Anniversary Post: Soviet Nuclear False Alarm

Stanislav PetrovOn this day in 1983, the Soviet nuclear false alarm incident occurred. But in order to understand it, we have to take a step back to 1 September of that same year. Just three and a half weeks earlier, the Soviet Union had shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, which strayed into its prohibited airspace. The Soviets claimed that the flight incursion was meant to test their defenses (a claim very similar to that made by the Clockers). But understandably, no one in the west really believed that.

So on 26 September, when the Soviet nuclear early warning system detects two ballistic missile launches from the US, the generally twitchy Soviet Union could easily believe that we had decided to start a war. Luckily, the officer on duty at that time was Stanislav Petrov. The first detection was of a single missile. Petrov thought that it must be a computer error for two reasons. First, it made no sense for the US to launch a single missile. Second, there had been concerns about the detection system. So he waited. Then another detection came in — this time of four missile launches. He again did nothing. And in so doing probably saved the world. (It turned out to be an unusual reflection of the sun off clouds.)

Of course, not everyone was quite so thrilled with his actions in the Soviet Union at that time. And I think about how some people here in the US would think about someone working for our military doing the same thing. I don’t think it would go well. Look at Chelsea Manning — who critics claim (1) didn’t release any information we didn’t already know; and (2) should be shot for treason. There are a lot of people who really do think it is better to destroy the world than to disobey orders.

The whole thing reminds me of a kind of communal Sword of Damocles. But instead of sword hanging over the leader, there are swords hanging everywhere. It doesn’t require anyone actively cutting the threads; it just takes an accident. The rational thing is not to hang swords over everyone’s heads. But things that are obvious to individuals and even small groups are beyond the means of whole countries. “So what if we do develop this Solanite bomb? We’d be even a stronger nation than now!” Ed Wood got that one right.

The Propagandistic Middle East Narrative

Glenn GreenwaldThe close US/Saudi alliance and the massive amount of weapons and intelligence lavished on the regime in Riyadh by the West is one of the great unmentionables in Western discourse…

It’s not hard to understand why so many of the elite sectors of the West want everyone to avert their eyes from this deep and close relationship with the Saudis. It’s because that alliance single-handedly destroys almost every propagandistic narrative told to the Western public about that region.

As the always-expanding “War on Terror” enters its 14th year, the ostensible target — radical, violent versions of Islam — is fueled far more by the US’s closest allies than any of the countries the US has been fighting under the “War on Terror” banner. Beyond that, the alliance proves the complete absurdity of believing that the US and UK’s foreign policies, let alone their various wars, have anything to do with protecting human rights or subverting tyranny and fanaticism. And it renders a complete laughingstock any attempts to depict the US government as some sort of crusader for freedom and democracy or whatever other pretty goals are regularly attributed to it by its helpful press.

—Glenn Greenwald
US State Department “Welcomes” News That Saudi Arabia Will Head UN Human Rights Panel

The Next Speaker Will Be Like John Boehner

John BoehnerAccording to The New York Times, John Boehner Will Resign From Congress. The weird thing is that when I first heard it, I though, “Oh, no!” And that just shows how crazy things have gotten with the Republicans. In the first sentence of the Times article, it mentions that Boehner is “under intense pressure from conservatives in his party.” From conservatives?! Because here’s the thing: Boehner is as conservative as it gets. He came to power during the whole Newt Gingrich takeover of the House. He was one of the architects of the ridiculous focus-grouped “Contract with America.” You don’t get more conservative than John Boehner.

But you do get more stupid. You do get more infantile. You do get more useless. And over half of the Republicans in the House certainly fall into those categories. I’ve mentioned it a lot, but it always bears repeating: the difference between the “extreme” and “moderate” Republican is almost exclusively rhetoric. I just wrote about this, The Postmodern Theory That Marco Rubio Will Appeal to Latinos: the ultimate symbol of Republican “moderation,” claims we have to wait at least a decade before we even talk about normalizing the more than ten million undocumented residents.

