Benghazi: Foreign Policy Hypocrisy At Its Worst

There used to be a saying when it came to foreign policy - "politics stops at the water's edge."  In other words, petty partisan squabbles should be put aside in favor of presenting a united American front on the world stage.  That thinking served us well through WWII, much of the Cold War, and some of the following period.  The "War on Terror" has shattered that proverb, however, and it's no more evident than in the fracas over Benghazi.

I haven't blogged too much about this, because I really thought it would die after the election.  Silly me.  Ever since the GOP's attempt to derail Obama's reelection blew up in the epic fail moment of "Please proceed, Governor" during the second debate, it seemed like continuing to press the issue was a losing strategy.  Eight months later, polls show a majority of Americans still don't care.  But now that the GOP has given up any efforts at "rebranding" and has launched into Democratic Second Term = Every Scandal Worse Than Seven Hitlers Mode, lobbing threats of impeachment with the added bonus of hopefully stopping Hillary Clinton's near-guaranteed 2016 election (should she choose to run), it's time to pay Benghazi a visit.

Not surprisingly, sadly, a new poll found that 39% of Americans who think Benghazi is the biggest scandal in American history can't even find the city on a map.  6% think it's in Cuba.  (Let me stop here to say if you don't know where Benghazi is, you need to STFU about it.)  So let's recount what happened.  Benghazi is the 2nd-largest city in Libya, in North Africa.  It's not the capital - that's Tripoli.  It was the turning point of the 2011 Libyan civil war, when rebels, supported by NATO and the US, overthrew Qaddafi's government.  On September 11, 2012, two separate attacks by Islamic militants on the U.S. consulate (not an embassy - the embassy is in Tripoli) killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.  After the attack, citizens took the streets praising it.  Er, wait:

   

Muslims condemning terrorism???  I thought that never happened!  Anyway, despite the immediate condemnation of the attacks by Obama, Clinton, and others, it immediately became a political attack during the campaign.  Romney couldn't even wait till people knew exactly what had happened before decrying the administration as weak appeasers.  There was speculation that the attack had been triggered by an anti-Muslim video produced in the US; that doesn't appear to be the case, however the militants may have taken advantage of the tense situation.  Republicans condemned Obama for not calling it a terrorist attack, even though he called it an "act of terror" - as if "terrorist attack" is some magical phrase that sets everything right with the world.  There was furor that talking points used by administration officials such as UN Ambassador Susan Rice had been altered (as talking points always are).  Basically, they couldn't stomach the fact that the administration chose to handle the situation in the most volatile region in the world with a bit more nuance than their cowboy neoconservative icons.

Make no mistake - an investigation into what went wrong at Benghazi, leading to the deaths of four Americans, was totally warranted.  But the wrath and conspiracy theories that have resulted from the Right are absurd and grossly hypocritical.  "There was a cover-up!" they scream.  Cover-up of what?  Incredible amounts of information have been shared.  There have been hours of testimony.  There was nothing to hide.  It was a tragedy, but most Americans accept that serving in volatile regions has its risks.  If Obama had really wanted to affect the election, history and precedent suggest that he would've gone into full "rally round the flag" mode and launched some cruise missiles at somebody.

Obama himself has stated that if his administration is perpetrating a cover-up, they're doing a pretty lousy job of it.  This is a staple of conspiracy theory logic-holes from the moon landing to 9/11 - the government is capable of pulling off incredibly complex hoaxes that dupe hundreds of millions of people, and yet do such a bad job of covering it up that a few clever souls who stare at blurry pictures for a few minutes GET IT.

Was embassy security lacking?  Well, guess who voted to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from that budget?  Yup, the same Congressional Republicans who now claim that Benghazi is the WORST SCANDAL EVAR.   That's enough funding for 300 diplomatic security positions - a cut that Clinton warned would be detrimental to national security.  But that doesn't matter because ... because ... BENGHAZI!

And that's just tip of their hypocritical iceberg.  Ever hear of any of these incidents?

