Glenn Greenwald on Donald Trump and Jorge Ramos

There are very few indispensable voices in today’s media environment but any reasonable list of those who qualify would have to include Glenn Greenwald. He’s the embodiment of independent journalism and there’s no better evidence of that than his column about the Ramos/Trump story.

It’s tempting to try to summarize the two or three most important take-aways from the article but I’d prefer that you take a moment to read the whole thing yourself. It’s important not only for Greenwald’s perspective on the incident itself but also for the broader issues he raises about the nature of corporate media in 2015. (And by “corporate media,” I mean literally 95 percent of all our media, every newspaper and television program you read or watch.)

If you haven’t seen the video yet, you’ll want to take a look:

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once said, “The hardest thing to see is what is in front of our eyes” but no one can fail to see the inherent absurdities and dangers of this Potemkin campaign of Donald Trump’s. Apparently the real challenge for our “serious” media personalities today is to call out the cynical con that’s right there in front of their eyes.

A Modest Proposal for Medical Marijuana Opponents in Florida

Attorney John Morgan’s United for Care is readying another campaign to pass a Constitutional Amendment in Florida that would provide for the therapeutic use of cannabis under doctors’ supervision. (The organization’s previous attempt in 2014 was approved by about 58 percent of voters—a higher percentage than any candidate on the ballot including Governor Rick Scott—but failed to reach the 60 percent threshold required to pass this kind of ballot initiative.)

Medical-Cannabis1While the prospects for success look good in a presidential election year, the opposition is gearing up, too. A coalition of religious and law enforcement organizations including the Florida Sheriff’s Association is trotting out the familiar arguments here. (It’s worth noting that opposition to legalizing cannabis is far from universal in the law enforcement community. A number of progressive law enforcement officials believe that cannabis prohibition is considerably more harmful and dangerous than the plant itself.)

While many point out that law enforcement agencies in Florida have a vested interest in continuing prohibition—they generate millions of dollars for themselves from civil forfeiture proceedings, for example—I’m willing to stipulate that their arguments against liberalizing cannabis laws are made in good faith. But if public health and safety are genuinely what they’re concerned with, I’d like to make a modest proposal that might clarify the issues surrounding cannabis and enhance the credibility of the arguments they’re making.

Simply put, I wonder if the Sheriff’s Association would be willing to broaden the scope of its concern to include all of the substances that individuals use to self-medicate:

  • Cannabis
  • Tobacco
  • Alcohol
  • Dietary supplements
  • Over the counter medications

To claim, as the coalition’s website does, that cannabis “has a high potential for abuse with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence” is, at best, an incomplete telling of the story. If the problem is that cannabis is dangerous then it’s worth asking: Compared to what?

It seems that we, as a society, have long ago determined that we’re willing to balance the perceived benefits of using any of these substances against some hypothetical state of absolute safety. It shouldn’t be necessary, then, to demonstrate that cannabis is perfectly safe under any and all circumstances. After all, we couldn’t make that claim for aspirin and we certainly couldn’t make it for bourbon.

So, here’s my proposal. Let’s establish an objective set of safety standards and then apply them to all of the items on our list. Then, the Sheriff’s Association or any of the other organizations in the anti-cannabis coalition can make their policy prescriptions in a rational and objective context.

Here’s what doesn’t make sense: Insisting that one item on the list meet standards that we’re not willing to apply to other items that are objectively more dangerous. (If anyone wants to make the case that cannabis is more dangerous than tobacco or alcohol, then I’m happy to let them do so… but I’m guessing that any sort of supporting data would be difficult to produce.)

If it’s genuinely important to prosecute cannabis users in order to protect them from themselves, then don’t we owe the same level of protection to individuals who choose to self-medicate in other ways? But if we refuse to do that—if it seems like an irrational overreach to do so—then maybe it’s time to admit that prosecuting cannabis users never really made much sense in the first place.

Some Thoughts on Participation Trophies

Last week, Pittsburgh Steelers Linebacker James Harrison posted on Instagram and Twitter that he was returning the trophies his sons received for participating in their youth football program. The story generated a great deal of attention, as you probably know, on television and in social media.

