How to care without thinking too hard

By now you’ve seen KONY 2012 or at least wondered why everyone is talking about it. The video went on YouTube three days ago and has become an international phenomenon. Thousands of people have celebrated the power of social media to raise awareness, which is somewhat grating as I spent two years of college being constantly reminded how powerful social media is. But in all the talk of the campaign’s effectiveness, have we forgotten the most important principle of communication: honesty?

I ask not because I want to be contrarian, but because the quickness with which Invisible Children, the organization behind KONY 2012, earned detractors is distressing. (I do like to be contrarian, but this isn’t like one of my tweets about my hate for the Winnipeg Jets.) You might say, “But the video is great and they raised awareness of a hideous criminal. Isn’t that what matters?” Frankly, no. If you run out of credibility during your first global campaign, how much more awareness can you raise?

I have my own problems with the video: the lack of understanding of American foreign policy (they avoid conflicts like this not because of self-interest or ignorance, but because they have no legal obligation and the world can’t take their military budget for granted), the juxtaposition of Kony with Hitler (whose operation was far larger, more systematic and, through his own efforts, legal and publicly supported) and the general tone of “Bow down to our awesomeness!” But that’s all besides the point.

No, there’s the fact that so many people who have watched this video are unwilling to give its critics a hearing and dismiss them as naysayers, with a significant measure of contempt. There’s the fact that the Ugandan army they want to fund has a record of human rights violations of its own. There’s the fact that they want this army to violate the sovereignty of the countries where Kony actually might be. And there’s the fact that none of this addresses the underlying issue of corruption in central African governments.

Invisible Children does its job well; otherwise we wouldn’t know about them. But the campaign is, essentially, World Vision with actual people (I use the term lightly) doing the killing instead of diseases or poverty. And that’s been done. One arrest and a whole lot of money and publicity may get rid of Kony, but there are more of him, and this is an unsustainable way to stop them.

So don’t let yourself be taken in by the shiny, pretty video. None of this is new. It’s just being shoved in your face more than usual. And it loses some potency when you consider how many people will click “share” or “retweet” and then just go to the mall.

Why the 99ers look incoherent

Supporters of the Occupy [insert location here] protests are starting to get agitated when opponents characterize them, as a whole, as lacking a coherent message. One Huffington Post writer sums their message up as follows: “They’re tired of a system that seems only to cater to the rich and powerful while ignoring the concerns of the vast majority of Americans.” In truth, though, the area in which cohesiveness is truly lacking is the part where they come up with a remedy.

You need only look at the postings on the main website, OccupyWallSt.org, to see a definite ideological split among the 99ers. This one wants a revival of “true capitalism,” in which “anyone with merit can make it big.” This one, on the other hand, wants Americans to wake up to the good of socialism, using only anti-capitalist epigraphs as their argument. Anyone who has actually lived with it on a national scale would put this one in his or her place.

The Occupy protests are halfway to being cohesive. It starts at the diagnosis and stops at the prescription. This was an early flaw in this column, and I believe I’ve gotten past it as best as possible. Any group of idiots can protest about things they don’t like – God knows the people in this town do it once a week – but without a mutually agreed-upon objective, it’s just a bunch of angry people with signs. That’s how Occupy is perceived by anyone who isn’t angry enough to bother joining in. They are the bored.

Among that population, though, there seems to be considerably more consensus. They agree with the following principles: 1. Socialism is a non-starter; capitalism is integral to the American ethos. 2. However, too much wealth has been concentrated in too few hands, and 3. too much of that money is used to influence politics beyond the level of individual voters. 4. The government and Wall Street are both at fault.

These are all ideas around which both 99ers and Tea Partiers can rally, as we discussed yesterday. When both the private and the public sectors fail to protect true democracy and a true free market, it’s up to the rank-and-file of America to hold them to account for it. Perhaps without even intending to, both have revived a spirit of participatory democracy that had been lacking in the country for far too long. Politics works best when demands for adjustment come from the bottom up.