January 22, 2002. Calcutta, India. Gunmen associated with Harkat-ul-Jihad al-Islami attack the U.S. Consulate. Five people are killed.
June 14, 2002. Karachi, Pakistan. Suicide bomber connected with al Qaeda attacks the U.S. Consulate, killing 12 and injuring 51.
October 12, 2002. Denpasar, Indonesia. U.S. diplomatic offices bombed as part of a string of "Bali Bombings." No fatalities.
February 28, 2003. Islamabad, Pakistan. Several gunmen fire upon the U.S. Embassy. Two people are killed.
May 12, 2003. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Armed al Qaeda terrorists storm the diplomatic compound, killing 36 people including nine Americans. The assailants committed suicide by detonating a truck bomb.
July 30, 2004. Tashkent, Uzbekistan. A suicide bomber from the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan attacks the U.S. Embassy, killing two people.
December 6, 2004. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. Al Qaeda terrorists storm the U.S. Consulate and occupy the perimeter wall. Nine people are killed.
March 2, 2006. Karachi, Pakistan again. Suicide bomber attacks the U.S. Consulate killing four people, including U.S. diplomat David Foy who was directly targeted by the attackers
September 12, 2006. Damascus, Syria. Four armed gunmen shouting "Allahu akbar" storm the U.S. Embassy using grenades, automatic weapons, a car bomb and a truck bomb. Four people are killed, 13 are wounded.
January 12, 2007. Athens, Greece. Members of a Greek terrorist group called the Revolutionary Struggle fire a rocket-propelled grenade at the U.S. Embassy. No fatalities.
March 18, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Members of the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic Jihad of Yemen fire a mortar at the U.S. Embassy. The shot misses the embassy, but hits nearby school killing two.
July 9, 2008. Istanbul, Turkey. Four armed terrorists attack the U.S. Consulate. Six people are killed.
September 17, 2008. Sana'a, Yemen. Terrorists dressed as military officials attack the U.S. Embassy with an arsenal of weapons including RPGs and detonate two car bombs. Sixteen people are killed, including an American student and her husband.

That's 13 attacks under W's watch, dozens of Americans dead, and not a peep of outrage from any Republicans or Fox News.  Where were the investigations, hearings, and calls for better security?  Note that these all take place outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, where the actual wars were being fought (and the diplomatic Green Zone in Baghdad was a constant target).  Oh no, they said, we can't criticize the commander-in-chief while troops are in harm's way.  Anybody that dares to do that is a weak, sellout un-American appeaser.  But as soon as there's a commander-in-chief they don't like, well, anything that happens is worse than 9/11.  And I'm not exaggerating on that one.

Which brings us to Iraq and Dick Cheney.  The Bush Administration got a complete free pass for what was by all accounts the biggest foreign policy blunder at least since Vietnam.  It killed over 5,000 Americans (including contractors), at least a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians, and wasted trillions of dollars - all while lining the pockets of Cheney's Halliburton friends.  And Cheney dares to conservo-splain to Obama why Benghazi is the worst attack he can recall.  Now, whose administration ignored the warnings before 9/11?  Whose administration lied to the public to justify reckless foreign policy that lead to untold suffering in Iraq and in thousands of American families?  Remember the calls for impeachment or criminal charges when a nonpartisan study found that Cheney and others issued 935 false statements about Iraq to goad us into war?  No?  And they have the cahones to lecture us about foreign policy lapses?  Have you no decency, sirs?

Apparently not.  And that leaves Republicans like Congressman Darrell Issa attempting to make whatever they can out of the Benghazi situation.  What results is such laughable lines as "An act of terror is different than a terrorist attack."  We are actually supposed to take that as serious criticism and evidence that the Benghazi "cover-up" is a Grave Crime.  Congressman, pray tell, what is that difference, exactly?  And, to quote Hillary Clinton, what difference does it make?  And if it's so God-almighty important to call it a terrorist attack, why did George W. Bush call 9/11 an "act of terror" on 9/13/01?  Why does W hate America?  It infuriates me that the "liberal" media lets Issa and others get away with spouting these talking points without calling them on it or asking for real explanations - which only empowers them more.  It's awfully reminiscent of the free ride the Bush neoconservatives often got in the run-up to the Iraq war.