When I responded to Mr. Harrison’s Twitter post by suggesting that he consider some additional perspective on the matter, a few Harrison fans took vigorous exception to my tweet. (One guy suggested that my post was “retarded.” Another incongruously wanted to know how many Super Bowl champions I’ve raised.)

Among the responses I received, though, was one from Daphne Sashin, a CNN reporter who writes about parenting issues. She wanted a more complete explanation of my thoughts on the topic than I was able to provide in 140 characters.

This subject has gotten a great deal of attention in the media since it was first reported so I thought it might be worthwhile to share my thoughts here on this blog. This, then, is what I wrote:

Ms. Sashin,

Screen Shot 2015-08-17 at 2.25.32 PM

Per your request on Twitter, I’m writing with a few thoughts on James Harrison’s Instagram post about returning his sons’ trophies for participating in sports. Let me preface everything I’m going to write with a few important points: One, I don’t know Mr. Harrison but am confident that he loves his kids tremendously and decided to do this with the very best of intentions. Two, I wouldn’t presume to tell Mr. Harrison (or anyone else, for that matter) how to raise his children. And, third, I am a parent, not a psychologist or a pediatrician. I hope that you’ll contact professionals who are qualified to discuss this topic based on real data (like Nadine Burke Harris, for example) for your article.

Having said all that, let me offer a few thoughts in no particular order.

  • While Mr. Harrison is understandably focused on his own kids, I wonder if he’s considered the fact that his action is likely to diminish the perceived value of the trophies that every other child in the league received. It’s almost certain that, as a professional player and a champion, Mr. Harrison is a big deal among the children who play sports with his boys. His refusal to allow his sons to accept their trophies very likely undermines the league, the coaches, and the other parents who don’t have NFL aspirations for their kids.
  • I find it difficult to understand how setting one’s kids apart from their teammates teaches values like sportsmanship and teamwork, the specific values that most parents are trying to teach when they enlist their kids in sports.
  • It seems to me that there’s a danger of an action like Mr. Harrison’s being misinterpreted by his kids, something along the lines of “Everyone else is good enough for their parents but you’re not good enough for me.” Obviously, his kids are pretty young (they stop giving participation trophies to older kids) and the point he’s trying to make is pretty sophisticated so the chances of this aren’t insignificant. More likely, in my opinion, is that it will become what Dr. Harris refers to as an Adverse Childhood Experience (ACE).
  • My personal belief is that the most important thing we can do for our kids is to provide them with a foundation of love and support on which they can build, on which they’re secure enough to learn to achieve. That’s been the philosophy that guided my wife and me in parenting our two boys (I’ll admit freely that she has an intuitive understanding of these things that far exceeds my own) and I think it’s worked pretty well.
  • Instances in which parents get overly involved in their young kids’ sports endeavors tend to not work out well. You can Google Jimmy Piersall or Todd Marinovitch for a couple of more famous examples. In my experience, I’ve seen more talented young athletes damaged by their parents than helped. One young man on my younger son’s Little League team was an extremely talented pitcher who was never quite good enough to get his father’s approval. By high school, he’d given up baseball altogether.
  • I disagree with Mr. Harrison’s diminishment of the value of participation, especially at a young age. It seems to me that it’s more than a little important to teach the value of participation and to reward it for young kids. It strikes me as counterproductive to tell children that their participation isn’t adequate. There’s plenty of time later to mold them into champions if that’s what Mr. Harrison believes is important.
  • Finally, I understand and even admire Mr. Harrison’s impetus to foster achievement in his kids. I hope, however, that he isn’t doing so at the expense of their happiness or at the expense of his relationship with them in later years. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve come to value my kids’ happiness far more than I value any “achievement” of theirs.

Thanks for reaching out. I hope this is helpful.

I’d be interested in getting your thoughts in the Comments section. And, if you’re interested, here’s the TED Talk by Dr. Nadine Burke Harris that I referenced on the subject of Adverse Childhood Events:

“Bullshit is everywhere.”

Jon Stewart bowed out of The Daily Show last night with a meditation on the single most pervasive reality of life in the United States in 2015: The relentless, unending cascade of bullshit that rains down on us every day from every media outlet we monitor and every mobile device we own.

