Thursday, January 29, 2015

The Whistle In The Wind

By Carl

Poor Jon Chait.

He had the audacity to question whether the right of free speech comes with a responsibility on the part of both the speaker and the listener, and got hammered for it. In other words, he took on "political correctness" and in what may be one of the grandest moments of self-reinforcing demonstration, got spanked by the very movement he sought to critique.

First, let me say this: the First Amendment is the one nearest and dearest to my heart, and in particular, the right to speak my mind freely. It's what allows me to maintain this blog, and allows you to read it. Voltaire was credited* with once saying, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." This is what the First Amendment should embody. 

Second, Chait's article, the examples he raises within it, and the backlash he's received from the posting have nothing to do with free speech as you and I understand it. Our right to free speech is a contract between ourselves and our government, as it should be. In exchange for freely allowing us to speak our minds, the government is asking us to frame that speech with moderation, respect and tolerance; in other words, to self-govern. Self-government goes directly to the heart of the nation. 

Even John Stuart Mill agreed that free will is fine, in moderation. He deplored the act of imposing your will on someone else. The famous example he raised was doing harm to yourself, which is fine, so long as you harm no one around you -- including harm by omission, such as the case of not saving a drowning child, or failing to pay your taxes. (This is why -- despite the fact that #JeSuisCharlie -- I have a problem with Charlie Hebdo, but I digress.) 

Mill even goes so far as to postulate that a nation of barbarians does not deserve freedom, that despotism may be the only legitimate form of governance for a people like that. 

In short, Mill argues that every freedom comes with a responsibility: the greater the freedom, the greater the responsibility. To speech in particular, Mill points out that it needs to be unfettered, because even in the most objectionable idea lies a kernel of truth. 

It may not be the kernel of truth that the speaker intends, to be sure, but there is a truth in every viewpoint. For instance, if I say "I hate Brussels sprouts," the truth may not be that Brussels sprouts are horrible disgusting vile things that make me retch, but that I've never had them properly prepared. You can extrapolate from there the kinds of free speech that can come up and what truths they may contain.

Note then that this comes under the banner of responsibility. The individual speaking his mind needs to keep in his thoughts that he is addressing people who may not agree with him, and so needs to exercise some self-governance. For instance, instead of saying "I hate Brussels sprouts," I could say, "I dislike..." or "They leave a bad taste in my mouth." The speaker, keeping in mind he may cause damage to someone, needs to be circumspect in his words.

Here's the tricky part: in a "polite society," there is also a responsibility on the part of the listener to something objectionable, and here's where Chait is onto something. 

Since every opinion contains a kernel of truth and therefore has equal right to be spoken, every opinion has to be weighed on its merits and sifted through for the truth it contains. This implies a duty on behalf of the listener to stop, breathe, and think. To ask questions. 

If, after that, there is still a vehement disagreement, then it's a difference of opinion. This doe snot mean that one opinion is better than the other, but that truths have been revealed and it's up to us to decide the truths on their merits. 

Let's beat the dead horse of Brussels sprouts: you make the case that they are nutritious, full of fibre and vitamins, and when properly prepared, can be quite tasty (not in my book, that;s for damned sure). I make the case that all that's fine, but if I can't eat them, how will I benefit?

We may not come to an agreement, but society as a while now has a body of evidence upon which to make judgements for the greater good. Perhaps the majority will influence eating habits by encouraging the sale of Brussels sprouts, thus showing me to be the loser in the argument.

It won't change my opinion. Take it one step further: suppose now society decides that anyone who doesn't like Brussels sprouts is to be made to conform? Or, they exercise what Mill called "the tyranny of the majority"? 

Here's where Mill raises an interesting point: it's one thing for a majority to socially suppress an unpopular opinion, but it becomes a real problem when that majority resorts to the laws and government as a strong-arm tactic to suppress an unpopular opinion. 

We're seeing this more and more in America and that scares me a little. How many states have passed laws banning abortion in the wake of Roe v. Wade? Or have tried to codify Creationism into the education curricula? 

It's one thing for university students to petition to ban Bill Maher or Ayaan Hirsi Ali from speaking on campus, it's quite another for a community to ban hoodies