“Garbage men get used to the smell of bad garbage. Prisoners learn how to become prisoners, all right?” —John Boehner

Right before the announcement, Jonathan Bernstein wrote, Stop the Shutdown Before It Starts. His argument was simple: the shutdown will fail and the Republicans will be harmed. All the hard-line, Ted Cruz types will claim that Obama was just about to blink, and blame Boehner (and McConnell) for finally okaying a deal. So since Boehner would be blamed regardless, he ought to take the blame now and stop the shutdown. Why? Because it is his job to protect his caucus. Now, according to The Washington Post, “House Republicans said there was agreement to pass a clean spending bill to keep the government open.”

According to Ezra Klein, Boehner was facing “House conservatives [who] want to use an unusual parliamentary maneuver to launch a coup against [him].” And that was far more likely, regardless of how this went down. Again: a lot of House Republicans are infantile — they think if they just hold their breath long enough, they will get all the toys they’ve demanded. And you have to believe that managing these people is a total drag. After all, what the loons want is the same thing that Boehner wants. But they won’t even let him take a course that will move them in that direction. In a recent interview, Boehner claimed that he didn’t mind the job in a way that clearly indicated that he did, “Garbage men get used to the smell of bad garbage. Prisoners learn how to become prisoners, all right?”

Then, after Macro Rubio announced to the Values Voter Summit that Boehner was retiring, there was a “HUGE ovation.” Do these people really think that it was John Boehner who was stopping them from getting all their grandest wishes fulfilled? Apparently so. At Crooks & Liars this morning, Karoli reported, Limbaugh’s Latest Conspiracy Theory: Obama Hijacked All The Conservatives! On his list is, of course, John Boehner. It also includes John Roberts. This has long been a thing among conservatives: there are certain opinions and everyone must share them. I noticed in the mid-1980s that a conservative’s definition of “liberal” was simply “not conservative.”

The question is, what do all those cheering “values voters” think they are going to get now? The problem with John Boehner was not that he wasn’t conservative enough; the problem was reality. We don’t live in a dictatorship. And if we did, it is unlikely that the dictator would be ideologically pure enough for these loons anyway. The next Speaker will run into the same reality that Boehner did, and the usual suspects will soon be claiming that he is a squish and a RINO.

The Postmodern Theory That Marco Rubio Will Appeal to Latinos

Marco RubioBehold the postmodern nature of the Republican Party! On Tuesday, Jonathan Chait wrote, Marco Rubio Won’t Even Consider Path to Citizenship During His Presidency. It was a short article and that headline captures its contents perfectly. What’s more: there is no question but that Chait is right. Rubio said that we shouldn’t even be talking about a path to citizenship for 10 to 12 years. He said it in his book and he said it recently to Sean Hannity. In as much as we know anything, we know that this means exactly what Chait said: Rubio won’t consider a path to citizenship for his presidential term — and then some.

But Rubio’s communications director, Alex Conant, was upset at Chait, claiming, “Your piece about immigration misunderstands his position.” And then Conant goes on to say, “Marco has repeatedly stated — and did so again last night — that he is open to green cards after 10 years and he has outlined a specific idea on how to do that.” In other words, Conant is repeating exactly what Chait wrote. But the Rubio campaign was apparently unhappy that Chait was complaining about it. It’s roughly tribal: you were right on the facts but you don’t understand; it’s Rubio and so therefore it is good!

Chait’s larger point is that Rubio’s position on this matter undercuts his primary selling point. He was supposed to be the guy who would reach out to Latino and Asian American voters with a positive message. But instead, because of criticism he got the moment he took the smallest of steps toward that, he is pushing a line that is in no important way different from Donald Trump’s. Think about that. It shouldn’t be hard, because for at least the last decade, the only real difference between the far right and the “moderate” right has been rhetoric.

There really is a fundamental problem with the Republican Party when it comes to national politics. All the elites stand around hoping for a savior: someone who will come along and not be so absolutely terrifying to anyone but the Republican base. And then, in order to actually win a majority of Republican votes, that candidate has to become terrifying. And I think this is why the national Republican Party seems so much like it is treading water. Eventually, they seem to think, they will luck out and get someone in because the economics are right or the voting machines are wrong or whatever. (Sadly, they are correct to assume this.)

