The Wondering Mind

Living and working in Philadelphia, and spending a lot of time working in other parts of the state, pretty much everyone I knew called anything outside of Philadelphia and Pittsburgh (although mostly outside of Philadelphia), “Bumf@#k, PA”.

Very condescending and derogatory, I know. It encapsulates the meaner side of those who experience “big city living”. But it also expressed the idea that pretty much outside of the two major cities of the state, most of the state is pretty rural. And although people makes jokes about Southern rural folks being rednecks, you don’t have to go down South to find the stereotypical redneck attitude: you can find it in many rural parts of the U.S. Including, or perhaps especially, in Pennsylvania.

Which is why it was nice to read this article in the NY Times about voters in Levittown, PA. I think it is a very balanced piece of reporting, telling you both the good and the bad of places such as this. I won’t excerpt any of it here, because you really do have to read the whole article to fully appreciate it.

And I agree with the reporter: I think when the going gets tough for President Obama, people all over the country such as those who voted for him in Levittown will be more patient and will give him more time and a fairer hearing than his more urban supporters.

A while ago posted this blog about the hatred and bigotry that the current race for the White House has brought out in some people in this country. The point I was trying to make, although it was rather inelegant, was my disbelief of all the people (especially the white ones) in this country who wonder out aloud why the “world hates America”, when they barely hide their contempt and racism for people not like them. Seeing as how the majority of the world is non-white and non-Christian, it seems only logical to me that they might take offence.

To my surprise, I had at least two people read that post (I’m still shocked that anyone finds my blog, never mind actually reads it). Unfortunately, one “reader” was just the sort of bigot I was talking about. After leaving a comment filled with factual inaccuracies, baseless assertions, and opinions stated as facts, she clearly thought she was throwing down the gauntlet by stating,

dear speed 10

prove me wrong.

My immediate reaction? Thank you so much for that rhetorical equivalent of, “Screw you. I’m taking my toys and going home!” About the level of intellectual maturity and sophistication I was expecting.

I’m not sure what I’m supposed to prove “wrong” among the litany of baseless assertions and opinions stated as fact, and I doubt Marianne would be persuaded by anything I have to say. But in case one of the people who occasionally stumble on my blog by accident read the post, I thought I would more thoroughly cover the silliness of Marianne’s comments.

• Not everyone in this country is Christian. About 1/2 are not anymore, based on how they vote. – Last time I checked, Christianity did not come with a political party membership card. I’m pretty sure Jesus was more concerned about how we treated each other as neighbours, not which Pharisees we vote for. The assertion that people of certain political views do not adhere to a “true” version of Christianity is a matter of opinion, not fact.
• Most slander against our own country comes from them, for political reasons, and this hatred transports overseas. – A statement critical of America is not, by definition, slander. That prisoners were tortured at Abu-Ghraib by American G.I.’s is a critical statement of America, and is factually correct. An assertion that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake is a matter of opinion, so cannot be slander.
• Foreigners are not so supine and unsophisticated that they need to be schooled by Americans in what is wrong with this country. They have plenty of their own reasons, both justified and not, for disliking this country without worrying about the domestic political disagreements amongst Americans.
• Our government has become godless. Nancy Pelosi is a prime example. – America has several levels and myriad institutions of government. Even if Marianne was referring to a particular one only (I suspect she was referring to the Federal government), the assertion that it is “Godless” is an opinion. In case the distinction is lost on anyone, an opinion, unlike fact, does not have a testable thesis which can be proved or disproved.
• Nancy Pelosi is not the government, so cannot be the said example Marianne refers to. And again, the assertion that Pelosi is not Christian because she does not adhere to Marianne’s brand of religious beliefs (thank God!) is an opinion, not a fact.
• Obama, the illegal alien running for President, is another. – I have no idea what the basis is of Marianne’s claim that Obama is an illegal alien, but by law, anyone born on U.S. soil and/or to at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen is automatically conferred the right of U.S. citizenship. Obama was born in Hawaii to a mother with U.S. citizenship.
• White Americans are not racist, even though they are falsely accused of this. They do resent being called this. – There are over 300 million people in the U.S., over half of whom are white (for now). That means that Marianne is asserting that not one person out of over 150 million people is racist, something that is mathematically and demographically certainly impossible. But if you want proof, I point out Mr. Obama’s own grandmother and the crazy lady at the DNC convention as examples.
• I’m sure racists resent being called that. Not sure what you expect me to do about that one, Marianne.
• Black racism is at its peak, and will get worse. – I have no doubt that some black Americans are racist. But as a demographic group which is not, and has never been, in a position of power, most people correctly do not consider this to be a topical issue. And what demographic data would suggest that black Americans are becoming more racists, I have no idea.
• There are financial benefits to falsely accusing whites, so the trend continues. – I don’t know what “financial benefits to falsely accusing whites” of racism there is. If Marianne is referring to affirmative action, that does not require current racism to justify it. It is reliant on the theory that past injustices had resulted in current structural inequalities which the victimised groups cannot overcome without government assistance. This case is made more compelling if there is existing discrimination, but that is not necessary.