The ubiquity of bullshit is almost impossible to overstate. Of course, it pervades every one of the 5,000 marketing messages that are aimed at each of us every single day but that’s just the tip of an enormous iceberg. In fact, the “news” we watch is every bit as phony as the ads. My favorite example is this classic clip from The Today Show. There’s nothing particularly noteworthy about Michelle Kosinski’s dishonesty here except for the fact that she managed to get caught.

Like Paddy Chayefsky’s Howard Beale, Stewart reminds us that we are ultimately responsible for accepting the bullshit to which we’re exposed. Beale’s famous prescription was getting people to proclaim, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it any more.” Stewart, on the other hand, is a bit more concise and elegant: “If you smell something, say something.”

Whichever formulation you prefer, the basic idea is the same. Bullshit loses its power when we acknowledge it instead of ignoring it. Is this the right approach for you? Ask your doctor.

This Way Isn’t Working

I turned 60 years old a few months ago and—like everything else in life—it’s got an upside and a downside. One of the significant benefits is the interesting perspective it brings. It’s like reaching the top of a peak from which you can look back and see a long arc of events over a relatively long period of time. It’s easier to see how things have changed over time (and, sometimes, how they haven’t).

From this vantage point, I’ve noticed one trend that’s played out over the last couple of decades in particularly harmful ways. It’s not unique in our history—we’ve lived through periods like this before—but up until about 25 years ago, we’d mostly moved on. What I’m seeing is a paradigm shift in the way we conduct politics. We’ve moved from an emphasis on getting things done to an emphasis on beating the other party at all costs.

I thought about this while I was listening to an audio clip of Chris Christie announcing his presidential candidacy. Christie is probably not a guy I could ever support but he said something today that made a lot of sense. It struck me as something that we would all do well to remember:

“If Washington and Adams and Jefferson believed that compromise was a dirty word, we’d still be under the crown of England.”

Governor-Chris-Christie12-630x408There was a time not too long ago when this would have been the least controversial statement imaginable. Politics was understood to be “the art of compromise” and it was this widely shared attitude that facilitated one of the nation’s most dynamic eras. It was an era in which we undertook great projects and programs together. We built the Hoover Dam and the Interstate system of highways. We moved to advance civil rights and to solidify voting rights. We went to the moon and built a social safety net that was designed to protect the most vulnerable of our citizens. The common denominator among all of these was that members of both parties were committed to getting something done and were willing to make practical compromises in the service of a greater good.

But thirty years after Ronald Reagan demonstrated the value of compromise, we’ve reached a point in our politics where it’s regarded as a dirty word and politicians who are willing to entertain the idea are often punished at the polls. Consider, for example, what occurred in Ames, IA during a debate in 2011 among Republican presidential candidates. Moderator Byron York asked, “Is there any ratio of cuts to taxes that you would accept? Three to one? Four to one? Or even 10 to one?” Not one of the candidates was willing to entertain the idea of compromising, even in a way that heavily favored GOP orthodoxy.

One of the motivations behind this brand of dysfunctional rigidity is the notion that the other party is the enemy and must be defeated. Tragically, it’s a mindset that works well politically but it’s also one that’s completely incompatible with the ideals we as a nation profess and basically incompatible with our system of government.

George Washington understood the dangers of partisanship and presciently warned against them in his Farewell Address when he left office. He understood that partisan allegiance had the potential to be toxic in precisely the way that it is today. (It’s worth noting that our Constitution doesn’t reference political parties and makes no provision for their participation in government.)

A better, more functional model is to see each other as colleagues who disagree.

Imagine yourself at work, on a committee tasked with reviewing the company’s product line and recommending additions and deletions. Then, imagine that the committee is evenly divided between those who want to maximize profitability from existing products and those who believe that innovative new products are the company’s real future.

It’s not hard to predict that people on each side might dig in and defend their point of view energetically. It’s almost impossible, though, to imagine one side threatening to shut the company down if the committee didn’t go along with its plans. But that’s where we find ourselves today when it comes to our politics.

I’ve written before that even our most cherished beliefs ought to be held with a certain amount of circumspection. In politics no less than any other field of endeavor, intellectual rigidity seldom works in our favor. As one wag put it, “If you haven’t changed your mind about anything lately, how do you know if it’s working?”