The one thing that is most clear is that the Republican Party is not willing to do anything to reach out to minority voters. It’s actually pretty funny. I wrote about this a lot after their loss in 2012. The attitude — Among the elites! The supposed adults in the party! — was, “All right: we’ll pass immigration reform but that’s it! After we do this one thing for you, we don’t wanna hear anymore whining!” It’s like something I heard from a number of conservatives after same sex marriage became the law of the land, “I wonder what they’ll want next?!” (Perhaps the right not to be fired for being gay?!)

The Republican Party will never be able to “reach out” to Latinos as long as they think of Latinos as people who they have to reach out to. The big problem that the Republicans have is that Latinos tend to be poor. Republicans do not propose policies that will help the poor get ahead. So any “reach out” campaign is doomed anyway. It is just that the obvious hatred that Republicans have for all minority groups doesn’t help. But I don’t think that the Republican elites really care. They are are like Alex Conant: postmodern thinkers who define their own reality.

Anniversary Post: Bill of Rights

James MadisonOn this day in 1789, the US Congress passed what would become known as the Bill of Rights. It would take another two years for them to be ratified. What I find constantly amazing about them is how simple minded people are about them. It is hard to speak of myself in the present tense, but when I was an ignorant libertarian, I had the Tenth Amendment all wrong. And there is now a name for such people: Tenthers — although I like to think that I thought a bit more deeply than these people do.

The Tenth Amendment says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Tenthers normally cram the word “expressly” right before “delegated.” If that were what the Constitution said, then it would indeed put ridiculous limits on the federal government. But it doesn’t say that for a very good reason: that was what the Articles of Confederation said, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” And it created a wholly ungovernable country!

The truth is that the Tenthers are mostly a bunch of pretenders. They generally are all for the federal government running roughshod over state and local rights. It’s just a question of what the issue is. Is it drug law? Then its okay! Is it same sex marriage? Then it’s a violation of the Constitution! And we are not just talking about loons here. There was quite a bit of discussion of the issue at the last Republican debate. It’s silly and dangerous.

But I don’t want we liberals to get off easy here. In general, I have a very big problem with the way that both conservatives and liberals talk about the Second Amendment. When I hear conservatives talking about how the Second Amendment is all about stopping government tyranny, I just want to gouge my eyes out. That was not the intent. In fact, it makes no sense: if you were living under a tyrant, she wouldn’t abide by the people’s rights. The whole point of the Constitution is to create a federal government strong enough to protect your rights!

At the same time, the liberal view that the Second Amendment is all about militias and nothing more is not true. We as liberals — more than anyone else — must understand that the Constitution is a living document. We can’t be locked into what a bunch of rich men thought two centuries ago. Over time, the Bill of Rights has been interpreted and we have learned new things about it. And for well over a century, the Second Amendment has been interpreted as a right to individual gun ownership. So it really doesn’t mean anything to whip out a pocket Constitution and read, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This is a good day to go and read the Bill of Rights. The truth is that most people who talk about the Constitution and Bill of Rights have never actually read it. It’s something that they think they just “know” — as though Americans are born with it just like HP laptops are “born” with McAfee Antivirus software. But we aren’t. And so the Constitution becomes something like magical text that proves that each of us is right about all of our prejudices.

Greenwald on “Being a Muslim Is a Choice!”

Glenn Greenwald

  1. People from every race, all over the world, convert into Judaism. They’re as Jewish as any other Jew, even though they obviously keep the race into which they were born. Beyond that, there are people born into Judaism from different races all over the world, such as Ethiopian Jews. Beyond that, whether to observe the religious dictates of Judaism is a choice which every person makes.

    So it’s wildly simplistic, at best, to describe “Jewish” as a race which one cannot and does not choose.

  2. Although it’s not a perfect equivalency, the designation “Muslim” has very similar attributes to the ones you’re ascribing to “Jews.” Countless people all over the world self-identify as “Muslim” even though they have little to no adherence to the tenets of Islam. They mean it as a cultural signifier or representative of their heritage: the community and culture into which they were born, very similar to the way some non-religious people still identify as “Jewish”: as a cultural or ethnic signifier.

    Just as German Jews could not have chosen to become non-Jewish in the eyes of many, so, too, are Muslims incapable of becoming non-Muslim in the eyes of many. No matter their belief system, they retain their names, their appearance, their heritage and other attributes which bigots associate with being Muslim — just as was true of Jews.