Chait raises the spectre of this in his article, wight he example of Hannah Rosin:
Two and a half years ago, Hanna Rosin, a liberal journalist and longtime friend, wrote a book called The End of Men, which argued that a confluence of social and economic changes left women in a better position going forward than men, who were struggling to adapt to a new postindustrial order. Rosin, a self-identified feminist, has found herself unexpectedly assailed by feminist critics, who found her message of long-term female empowerment complacent and insufficiently concerned with the continuing reality of sexism. One Twitter hashtag, “#RIPpatriarchy,” became a label for critics to lampoon her thesis. Every new continuing demonstration of gender discrimination — a survey showing Americans still prefer male bosses; a person noticing a man on the subway occupying a seat and a half — would be tweeted out along with a mocking #RIPpatriarchy.
Her response since then has been to avoid committing a provocation, especially on Twitter. “If you tweet something straight­forwardly feminist, you immediately get a wave of love and favorites, but if you tweet something in a cranky feminist mode then the opposite happens,” she told me. “The price is too high; you feel like there might be banishment waiting for you.” Social media, where swarms of jeering critics can materialize in an instant, paradoxically creates this feeling of isolation. “You do immediately get the sense that it’s one against millions, even though it’s not.” Subjects of these massed attacks often describe an impulse to withdraw.
It is kind of brutal that a mass of dissenters descended on Rosin and effectively silenced her. Goodness knows, there have been plenty of times I've risked friendships for my feelings and opinions, no matter how carefully and sensitively I've phrased and expressed them, and I confess a certain clumsiness in both those arenas when faced with ignorance. 

And Amanda Marcotte's article (linked to above) points out that, indeed, there is a need on the left for a vigorous debate on unpopular opinions and not an immediate silencing and, more important, censoring of dissenters. 

It is easy to claim the mantle of victim when you read or hear something that offends you. I say I support Israel, but that Netanyahu is the wrong man for her leader, and suddenly I'm pro-Palestinian. Rather than judge the merits of that statement, people will read what they want to into it (that statement is an accurate reflection of my feelings, I should note), ignoring the fact that Netanyahu may have annoyed me for other reasons, like his attempt to grandstand in Congress this year or his signal disapproval of our President and his encouragement of conservatives' attempts to degrade and debase President Obama. 

All I'm saying is to keep a civil tongue and a civil ear. And to listen, really hard, for the whistle in the wind. 

* it was actually Evelyn Beatrice Hall, which is why you never see this rendered in French.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, January 10, 2015

The subtlety of monolithic Islam bigotry

By Frank Moraes

On Wednesday, I published "Je Suis Charlie." And I stand by most of what I wrote. But there was one thing that I wrote that was based upon hearsay rather than actual research: "In the case of Charlie Hebdo, any outrage is totally unjustified because the magazine took on everyone." It was also based upon the cover illustration to the left that mocked both a Muslim and a Hasidic Jew. But I think there might be a problem with this contention.

Yesterday, Glenn Greenwald wrote "In Solidarity With a Free Press: Some More Blasphemous Cartoons." It is a reaction to a push by many all over the political spectrum who claim that we should celebrate the offending cartoons that supposedly caused the recent massacre of innocents in Paris. It is an interesting and thoughtful analysis of the issue. (Contrast it with Jonathan Chait's incredibly uninteresting response, "Charlie Hebdo Point-Missers Miss Point.") I'm not quite sure where I stand on it. But this part struck me:

With all due respect to the great cartoonist Ann Telnaes, it is simply not the case that Charlie Hebdo "were equal opportunity offenders." Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will rarely (if ever) do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews.

I don't speak French, so I'm not in a position to say. But it made me realize that the cover illustration above may actually indicate the fundamental problem with my own thinking. The problem, as I now see it, is that the Muslim is generic and the Jew is not. The implication is simply, "all Muslims and particular Jews." But I don't think that this is intentional. It is more along the lines of, "All Japanese look alike!" What such claims actually mean is that the speaker has little experience with Japanese people. (I've had this problem myself -- cured by years of Japanese cinema watching.)

It is pathetic, of course, that I now feel I must mention that I'm free speech absolutist. It is not just that it is obviously wrong to kill people for the "offense" of saying things you disagree with. The idea that people should not have the right to encourage draft resistance during a war ("shouting fire in a crowed theater") is simply ridiculous. Just the same, it is curious, isn't it, that we do not have such clearly political -- First Amendment -- rights, but we do have the right to snipe at minority groups in any way that we choose -- including "the right of neo-Nazis to march through a community filled with Holocaust survivors..."

According to Juan Cole, two-thirds of Muslim heritage French people don't even consider themselves religious -- much less "radical." The problem here is that even among the very small world population of Jews (less than 20 million), we distinguish. But the 1.6 billion Muslims are monolithic for us. And that's why that Charlie Hebdo cover struck me as fairly even-handed (I would have preferred a Christian in there -- but intolerance is not limited to any religion or non-religion).

Bigotry is, at base, about classification -- treating individuals as members of a group. It is a very big issue that I fight with in myself constantly regarding racism. I fear that many people who, like me, worry about racism, don't worry about such grouping problems when it comes to religion. After all, people supposedly choose their religions. There are a couple of problems with that. First, people don't choose their religions. Almost every religious person is a member of the faith they grew up in. Second, as we know only too well, there is very little that can be generalized about a hippy Unitarian and a right-wing evangelical Protestant. The same is true of all people. I'm sure there are even cruel Jains.