It’s doubtful that either will get everything they want, when and if each decide exactly what that is. But if they can get that far, they will have proven that cross-partisan political change is what happens when you’re busy making other plans. I suppose grassroots activism really can make a difference, as long as its participants are so intractable that the calm ones are the only ones who see it.

Of Tea Partiers and 99ers

By now you should be able to predict my opinion of traditional protesting in any democratic country: If you have multiple ways by which to achieve political or social change, demonstrations and rallies are the easy way out. Yet Occupy Wall Street (OWS) didn’t die as quickly as I’d expected when it got started. Some fear (or, in some cases, hope) these are the stirrings of a violent revolution. I’m unconvinced.

While the 99ers have yet to propose an official list of demands – no surprise given that they have trouble deciding exactly what they’re all mad at – a couple have offered samples. This is a fairly reasonable list, focusing on actual legislation and reform within the government and financial sector. This, on the other hand, reads like the manifesto of a 66-year-old Winnipeg socialist who shall remain unnamed. My guess is that Republicans are more worried about the latter, and Democrats have as yet to pick one as the 99ers themselves have.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: If the 99ers wanted a violent revolution, they would have started one by now. Ask 10 of them if they believe in individual gun rights and at least nine will likely answer in the negative. But most of them can get guns. This will get no more violent than the occasional fistfight or window smash. Furthermore, their hypocrisy seems confined to their use of Apple products. (R.I.P., good sir, but your labor practices were shit. And I use a BlackBerry.)

This is more akin to a left-wing Tea Party, as others have suggested: same general theme (Big Government is evil vs. Big Business is evil); same tactics (rallying a lot); same support from the usual suspects in Congress (members of both parties generally regarded as non-moderate); same opportunity to alter the course of politics (to be determined). And violence isn’t essential to the Tea Party. It won’t be essential to these people, either.

I’m glad that someone is calling out the government for their failure to pursue checks and balances on the banks. But the idea of two hyper-partisan warring factions, the Tea Partiers and the 99ers, makes me fear for any remaining sanity in Washington. If the two were able to find some common ground and fight together, only the tactics would look unreasonable, as opposed to the platforms. Consider this a challenge to both to demand economic stability in all its forms from your government. We can all agree that this, in theory, is a sensible objective.

And if that does come about, I’ll be very disappointed if this isn’t its theme song. It was the same theme for The Ultra Mega Sports Show, which I co-hosted on CKUW 95.9 FM in university. It would bring back some fond memories.

Disposal Day #66: Mad Hatters leave the Tea Party

STORY #1: Health and high water

To hear Tea Party adherents talk, you’d think everything really was on the table when it came to budget cutting, including entitlements. Apparently that only applies to the adherents in Congress and the statehouses. According to a poll, only 28% of self-identified Tea Partiers support cuts to Medicare and Medicaid – rendering Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) proposal for those cuts as radical as Democrats say!

I have written in support of “streamlining” these programs many times; that might entail somehow making Medicare benefits savings-contingent, or simply looking for inefficiencies as overlap as any program review would entail. It’s not a bad idea on paper. But think about how many older voters are within Tea Party ranks. They have now learned how the zeal to keep government spending done could actually affect their lives. It’s a point we all reach, politically, and the Tea Party was due.

STORY #2: Descent into reason

Has anyone but me noticed that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is becoming increasingly . . . normal? First she said she wouldn’t “condemn” women who sought abortions. Then she encouraged hecklers at her Iowa rally to stay and listen to her – and she addressed their concerns! Now she’s telling birthers that President Obama’s short-form birth certificate should be proof enough of his citizenship. For her, this is progress.

My guess is that Bachmann may still have some sympathies toward these right-wing shibboleths, but is keeping them inside so she can broaden her appeal as she prepares a run for the presidency. That in itself is progress: She’s catching on to the lesson that former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) has not. She’s realizing that so many of the radical right’s favorite causes are irrelevant to the majority of Americans, and is dropping them accordingly. Good on her.