Perhaps the dumbest Issa comment came when he said that Benghazi was horribly botched because you can fly from Washington, DC to Benghazi on a commercial jet in seven hours.  So why couldn't there have been a stronger military response?  Well, besides the fact that it's just not true, the statement displays a brazen ignorance of military capability - though it does seem consistent with the Right's action-hero projection fantasies that also lead them to believe they can overthrow the government with their AR-15s.  Former Defense Secretary (and Bush appointee) Robert Gates basically agreed with the Obama administration's response and derided those with a "cartoonish" view of military capabilities.  I'll take the opinion of a career Air Force, CIA, and DoD civil servant over a Congressman with an obvious political agenda.

In the end, that's what it all comes down to - politics.  Whatever justifiable criticism of the Benghazi response could be made has been lost in a sea of political grandstanding.  And that's too bad.  As fearmongering over the "war on terror" being sabotaged by a possibly secret Muslim President continues, it's become clear that politics no longer stops at the water's edge.

Book Review: Anathem by Neal Stephenson

(Note: I can't give this book the full treatment it deserves without at least some minor spoilers.  However, as I highly recommend reading it, I'm certainly not going to ruin everything.)

Back in 2008 I discovered a book called Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson.  It blew my mind - a cyberpunk thriller starring a samurai-sword-wielding pizza deliverer named Hiro Protagonist set in a dystopian near-future where governments and corporations had both been distilled into fractured franchise operations.  Whew.  Written in 1991, the book astonishingly predicted many ways in which we would come to interact online through the rise of social media and popularized the use of the word "avatar" to denote our online persona.  Stephenson's only major mistake was giving the online world a virtual-reality setting; but hey, everybody was doing that in the early '90s.  It's only now that the technology has advanced to make such VR aspirations more than a pipe dream, and its common use is still probably a ways off.

Snow Crash left such an impression on me that I set out to read Stephenson's other works.  He's become quite a prolific author, always injecting his books with healthy doses of science, history, and philosophy - stuff usually right up my alley.  I've always enjoyed what I've read, but none hit me quite as strongly as Snow Crash.  At last, however, I've found a Stephenson book that I enjoy about as much as his seminal work of cyberpunk - and that is Anathem.

Make no mistake - Anathem is a very different book than Snow Crash.  First in scope - whereas you could burn through Snow Crash in a couple days if properly motivated, Anathem is a 900 page epic.  There are also stark differences in tone and pacing; whereas Snow Crash is brisk, energetic, and often funny, Anathem takes its time in building a truly interesting world.  It's far from ponderous, however, and there is plenty of action in the right spots, not to mention chuckle-worthy wit.


Anathem is set on a planet called Arbre - a planet that resembles Earth in many ways, but with one significant exception.  The scientists, philosophers, and mathematicians - theors for short - have separated from society at large and formed monastic communities called "maths."  There, the "avout" live secluded lives apart from the world that's beyond their walls - "extramuros" - and devote themselves to the pure pursuit of knowledge.  They only interact with the outside world in limited ways, and every so often temporarily connect with those outside, to get caught up on what they've been missing.

Let's pause for a minute - you surely noticed I'm kicking around some unfamiliar terms.  Yes, Anathem is a book with a glossary in the back.  However, this isn't A Clockwork Orange - you aren't learning a new language as you go, but rather familiarizing yourself with important concepts of the mathic world.  They are all accessible and introduced well in-context, and many of them closely resemble English words, emblematic of Arbre's reflection of Earth.  For example, a theor who is remembered for his great contributions to mathic pursuits is called a "saunt," much like "saint."  Additionally, there are a few amusing terms for "extramuros" devices that we have on Earth - such as a "jeejah," which we know as a smartphone.  It's all certainly not as complicated as the dozens of characters and political entanglements of Game of Thrones.