I prefer to approach political adversaries with the assumption that they’re acting in good faith and trying to do the right thing. That’s not always true, of course, but neither is it always true of those on my own side of the political divide. Still, it’s a better approach than reflexive opposition. It’s less stressful and who knows? As Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill demonstrated 30 years ago, it just might lead to something getting accomplished.

First the Verdict, Then the Trial.

As evidence of climate change continues to accumulate, the case against taking action becomes increasingly difficult to understand. Consider the fact that when we perceive ourselves to be threatened by foreign aggression—evening cases where the threat is not immediate or existential—we don’t hesitate to react swiftly and decisively. Why does a threat of environmental disaster not produce a similar resolve?

One answer is that the debate is being manipulated by corporations with an enormous financial interest in maintaining the profitability of the fossil fuel industry. Insofar as big oil is the most profitable industry in the history of the world, that explanation certainly satisfies the test of Occam’s Razor. While it’s clearly one of the factors that applies, it’s also clear that it’s not the only one. After all, there are plenty of loud voices opposing action on global warming that have no particular relationship to the oil industry.

Reagan_delivers_inaugural_address_1981I’d like to suggest a complimentary explanation, one that doesn’t get much attention from “serious” pundits even as it amplifies the oil industry’s arguments and simultaneously motivates opposition to action on the climate from people with no particular affinity with big oil. And it all starts with Ronald Reagan and his first inaugural address.

As he was preparing to take the reigns of the government of the United States, Reagan made a pronouncement that was stunning in its recklessness but nevertheless went on to become a rallying cry for America’s right wing:

Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.

Reagan’s condemnation is broad and unequivocal. His formulation doesn’t condemn “intrusive” government or “overreaching” government or even just “big” government. Reagan’s speech condemned government, period. Over the years, the quote has been repeated so often that its familiarity tends to obscure how toxic and irrational the message is if we take it seriously.

Randian fantasies aside, it is only government that stands between us and chaos. It is only government that guarantees our freedoms and secures our rights. Government is the necessary predicate to civilization. And it is the essential foundation for building any sort of  broadly shared prosperity.

Can government overreach? Of course. Can it become corrupt? Obviously. Can it be unresponsive or even hostile to its citizens? No question about it. But it should be obvious that the answer to these problems is not to abandon the idea of government but to improve it.

I’ll come back to these points in future posts but, for now, let’s return to Ronald Reagan. As the focal point of modern conservative ideology, Reagan’s pronouncement became gospel for a generation of right wing pundits and politicians. Railing against the boogeyman of big government is a great deal easier than undertaking the hard and endless work of fixing it.

But what happens when you’re confronted with a problem that is so big and so critical that it requires a concerted effort from a big government in order to fix it? That is the question that clearly confronts us today when it comes to the environment. If the problem really exists as it’s currently perceived by scientists then it’s a problem that demands a big government solution.

But what happens when an ideology and the demands of an emergency are at odds? Well, that’s precisely where we find ourselves today and that, unfortunately, is the answer to the question posed at the beginning of this post. It is the aversion to government that Ronald Reagan articulated in January of 1981 that is paralyzing us today.

Said differently, today’s conservative movement has adopted a political stance that’s reminiscent of the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland: “First the verdict, then the trial.” If big government is axiomatically bad then any solution that involves big government must be categorically rejected.

Of course, that stance is a tough sell when the problem that’s approaching is potentially catastrophic. In such a case, a much more promising strategy is to pretend that the problem itself simply doesn’t exist. And that is what today’s right wing has chosen to do.

 

The Holy Grail of Voter Suppression in Florida

Following the 2010 elections, newly empowered Republican majorities in several states began enacting measures designed to suppress voting among demographic segments that were not likely to vote for the GOP. The requirement for a state-issued picture ID is one such measure but there were others. Still, if the objective of these measures was to stop certain groups of people from voting altogether then they weren’t as effective as their proponents probably hoped.

