Rolling Stone on the Tea Partiers

Or the Tea People. Or the Patriot Movement. I really wish they'd decide what they themselves want to be called. Originally, they called themselves Teabaggers, until they found out that the moniker also connoted something... else.

Exerpt from the article:

    "Let me get this straight," I say to David. "You've been picking up a check from the government for decades, as a tax assessor, and your wife is on Medicare. How can you complain about the welfare state?"

    "Well," he says, "there's a lot of people on welfare who don't deserve it. Too many people are living off the government."

    "But," I protest, "you live off the government. And have been your whole life!"

    "Yeah," he says, "but I don't make very much." Vast forests have already been sacrificed to the public debate about the Tea Party: what it is, what it means, where it's going. But after lengthy study of the phenomenon, I've concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They're full of shit. All of them. At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry's medals and Barack Obama's Sixties associations. The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending — with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse is key to understanding what this movement is all about — and nowhere do we see that dynamic as clearly as here in Kentucky, where Rand Paul is barreling toward the Senate with the aid of conservative icons like Palin.

...

    A loose definition of the Tea Party might be millions of pissed-off white people sent chasing after Mexicans on Medicaid by the handful of banks and investment firms who advertise on Fox and CNBC.

The Tea Party people certainly have justified, debatable complaints. I simply haven't heard any of those coherently expressed. Most often, it's pissed-off Libertarian types yelling "You're not listening to us!" into the microphones of the traditional media, which is giving them a huge platform. "Why won't you listen to us!"

Even if they get to the point of proposing how they actually would like to change things, it's always subtractive: repeal health care reform. Get rid of welfare. Eliminate Medicaid, the Department of Education and the EPA. Privatize Social Security and Medicare. Just get rid of government. Except when it suits them (government should be in control of abortions and anything you do in your bedroom.)

This is the modern Birch Society.

"Playbook"? Really?

RIM has announced its new Tablet (cue Moses): The Playbook.

See more here.

Specs look good. Form factor OK (but really, why do all these "media devices like this and the iPad have a 4:3 aspect ratio?) No word on pricing, carriers or any of the other fence-sitter issues.

Nor, notably, any much info on ebooks. DRM should be the tipping point (unless you're Apple).

I'm not a fan of tablets, but if they pull this off -- No DRM, great OS experience, good to great applications available -- then maybe I'd be inclined (oh, did I not mention getting the price point right?)

Atheists/Agnostics more knowledgable about religion than churchgoers

A story from the LA Times cites a new survey; here's an excerpt:

American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study, said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at the Pew Forum.

"These are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."

Atheists and agnostics also tend to be relatively well educated, and the survey found, not surprisingly, that the most knowledgeable people were also the best educated. However, it said that atheists and agnostics also outperformed believers who had a similar level of education.

The groups at the top of the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey were followed, in order, by white evangelical Protestants, white Catholics, white mainline Protestants, people who were unaffiliated with any faith (but not atheist or agnostic), black Protestants and Latino Catholics.

All too truthy

People believe facts (or disbelieve them) that reinforce their world-view:

Whoever you are, wherever you sit on the political spectrum, you can be confident that the polls and what they say about relative levels of enthusiasm on each side confirm what you think and your own experience of the last two years.

Via TPM.

What would have happened if the Democrats had ever filibustered a Defense Spending Authorization bill?

...from even being debated?

(Disclosure: I got the kernel of this thought from some readings I had today which I can't find to properly cite.)

The answer is clear: The Democrats would have been raked over the coals by the media. Mercilessly.

The reality is that since the Republicans did it--despite no party in our history having ever filibustered a Defense bill supporting the troops--the legacy/mainstream media are generally claiming this to be a victory for the Republican Party.

Once again, to paraphrase: "Republicans victorious with 43-56 majority".

"The right fears their base; the left hates their base."

The words of David Frum, one of George W. Bush's speechwriters.

Apocryphally, at least. Regardless, it rings true.

Numerous times recently, a conservative will have to roll back what appears to be perfectly reasonable statements. The joke on the left is along the lines of "X will have to apologize to Limbaugh/Beck/Palin in three... two... one..." They are indeed scared to offend their "base"--however, their base has lost its definition. ("Tea Party"-ers, anyone?)

