No True Tea Party

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tea_party_concerns

With the Tea Party’s favorite day of the year for protests today, I’m reminded of the alleged racial slurs and even violence that may have been associated with Tea Party sympathizers. Admittedly, that poses a potential error of correlation versus causation (i.e. I may just be connecting Tea Party extremism I see with the violence even though it may have just been perpetrated by whack-jobs that have no life outside of saying how angry they are at big government) but onto more relevant consideration. The organizers are worried that the protests might show a bad image of the Tea Party. I find this funny since even without the alleged connections of violence against supporters of the recent healthcare reform to the Tea Party that I blogged on a few weeks ago the Tea Party still seems like disgruntled ill educated citizens that are frustrated at being a minority group. Though another article I’ll note (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/15/us/politics/15poll.html) suggests through a poll (though we know those aren’t always the best indicators of overall thought from my blog post on the Meaning(s) of Easter) that Tea Party members are actually relatively wealthy and educated. That doesn’t mean they’re not a minority, since the poll notes only 18% of the people polled identify as Tea Party affiliated.

Back to the Tea Party Day celebration, some of the more controversial speakers that were invited (like Mike Huckabee?) have now been politely declined, security has been enhanced and people were asked to bring cameras to catch interlopers in the act. Some have suggested that the protestors that drew attention at Tea Party protests were agents placed to make the Tea Party look bad. I can’t validate this one way or another, but if we’re talking about a relatively small group of citizens that are commonly white, Republican, over 45 and married, you can’t put it past them to feel defensive, however well educated and wealthy they might be. Put another way, imagine you put an otherwise mellow domestic housecat (say a Persian) in a cage for a week with minimum food and water and I guarantee you’ll find that pussy will be less than happy to see people when you set it free. Similarly, I imagine these people feel underrepresented, marginalized and more than a minority, if not a silent majority as one image I found while searching through Google suggested. In this way, the message is communicated quite differently. Instead of being a minority that’s oppressed, they’re just the majority that’s being silenced by a minority that holds more power. I’m not even going to get into potential conspiracy theories about the Jews in politics or the NWO (New World Order).

The thing I find most amusing about this is the allegations from Tea Party members that the people who use offensive language or in some cases, imagery such as President Obama depicted in the style of the Joker from The Dark Knight are not representative of true Tea Party members. This shows what is called a “No True Scotsman” fallacy. The gist of this problematic argument form is that it refuses to admit that its initial premise is wrong because of a counterexample; instead they modify their original position and suggest that “true” members of their group are not like the counterexample offered. In the case of Tea Party activists, they insist that people that use offensive language or imagery or extremist rhetoric are not associated with their group. Problem with this is that they would suggest that people only pay attention to their status quo and ignore what is a demonstrable problem in their ranks as a grassroots movement. If they have no structure to speak of in arranging and managing their members, then it’s no wonder people think of them as little more than a fringe group that poses little to no threat except their bomb threats or the suggestion of some states (Oklahoma in particular) to start state militias. Now a counterpoint would appear in the form of a Latin phrase abusus non tollit usum, translating roughly to “misuse does not remove use”. A sincerely progressive Tea Party member (if it exists, and it may) would argue that excessively emotionally charged speeches and rousing of the masses to change being the common mantra of even non extremist Tea Party members does not suggest that the Tea Party ideal is not something with merit. Historical comparisons to the original namesake of the present movement aside, conservative ideals are something I respect, along with liberal ideals, so even the Tea Party has merit in some sense. The difficulty comes in the form of how it presents itself. A group for the common people is one thing, but a group maintained by mob rule and pure majority dominance is only going to survive for as long as people remain uneducated and willing to be ignored or dismissed. And I sincerely doubt that’s going to continue to be the case for longer in either case. Until next time, Namaste and Aloha.

Palin and Gingrich: Disinformation Duo

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/04/09/2263037.aspx

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100409/ap_on_re_us/us_republicans_gingrich;_ylt=At7r5MxKnBUw_w5pWTEAMpis0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTJrN29vY2NhBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwNDA5L3VzX3JlcHVibGljYW5zX2dpbmdyaWNoBHBvcwM3BHNlYwN5bl9tb3N0X3BvcHVsYXIEc2xrA2dpbmdyaWNob2JhbQ--

Both Sarah Palin, new and bright face for conservatives, and Newt Gingrich, senior conservative even older than Rush Limbaugh, have taken stabs at President Obama recently. Although with Palin it's hardly surprising as she has apparently taken a deal for a reality TV series as well, so it's clear she enjoys the spotlight she's put herself in. Her criticisms started with Obama's passing a bill limiting nuclear armaments in both the U.S. and Russia, in the form of a sarcastic pronunciation of nuclear (dunno how that's supposed to be funny except to her ill educated supporters). She also parodied Obama's "Yes We Can" slogan noting “yes we can – spread the wealth around” as if doing so is bad (though she seemed oddly unspecific about that; how is spreading the wealth to those in dire poverty a bad thing in contrast to being excessively generous?) and “yes we can –spend money that we don’t have,” suggesting that Obama’s spending is somehow a surprise when the government has spent money it hasn't had to some extent since we've had a deficit. She also used her oft used slogan regarding changing health care with a nice gun quip, "Don't retreat, reload," which contrary to her insistence that it is not a call for violence, would probably only be seen as such to Tea Party activists. Or has Mrs. Palin never heard of retreat as a tactical solution? Guess she only thinks brash heroism will save the country (lot of good that'll do). The conclusion of her speech came in the form of another encouragement for her to run for President in 2012. Ironically people were chanting her name, which reminds me of the very thing that had people worried with Obama's campaign. Chanting of a name, first or last, suggests to me that she's become a cult figure. And contrary to her other claim that she is not seeking to be the leader of the Tea Party movement, her persistent presence and people's clinging to her as an authority figure is cementing her place within the upper echelon of the grassroots movement becoming a potential (potentially dangerous) third party.