STORY #3: He’s a loser, baby

And good on former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-AR) for dropping the radical right’s favorite son, Glenn Beck. And why shouldn’t he? After all, Beck thinks anyone who agrees with a progressive must automatically be a progressive themselves, including Huckabee for supporting First Lady Michelle Obama’s anti-obesity efforts. Has Beck considered that Huckabee might have an emotional attachment to the cause? No, because he’s intellectually, if not mentally, deranged.

Land of the uprising sun

Another massive anti-government protest has come and gone, and for the first time in as long as I can remember, we may actually end up richer for it. Democracy advocates in Egypt are at least incrementally richer; they have gotten rid of President Hosni Mubarak, which was their principal demand, and the U.S. has positioned itself as solidly behind them. So, has this made me change my mind about the effectiveness of grassroots activism, against which I have railed so frequently?

Well, no. I have always maintained that throughout history, grassroots activism has indeed led to monumental changes. In fact, only when the changes at stake are truly monumental does it make any sort of difference. Most of the time, I speak of seemingly monthly demonstrations at North American legislatures. Egypt’s situation was, needless to say, radically different.

For starters, as much as Egypt may have looked like a democratic nation to the untrained eye, it was not. Its main opposition party was technically banned from its Parliament, and then of course there was the whole Internet crackdown business. In Canada and the United States, rallies for domestic reform are business as usual, thus governments feel free to ignore them. They know they have supporters somewhere.

The difference has been when the most fundamental civil rights were restricted, most notably during pushes for abolition for slavery and segregation. The sheer numbers of those movements were enough to make the government second-guess itself. Their arguments would have made sense regardless, but the push for that sense was the real catalyst. Under circumstances in which anyone can take a policy-making position in such pushes, they almost inevitably are of less importance.

Furthermore, Mubarak had 30 years to become complacent in his position, with no serious threats to his reign. Is it any wonder that he collapsed under the pressure after less than three weeks? He never had anything resembling a contingency plan because he never needed one. It was almost instinctive for his initial reaction to be so extreme, especially when he was reacting to something so extreme. On that note, the tactics of the protesters looked so extreme because they had no recourse.

Finally, we won’t know if their actions paid off until the current military government makes way for an elected one that takes their input seriously. So don’t start the victory march yet. There’s still work to do.

Let’s all stomp out partisanship!

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Tim Profitt. His surname should leave no question as to his political sympathies, but if your comprehension skills are lacking, Profitt is an active Tea Party member and a supporter of Senate candidate Rand Paul (R-KY).  He fails for stomping on a woman’s head.

I could just stop the column there, since anyone stomping on anyone else’s head for any reason other than self-defense is criminal assault. But this was a crime of partisan politics. The woman in question, Lauren Valle, represented the left-wing MoveOn.org and was present at a candidates’ debate to give Paul a fake “employee of the month” award. Knowing her company, it probably had its own degree of irrationality to it. But the person who initiates the physical alternation is automatically the guiltier party.

You want to know the most atrocious part? Profitt wants an apology from her. For being there. And for not agreeing with him. Thus provoking him to stomp on her head. Isn’t that the same line of reasoning used in a standard Lifetime movie about domestic violence? He also blamed nearby police for doing nothing to stop the attack, although their assistance was requested by Profitt’s friend, on the grounds that Valle was THERE. Gee, what a deviant.

Thankfully, Profitt, who was the Paul campaign’s Bourbon County coordinator, was fired immediately after he was identified. I can’t say I’m satisfied with the campaign’s ensuing statement:

The Paul campaign has disassociated itself with the individual who took part in this incident, and once again urges all activists — on both sides — to remember that their political passions should never manifest themselves in physical altercations . . .

Violence is bad, let’s all get along, blah blah fuckity blah. Why bother with the stiffness here? Paul himself should be the first to point the finger at these maniacs and say, “People like you are a liability and an embarrassment, not only to my campaign, but to the campaigns of every other conservative candidate in this country. These actions will never be tolerated.” His silence is deafening. He might consider toning it down.