At one time, at least in the recent history of the party, (a la William F. Buckley Jr., or later Grover Norquist, ("I want government to be so small I can drown it in a bathtub",)) the Republican base was fiscally conservative voters. The Southern strategy, started around President Nixon's time, brought in a lot of social conservatives and religious types. Republican politicians could not afford, eventually, to lose this part of their base; and the base knew it instinctively. Evangelicals, Pentecostals and other increasingly extreme groups became more and more influential within the party. This ended up with politicians famously talking in codewords that appeased the "base" which sounded somewhat reasonable to those who weren't quite so extreme.

The Democrats, on the other hand, at the same time, theoretically built a "Big Tent", accepting all comers. Dixiecrats opposed to civil rights for minorities? Sure. (Though the Southern Strategy largely dismantled this.) Big Business Old Money folks? Yes, please. Blue Dog Democrats that will not vote with the party the majority of the time? OK, as long as you have a "D" after your name in the media. Will Rogers' famous quote "I don't belong to any organized Party; I'm a Democrat" rang truer than ever.

This creates an odd landscape. Those in power in the Democratic Party inherently don't agree amongst themselves. Since the early 2000s, the frustrated core who call themselves "progressive" ("liberal" had effectively become a dirty word,) organized online and otherwise in a more cohesive and focused voice. The Obama campaign caught the fancy of the Progressives, and arguably, became the new Democratic "base", since their messaging was better unified and ideologies more homogenized.

The situation today has been well illustrated by the recent comments by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs' derisive "Professional Left" comments, as well as other administration officials' scorn (Rahm Emmanuel, for example, appears to have nothing but contempt for the base that elected his President.) President Obama himself has been complaining often recently about his supporters.

My takeaway from these observations is summed up in the alleged Frum quote. The Republicans, who intentionally constructed an ill-advised "base", listen to them attentively. The Democrats, whose "base" created itself despite the party's lack of involvement, are highly irritated by them. I'll be curiouse to see how this plays out for either party.

When I don't know or understand something...

...I consult a knowledgeable reference I trust.

That's how it is for me when it comes to economics. I have a background that does not include any formal training in economics. Being self-aware enough to know this, I seek out the opinions of those who have demonstrated themselves to be trustworthy.

That is, I seek out opinions of those experts who were right consistently.

So, for economics, I look to those who correctly predicted or warned of the situations we've been living. Unlike the standard television pundits, who were all shockingly blindsided by the turmoil, I go to the people who told us some time ago that this was going to happen.

Krugman, Stiglitz and Roubini all predicted these events. They also have several Nobels between them. So why are the people who not only demonstrably got it wrong, but also effectively facilitated our current woes, still the go-to pundits in the mainstream/legacy media?

I realize that's rhetorical; the media just need to justify their own existence.

The message from those who were consistently correct now is that we need a second and more robust stimulus if we want to avoid a painfully long recovery. Krugman's been saying this since before the first stimulus, and correctly predicted the long, slow, painfuly times we're in.

An effective second stimulus is unlikely, due to the political challenges. But that's the end result of the thing the Founding Fathers warned us about: an uninformed electorate. As long as the media only put forth pundits who were demonstrably wrong on just about everything, we'll have the burden and scourge of that uninformed electorate.

Why I'm not getting an iPad, iPod, iPhone or Kindle.

One acronym sums it up: DRM.

If I buy some media for personal use, I want to be able to use it. "Digital Rights Management" is all about restricting the consumer to only use a media product on specific devices. Cory Doctorow on bOINGbOING.net is far better versed in the intricacies and legal issues than I. Go there if you want more details, but know this:

You do not own the media you buy; you lease it.

At least, that's according to the media middlemen who write the laws via lobbyists.

For years, Microsoft led the cause of DRM; but around the same time, Apple perfected it. Purchase a tune from iTunes? You can only play it back on designated Apple products. If you decide you'd rather have a Blackberry or Android phone... you'll have to re-purchase the same media for which you've already paid.

Amazon's particularly schizophrenic about DRM. (Full disclosure: I worked at Amazon for four years, but not in any of its media sales divisions.) On the one hand, they sell their music digitally as DRM-free MP3s. I can play them on any MP3 device I own in perpetuity. On the other hand, there's DRM-heavy Kindle. It offers many conveniences and attractive features, but the bottom line is that the DRM forces the user to only ever consume the media that they've paid for on an Amazon bit of hardware. Oh, and you can't lend it to your friend, like you can with a physical book.