    In sum, maligning “Muslims” is about more than maligning the doctrine of Islam, just as maligning “Jews” has always been about more than maligning the doctrine of Judaism.

  3. The argument you’re implicitly making — that it’s better to discriminate against people for choices they make than in-born attributes — is one very familiar to LGBT people, since that’s the argument long used to justify anti-gay discrimination (“it’s a choice”).

    But if being LGBT were actually a choice… would that make discrimination against LGBT people more justifiable? I don’t think so and never did. Whether being LGBT is a choice or not never mattered to me in the slightest in demonstrating that it was wrong to discriminate against them.

  4. Finally, purely for the sake of argument, let’s indulge this tendentious distinction you’re making between Jews (not a choice) and Muslims (a choice):

    Suppose the anti-Jewish speakers in my hypotheticals had said at the end: “by the way, by ‘Jew,’ I don’t mean people who were born into this group through no choice/fault of their own; I simply mean ‘those who are adherents to the religion known as Judaism.’ That is who I intend to malign and want to ban from public office.”

    Would that really be acceptable to you?

—Glenn Greenwald
The Anti-Muslim Controversies of the Last Week, Reimagined

Islamophobe Isn’t a Bigot — Just Asking Questions!

Ahmed MohamedEarlier this week, I was reading Belle Waring’s hilarious take down of Richard Dawkins and the other Islamophobes about the whole Ahmed Mohamed clock incident, When a Policeman Asks You for a Correct Philosophy of Time, You Give It. I was going to post it as a quote. But then I came upon something she mentioned[1] from someone in the Dawkins crowd. And it is really telling because I’ve heard this kind of argumentation for my entire life. It is designed to sound open-minded, but as I will discuss, it is just the opposite. In fact, Fox News uses this same exact propaganda tool all the time:

Because, is it possible, that maybe, just maybe, this was actually a hoax bomb? A silly prank that was taken the wrong way? That the media then ran with, and everyone else got carried away? Maybe there wasn’t even any racial or religious bias on the parts of the teachers and police.

I don’t know any of these things. But I’m intellectually mature enough to admit I don’t know, and to also be OK with that. I don’t feel a need to take the first exit to conclusionville. But I do like to find facts where I can, and prefer to let them lead me to conclusions, rather than a knee jerk judgement based on a headline or sound bite.

Got that? He just doesn’t know. He’s not saying that anything nefarious was going on. He’s just asking questions. It just so happens that this is exactly what the slightly more educated Birthers say, “I don’t know where Obama was born; I’m just asking questions.” Similarly, James Inhofe doesn’t know that global warming is a hoax. He too is just asking questions. This is even true of Holocaust deniers. Obviously, none of this is true of the Little Brains. But anyone with the slightest intellectual sophistication grabs onto the “just asking questions” rhetoric.

Here’s what you need to know about this: there are literally an infinite number of questions that can be asked. The questions that you ask say a great deal about you. So this guy is just asking questions, because he can’t trust the news. If it had been news about a tsunami or a vote in Congress, well, then it wouldn’t occur to him to ask questions or even remember that he can’t trust the news. It’s sad. The guy is a classic example of what I call a subgenius: someone smart, but not incredibly smart, and not nearly as smart as he thinks he is.

The main purpose of his article is to try to show — in a very very Alex Jones kind of way — that Mohamed did not build the clock. Mostly, his point is that it uses old electronics parts. As I noted when I first discussed it: I have done the same thing. I had an electronics lab filled with equipment. I assume Mohamed had old bits of electronics that could be scavenged. Not that it matters. Arguing with this guy would be exactly like arguing with 9/11 Truthers.

This spectacle is hilarious in a certain way. There are people who are classic Islamophobes: people who fear, hate, and distrust Muslims. But like all bigots, they don’t see themselves as bigots. So they come up with elaborate ways to justify their bigotry. But most of all, they are just open-minded. They are just asking questions.


[1] The site is currently down, but it is: clock | Tech Voice – Artvoice. Whether this is because of bad luck, a DDoS attack, or simply because there are lots of people like Richard Dawkins who just can’t get enough of this kind of thing, I can’t say. Here’s a copy: Google cache.

