The Future of Farming: Water Scarcity

Agriculture is arguably the most important innovation in human history.  When hunters and gatherers figured out that they could substantially increase their food output by raising crops in one place, they stopped their nomadic lifestyle.  Permanent settlements and eventually great cities grew out of the earth.  Increased crop yield created a division of labor whereby people who were good at farming stayed farmers, and others were free to pursue other tasks (within the social constraints of their society, of course).  They became carpenters, architects, engineers, artists, writers, musicians, and scholars.  The world was changed forever - agriculture had enabled civilization.

The Kansas wheat harvest

I'm not a farmer, but it's a major part of my heritage.  My mom grew up on a farm and my dad has worked on them.  Some of my cousins are carrying on the tradition.  Though I was a "city boy" as a kid (by rural Kansas standards), I have a lot of memories of riding tractors, feeding Grandpa's cows, and crawling around in the back of a wheat truck.  I played with dozens of toy farm implements.  Though I would eventually leave the High Plains, the roots I have in agricultural communities stayed with me.  It's a way of life that's vital to the American heartland, and one that I hope does not disappear.  Several issues are threatening to undermine the tradition of the family farm on the prairie, however, and I'd like to discuss two of them, one post at a time (more to follow if they occur to me or are suggested).

(Disclaimer:  Though I'll do my best to get all my facts straight, I'm not an expert on these issues.  I encourage you to do more research if you're interested.)

Chronic Drought and the Disappearing Aquifers

From 1988 to 1995 my family lived in Hays, a town of about 20,000 in west-central Kansas whose primary reason for existence - in the post-rail and post-oil boom era -  is to serve the needs of the farming towns around it through its retail outlets, medical facilities, and state university.  It's a nice town with a lot of rich history, from Wild West luminaries like Wild Bill Hickok and Buffalo Bill Cody, to the arrival of the Volga Germans from Russia who brought polka, Oktoberfest, and bierocks (meat and cabbage-filled buns) to town.

The Ogallala / High Plains Aquifer

Water is a precious resource in Hays' semi-arid climate, where most of the precipitation comes from epic thunderstorms that roll across the prairie in the summer.  Even in elementary school, I remember learning about the Ogallala Aquifer - the vast underground reservoir, covering parts of eight states, that supplies groundwater to irrigate countless farms as well as drinking water for a few million people.  In a region that only gets 10-15 inches of rainfall a year, the waters of the Ogallala are vital to sustaining the crops of western Kansas.  Drought only exacerbates the situation.  The drought of the early '90s prompted the Hays government to impose water use restrictions on its residents.  We couldn't water our lawns during peak daylight, anyone could be fined if they exceeded a maximum water allowance (I believe it was 300 cubic feet of water per person per month plus 100 cubic feet extra), and the city offered rebates to homeowners who installed low-flow toilets.  Those restrictions were eventually lifted.  They've returned in recent years, however - my parents currently live in Russell, 30 miles east of Hays, and can only water their lawn because they have a private well.  And if the town residents live under such rules, think of what life must be like on the farm.

This piece from the New York Times explains the current situation on the Plains and was the major inspiration for this post.  Essentially, chronic drought and farming of water-intensive crops such as corn threaten to render irrigation from the aquifer impossible from Kansas southward.  Even if the drought ended and the region received sufficient rainfall to begin refilling the aquifer, it would take hundreds of years to be meaningful.  Kansas agriculture would likely survive a future without irrigation from the aquifer, but the damage to both crop yields and farmers' incomes would be real and serious.  Combined with other societal and economic pressures on the Plains (an aging population, lack of opportunities for young people, lack of access to amenities available in larger cities), and in the coming decades abandoned farms and small ghost towns may become a common sight in western Kansas.

What or who is responsible for this situation?  As with any complex issue, there are a variety of factors.  The increasing demand and price for corn is a big one.  Corn is very thirsty and as such is naturally unsuited to be raised on the High Plains.  After all, when you think of the Corn Belt, states like Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois come to mind - not Kansas.  But a high price for corn, driven partly by the demand (and government mandate) for ethanol, has prompted farmers in arid areas to grow more and more corn - and I really can't blame them for going where the profits are.  If anything, it reveals the long-term issues with biofuels as a source of green energy.  Of course, America's unending demand for highly processed foods with copious amounts of corn syrup is also a price driver.  As the ability to irrigate corn dwindles, however, many farmers will be forced to make the switch to less water-intensive crops, such as milo and sorghum. 