But GOP leaders might find a reason to be encouraged right here in the Sunshine State. In pursuit of its unabashedly partisan ends, Florida’s GOP-dominated legislature seems to be developing a secret plan for ultimate victory. In fact, it may be on its way to getting potential Democratic voters—across a wide swath of demographic segments—to stop coming to the polls not just for one or two elections but for a generation or more to come.

voter-idThe most recent clue to what’s going on is the erupting controversy about an amendment to the state constitution that was passed by voters last year. Seventy five percent of Florida voters voted for Amendment 1 as a mechanism to force the state to allocate funds for the acquisition and improvement of endangered land and water. (For comparison, pick whatever presidential landslide you’d like—Johnson vs. Goldwater, Nixon vs. McGovern, Reagan vs. Mondale. None is anywhere near 75 percent.) You’d think that such overwhelming support would be difficult to ignore, especially since it was expressed in the guise of a constitutional amendment. Game, set, match for conservationists, right?

Not exactly. I’ll let the Miami Herald tell the rest of the story:

Even though the measure created a $700 million pot of money (about $10 billion over 25 years) that taxpayers want to use for conservation and acquisition, legislators have made clear they are going to spend only a small fraction of that imminent windfall on buying land to protect. Proposals mentioned from the House and Senate this week amount to just $26 million and $57 million, respectively, to buy land.

In other words, the voters’ clear intent and overwhelming support is being ignored by a legislature that’s determined (as one friend put it) “to do everything possible to continue selling our natural heritage to the highest bidder.”

In civics class, such a scenario would be outrageous. In Florida, though, it’s just business as usual. Voters here have clearly expressed themselves over the years years on a variety of issues including education funding, class sizes, and fair districting. But in every instance, the Florida legislature has chosen to ignore the will of the voters, often expressed in numbers almost as overwhelming as the Amendment 1 vote.

So, Florida obviously suffers from bad government but how does that then become voter suppression? Through a psychological mechanism known as learned helplessness.

By definition, learned helplessness occurs when someone learns that he or she cannot control their situation and therefore stops taking action to avoid the negative negative consequences. Said differently, learned helplessness reflects a person’s conscious or unconscious decision to stop trying because they believe that trying doesn’t help. It’s what happens when you believe that you have no control or influence over your outcomes.

Returning, then, to the subject of voting in Florida, provides some important context for speculating on what effect it will have on progressive activism when one successful effort after another to mobilize voters—even stunningly successful ones like the Amendment 1 campaign—yield results that are indistinguishable from failures.

As the will of the voters on progressive initiatives gets blatantly and repeatedly ignored, the most likely scenario is troubling. The outcome that the GOP-majority legislature would clearly prefer is that progressive activists just stop trying to effect change and progressive voters would simply stop voting. And if that happens, it has the potential to reach a level of effectiveness that no previous voter suppression scheme ever hoped to approach.

If Florida legislators are allowed to bully voters into a state of learned helplessness then they’ll have achieved the Holy Grail of Voter Suppression. A deliberately cultivated case of learned helplessness could mean that potentially progressive votes might not be suppressed for just an election cycle or two. They could conceivably disappear for a generation or more. And if it works in Florida, the cynical technique would certainly get fast-tracked in other GOP-controlled states.

There’s a point at which partisan wrangling turns into something else, something more problematic. The Constitution says, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government…” When voters clearly and emphatically express their will and are then ignored, then those voters aren’t getting a republican form of government (though they are getting a Republican form of government). That’s bad for Florida and, if it’s allowed to stand, it will be bad for the country.

Right now, the political directionality of this issue points to an attack on progressivism but this is much bigger than simply a partisan issue. The credibility of our governance is at stake. Voters need to unmistakably see that their participation can make a difference. If we tolerate a system in which participants learn helplessness—that their efforts ultimately don’t matter—then the real problem isn’t that the GOP might win. The real problem is that ultimately we would all lose.

On the Inexhaustible Wonderfulness of Dogs

If you’re not a dog lover, please feel free to pass over this post.

If you are a dog lover, though, then check out this beautiful short film tribute that a man named Ben Moon created for his beloved dog, Denali. (Or, if you’re someplace where it wouldn’t be appropriate to weep out loud for ten minutes or so, then just bookmark it and watch later.)

I’m grateful for every single one of my days that has Max in it. (Thank you, Sunada Yuko Takagi, for finding this video and sharing it.)

IMG_2307