What the GOP Offers to Its Base: Bigotry

Jonathan ChaitSo there has been this whole dust-up about Ben Carson saying that a Muslim shouldn’t be president because, “I do not believe Sharia is consistent with the Constitution of this country.” And then Ted Cruz — Truest Defender of the Constitution™ — pointed out that there is no “religious test” for holding public office. As Martin Longman pointed out, this is true but hardly relevant: Carson wasn’t saying that Muslim’s shouldn’t have a legal right to be president — just that they shouldn’t be president in the same way that Nazis shouldn’t be president. And wouldn’t Ted Cruz agree with that vile comparison? I think he would.

PM Carpenter made a wonderful point about this. Carson also said, “Muslims feel that their religion is very much a part of your public life and what you do as a public official, and that’s inconsistent with our principles and our Constitution.” This is the very definition of bigotry: lumping all Muslims together. But this is also a mighty ironic thing coming from a guy who wears his Christianity on his political sleeve. And it’s not just him. All Republicans of recent years have gone out of their way to say that their Iron Age religious beliefs would be the basis of their presidencies.

Kevin D WilliamsonBut as I’ve written about too many times to list, modern American Christianity — and conservative Christianity most of all — is all about cultural signifying. There isn’t much theology going on. It is about Christianity being what the Good Guys believe in. And as such, it is tribal. And that’s why it is totally okay to dump all over Muslims, even if Islam and Christianity aren’t that different theologically. But it is more than that. Hatred of Muslims is pretty much the same as hatred of Mexicans. The Republican Party has the power it has because of deep-seated bigotry on the part of much of its base of voters.

Jonathan Chait wrote an excellent article Monday morning, How Conservatives Explain Away Republican Islamophobia. He mentioned several examples of Republicans making the argument that all this bigotry doesn’t say anything about their party. It’s really annoying, actually. I have no doubt whatsoever that people like Kevin Williamson aren’t personally against Muslims. But they are all firm supporters of the Republican Party as it is. And that is a party that depends upon courting these bigots with subtle and not-so-subtle rhetoric.

As Rick Santorum said about the man who wanted us to do something about the problem of Muslims in this country, “People are entitled to their opinions. We have a First Amendment for a reason.” That’s very much like Ted Cruz’s statement about the religious test: no one questions the man’s right to say those things. The question is whether Republicans are willing to correct this kind of vile thinking. And they aren’t. And the reason they aren’t is the same reason that so much of the base believes this nonsense: the Republican Party has spent decades pushing it, because it is the only way to get more than 50% of the country to vote for its vile economic policies.

Over the weekend, Frank Rich wrote, The Importance of Donald Trump. He summed it up well:

Republican potentates can’t fight back against [Trump] because the party’s base has his back. He’s ensnared the GOP Establishment in a classic Catch-22: It wants Trump voters — it can’t win elections without them — but doesn’t want Trump calling attention to what those voters actually believe… The candidates who have gone after Trump with the greatest gusto — Graham, Paul, Carly Fiorina, Jindal, George Pataki — have been so low in the polls they had nothing to lose… The others were painfully slow to challenge him. That cowardice was foretold in June when most of the presidential field waited days to take a stand against the Confederate flag following the Charleston massacre. If they’re afraid to come out against slavery a century after Appomattox…

All that Trump shows is that for most of the Republican base, the issue is just bigotry and a vague anger at the world. It isn’t about all the “great” ideas that the Republican Party has for solving America’s problems.

Anniversary Post: Black Friday 1869

GoldOn this day in 1869, gold prices plummeted in what was know as one of at least a dozen Black Fridays. What was happening was that two speculators, Jay Gould and James Fisk, were trying to corner the gold market. Following the Civil War, the US government was badly in debt. It was thought that the government would eventually have to pay this back with gold. So Gould and Fisk figured they could make a mint if they cornered the market. They succeeded at first, but were ultimately defeated when the Grant administration flooded the market with gold. Prices went back down within minutes of the news.