I would hate for the tragedy in Paris to leave us with nothing but what we should have always known: people shouldn't be killed because others find them offensive. Worse still is the idea that this is all about Islam, because if these actions really spoke of the religion, those 1.6 billion Muslims would have forced us to live under a worldwide caliphate by now. I suppose that it is asking too much for everyone to take this as an opportunity to examine themselves. But it really is on all of us non-Muslims, because it isn't like the terrorists are going to start wearing "gang colors." And it is wrong to ask Muslims to abandon their heritage so we can better spot those we ought to fear. (Not that it would work, of course.)

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, January 08, 2015

The Cowardice of Extremism

By Carl

The radical Islam movement shares some things in common with the radical Reactionaries in America. Among them is the promotion of fear as a way to both unify and discipline those who would nominally identify superficially with their cause.

To-wit, let me bring in Juan Cole:
Read more »

Bookmark and Share

Monday, January 05, 2015

The Cowardice of Mortality

By Carl

A couple of studies floated to the surface last year in the debate about ammosexuality that I found interesting, not so much for what they concluded -- we all sort of knew this stuff instinctually -- but for the implicit underlying meaning when you put two and two together.

Read more »

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

A year gone to pot

By Carl

This past year has been one of so many developments in American culture that it would be hard to pick any one thing as a signal event in the course of our nation.

From the full implementation of the surprisingly effective Obamacare to the grand jury decisions in New York and Ferguson, MO, with stopovers at the broad expansion of marriage equality and Ebola outbreaks both in Africa and here, there's a lot to mull over, a lot that will move forward with us into the new year and beyond.

For all the world, it looked like it would be a horrible year for President Obama, despite the success of the ACA. The 2014 mid-term elections were a disaster (sort of. More in a few.) and it looked like an earnest effort to impeach him might gain traction in the House next year, backed by a newly-minted Republican Senate. Democrats and Progressives seemed as tho their work was cut out for them.

And then Obama -- finally -- flexed a little muscle. From immigration reform to the renewal of relations with Cuba, Obama single-handedly salvaged a terrible year and turned it into one of the most successful years of any President in history. Abe Lincoln might have had a more successful year in 1865 if he hadn't been assassinated in April.

Read more »

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, December 30, 2014

The Mangione Brothers Sextet - "Something Different" (1960)

By Richard K. Barry

Though Chuck Mangione would become an international superstar in the 1970s with smooth jazz mega-hits like "Feels So Good," and "Chase the Clouds Away," he started out as a bebop trumpeter in the Dizzy Gillespie tradition. 

While Chuck was studying at the Eastman School, he and his brother Gap (keyboards) co-led a bop group called The Jazz Brothers, which recorded several albums for the Jazzland label. 

About this 1960 album called The Jazz Brothers, and on which this tune below appears,  Scott Yanow at AllMusic writes this was "not only the debut recording of trumpeter Chuck Mangione but is the first appearance on record by tenor saxophonist Sal Nistico and pianist Gap Mangione. Drummer Roy McCurdy; altoist Larry Combs and bassist Bill Saunders complete the group." 

Good players earlier in the process. 

I can't blame Mr. Mangione for wanting to make a good living from his music, and I'm not necessarily down on smooth jazz, it's just nice to know he can really cook when he wants to.

The group recorded two more albums, and then moved on. 

(Cross-posted at Listening to Now.)

Labels: ,

Bookmark and Share

Rep. Michael Grimm (R-Staten Island) to resign from Congress

By Richard K. Barry

Initially Rep. Grimm said he would continue to serve in the House after entering a guilty plea on felony tax evasion charges. That was until he got called into principal Skinner's office, I mean House Speaker John Boehner's office.

Truth is, this seems a strange thing to land a Republican in the dog house, given how much the GOP hate taxes. Perhaps Boehner explained to Grimm that the GOP prefers to do things the old fashioned way: use the power of the state to lower taxes for the wealthy rather than flout laws that have yet to be changed in their favour.

Grimm's impatience made him forget an essential rule of politics: it's easier to get away with theft on a grand scale than to muck about with petty larceny. Boehner must have been very disappointed.

Bookmark and Share

Monday, December 29, 2014

Thought Experiment

By Carl

You work for the only business of any substance in town. You make a nice income.

Your boss decides he needs to build a spite fence around a store all the way across town because it threatens his supply of some widget he needs to keep the company going, and he's afraid, terrified, if the price of that widget rises, he'll have to work harder to keep prices in check. Also, employees of another store have been seen shopping in his store, and those guys play rough. He tells you that you have to take a pay cut, because he and his friends will need to spend a lot of money building this defense and putting up a new security system around the shop, and his friends don't work cheap.

Do you agree quietly, or do you argue and protest that you need the money to put your kid through college?

Now, let's say that same boss comes to you and tells you that the janitor, George, is in deep trouble: his family can't afford food or medical care, his wife works two jobs, as does George, but they still can't make ends meet. He tells you that he needs to slice a tiny fraction of everyone's salary to help him stay at this job, because he works hard.

Do you agree quietly, or do you argue and protest that you need the money to put your kid through college?

This is 21st Century America, in a nutshell.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Bookmark and Share