The avout have been cloistered for thousands of years, living simple lives that a Franciscan monk might envy - though don't mistake them for a celibate religious community.  Interestingly, the greatest minds on Arbre live almost completely devoid of technology - a partly voluntary sacrifice resulting from the great destruction and social upheaval that the rapid advancement of technology unleashed in Arbre's past.  Meanwhile, the world extramuros enjoys the fruits of modern technology, but many residents lack any understanding of how it works or how it came to be.  This stark contrast between the almost medieval lives of the avout and modern existence of the "extras" is jarring, and makes a strong impression on both the reader and the avout who venture beyond the mathic world's walls.

Arbre's history is rich and outlined well in Anathem - and armchair historians will easily find parallels to such earthly events as the Golden Age of Greece, the fall of the Roman Empire, the Renaissance, and the world wars.  To give some perspective, Anathem takes place 3,700 years after a cataclysm that we might call World War III or IV, after which the world was organized into the dual structure of secluded maths and the "saecular" power which rules everything else.  Stephenson does a great job of world-building in Anathem, and never stops leaking - at just the right rate to keep you wanting more - new pieces of information about Arbre, whether about its political structure, geography, or various religions.

The protagonist and first-person narrator of Anathem is a young fraa (male avout) called Erasmas, whose name obviously draws inspiration from the Dutch Renaissance humanist philosopher Erasmus.  Erasmas is coming of age at the Concent (cloister) of Saunt Edhar, and is about to briefly visit the extramuros world for the first time in ten years, as his order is allowed to do.  Unsurprisingly, this only marks the beginning of the momentous events that take place in Anathem, which will cause Erasmas and many of his colleagues to be Evoked - go on a special mission outside the mathic world for the benefit of all.  Here is where I don't want to spoil much, but suffice to say that the journey is epic and world-spanning (and beyond), with some truly crazy and imaginative events that only a mind like Stephenson can dream up.

In between the action, however, Erasmas and company delve into some truly deep thoughts.  This makes perfect sense in-context - after all, these are people who spend most of their free time having philosophical arguments with each other.  If you took philosophy and/or western civilization in college and remember the basics of Platonic thought, it will pay off in spades here.  If philosophy's not your thing, this may not be the book for you; however, the ideas are explained very clearly - the most difficult part is translating the terms from Arbran into their earthly equivalents (the glossary helps with this).  Moreover, the discussions are all pertinent to what's happening in the story.  Stephenson starts with the basic idea of Plato's Forms - the concept that there exists, in some other world, perfect forms of everything from triangles to desk chairs, and everything like that which exists in our world is just a pale reflection of such (see the famous Allegory of the Cave).  From that building block, Stephenson's characters posit and argue for the existence of the multiverse or polycosm - the idea that there are infinite worlds or dimensions, all having influence on each other in various ways.  Readers then witness the direct results of such theories reflected in the plot.  Many works of science fiction have tackled the multiverse before, but I think few have given it such a sound philosophical backing as Anathem.  Quite coincidentally, I read Anathem just after playing through the much-lauded video game BioShock: Infinite, which also explores the possibilities of the polycosm - it was a great one-two punch.

To sum up, Anathem has just about everything I like in a book - a detailed world with a rich history to learn about, interesting ideas presented accessibly, and exciting adventures in inventive settings.  The characters could probably be deeper, though I think Erasmas is imminently relatable as we experience momentous events through his eyes and voice.  Some of the philosophical discussions go on almost too long, but in most cases Stephenson knows just when to cut them off and pick up the pace.  I'll admit the heavy dose of philosophy renders it not a book for everyone.  It requires patience and the willingness to learn about a new world and terminology.  If you're down with that, though, Anathem succeeds as both a sci-fi thrill ride and an academic work that will leave you pondering.  What is the limit to our understanding of the world?  What would incredible new knowledge about the structure of the universe do to our social fabric?  Is such knowledge too dangerous to be revealed?  If such questions interest you, go on a journey with Erasmas to find out.