This was one of many scandals during the Grant administration — most of all because Grant’s brother-in-law was in on the whole thing and secretly encouraging Grant not to sell any gold. He also got Grant to appoint Daniel Butterfield as assistant Treasurer — where he acted as a mole for Gould and Fisk. I’m not actually that interested in any this. What most interests me is how easy it was for a small group of men to monkey with the price of gold. And if it weren’t for the government stepping in, they would have succeeded at their dastardly plan.

What I still don’t understand is why so many libertarian friends of mine have been so hung up on the idea of the gold standard. Basing a currency on gold does not magically fix the problem of inflation. In fact, inflation has been far less of a problem since we stopped basing our currency on it than it was before. Regardless, gold prices fluctuate. There is nothing special about it. I think the appeal of it is simply based upon the fact that these libertarians really don’t have a clue as to how money actually works.

If Pope Toed Republican Line, Catholic Republican Would Listen to Him

Paul GosarIf the Pope stuck to standard Christian theology, I would be the first in line. If the Pope spoke out with moral authority against violent Islam, I would be there cheering him on. If the Pope urged the Western nations to rescue persecuted Christians in the Middle East, I would back him wholeheartedly. But…

—Paul Gosar
Why I Am Boycotting Pope Francis’ Address to Congress

How Ideologues Poison Wikipedia

Bill McBrideBill McBride wrote a very interesting article that I want to expand on, Using Nomimal GDP to Mislead: a Bogus Reagan Wikipedia Sentence. Here’s the sentence, “[Reagan’s] economic policies saw a reduction of inflation from 12.5% to 4.4%, and an average annual growth of GDP of 7.91%; while Reagan did enact cuts in domestic spending, military spending increased federal outlays overall, even after adjustment for inflation.” I’m not that up on this kind of stuff, but I bristled at this bit of propaganda. Two things are clearly wrong with it: (1) Reagan should not be given credit for the reduction in inflation; (2) the GDP growth rate is just wrong — not that I knew what it was, but the US has never seen that kind of growth in my lifetime — no advanced economy does.

McBride pointed out three things. First, the decrease in inflation was due to Paul Volcker at the Fed. It it important to remember that Volcker’s work at the Fed is also probably the reason that Carter didn’t get a second term as president, since his policies really hurt the economy in the second half of Carter’s term. Second, the GDP growth rate is given in nominal terms — not adjusted for inflation. The real growth rate was 3.4%, which happens to have been the same as Carter’s growth rate. Reagan was no magician.

And third, the whole end of the sentence is wrong. Reagan did indeed raise domestic spending even after adjustment for inflation. This has been one of the most annoying things of the Obama era. Always before, during recessions, the federal government increased spending. But the Republicans have stopped Obama from doing this. So last year, we saw 2.4% GDP growth — which looks bad until you consider the drastic decline in government spending, because the Republicans know that their only way to power is to destroy the economy.

McBride is a pretty well known guy, so I was curious to see what happened to Wikipedia. His article was published on Tuesday in the afternoon. By late that night, the passage had been change. It was then technically accurate, while still providing the same basic impression, “During Jimmy Carter’s last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared with 4.4% during Reagan’s last year in office (1988)… and unadjusted GDP growth averaged 7.4% with a high of 12.2% growth in 1982.” They’ve actually made it worse by adding a deceptive and unnecessary comparison: Carter bad, Reagan good. And it left the largely meaningless unadjusted GDP growth rate, but at least it labeled it.

By this morning, the information was better, but not good, “During Jimmy Carter’s last year in office (1980), inflation averaged 12.5%, compared with 4.4% during Reagan’s last year in office (1988)… and real GDP growth averaged 3.44% with a high of 8.55% in 1983, while nominal GDP growth averaged 7.4%, and peaked at 12.2% in 1982.” So they left in the deceptive comparison to Carter and the nominal garbage data, but at least added the data on the real growth rate.

Notice how there is a reference to Carter regarding inflation, because it makes him look bad. But there is no reason to include Carter in this at all. It could just say, as McBride does, that inflation was 11.8% at the start of Reagan’s term and 4.5% at the end — still deceptive in that it gives Reagan credit for something that he didn’t do, but not too bad. Notice also that when mentioning Reagan’s GDP growth, the writers appear to have not thought it worth comparing to Carter — for obvious (very partisan) reasons.

