Progressive Patriotism

 

I'm tired of being told I hate America.  Not personally, but the right-wing belief that liberals hate the USA dates back to at least the Cold War, when people like Joseph McCarthy would accuse anyone remotely on the left side of the political aisle of being in bed with the Russkis.  This has certainly been brought forward into the era of the "war on terror," when anyone opposed to the Iraq War was a wussy traitor, Obama was called out for going on foreign policy "apology tours," people who think maybe, just maybe, we could approach gun violence in a different way are accused of shredding the Constitution, and advocates for marriage equality are supposedly trying to destroy American (read: "Christian") values.  Frankly, it is bullshit.  I'm tired of it.  I love America.  I want it to be a better place.  Just because I don't subscribe to a narrow, jingoistic, red-white-and-blue F*CK YEAH vision of America doesn't mean I'm not patriotic.  And not to brag, but I probably know more about American history and civics than the average tricorner-hat-wearing Tea Partier.  Doesn't that count for something?

Progressives need to do a better job of communicating their patriotism.  For far too long we have allowed the Right to monopolize the concept and define it in terms of what they believe on the issues.  Well, I'm here to say that progressive values and policies can be patriotic too.  That's why I'd like to establish the following statements of Progressive Patriotism.  Perhaps I'll revisit them and add more as time goes by and more issues come to the fore, but I think this is a good start.

This is America.  We are a country of immigrants.  We celebrate our diverse past, present, and future, and do not make judgements about an entire ethnic or religious group based on the actions of a few.

This is America.  We do not start unnecessary wars that cost thousands of American lives and bring untold suffering to others.

This is America.  We acknowledge that we are a citizen on the world stage.  We respect other countries and work with them to solve problems on a global scale.  

This is America.  We believe that anyone who's willing to work hard should earn a wage sufficient to support themselves and their family.

This is America.  We don't allow our elders to spend their golden years mired in poverty and sickness.

This is America.  We don't let someone go bankrupt because they got cancer or were injured in a terrorist attack.

This is America.  We look after the least fortunate, and provide them appropriate help to get back on their feet.

This is America.  We value education and free thought.  We use laws to support it rather than hinder it.

This is America.  We invest wisely in an infrastructure that supports the greatest economy in the world.

This is America.  We take care of our environment so that it might be enjoyed by future generations.  We use resources wisely and believe in investing in those of the future.

This is America.  We recognize the necessity of paying taxes, but demand an effective return on our investment.

This is America.  We don't put great stock in "freedom" and then obsess over how and why consenting adults have sex.

This is America.  We don't dismiss the victims of gun violence who are exercising their First Amendment right to petition their government as "political props."

This is America.  We acknowledge every part of the Constitution and Bill of Rights as applying to every citizen, even if we really don't like them or what they have done.

This is America.  We do not see conspiracy theories behind every bad event, government action, or anything associated with the United Nations.

This is America.  We base policy decisions on science, statistics, established precedent, and the historical record, rather than gut feelings or purely personal beliefs.

I think that's enough for now, but hopefully you get the point.  There's more than one way to love your country.  It's time for progressive to own their brand of patriotism.

______________________________________

Footnote: Here's an example of what progressives (and Muslims, to tie things back to my previous post) have to put up with, courtesy of the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer:

"Secular fundamentalists hate this country as founded.  They hate it. They're trying to dismantle it.  President Obama hates this country as founded. That's why he's trying to transform it and make it into some kind of socialist, Marxist utopia. Because he doesn't like America, as it was founded. And Muslims don't either.  They hate America. They hate America as founded. They have the same dislike, and distaste, the same enmity toward America is it was founded that secular progressives do.  And so that's the bond that they share."

It's Still OK to Stereotype Muslims

It's been a crappy week in America, and especially in the wonderful city of Boston.  Let's all take some solace in the fact that the ordeal appears to be over, and that the remaining Tsarnaev is in custody and will hopefully provide some answers before facing the full weight of the justice system.

The terrorist attack was bad enough, but it also unleashed a fury of stupid speculation among the right, left, and mainstream media.  CNN proved itself to be just about as bad as Fox, though in a somewhat different way, in its relentless quest to get everything about the story first and wrong.  There was improper speculation among some left-leaning pundits that the perps would be right-wing antigovernment extremists, which of course sent the conservative world into a tirade, especially when this was proven inaccurate (though, of course, we still don't know the exact motives behind the attack).  While I agree those pundits should have chosen their words better, I also find it odd that conservatives seem so willing to associate their ideology with "anti-government extremism."