"They knew many things but had no idea why.  And strangely this made them more, rather than less, certain that they were right."  - Fraa Erasmas

The Nostalgia Generation

Today, a break from politics to discuss something that's been on my mind for about the past year.  The Internet has enabled truly unprecedented access to information and media.  The sheer amount of stuff available to be consumed on the Web is simply mind-boggling.  Much of it is brand new - some of it creative, some of it crap.  But I'd like to focus on another aspect of this information overload; namely, the ease to nostalgically remember our favorite pop culture of the past, and the niche industry that has grown up around this ability.  It's something that, I think, has especially struck a chord with people of roughly my age.  This cohort is basically Generation X, though I think it's particularly true with the younger half of that group - children of the '80s and early '90s.

Of course, it's been possible to re-experience cherished pop culture for a long time, especially with regards to such media as books, movies, and music.  But the Internet has enabled access - instantly, in many cases - to almost any media or information about some long-lost pop culture trend in a way that's never been possible before.  Do I want to know about every episode of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?  I can find explicit details on Wikipedia or fan sites.  Do I want to buy the TMNT show on DVD, or the Nintendo games based on it, or my favorite Donatello action figure?  Cruise over to Amazon or eBay.  Do I want to see commercials from 1990 for those action figures?  They're probably on YouTube.   It is astounding.  The past is being lovingly curated like never before, and anyone with an Internet connection has immediate access to it, and often cheaply.  YouTube is free.  Used media often goes for pennies or a few bucks on Amazon.  Netflix Instant offers dozens of old-school movies and programs for several dollars a month.  And, of course, there are the gray/outright illegal areas of torrents and video game emulation.  If you don't want to pay $100 to actually get a rare Super Nintendo cartridge from eBay, well, it's possible to be playing it on your PC in minutes anyway.

I think Gen-X is particularly susceptible to this "Net nostalgia" because we are old enough that we generally lost access to pop culture from our formative years for a while, but are young enough to be fully plugged in to the modern technology that makes reliving it possible.  As we've grown up and gotten jobs and families in the real world, I think there's a certain longing - as with any generation - to relive the glory days.  And we are the first generation to have an almost limitless ability to do that.

(Note: For expediency I'm not going to link to the sources below; however, they are all easily found via Google or YouTube if you're interested.  Be advised that most of them are not safe for work, due to free-flowing language.)

Young Gen-Xer's have been at the forefront of an Internet industry that seizes on this nostalgia and entertains its audience by joyfully reliving it and often offering insightful perspectives.  New media has made it extremely easy to appreciate the best of old media.  For example, Laser Time is a great podcast in which the hosts examine a pop culture topic every week, playing examples and providing their often humorous takes on it.  Past episodes have looked at '80s era rap commercials, hilariously bad video game music, and the portrayal of time travel in various media.  Retronauts was a very well-produced and informative podcast focusing on old-school video games.  It unfortunately died with the demise of gaming website 1UP; however, a successful Kickstarter project hints that a revival is just around the corner.

Some amateur critics have become true Internet celebrities through their mining of pop culture. 
James Rolfe became the Angry Video Game Nerd by venting at the frustratingly bad games of his youth.  He also has a side series, Board James, that has both mocked and honored classic board games such as Crossfire, Fireball Island, and DragonStrike.  Although no longer active, as the Nostalgia Critic, Doug Walker lambasted a lot of bad stuff from the '80s and '90s, but also paid tribute to quality movies and TV shows, and introduced me to some things I had missed.  He's enjoyable to watch until he gets into one of his screaming fits.  You can skip those parts.

Referencing past pop culture has now even become a popular trend in mainstream pop culture.  How meta.  Homages and parodies abound in TV shows such as The Big Bang Theory and Community (if you came here via my Facebook feed, you're well aware that I find Community to be the far superior show, so I'm not going to get into that here).  The best-selling book Ready Player One by Ernest Cline is the definitive referential book for nerds of my age and slightly older.  It pays constant tribute (for some, admittedly, it goes overboard) to cultural touchstones of the late '70s through early '90s, while telling a fun cyberpunk-style story.  Everything from the rock band Rush, to Dungeons and Dragons, to the 1983 classic movie WarGames, to Japanese anime gets its due.  It's definitely a book written for a specific audience, but if you're in that audience, it's a true trip down memory lane.