What about global warming?  Did that cause the drought?  The verdict's still out on that one.  A report issued by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration didn't want to pin much blame on climate change for the 2012 drought, though some scientists claim the report was flawed and ignored several important factors (and different media outlets seem to have drawn different conclusions from the same report).  Many farmers do seem to agree that the climate is changing - and not for the better - they might just be unwilling to finger man-made global warming as the culprit due to the rampant politicization of the issue.    Despite 97% of scientists agreeing that the global climate is warming due to human activities, the rabid opposition by conservative leaders to any policies designed to curb this warming - opposition often rooted in groundless conspiracy theories - will impede any efforts to alleviate the situation.  Many Republicans used to support market-based solutions to climate change such as a cap-and-trade system, whereby "clean" polluters could sell their extra carbon allowances to dirtier outfits.  Not since the rise of the Tea Party.  Now it's deny, deny, deny.

Let's not repeat this.

We've been here before, of course.  The epic Dust Bowl in the 1930s occurred after the western Plains were opened to settlement and agriculture.  High crop prices spurred farmers to grow crops not normally suited for the semi-arid region.  Sound familiar?  Cultivation methods that destroyed native grasses and left fields bare made them ripe for wind erosion.  When severe drought hit, the bone-dry topsoil was lifted by the wind, creating massive dust storms that traveled hundreds of miles, ruining farmland across the Plains, and prompting great migrations of people to places like California. 

As part of the New Deal, the FDR administration responded aggressively to the Dust Bowl.  The Soil Erosion Service (today the Natural Resources Conservation Service) was established within 100 days of Roosevelt taking office.  The government bought up cattle in many areas for better than market price, which helped many farmers, who couldn't afford to keep them, avoid bankruptcy.  The Civilian Conservation Corps planted more than 200 million trees from Canada to Texas to break the wind and hold topsoil in place.  Farmers were educated on cultivation techniques that better preserved the soil, and were paid $1 an acre to try these methods out.  Were these efforts appreciated?  Well, Kansas' solidly Republican voters contributed to FDR's landslide reelection in 1936, even preferring him to native son Alf Landon (himself considered a liberal Republican in his day, who accepted much of the New Deal).  But can you imagine any of these programs making it through Congress today?  Socialism!!!

And that's what concerns me, should another truly severe crisis occur.   I have the most faith in the farmers of the Plains to be stewards of the land.  After all, their lifeblood depends on it, and many of them are outstanding environmentalists.  I have my doubts, though, about a Kansas state government completely controlled by Governor Brownback and the Tea Party to respond effectively to such a disaster.  When your policy positions are based on the core tenets of 1) environmental regulations destroy businesses, 2) government assistance to those in need is almost always wasteful, and 3) climate change is a hoax spread by Al Gore and the UN, I have little confidence that you'll coordinate an effective response.  One of Brownback's top agricultural priorities was to erase almost all restrictions on corporate farm ownership in Kansas.  Fortunately, that bill stalled due to bipartisan opposition.  Allowing corporations like Monsanto unfettered access to Kansas farmland would not only likely crowd out (or buy out) family farmers, but it's easy to contemplate the environmental impacts of megafarms that can afford to do whatever they want to the land within the bounds of whatever regulations are left.

In my next entry in this series, I'll be diving into corporate farming in more detail, as I explore the world of Monsanto and genetically modified crops.  What might be the effects of changing how humans have practiced agriculture for 6,000 years?  That and more in my next entry on the future of farming.
 

The Three Worst Right-Wing Reactions to Disaster

Tragedy struck again in Tornado Alley on May 20 when a monster tornado ripped through Moore, Oklahoma, leveling much of the OKC suburb.  My thoughts go out to all the victims as they struggle to put their lives back together.  In today's hyper-politicized world with instant communication, reactions from politicians and pundits were inevitable.  They've pretty much run the gamut, with the only response I don't think I've heard yet being that God sent the tornado to punish Oklahomans for their sins (though I wonder, if the tornado had struck Minnesota a week after that state passed marriage equality, if we'd be hearing a different tune from hyper-conservative Christians).  There's still plenty of lunacy, though, and here I present the top three worst reactions from the right wing thought bubble, mainly featuring Oklahoma's own hardcore conservative Senators.