The writer who received the most attention was probably Salon's David Sirota, who stated "Let's hope the terrorist is a white American."  While again, that could have been phrased better, it was a ballsy statement obviously meant to get attention, and it did.  Sirota was immediately labeled a racist and all sorts of other vile things for daring to discuss the concept of white privilege.  Well, this may be uncomfortable to hear, but white privilege exists in America.  To deny otherwise is naive.  When a white male (and usually Christian) commits a vile crime, not much happens other than he, if still alive, is prosecuted to the full extent of the law, which is proper.  When a non-white commits a widely notorious and despicable crime, all hell breaks loose.  Wars are started.  Freedoms are limited without complaint.  And entire groups of people are labeled as suspect.

Timothy McVeigh: 169 killed.  Anything happen beyond him being put to death?  Nope.  Jared Loughner, James Holmes, Adam Lanza - almost 50 dead total and scores injured.  Anything happen?  Well, the Senate just failed to pass the most watered-down gun legislation imaginable that 85% of Americans support.  So, nope.

But even before the Boston bombing was proven to be perpetrated by a Muslim, these happened:






(Erik Rush is a Fox News contributor.  This was supposedly "sarcastic."  I'm not laughing.)

Pat Robertson: "Don't talk to me about a religion of peace."

Congressman Steve King (R-IA-Leading Tea Partier): “Some of the speculation that has come out is that yes, it was a foreign national and, speculating here, that it was potentially a person on a student visa.  If that’s the case, then we need to take a look at the big picture.  We need to be ever vigilant,” and that security should be the focus right now, not a path to legalization. If we can’t background-check people that are coming from Saudi Arabia, how do we think we are going to background check the 11 to 20 million people that are here from who knows where?"

And, by far the worst of all:

Muslim Woman Attacked After Conservatives Repeat False Speculation About ‘Dark-Skinned Suspects’

By Adam Peck posted from ThinkProgress Justice on Apr 19, 2013 at 6:15 pm

"It didn’t take long after the bombings at the Boston Marathon on Monday for the internet’s most irresponsible figures to begin pointing fingers — without a shred of evidence — at several dark-skinned “suspects” seen in surveillance videos and miscellaneous photographs.
On Wednesday, the far-right’s Islamophobic online fear mongering spilled, tragically, into the real world."

Read the last link for the full story.  Guess what Islamophobes, your hateful words have real-world consequences.  How many white guys were on the receiving end of reprisals after OKC?  Hmm.

Look, conservative gun owners have spent the past several months - if not years - insisting that they not be stereotyped or punished for the actions of a few lunatics.  Fine, good point.  But now many of the same people - don't pretend there is not significant overlap - are perfectly happy to declare all Muslims suspicious, if not terrorists, and call for stopping their immigration or outright deportation.  Bryan Fischer, head of the American Family Association whom I've blogged about before, says no one who believes in the Quran should be allowed here.  Now that's the American spirit!

Or going back to Steve King - we locked down a million people for a day, creating a police state in Boston and arguably violating numerous constitutional rights for the sake of public safety.  I don't hear any freedom-loving libertarians complaining about that injustice.  And yet asking somebody to do a 5 minute background check at a gun show - merely a further application of an existing law - is somehow going to create Obama Task Forces in black helicopters coming to take all guns.  And while that sort of background check is horrendous, to King it's perfectly OK to dig into every bit of personal backstory of an immigrant just because of where they are from or what religion they follow.  Now that's freedom!  Thankfully, any old terrorist who does make it into the country can go to a gun show and buy whatever assault weapons they want.

I've had the pleasure of working with several dozen respectful and friendly Muslim students.  They had the courage to come to post-9/11 America knowing what they might face because they wanted to improve their lives in a country that gave them that opportunity.  If I'm somewhat "biased" in my attitudes toward them, it's only because I see it as a personal mission for them to be treated with the same dignity and honor that they showed me.

Which brings me to the last horrible reaction by a conservative this week, coming on Friday from a duly elected U.S. Senator sworn to uphold the Constitution.  Lindsay Graham of South Carolina took to Twitter to tell the Obama administration that it wouldn't be prudent to read Tsarnaev his Miranda rights and that he should be treated as an "enemy combatant."  Well, I have news for Graham.  Even though he's got a funny god and a funny name, he is an American citizen.  He has the exact same constitutional rights as you or I.  These rights actually extend beyond the 2nd Amendment and include the 5th, 6th, and 8th - guaranteeing him due process of law and the right not to be tortured.  Now, the Justice Department has already stated they will be waiving his Miranda rights for a brief period in order to try to get useful intelligence out of him, which I am perfectly fine with.  But eventually he will be read his rights, he will go on trial, and he will suffer the full consequences for what he did according to the established processes of the American justice system.  That is how it should be, and that is what makes us better than those radical few who would seek to change our way of life through terrorism - and, after 9/11, succeeded to an extent.