I like Wikipedia a lot, but it is very prone to this kind of nonsense. Wikipedia provides a way for true believers to literally rewrite history. And they do. You may remember back in 2011, Sarah Palin said that Paul Revere “rang bells” while he was “warning the British” — apparently they were unaware that they were attacking. As a result, Palin fans went to the Paul Revere page and added the necessary new postmodern Sarah Palin history about the bells and who Revere was warning. A change would be made, the editors would take it out. And on and on. Eventually, the editors had to stop changes to the page for a while to let the “controversy” settle down.

That’s all we are seeing with the Reagan Wikipedia page. There are people who have deified Reagan. If they see that Wikipedia is saying that economic growth under Reagan was no better than under Carter, and that Reagan shouldn’t get much if any credit for decreased inflation, these people are going to change it. As much as I like Wikipedia, when it comes to people and issues like this, you really have to be careful.

Bill Maher Fails on Ahmed Mohamed

Ahmed MohamedI wasn’t planning on writing about Ahmed Mohamed – the 14 year old boy who got arrested for bringing a digital clock he had built to school. The reason was that I didn’t think it needed comment. I pretty much was that kid, although I didn’t get into this kind of stuff until I was in college. But I built pretty much the same thing outside of class when I was taking digital electronics. It’s a lot of work even if it doesn’t take a great deal of creativity — a fact that I’m sure Mohamed would agree with. But actually getting it to work is totally awesome! And I showed it to everyone, even though no one was as thrilled as I was.

So I totally get the kid. But it didn’t seem worth talking about him because of course everyone would see this as an obvious injustice. It’s like the dentist who killed the lion: everyone agrees so it is really meaningless. It would be like writing an article, “Everyone Is Right: Hitler Was a Bad Guy” or “Mothers Are Necessary for the Continuance of the Species.” But apparently, I was wrong to assume that everyone would be in agreement that the treatment of Mohamed was totally wrong. I hadn’t remembered that Bill Maher existed.

Heather at Crooks & Liars wrote, Bill Maher Justifies 14-Year-Old Being Arrested for Bringing Clock to School. And the video she provided (below) is amazingly vile. Maher is making the argument that this is not racism or even bigotry against Muslims because it just so happens that the last 30 years Muslims have been blowing stuff up. Maher seems totally unaware that bigots at all times and in all places had reasons for their bigotry. Southern segregationists were certain that African Americans were less intelligent and more violent. They had to be kept away from “our women folk.”

But it was worse than Maher. Mark Cuban made repeated mention of something nefarious supposedly going on because during his phone call with Mohamed, his sister was in the background giving him answers to questions. Now this means nothing, other than that maybe a 14 year old nerd isn’t the most media savvy, and mostly feels comfortable talking tech. And that might have something to do with why he wasn’t (by the standards of Mark Cuban) communicative enough with his teachers. But his comments blow apart Maher’s notion that Mohamed is owed an apology. Cuban is implying that there is something behind this all — maybe a test to see if the school was properly guarded against an attack that Mohamed’s sister plans in the future?!

Maher seems totally unaware that bigots at all times and in all places had reasons for their bigotry.

George Pataki was also there talking about “zero tolerance.” But they had already established that this never would have happened to a white kid. And the idea that this looks like a bomb is ridiculous. When I was a kid, my friends and I made bombs — although it might be more accurate to call them glorified firecrackers. But the thing about a bomb is that you need some material to explode. This was an empty case with a couple of circuit boards. If it “exploded,” the worst it would do is burn the hands of the person holding the box.

Heather pointed out something that gets to the very heart of this. She asked of the teachers and administrators, “If any of them actually believed that this kid brought a bomb to school, why wasn’t the school immediately evacuated?” And the answer is obvious: because none of them actually thought that. And rather than arresting Mohamed, why didn’t the police get a bomb expert while they simply detained the boy?

The problem here is exemplified with Maher, Cuban, and Pataki: they all find reasons to suspect a particular minority group. It wasn’t at all surprising that Jorges Ramos was the only one who made any sense. He has direct experience with the way the white majority makes up its own myths to justify its hatred of minority groups. History will not judge Maher as the brave truth teller he fancies himself on this issue. He will be seen as having a major blind spot about Muslims — kind of like Thomas Jefferson and slavery.