Gingrich was more specific and generalizing in his critique of Obama, saying he was "radical", "socialist" and surprisingly "secularist". Radical change is something the U.S. adjusts to well enough in my limited observation. Not to mention said change comes through the electoral process he supports no doubt (so why complain?). The socialist accusation is nothing surprising, though I have to wonder what his alternative would be in solving problems of poverty if not through some use of money or distribution thereof. And his claim that the GOP is not afraid to speak on issues of faith in contrast to the Democrats seems misguided as well, unless Mr. Gingrich suggests that Obama hosting a Seder in the White House is not recognizing faith in the midst of politics. Unless Gingrich is an (gasp) anti-semite of some stripe. Not making any accusations, though Gingrich is retirement age (a couple of years past 65) so who knows if he is in touch with how religiosity or “Jewishness” is expressed in the 21st century. And from the article's observations, Gingrich seems to be with Palin in mobilizing intent for Republican presidential candidacy in 2012. Newt is more decidedly aligned with the GOP than Palin, though both of them are contenders for the future nomination that will take place in nigh 2 years. All things considered, this is a cause for concern to me at least. And who knows how John McCain will fare if he runs for Republican nomination as well? I’ve gotten the feeling through some conversations that many Republicans (particularly Tea Party supporters) don't like his policies very much. Anyway, that's my attempt at delving into political issues, so until next time, Namaste and Aloha.

On Gun Rights and "Civil War"

http://www.newsweek.com/id/234185?GT1=43002

While searching for an article to mull on, I stumbled across one concerning a "liberal" argument for gun rights by extension of a similar argument for bodily autonomy justifying abortion rights and more precisely civil liberties in the sense of freedom of volition. Not to mention the counterpart that is privacy, a right to responsibly behave in whatever way you deem fit as long as it does not interfere with either the public at large or the government in general. And within 10 minutes of reading the article, I thought; why not connect this real issue to a fictional one brought up in comics regarding superheroes and other superpowered individuals (anti hero or otherwise)?

What I speak of in particular is a well known conflict that occurred in Marvel Comics, known by the name Civil War. The premise hinges on the formation of a Superhero Registration Act. While it doesn't do anything like what the government attempts in the tv series Justice League Unlimited which was outright creating a counter force to act against the potential threat that the Watchtower and its associates posed to the world, this act would require all superpowered beings: mutants, mutates and even those such as Iron Man or Punisher, to register with the government as "living weapons of mass destruction". The difficulty comes about when Captain America and others oppose the act by virtue of it violating both civil rights (the pursuit of happiness in particular, I'd wager, but also liberty) and the right to privacy granted as a given to all superheroes with secret identities. But those on the side of Registration, including Spiderman, argue that "with great power, comes great responsibility" and that the Registration would enable superheroes to become accepted by the general public and not be viewed as a rogue threat or a danger to society.

Now I imagine you're wondering how this has any relevance to the continuing debate on gun rights, but bear with me. Imagine you have a single gun in your house. Even a basic revolver or 9mm possesses a comparable level of power to any person in Marvel with enhanced skills or special abilities. You can wound someone, but without proper training, you can just as easily kill them. Now this doesn't mean I'm arguing for more or less gun control by this line of argument. My point is similar to the dichotomy in "Civil War". Superheroes could be very dangerous if they take the law into their own hands and become vigilantes in the strongest sense. An example comes from the series Justice League and DC by association. The Justice League in an alternate timeline overthrew the world government. And this was when it was merely 6 people: Superman, Green Lantern, Hawkgirl, Wonder Woman, Martian Manhunter and Batman (Flash having died in this timeline). The point is that without self control, restraint and general moderation of one form or another, anything can become an excess or a deficiency, particularly superpowers. You can possess a weapon, but not know how to use it and it becomes useless to protecting yourself or your loved ones. But you can view the weapon as a means to any end, including taking justice into your own hands and it threatens the same lives you meant to protect. So my general thoughts on gun control are similar to if I possessed superpowers. While others might use it in a variety of ways, I choose to take responsibility and not only train my powers, but also use them prudently and within a limit that I enforce upon myself: not only because I think it is necessary for myself, but because it protects the people around me. And similarly if I possess a gun or if in some alternate universe, my hands were considered deadly weapons, I would exercise an equal amount of self control and discipline so that I could both protect people from harm outside myself and from harm that might be caused by myself.