I learned from Matt Yglesias about The Conspiracy Theory Around Harry Reid’s Exercise Accident. As you have probably noticed, Harry Reid has been wearing sun glasses all the time now. And you may know that this is because his right eye (along with the bones in his face and ribs) was badly damaged in an exercising accident. But was it in exercising accident? Could it not have been that the mafia ruffed up the pugilistic Senator? Well, if you are a right wing freak, you think so. And if you are an “establishment” conservative like Byron York, well, then you are just asking questions.

Part of this conspiracy theory is just the result of the full embrace of postmodern analysis by the conservative movement. I still find it telling that conservatives abandoned their commitment to absolute values the movement they found themselves losing the argument on substance. But it is truly bizarre that so many of them went in the opposite direction to the belief that reality is whatever you say it is. That is the basis, after all, of Fox News. They aren’t lying when they claim to be “fair and balanced.” That’s because to them, “fair and balanced” is simply defined as what they are. The words have no meaning outside their propagandistic uses.

In the case of Harry Reid, conservatives just know he must be corrupt to the core. He is, after all, a politician. And a Democrat — or as conservatives would put it: not a Republican — not our “our team.” And he’s from Nevada. They’ve all seen The Godfather Part II, so they know that the mafia control the whole state. Given all of these things, Harry Reid must just be a puppet for the mob — a real life Pat Geary. The fact that the film took place in the 1950s doesn’t matter. Nor does it matter, as Matt Yglesias noted, the Vegas mob “was largely crushed in the 1980s.”

Another thing about Harry Reid that conservatives are skeptical about is just how he got to be so rich. But as with so many examples of conservative flights of fancy, the claim is not even true. Reid is rich — there’s no doubt of that. He’s is worth an estimated $6.8 million. But before he became a Senator, he was a successful attorney with a net worth of about a million dollars. The amount of money that he has now is “about what he would have obtained had he simply put his $1 million in the S&P 500 and reinvested the dividends.” If Harry Reid is corrupt, he sure is bad at it.

But the ultimate refutation of this claim that the mob got to him is the fact that Harry Reid is one of the most powerful politicians in the United States. As such, he has a security detail with him at all times. They were with him at the time of the accident. In fact, they drove him to the hospital. The story that the conspiracy mongers would have to tell would be something from Mission: Impossible with Tom Cruise coming in through the air ducts.

In addition to this, Yglesias noted that if the mob wanted to drive a point home, there are much better ways — like threatening to harm his family or threatening to expose him. But none of this matters. Conservatives claimed that Obama wasn’t a natural born citizen, even after they were shown his birth certificate and despite him being natural born regardless of his birthplace given that his mother was a citizen. Reality is whatever conservatives want to believe. But we won’t hear much more about this thing about Harry Reid because he isn’t President and he’s retiring anyway. But even in the time that I’ve been writing this article, Breitbart News published, Why Harry Reid’s Home Exercise Accident Story Does Not Add Up. And people wonder why we can’t even raise the minimum wage.

It’s typical of an amazing double standard in America that James O’Keefe is not on parole after having spent years in prison. It is certainly the case that he has done far more harm to individuals throughout the nation than any drug possession convict rotting in a federal prison right now. His totally deceitful ACORN “sting” ended with hundreds of honest people losing their jobs. Rather than doing due diligence, the mainstream media just followed the conservative media without doing any, I don’t know, journalism. And despite being scammed over that, the mainstream media have continued to follow his exploits as though they are something more than just a conservative hack using any technique at all to provide a false narrative of anything that conservatives currently don’t like.

This most recent case was O’Keefe’s hit on Cornell and then Barry University shows that he’s become a pathetic shadow of his former self. I’ll admit, it must be hard. After gaining the kind of attention that he has, people are understandably reticent to say anything that might get them into trouble. This newest video involves a student trying to start a club to help the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.” But clearly, doing that alone would raise red flags. For one thing: it is illegal to solicit funds for terrorist groups. But that hardly matters.