And one more thing: Kentucky Democrats? That ad against Paul with a replay of the stomp? Completely classless – pull it now.

An open letter to G20 protesters

Dear Purveyors of Senseless Distraction,

It has come to my attention that you are concerned about the $1 billion spent by the Canadian government on security while Huntsville, ON, hosts the G8/G20 summits. As it happens, so is the rest of the country. In fact, many of us also agree with those of you who say that the summits are little more than international political grandstanding, with input far exceeding output, and that $1 billion could buy a lot of useful things. Please be advised that we aren’t disgusted with you for those reasons.

To shed some light on the real source of our disgust, I will share with you a brief exchange between me, my boyfriend, and one of his Facebook contacts, whom we will call “Monger”:

ADAM: “Protesters are wasting time at the G20 summit in Toronto. No wonder why there is no money to clean the environment, eliminate poverty and fix our health care.”
MONGER: “You realize that’s what they’re protesting for, right? I don’t think you understand the value nor point of protesting.”
ME: “Please enlighten us on the point and value of these protests when a) nobody’s listening and b) their only tangible result is a $1 billion security price tag.” 

I have explained many times why activism of any kind is secondary to policy discussion, so we won’t go into that again. But here we have seen when activism becomes its own worst enemy. Security to any extent is always necessary when the world’s most important leaders are in the same place. It is only recently that they have begun defending themselves from mass numbers of you. Because any hints at future violence are so difficult to define and quantify, it makes sense that the costs must be big enough to accommodate all possibilities.

Does it sound like I’m blaming you for the security costs? Because that’s exactly what I’m doing. Not all of you, but the real extremists among you. The ones who deface public property in the name of free speech and are later surprised when they get arrested for it. The ones who firebomb banks just so they can make a statement. You might be amateurs, but you’re dangerous amateurs. And as for the people whose freedom you claim to be defending from the mere existence of political power? They hate you. They don’t need you speaking at all.

If I were walking near a protest area, and one of you handed me some flyer or other material explaining all the ridiculous conspiracies you were opposing, I would make you eat it.

With love and sloppy kisses, Jess C.

I guess they wouldn’t care for a spot of tea

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by Jason Levin, creator of crashtheteaparty.org. This site has been reduced to an order form for vague and unoriginal T-shirts (I could give him a fail just for that), but the related article is still available. As you probably already guessed, Levin had been trying to see to it that Tea Party events were crashed by members of his group, which consisted of 65 cells in various U.S. cities.

Did Levin want his minions to crash so they could pick apart the Tea Partiers’ arguments and convince them that Washington really was acting in their interests? Of course not! He wanted them to crash so they could make the Tea Partiers look stupid!

Levin says they want to exaggerate the group’s least appealing qualities, further distance the tea party from mainstream America and damage the public’s opinion of them. “Do I think every member of the tea party is a homophobe, racist or a moron? No, absolutely not,” Levin said. “Do I think most of them are homophobes, racists or morons? Absolutely.”

To do this, CTTP members would slip into various rallies on April 15, sidle up next to the first birther they hear, and . . . imitate them. They would pretend to be additional birthers. And then get it on video.

I’m so floored by the dumbassness of this idea that I’ll just list all the mistakes:

• The Tea Party already has a bad reputation among people who think one racist, homophobic, or otherwise discriminatory comment reflects on everyone who was in the room with them at the time.
• Everyone already knows that prejudice and discrimination are bad. What’s new?
• The Tea Party’s mandate is to stand for fiscal conservatism; you’d be more effective if you addressed this.
• Just . . . GOD. YOU’RE SO FUCKING STUPID THAT IT KILLS ME.

On a brighter note, here’s a picture of my friend Alyssa’s son at a Tea Party in Champaign, Illinois. As much as I disagree with bringing children into partisan politics before they can think critically about it, you have to admit, he is super-cute. 