The question then becomes, of course, is Generation X's new-found nostalgia a natural occurrence and a passing fad, enabled by unprecedented access to our historical artifacts?  Will we no longer care about the best media of our childhood in 2020, having relived them to our heart's content in the early years of Web 2.0?  Hard to tell.  Moreover, what does the Internet mean for the nostalgia of future generations?  While today's kids will certainly grow out of their childhood interests and move on to other things, they will never be permanently separated from them.  If they want to relive them, they'll always be there.  Will they then care as much about them?  To twist a cliche, will the non-absence not make the heart grow fonder?  I have no idea.  But to an aspiring sociology or anthropology PhD, it could make an interesting dissertation topic in about 20 years.

Update on Christianity: Still Not Persecuted

Back in early January I blogged about the mythical persecution of American Christianity that some conservative Christians believe pervades a society filled with 78% Christians.  Quite a bit has happened since then, and I thought it was worth another look, given that this paranoia doesn't seem to be going away any time soon.  Combine the very real fear among some of the Right that Christianity is under serious attack with the equally crazy paranoia that Obama Is Coming For All The Guns, and it makes for some seriously dangerous beliefs.  This was revealed by a new poll showing that 29% of Americans, and 44% of Republicans, believe that an armed revolution might be necessary in the next few years to "protect our liberties."  That is scary stuff, and the conspiracy-laden propaganda spewed by right-wing media fuels it.


As I've said before, "threatened" Christians mistake their decreasing ability to impose their will and values on the entire country for being persecuted.  They scan the headlines for any event they could possibly construe as being offensive to "true Christians" (which they often equate with true Americans) and make serious hay out of it.  The annual "War on Christmas" is a perfect example, and this year Fox also spent a week attacking the "War on Easter" by finding a few random school districts across the country who were having "Spring egg hunts" and declaring that this means the end of Christianity as we know it.  When I was in school, we had "spring recess" at Easter time.  Everyone knew what it was about, and no one cared.  It is only an issue because the right-wing media wants to make it an issue.  Moreover, you could argue that even "spring recess" coinciding with Easter is giving preferential treatment to a religion and is therefore unconstitutional; can you imagine the reaction if there was a district-wide "recess" that fell on the same day as Rosh Hashanah or the final feast day of Ramadan?

Lately, however, most of the perceived persecution has revolved around gay issues, as I touched on a bit in my post on marriage equality.  While entitled to their personal beliefs about homosexuality, conservative Christians refuse to accept that they are losing the fight on gay rights, and interpret this as an attack on their religion.  As I've noted, in the face of American law, gay rights and Christianity have nothing to do with each other.  Again, it's only an issue because they make it one, and then think their way of life is under attack because a lot of people don't agree with them.  This spirit of victimhood came to the fore this week when Jason Collins came out as the first openly gay player in the "big four" of American men's team sports, and this "witty" cartoon was a popular reaction.

Sigh.  Where to begin with this?  Supposedly a "gotcha" moment of "liberal media" hypocrisy, it's actually yet another example of false equivalency BS.  First of all, it's comparing two things that are completely different; one is a personal choice (faith), the other is not (sexual orientation).  It's actually possible to be both gay and Christian (I know some).  Second, the idea that Tim Tebow or other Christian athletes are silenced by the media is ludicrous.  My interest in the NFL is basically less than zero, and even I know all about Tebow's faith.  His name has entered the vernacular as slang for praying on one knee, for Pete's sake.  Third, how many openly Christian pro athletes are there?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  Do they face possible awkwardness or outright discrimination in the locker room or among fans and employers because of their faith?  Doubtful.  Given the numbers, it stands to reason that a majority of pro athletes are Christian.  Tebow has the right to talk about his faith all he wants, but doing so isn't exactly taking a heroic stand.  Last, I agree that in an ideal world Collins coming out wouldn't be a big story.  Eventually, gay athletes won't be.  They will be as "normal" as Christian athletes.  However, Collins was the first, so of course it's going to be a big story.  His openness helps to counter the stereotype that gay men are "wussies" (as assumption clearly seen in contrast to the fact that lesbian athletes tend to be more accepted), and will hopefully help to normalize the existence of male gay pro athletes.  So yes, Collins coming out is a significant event, and it has nothing to do with how the media treats Tim Tebow.  He is not being persecuted.  Get over it.