At Barry, the “undercover agent” never makes much sense. But the one thing that came across to me the first time I heard it was that she was clearly not talking about supporting the group. As Gary Legum at Wonkette noted, it is all phrased as humanitarian work for the purpose of stopping terrorist activity. Of course, in their conservative minds, the idea that terrorism has anything to do with social factors and not just “evil people” is risible. But this is how the “agent” starts talking about what she wants to do:

Much later in her rambling discussion, she mentions providing flashlights to fighters — but that is the extent of the whole thing. And given that she mutters, has nothing to say, and the poor administer is used to listening to students prattle on, I don’t think there is anything to see her. But that gets to the heart of what is wrong with the current state of the James O’Keefe “sting.” They can’t even manage a clear — if libelous — statement of bad behavior by a “liberal.” What was done in this case was something like this:

Except that it would have a lot of “like” mixed in there. But the point is that in the entire video — which is highly edited — they never were able to show that this administrator understands what the student is up to. The “agent” was clearly trying to make it clear to the viewer what she meant but most distinctly not to the administrator. Legum noted what O’Keefe and company is trying to show:

And so there you have it. These bozos aren’t even aiming at the mainstream media anymore. O’Keefe has a great gig, doing the equivalent of comedy videos for the conservative movement. In this case, the “joke” is that all liberals believe that terrorism has social roots. And they know the truth that all that can be done is to bomb everyone back to the stone age. Because that’s worked so brilliantly up to now.

See Also

Are we Surprised by James O’Keefe?
Death as Public Good
O’Keefe Loses Lawsuit But Sadly Not Credibility
James O’Keefe’s Tired Cons

I was reading a recent article by Alfie Kohn, Four Reasons to Worry About “Personalized Learning.” It’s about this “new” thing in education that involves forcing kids to learn the same old test-based skills but allowing them to take a “learning path just for them.” It reminds me of those old computer games where you would wander around a haunted house; you could do anything you wanted, but there was only one way to get out of the garden and so on. The whole thing is entirely typical of the modern American approach to education: treat children as though they are widgets that must all be milled in the same way. God forbid we would do something that can’t be systematized.

But he started the article by bringing up Alexis de Tocqueville. Conservatives love to quote Democracy in America because it says Americans are exceptional. But it is hardly laudatory. In particular, he noted the strange dissonance between American individualism combined with the “relentless pressure to conform.” So the government isn’t legislating that you act like everyone else; the society does it without being told. This is something I have noticed in my own life: the last thing Americans like is an actual individual. Kohn quoted sociologist John W Meyer to the effect that we are “free to expand as a standardized individual.”

This goes along with a common view of conservatives, “You are free to say anything you want — as long as you don’t say anything too outrageous.” In other words: you have freedom to say whatever you want as long as you do not, in fact, say whatever you want. In some ways, I don’t have a problem with this. I believe in the right of neo-Nazis to go around denying the Holocaust. I also believe as a society that we should we should marginalize such people. But in America, the range of opinion that is deemed acceptable — the Overton Window — is razor thin. (Although our wonderful mainstream media has done quite a good job of making extreme right-wing views far more acceptable!)

Kohn noted, “how our pitiful individuality was screwed to the backs of our cars in the form of customized license plates.” That does have an appealing rigidity to it: in California at least, the “individual” is allowed up to 7 characters — which can now include a “heart” symbol! But I actually think it is worse than that. People now pay for the privilege of advertising corporations. At least with a license plate, the “individual” has to use the system to say something about themselves. With the corporate t-shirt, she only has to decide that she too uses that product. She’s a “Duck Dynasty” person or a “Miller Light” person or for the truly “outside the box” thinker, an “Ubuntu” user.

Along these lines, Kohn also mentioned the Burger King “Have it your way!” campaign, “[W]e were now empowered to request a recently thawed slab of factory-produced ground meat without the usual pickle — or even with extra lettuce! In America, I can be me!” Sadly, I’m afraid that in his sarcasm, he’s right. In my experience, my fellow countrymen are an incredibly banal lot. There is something about this country that tends to sap our innate differences.

Terry Eagleton discussed this in his last book, Across the Pond (see my review):

It is disheartening to think that, like so many things about us Americans, our loud-mouthed declarations of our individuality are just a cover for what we know to be true: we are a bunch of cowardly conformists. I’m not suggesting that we change. We are who we are. But we either need to stop claiming to be individualists or accept those among us who do stray outside the razor-thin breadth of what all red-blooded Americans think.