3.  Senator Inhofe Not Sure What Might Cause a Huge Tornado

Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe has made a name for himself as the biggest climate-change denier in Congress, firmly believing it to be a hoax concocted by Al Gore and the UN.  Never mind that 97% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming (or, as Fox News would say, both sides have strong opinions).  Now, I'm not going to say that one tornado in Oklahoma is proof of global warming, as that's the same faulty reasoning employed by skeptics when they claim that one cold snap disproves it.  However, Infofe's complete disregard for science is on full display with this bone-headed comment:

 "So many things happen that are so hard to explain," he told the CNN host. "This thing was huge. This is one of the largest ones that we've had."

Um, actually, Sen. Inhofe, we can explain what happened.  We have created a scientific field dsigned to do just that.  It's called meteorology.  Maybe a dose of climatology for good measure.  If you and your fellow anti-scientists in Congress paid more attention to these, maybe we could focus more attention on the very real environmental threats posed to our country, whether global warming-related or not.  Or feel free to keep your head in the sand, where all you can hear is a monologue from the John Birch Society.

For good measure, here is a good article with lots of links to actual science-y stuff, explaining how climate change could intensify storms like Hurricane Sandy.

2.  Erick Erickson Just...Can't...Help...Himself

While the debris was still being searched Fox contributor Erick Erickson, editor of RedState and supposed deep thinker of the conservative movement, had this to tweet:  "I wonder when President Obama will find out about Oklahoma."  ROFL, right?  A Benghazi / IRS joke while a town is being destroyed.  When other Twitter users pointed out that he was being a classless jackass, he responded with the same tired "liberals don't have a sense of humor" victimhood schtick.  Leave the political comedy to Jon Stewart, Erick.  You suck at it.

1. The Okie Two-Step: Inhofe and Coburn Decide Which Disasters and Aid are Legit

Coburn and Inhofe: Is your disaster worthy?

We've seen this one coming since Sandy.  You might remember that many Republicans refused to vote for aid to Sandy victims unless it was offset dollar-for-dollar by cuts elsewhere (if at all).  Many people pointed out that many of these Republicans hailed from states that had faced disasters and had received federal aid with no strings attached.  Well, guess what?  Put shoe on other foot, Republicans.

 Last week Inhofe raised the possibility of impeaching Obama.  Now he's eager for the hated President to declare Moore a disaster area and deliver the goods.  This is, of course, "totally different" than the Sandy aid.  He claims that bill was full of pork because it included funds for DC and the Virgin Islands - completely ignorant of the fact that the hurricane struck those areas too.

Oklahoma's other Senator, Tom Coburn, is at least ideologically consistent.  As he did with Sandy, he is insisting that any relief funds to Oklahoma - to help his own constituents - be offset with budget cuts.  So the legitimate question to ask - that the press, as far as I know, hasn't - is: budget cuts from where?  The sequester is already taking its toll on programs such as Head Start and Meals on Wheels.  Congress looks set to substantially whack food stamp aid.  Here's a thought - how about instead of robbing one group of disadvantaged people to pay another, we cut subsidies to oil companies making record profits?  How about the annual payments to America's richest corporate farmers?  No?  Oh that's right, they're job creators so cutting their welfare would be wealth redistribution.  I forgot, it's only OK to take money from people that are already suffering.

While doing research for this post I came across one of my favorite Internet comments of all time that perfectly explains the position Inhofe and Coburn are in: "Selective austerity makes an excellent whine pairing with situational libertarianism."

Moreover, recent data from the Congressional Budget Office suggests that DC's obsession with debt is more pointless than ever.  You might have missed this, as it went under-reported during last week's Scandal-palooza, but the CBO reports that the deficit is expected to fall to a completely manageable level by 2015.  This has been possible through the tax increases and spending cuts already enacted as well as the recovering economy.  So, if it turns out that debt isn't a huge problem right now - as economists like Paul Krugman have been saying for years - why not invest more into our economy?  Rebuild our infrastructure?  Put tornado shelters in every school on the Plains?  But no, it's never enough for today's GOP - cut, cut, cut until a government agency can't perform its intended function - and that's the perfect excuse to cut some more.  The ultimate self-fulfilling prophecy of public policy.