As I said, I don’t expect the “Mariannes” of this world to even pay attention to what I have said, never mind actually be persuaded by it. Such people generally require a burning bush as a sign, figuratively and literally, and even then will only be “persuaded” if they hear what they already believe in. Otherwise, I think they claim it as a sign from the devil.

But there are others out there who might find the sort of silliness Marianne promotes attractive because they have not been exposed to the facts. It’s for those people that I would just like to set the record straight.

As a reporting piece, this is a pretty good article about the political divide in America today. But it leaves a lot of questions to be answered, mainly because it doesn’t give us enough information.

“Why do they support him?” she asked. “What do they say?” I mentioned economy, Iraq and health care as the main three things that keep coming up. She had informed responses as to why Obama would be bad on all of them. But her question itself was telling.

It is telling, but it would be even more informative if we were told what her “informed responses” were. Informed how? They are clearly not the reasons why people support Obama on those issues, so are they points other people are missing, or are Obama supporters just wrong?

What passes for “fair” journalism and reporting these days seems to be to ask people questions and just to report what was said without challenging the response. What passes for challenging people is to attack them with propaganda from their opponents, but there is no real probing.

For example, on the issue of guns, why not ask why Mr. Garst feels the need to have firearms to protect himself? That seems like an irrational fear considering the circumstances. Gun advocates are also usually obsessed only with the need to own guns to protect themselves, as opposed to supporting measures which may lessen the need for anyone to protect themselves. This is in the same vein of conservatives who oppose abortion based on the sanctity of life, but won’t give a dime to improve the quality of life of those born to less fortunate families.

Why not challenge Mr. Garst on the apparent selfishness of a man clearly able to provide more than he and his family needs, but not wanting to share this largess with others? Because he is strong now, he feels no charity towards others less able and less fortunate?

Well-read and well-travelled Carey doesn’t suit the liberal stereotype of a gun nut, let alone a redneck. His adherence to rugged individualism suits him quite well because he is quite a rugged individual. He built his own barn, clears his own land (he owns a few acres) and is in the process of making a lake. He works hard and seems proud of the fact that he only takes one week vacation a year.

His philosophy appears to be “I’m alright, Jack, so tough on anyone else.”

“Well-read and well travelled” he may be, but what does that mean really? What has he read and where has he gone that inspires such selfishness? To remain a man who lives in such splendid isolation, apparently  untouched by any sense of common humanity in what he has read and where he has been and seen, is more a mark of a truly ignorant and stupid person. You could at least argue that a “redneck” is that way because they have not been exposed to a greater, wider world.

Good reporting isn’t to just report any old rubbish people spout or believe in. It does involve questioning that rubbish without necessarily attacking the people who hold the views, but questioning the right or wrong of the stance.

You can’t make this stuff up.

McCain Financial Adviser’s Sunday Op-Ed: ‘Things Today Just Aren’t That Bad’

In addition to being somewhat sidelined for the last month, I’ve not posted anything about Palin because I feel so overwhelmed as to what I can write about her, I just don’t know where to start. If the American people are silly enough to vote for a ticket with the “She-Bush” (as Jon Stewart rightly called her) on board, this country deserves to be ravaged by the Four Horsemen.

So, similar to what I did earlier with McCain, I am just going to post links to a bunch of stories I’ve read about her since the Republican convention. They are truly depressing.

• Sarah Palin: Former Beauty Queen, Future VP? (PHOTOS)
• ‘Troopergate’ inquiry hangs over campaign
• Palin’s Family Has Always Held a Place in Her Politics
• The F-card won’t wash
• Palin Attuned More to Public Will, Less to Job’s Details
• Wasilla Watch: Sarah Palin and the Rape Kits
• A Question Reprised, but the Words Come None Too Easily for Palin
• Why Experience Matters
• Palin’s American Exception
• Political commentators forget mics are on, bash McCain, Palin, and chances of winning
• Top Republican says Palin unready
• Once Elected, Palin Hired Friends and Lashed Foes
• ‘Barbies for War!’
• Palin once blessed to be free from ‘witchcraft’

Some of these articles have conservatives making unflattering comments on Palin, which tells you a lot!

This next article is, I think, particularly insightful.

• Judith Warner: Poor Sarah

And just to end on a lighter note, a couple of links to SNL.

• Saturday Night Live – Palin / Hilary Open
• Saturday Night Live: VP Debate Open – Palin / Biden

Oh, and finally, I don’t know where else you can find this, but this is hilarious.

• Sarah Palin Facebook page