Afterword

And yes, I do consider myself an actual individual, although I have been hammered into a more compliant shape from decades of good ol’ American “individualism.”

I haven’t waded into the whole Indiana “religious liberty” law because I’m not clear just what it means. But one thing is clear enough: those who have pushed the law are doing it for one reason and one reason alone: they want to be free to discriminate. I’m with Douglas Laycock that there are actual issues of religious liberty that we should care about. Just the same, the issue is about a man not being able to wear a funny hat at his job rather than a business having to serve Satanist. And even more important, minimum wage workers aren’t safe from firing when they speak to the press.

On 26 March, Mike Pence signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) into law. And less than a week later, we learned, Indiana Pizza Shop Is First to Publicly Deny Same-Sex Service. The claims made by the family that owns the shop are completely in keeping with what critics of the law have always maintained. The daughter of the owners, Crystal O’Connor, claims, “We’re not discriminating against anyone, that’s just our belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything.” The ignorance of this claim is breathtaking in how it conflates the act of discriminating with the belief that these people in same sex relationships will burn in hell.

Note that there really isn’t any difference between what O’Connor said and what segregationists said in the 1960s. Genesis 9:27 is very clear, “May God enlarge Japheth, And let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be his servant.” African Americans are not supposed to mingle with European Americans, unless they are in suits serving hors d’oeuvres. But that isn’t discrimination. Just because a pizza shop didn’t want to serve black patrons, that’s not discrimination against anyone, that’s just their belief and anyone has the right to believe in anything. Right? Right?!

Well, I suppose that there is one difference: the object of oppression. Then it was African Americans and now it is LGBT Americans. The distinction that people like the O’Connors always make is that one can’t help being an African American but one chooses to be gay. In fact, Crystal’s father Kevin said, “That lifestyle is something they choose. I choose to be heterosexual. They choose to be homosexual. Why should I be beat over the head to go along with something they choose?” But that’s kind of the opposite of reality. Being “black” is actually just a social construct. Racism is what creates race, not the other way around. I have no idea why any given person is sexually attracted to whom they are.

But I do think it is odd that homophobes like Kevin O’Connor claim that homosexuality is a choice; are they really claiming that the only reason they don’t become gay is out of some sense of obligation to God’s word? Because I have news for them: I’m reliably heterosexual and it has nothing to do with any sense of obligation. But apparently, Kevin O’Connor would abandon his family and move to the Castro if it weren’t for that meddling God telling him not to. Latent homosexual much, Kevin? Regardless, selling pizza for a same sex wedding does not denote approval of same sex marriage; it denotes approval of the one true religion of America: money.

Here’s what I don’t understand. If the O’Connors can’t offend their god by catering a gay wedding, does that mean they can’t similarly offend their god by catering a Buddhist wedding? And what if out of Indianapolis came the Big Gay Church of the Totally Divine God, and its believers thought that God only believed in same sex marriage? Then suddenly we have sincerely held religious beliefs on both sides. Whose “religious freedom” gets trumped?

To me, there is nothing special about religious belief. Everyone has beliefs that they hold dear. The government shouldn’t be in the business of deciding which beliefs are valid and which aren’t. The government has generally had no problem saying to religious people with rites involving banned drugs, “You still aren’t allowed to break our laws on banned drugs.” I’m more than willing to discuss that issue. But I don’t think the “religious freedom” warriors are going to be keen on allowing the Lipan Apache to use peyote, and I know they won’t accept my Big Doped Church of the Totally Stoned God and its belief in compulsory opium use.

Ed Kilgore at Talking Points Memo wrote, Reminder: We’ve Used “Religious Liberty” for Discrimination Before. And I think he sums the whole thing up really well, “Conservative Christians have long been vulnerable to the charge that they offer religious cover for what may be simple resistance to social change…” That’s really what this is all about. I don’t know if Kevin O’Connor is a closeted gay man or not. But I do know that his bigotry toward the LGBT community is not theological in nature. It is a social belief, just like my rather opposite views on the matter.