Inhofe and Coburn can get away with saying stuff like this because they know full well any needed aid for Oklahoma will come through, likely without any stipulations.  It'll pass Congress easily (thought it'll be interesting to see how many Republicans resist, as they did for Sandy - will the Congress critters from Kansas turn their noses at help for a tornado, as they did for a hurricane?).  At least according to their rhetoric, they have no problem holding aid for their own Oklahomans hostage in the name of unnecessary budget cuts.  It's pure red meat for their hyper-conservative base, and it's pretty sad.  Perhaps Okies will realize how their Senators are using them as political props.  Given how red the Sooner State is, though, it seems unlikely.

P.S.  Credit where it's due: Moore's Republican Congressman, Tom Cole, voted for Sandy aid without condition, and seems relatively sane compared to Inhofe and Coburn.

All About Obamacare

Sec. Sebelius, Kansas misses you.

Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act (ACA), will probably stand as the most important law passed during President Obama's tenure in office.  It's definitely the most significant overhaul of the U.S. health care system since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s.  And yet there is a lot of confusion and disinformation among the American public about it - polls suggest that up to 40% of Americans don't even know that it's still the law of the land.  So I'm going to try to explain the most important provisions without much in the way of politics, because it's important for everyone to understand just what the ACA does and doesn't do (the politics might come in a later post).  My sources are generally Wikipedia, the Congressional Budget Office, and www.healthcare.gov of the Department of Health and Human Services (a very useful website for more info).

First, let's clear up two misconceptions about what Obamacare is not:

Obamacare is not "socialized medicine."  This would mean that the government would control pretty much every aspect of health care in the country, including the running of hospitals and clinics.  Great Britain has a system like this - the National Health Service.  It's a matter of great pride for the country, so much so that the UK's conservative politicians would never think of dismantling it.  But to even think of implementing such a system nationwide in the U.S. is pointless - it won't happen.  However, the Veterans Administration provides completely socialized medicine to our vets.

Obamacare is also not completely socialized health care.  Countries such as Canada and Australia have a "single payer" health care system, which basically means that the people pay taxes to the government for health care, and the government pays all health care costs.  Health care facilities, however, are still generally private businesses.  Under such a system, your taxes would be higher, but you wouldn't pay insurance premiums, and your out-of-pocket health care expenses would be minimal.  It would also completely separate health insurance from employment - as in it would no longer be a benefit of such.  Many U.S. liberals wanted such a system for America, but, not surprisingly, the insurance companies fiercely resisted such a move.  However, the U.S. does have a form of single-payer health care - it's called Medicare.  Truly socialized health care would simply extend Medicare and Medicaid to cover everyone.  Instead, the ACA represents a step towards socialized health care, the genesis of which was thought up by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation and - as is widely known - was pioneered in Massachusetts under Governor Mitt Romney.

So what is Obamacare?  It's a middle-of-the-road, heavily compromised attempt to provide every American with health insurance.  Just because it was passed by a Democratic Congress, don't assume it's a liberal's dream bill (that would've been something akin to a single payer system, above).  It still had to be heavily negotiated with insurance companies and other interests.  And, despite the 37  attempts by the GOP House to repeal it (costing US taxpayers $50 million), the ACA is not going away.  The insurance companies are way too heavily invested at this point.  It's the law, and so it's important to know just what's going to happen and when.

Beginning in 2014, the law will require every American to have health insurance - either through their employers or obtained themselves.  Health insurance exchanges are set up in states that will serve as a marketplace for insurance companies to compete for new policyholders.  Subsidies will be available for many people to help afford insurance.  If you don't get insurance, you will have to pay a penalty.  However, numerous other provisions are added to sweeten the deal for those insured.  Insurance companies will not be able to refuse policies due to any pre-existing conditions.  They will not be able to impose lifetime or annual spending limits.  Premiums will be capped.  Many preventive care services must be provided completely free of charge (no co-payments).  All children, regardless of status, will be able to remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday.  For a bit more detail, here is a timeline:

Key Provisions of the ACA and Their Effective Dates

Effective September 23, 2010

• Children may remain on their parents' insurance plan until their 26th birthday.  This includes children who no longer live with their parents, are not claimed as dependents on tax returns, are no longer students, and are married.
• Insurers must cover certain preventive care and may not charge co-payments or other fees for such.  For example, you can generally see a doctor for a checkup completely for free, probably once a year.
• Insurers may not exclude pre-existing conditions on insurance plans for children under 19.
• All new insurance plans must cover childhood and adult vaccinations without co-payments or other fees.
• Insurers may not impose lifetime dollar limits for essential benefits under newly issued policies.
• Insurers may not drop policyholders when they get sick.

