeted for random death for no reason beyond their citizenship. It's far more comforting to believe you're generally safe, and that vehicular attacks and shootings are merely random, isolated incidents.

The Blue Whale in the Room

March 3rd, 2006: Mohammed Reza Taheri-azar, an Iranian student, drove a vehicle through the busiest part of his former school campus, University of North Carolina. He hurt six people badly enough to send them to the hospital, and provided minor injuries to three others. He had rented a larger vehicle, to do more damage, and was charged with multiple counts of attempted murder. His statement when he was questioned was that he wanted to avenge the deaths of Muslims around the world. In court, he explained that he was thankful to spread the will of Allah.

August 29, 2006: Omeed Aziz Popal, an Afghani immigrant, drove his car over some of the sidewalks and through inhabited crosswalks in San Francisco. He killed one person, and injured fourteen others. After being removed from the vehicle, he admitted he was a terrorist.

July 4, 2002: Hesham Mohamed Hadayat, an Egyptian immigrant, walked into LAX and started shooting, targeting people working for El Al, Israel's airline. He was killed by security, ending his rampage. Being dead, he had no statement.

February 11, 2007: Sulejman Talovic, a Bosnian immigrant, walked into a mall in Salt Lake City and started shooting people. He killed five and injured four more before being shot dead. He also had no statement. Thankfully, his aunt explained for him: "We are Muslims, but we are not terrorists."

Of course, it isn't merely immigrants:

2002: John Allan Mohammed, the Beltway sniper, killed 10 and severely wounded three. His identity baffled the FBI for a long time, because they were hunting for a person who typically fit the identity of a serial killer; Mohammed did not fit that profile. He is considered a case study in massive deviation from serial killer patterns. The fact that he was a Muslim convert, and that his actions follow the pattern of Muslim terrorists, is deemed extraneous.

July 28, 2006: Naveed Azal Haq forced his way into a Jewish center and began shooting, killing one woman and injuring five others. He claimed it was because he was Muslim, and angry at Israel.

Now, of course, the question becomes, What do all of these people have in common?

ANSWER: The local police and federal government cannot find a motive for these crimes.

Huh?

Okay, here's a thought: Accept that terrorism doesn't have to be part of a grand, orchestrated plan. Most places which have encountered suicide bombers have managed to grasp that concept, but apparently the US hasn't.
Another thought: We know that all Muslims aren't terrorists. Hell, we know that the majority of them in the US and other Western countries aren't even terrorist supporters. And we know that not all Muslims even sympathize with terrorists; many of them, particularly those that ascribe to reformed versions of the religion, hate the bastards.
But PLEASE, stop insulting us.

And that's exactly what's happening. Because the obvious answer is that it is at least reasonable and possible that terrorism inspired all of these attacks. It would be wrong to say, without evidence, that it is the reason, but it is equally wrong to say, without evidence, that it isn't.
It is, if nothing else, a possibility; and some would argue (I would be one of them) a probability. Denying that is foolish and unreasonable.

So, why would anyone deny it?

See the next post.