One more example of perceived persecution: recently an Air Force memo came out that reminded officers to "avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion."  This is in line with standard Department of Defense policy that proselytizing is not allowed in the military regardless of faith and upholds the separation of church and state, as the military is, naturally, a government body.  But for some on the Christian Right, of course, this is an attempt to destroy Christianity.  The headline on Breitbart.com screamed that the Pentagon might court-martial soldiers who share their Christianity.  Family Research Council VP Jerry Boykin called it a "direct assault" on his faith and an attempt to destroy both the military and traditional American values.  This is where I'm afraid we're at an impasse.  I believe it's a traditional American value not to impose your religious beliefs on someone, as enshrined in the First Amendment; Boykin disagrees.  It's this sort of stalemate that leads to a persecution complex and thoughts that a little revolution might be necessary.

Now, in contrast, let's look at some real examples of religious demagoguery and fearmongering, shall we?

 

Posted on Facebook by a duly elected Tennessee county commissioner.  Also in Tennessee, the building site of a mosque under heavy protest was set on fire.  And again in Tennessee, some legislators were worried that a new mop sink in a Capitol building restroom was meant for Muslims to wash their feet.

Select quotes of Pat Robertson:

• Islam is "an evil system that is bringing death and destruction throughout the globe.”
• "It’s Islam, it’s Islam. Every time you look up — these are angry people, it’s almost like it’s demonic that is driving them to kill and to maim and to destroy and to blow themselves up. It’s a religion of chaos."
• "I think the Antichrist is Islam. I really do, and I think it’s a system. ... It’s centered on Mohammed, who defied Jesus, he said Jesus wasn’t the son of God, I mean that’s Antichrist."

Duly elected U.S. Representative Louis Gohmert (R-TX, Tea Party star): "But this administration has so many Muslim brotherhood members that have influence that they just are making wrong decisions for America."  Gohmert also believes that al Qaida terrorists are being trained to "act Hispanic" in Mexican camps, thus throwing in some anti-immigration xenophobia for good measure.

Conservative firebrand Ann Coulter: The dead Boston bombing suspect's wife should be "arrested for wearing a hijab."  She later claimed this was a spontaneous joke.  Hardy har.  Don't you get it???  Head scarves, amirite??  I love how conservatives get to explain away their racism and bigotry by claiming that liberals don't have a sense of humor, and then get put back on TV to continue making big bucks.

Conservative religious groups got Lowe's to pull its advertising from the TLC show "All-American Muslim" which dared to portray Muslims as average Americans.

And last, of course, we have the consequences of vile words:

Mohamed A. Salim, a Muslim cabdriver who served in Iraq and at the U.S. military facility at Guantanamo Bay, claims a passenger he picked up last week in Northern Virginia attacked him for being a "jihadist," comparing him to the two men that allegedly carried out the Boston marathon bombing.

“If you’re a Muslim, you’re a [expletive] jihadist,” the passenger says. “You are just as bad as the rest of them.”
The video ends with a blur of motion and audio of Salim asking, “Why are you punching me? Sir, why are you punching me?”
The passenger replies: “You’re a [expletive] Muslim.”

Full story here, via TPM.

Get the picture?  Most, if not all, of these people proclaim themselves as good, God-fearing Christians.  They bristle and whine and spew outrage at any perceived offense at their religion they can possibly find.  And yet it's perfectly ok for them to demonize an entire religion - 1.5 billion people, second only to their own faith.  Because apparently, they have all the answers.  Now who's being hypocritical?

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.