Effective January 1, 2011

• Insurers must spend at least 80% of premium dollars on actual health care costs; anything below this must be returned as rebates to policyholders.

Effective August 1, 2012

• Insurance plans must cover many women's preventive services without cost-sharing.  This includes FDA-approved contraception, which has been controversial with some employers (too much politics to get into more detail here).

Effective by October 1, 2013

• Individuals who do not have health insurance may begin to enroll in state-run insurance exchanges (more below).

Effective by January 1, 2014   (the big day)

• Insurers may not discriminate or charge higher premiums for anyone based on gender or pre-existing medical conditions.  This is a very popular provision - more popular than the ACA as a whole - but keep in mind the insurance companies only agreed to it because requiring everyone to have health insurance makes the pool of risk broad enough to allow for such a provision.
• Insurers are prohibited from establishing annual spending caps.
• Health insurance exchanges are established.  These are state-by-state marketplaces where individuals without insurance may buy it from competing companies.  Subsidies will be given to individuals to buy a plan on the exchange if their income is between 133% and 400% of the federal poverty level.  Premium caps are established based on the insured's income level.
• In participating states, Medicaid will be expanded to cover those who earn up to 133% of the federal poverty level (covering everybody below the rate to buy on an insurance exchange).  Note that the Supreme Court ruled that states could opt out of this provision, and several Republican-run states have (including many that would have large populations with increased eligibility...but I digress.)
• Individuals without health insurance will be assessed a penalty, which starts out at $95 (more with higher income), and rises to $695 minimum in 2016.
• Two years of tax credits are offered to eligible small businesses as insurance premium subsidies.
• Employers with more than 50 employees must offer insurance plans to their full-time workers (more than 30 hours / week) or face a $2,000 / employee penalty.  This will undoubtedly cause some employers to limit full-time hours - we've already seen this happening - and is one of the drawbacks of continuing to tie health insurance to employment for many people.

There are more provisions that take effect in later years (through 2020) but for average consumers, these are the key items to know now.

How the ACA is Funded: Major Revenue Sources

• Increase the Medicare tax on incomes over $200,000 (individual) and $250,000 (joint) by 0.9%.  So this is a tax increase, but only for top earners.
• Annual fee levied on health insurance providers
• 40% excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" health insurance policies.  These are very high-cost plans, with annual premiums over $10,500 for individuals or $27,500 for families.  Critics argue these plans encourage overuse of medical services because they have very low co-payments and deductibles, which drives up costs for everybody else - thus necessitating a tax. 
• Annual fee on manufacturers and importers of branded (not generic) drugs
• Offsets resulting from cost-saving changes to traditional Medicare programs

Much more information is out there, but those are the basics.  Is the ACA a perfect law?  Hardly, but no compromise legislation that actually gets passed is.  Likewise, there will probably be some rough spots when more-or-less full implementation occurs next year.  Expect these, and don't immediately assume it is broken.  Some states are really taking the initiative in establishing their health insurance exchanges - here is a good article about Oregon's efforts.  Keep in mind that rather than rampant socialism, these exchanges are based on the fundamental principle of free-market economics - companies competing for business lower their prices to attract customers.  And two companies in Oregon appear to be doing just that.

As 2014 nears, stay informed with what's going on.  The HHS website will be a good place to go - yes, it is part of the Obama administration, but they're not going to lie about the basics of the law that anyone could look up.  I only ask, as usual, that you don't get your information from Fox News.  Remember that the GOP's mission (and therefore Fox's) is to destroy the Affordable Care Act before it gets off the ground.  That's not me being political - it is their stated goal (see aforementioned repeals).  Every other industrialized country in the world has some kind of socialized health care system.  Their societies have survived, with first-rate health care intact.  In the end, Obamacare may prove to be a verifiable failure.  But as a first shot at providing every American with the health care they need, I think it's worth a try.

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?