Ultimately, we have a scenario that considers the customer to be a criminal. It was bad enough in days gone by when the industry raked in regular money by changing formats regularly (45s? LPs? 8-Tracks? Cassettes? CDs?) While I'm betraying my age, I've had to buy the exact same content on each of these media. I'd rather buy it once and then be able to use it on the device of my choice. Digital media allows me to do this. That's why it's so threatening to the media publishers. And that's why the media producers consider its customers pirates by default. Hence, their insistence on DRM.

They have to protect their failing business model, after all.

Etymology and respectfulness (and missing the whole point)

Having discussed recent issues with friends and family, I discovered a conundrum.

Paraphrasing: "The President and other Liberals are being terribly disrespectful in calling them 'teabaggers'." When I point out that 'teabaggers' is what the movement referred to itself as, (until the snickering from the left betrayed the sexual act it alludes to,) well--the President shouldn't do it.

I haven't heard the President use the nickname, but I'll take that--at least on its face--as fact, because that's what they themselves called their own movement participants.

Sure, plenty of bloggers continue to use the offending term. That's what bloggers do. The government and media have respectfully abstained from using it subsequently, once the Tea Party realized its dirty implications after they themselves annointed themselves thusly.

Respectful deference. I have a great deal of respect for that.

So why does this not work for non-conservative movements?

One of many examples: How often, in the mainstream/legacy media, have we heard the term "Ground Zero Mosque", or even "Victory Mosque" in reference to the Islamic Cultural Center being built two blocks away from the edge of the WTC site?

The developers refer to it as "Park51" or "The Cordoba House".

It's a 13-story community center open to all faiths, with a dedicated prayer room (which is pretty much required for an Islamic center, given how often they are required to pray.) The development made the front page of the New York Times last December once it started plans--and there was no outrage, or even much notice of it. The local regulating panels all approved the plan. So why the national outrage now?

You could answer that for yourself. (Hint: it's election season.)

But even with the press aiding the national outrage, you'd still be missing the point.

We're not at war against Islam. (Side note: 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis; why did we go to war with Iraq instead?) That would be one of the most destructive narratives ever. President George W. Bush understood this, and to his great credit, made a point of strongly emphasizing this repeatedly.

We have lost that now, with the apparent passive acquiescence of the media. This feeds into the worst of our national personality. This seems to be manifesting itself in every corner of the nation, and will only result in the exact opposite of what we should want. Stability and peace.

First random rant:

Blogger, why must you be so obtuse while trying oh so hard to look slick? Even simple changes to one's site can be painful.

Plenty of your features are dandy-- don't get me wrong. But some pretty simple things require advanced yoga training.

Separately, GIMP. You make me want to cry sometimes. Your UI is unuseable. Click on one tool, go back to the image window, and the tool suddenly reverts to its last one. Double click it? Sometimes that works.

For such a powerful, empowering tool, you have an interface only an engineer can even tolerate. This is an example of how software developed in a bubble is unuseable.

A few thoughts on the purpose of all this.

Primarily, I'm doing this for me, and I wish more bloggers were more unapologetic about this basic.

I'm not going to change the world. I'm venting.

I'll be on a series of topics. At one time, these topics would have seemed exotic or out of reach; now they're commonplace. Think Internet, Design, Software design, Photography, Politics and other issues that are now mundane. I hope to keep my brain a bit sharper by bringing a different perspective to them.

Will I succeed? I'd say "You Decide!", but of course that'd be disingenuous.

So, this "Different Perspective" thing--What is it? Well, that's where you get to decide.

Part of the problem with Blogging is that it creates an echo chamber, simply confirming beliefs you really want to be true. I don't pretend that anything I do will change that and lead people to thinking for themselves. But do keep it in mind.

Been a long time since I...

...blogged.

Yes, I was blogging before the term "blog" was around. That's reason enough for no one to care about this post, so I'll keep it short.

Too much is going on, and I figured that this was a healthier outlet than tossing ice cubes off my balcony at passersby. Let's see what happens.