A new way to fulfill your civic duty

They might not get much else done, but recent actions taken by Greenpeace have sure sparked some extra debate about climate change. Thanks partly to them, one vague point (“We want a climate treaty now now now!”) has the tendency to splinter into several, more specific points, a few of which I will discuss here.

I have said many times that various forms of disturbing the shit are counterproductive to whichever cause. They prevent policy-makers from taking them as not much other than shit disturbers, they have lost their historical significance, and they make your throat all hot and scratchy. Here’s a new one: Not only do they show that their espousers have much to learn, they can make them unwilling to do so.

At least this is what I gathered from a comment made by my friend Chase after I questioned Greenpeace’s tactics (punctuation mistakes in original):

We vote people into power based on their ability to “do something”. It’s not us that need to find a solution it’s them. Groups like Greenpeace don’t think their stunts are going to directly change anything, but they raise awareness where it’s due.

So that got me thinking: Are there not at least a few instances when it’s to our advantage and that of the government to do more than just vote? I have seen last year’s voters castigated numerous times for loving President Obama’s style and being uneducated about his substance. But try to find a Joe Six-Pack who voted for John McCain because of his position on capital gains taxes and not (just) because he was a war hero. It’s not easy.

Here’s part of my response to Chase:

Neglecting to educate ourselves about the details of the actual issues is not only irresponsible, but just plain lazy. If we’re going to bother holding elections, why not tell the candidates exactly what we want them to do, instead of waiting for them to read our minds?

And when I say “exactly,” I mean “in more detail than wanting them to act in accordance with our values and general beliefs.” Yeah, I’m talking to you, Tea Party.

The definition of “awareness” need not be as narrow as knowing who to vote for. We also need to pay careful attention to what those in office now are doing – that means between election periods.

The fine art of political shit disturbance

So it’s on the record, interrupting a serious academic or political event for the purpose of silencing the speaker is a clear sign of ignorance of the issue at hand, because otherwise you’d make your case rationally. But if you’re going to do it, you might as well do it right, and this was kind of awesome.

This incident occurred at the journalism school at Arizona State University, where Sheriff Joe Arpaio, known for his controversial stance on practically everything, participated in a forum on First Amendment rights. A number of protesters exercised their own by singing Queen’s “Bohemian Rhapsody” over his talking, until he finally gave up and left. In my more left-wing years, I used to fantasize about doing something like that, but I have yet to find a speaker in this city who deserves it.

Just for fun today, I’ve prepared a handy guide to heckling for people who are either too dumb or too lazy to humiliate someone with a superior argument. You’ll have to get a lot of audience members to agree to these, though, as it won’t work with just a few.

1. Running for the hills. About a fifth of the way through the presentation, play the “Benny Hill” theme on your cell phone, then get everyone to bolt from the auditorium. You’ll have to leave last for the song’s sake. The effect isn’t the same otherwise.

2. Zzzzzzzzzzzzz . . . As soon as the speaker opens their mouth, get everyone either to pretend to fall asleep, or just look disinterested and do typical disinterested things (doodling, texting, picking stuff out of your teeth, etc.). If the speaker asks what’s going on, reply childishly, “We’re bo-ored!”

3. Interrupt, loudly, with ridiculous questions. Don’t wait until the Q&A session, if there is one – just ask away. Recommended: “What’s that thing on your face?” “Where do babies come from?” “What’s the airspeed velocity of an unladen swallow?” “Do you have any pie?”

4. Rousing choruses. Recommended: “Don’t Stop Believin’” by Journey, “If I Had a Million Dollars” by the Barenaked Ladies, “YMCA” by the Village People, “Single Ladies” by Beyoncé, “I Gotta Feeling” by the Black Eyed Peas, “The Hockey Song” by Stompin’ Tom Connors, “Unwritten” by Natasha Bedingfield, and this.

I can guarantee that all of these are far more amusing than just hurling ad hominem attacks and walking out en masse in disgust. Use them wisely, and have a great show!