As-salam alaykum.  Peace be upon you.

Board Game Review: Suburbia

The recent launch of the latest entry in the much-beloved SimCity computer game franchise was an unmitigated disaster.  Server issues combined with an always-on Internet connection requirement prevented thousands upon thousands of city planners from playing the game for days.  Cities were deleted through no fault of the player.  Electronic Arts refused to offer refunds.  Once the dust settled, many gamers found that they were disappointed with SimCity 2013 as it was meant to be anyway.  City sizes seem way too small, city optimization requires the cooperation and active participation of other players, and there has proven to be serious issues with the supposedly realistic simulation of urban life (your city dwellers always take the shortest route somewhere regardless of traffic, and tend to go home to different houses every night).  Wannabe mayors should fret not, however, for if they can unplug for a while, there is a great board game alternative to SimCity.  Not only is it cheaper, it's guaranteed to always work.

Suburbia was released in 2012 by designer Ted Alspach, who openly admits that he drew inspiration from Maxis Software's city-building classic - and it shows.  Players construct their individual boroughs of some great metropolis by placing tiles depicting various city building types - residential, commercial, industrial, and civic - and must balance their income and reputation in pursuit of the highest population possible (which determines the winner).  The tiles and graphic design are crisp and attractive, the rules are fairly simple with underlying complexity, and the player interaction is relatively high for a tile-laying game.  That's the short version - I'll give you the details on a Sunday drive out to the 'burbs.

The actual gameplay in Suburbia is deceptively simple.  On your turn, you will usually first acquire a tile.   You can either buy one of the basic tiles of each type (suburb - residential, park - civic, heavy factory - industry), or you can buy other tiles, which are revealed as others are bought, and priced according to a sliding market scale (usually this is where you'll be going).  Each tile has a name in addition to type (other examples: mobile home community - residential; landfill - industrial; office supply store - commercial).  Once you decide what tile you want, you pay its price and then put it in your city anywhere that you like, just so that it touches at least one side of a tile that's already there.  Once placed, you determine what effects this placement has.  There could be effects just from placing the tile, from what you placed it next to, from other tiles in your borough, or even according to what tiles other players have placed in their boroughs.  These effects could be positive or negative (or both), and tend to tie in well with the theme.  For example, placing a factory might bring you more tax revenue, but plop it down next to a residential area and the pollution will make your reputation suffer.  Placing an international airport will reap benefits to every regional airport in play, even those of other players.  Like any good urban planner, you must carefully consider the benefits and costs of your tile placement, and choose accordingly.

A growing city, with income and reputation above.

Once your tile is placed, you make any necessary adjustments to your income and reputation.  Then you collect your income (or you might have to pay, if your city has turned into a money sinkhole) and you increase your all-important population by your current reputation score.  (So if your reputation sits at 4 for three turns, you would increase your population by 4 each turn.)  However, there is a slight catch in scoring that really makes Suburbia stand out.  At various points along the population score track there are red lines that basically represent milestones in population growth.  When your borough crosses one of these lines, you must reduce both your income and reputation by one each - your city is growing, but it's losing some of its small-town appeal.  This makes for excellent strategic decisions as you must carefully decide when and how much to score, evaluating whether you have the money and reputation to support a larger population.  Once the tile supply is exhausted, whomever has reached the highest population is Suburbia's victor.

Suburbia reminds me of a Reiner Kinizia game in that the gameplay, which boils down to "get a tile, place a tile" is very simple, but the complexity comes in the scoring and effects of your actions.  This does lead to the game's one drawback - it can be difficult to ensure you are accounting for all possible effects when you place a tile.  There simply can be a lot to keep track of.  However, the iconography and text are quite comprehensible, and the process will eventually become routine the more you play - I was feeling very comfortable by the middle of the game, even as my borough grew larger and more complex.  The upside of this is that the possibility of triggering effects in other players' areas increases player interaction and decreases boring downtime, as you must be paying attention to what your opponents are doing.  Without this element, Suburbia could easily fall into the "multiplayer solitaire" trap.  Also, as this game revolves around open information, there is no harm in helping other players make sure they have taken all effects of their play into consideration.

Although it's a fairly abstracted derivation from its PC ancestor, Suburbia's connections to SimCity are clear.  You must balance acquisition and placement of different building types as well as watch your budget to avoid overextending your resources.  The basics are simple but hide an underlying system that is complex and rewarding when you unlock its potential.  Plus, you can probably fit in an entire game of Suburbia while waiting for an open SimCity server.  Those who feel burned by the computer game's troubles should really consider going cardboard and taking a trip to Suburbia.