Only Authorized Religions Beyond This Point

Why has the "Ground Zero Mosque" been near the center of the national political discussion for more than two months? It is neither at ground zero (it's two-and-a-half blocks away) nor a mosque (it's more like a Muslim YMCA). Those two links give pretty good rundowns of what's actually going on. And, from what I can tell, lefty blogs have done a pretty good job responding on the issue. But, as is usually the case with these manufactured controversies, the facts and the rebuttal are always slower to come out and more boring to read than the shocking headlines shrewdly coined by right-wing activists.

The right wing and the Republican establishment have done with this story what they have done with thousands of stories before it. Their appeal is to conservative-minded, generally Christian, generally white Americans. A threat is depicted as coming from some group that is either non-Christian, non-white or, in the worst-case scenario, neither Christian nor white. What is being threatened exactly? Follow their explanations and reasoning down the rabbit hole and you'll pass through a fairy-tale version of America as they imagine it was in the 1950s or earlier. Follow a little further, and I think what you finally arrive at, what they feel is being threatened, is white protestant privilege. The funny thing is, they're right. They--the right-wing, the GOP establishment, and the folks they appeal to--long for an America that is less pluralistic and less democratic, like it used to be in those "good old days" that they're kinda vague about. They either want you to be just like them, or they want to be able to look down on you. But they're fighting against the current of American history and losing. And that's part of why they're so angry and confused.

There is no good reason why the government should step in and stop the construction of the Park 51 Islamic Cultural Center. Does anyone on the right seriously think there is? Or is this entirely a ploy to peg Democrats to a feared brown-skinned 'other' while wrapping the GOP in the flag? For how many blocks from Ground Zero should certain religions be prohibited? If we're going to call the whole area, for blocks around, "hallowed ground," do we demolish the strip clubs, sex shops, bars, liquor stores, banks, and pizza shops? Or how about the mosque that's already in the area, or the Hare Krishna facility, or the Buddhist center? Who gets to be the one to decide what is and is not allowed inside the hallowed-ground zone? Are there any other First Amendment protections we should suspend inside the zone, or should we just suspend freedom of religion, or just Islam?

This whole issue is utter nonsense, and the Right should pay a heavy political price for it. The president should do more than say he supports Muslims' freedom of religion; he should blast Republicans for such cynical and dishonest tactics. Progressive groups should do the same, and they are to some extent. The problem is that the rebuttal and retort need to have the same punch that "Mosque To Be Built At Ground Zero" does. If you can think of that bumper sticker-type comeback, let me know.

A Funny Place To Find Inspiration

I've been asking myself why I've taken an unplanned summer sabbatical from blogging. Here is, I think, one big reason: I'm pretty of sick of 24x7 political "news." I mean, aren't you? It's one manufactured controversy after another. And the corollary to that, which has had me feeling a little burned out, is how irrelevant and short-sighted the national political discussion seems to be.

"Today a flock of seagulls was spotted by beachgoers in Delaware. What does this mean for President Obama?! Let's have a Republican and a Democratic strategist debate it."

Meanwhile, the Huffington Post and the Drudge Report have to keep updating their headlines if they want to stay relevant. But if each day there are multiple shock-bomb, red-alert headlines from these sites, what do they do when something truly shocking happens?

It's like the story of the boy who cried, "It's the end of American democracy!" The first time the boy yelled, the people came running up the hill to help, but they found just another Congressman in a sex scandal. The second time the boy yelled, "It's the end of American democracy," the people came running up the hill, but they found only a trade imbalance with China. So, next time, when something really could be the end of American democracy--climate change? nuclear war? creeping white nationalism?--the boy may yell, but no one will take him seriously. They think it's the same old game.

Another reason I've drifted from blogging is that the stuff I've been thinking and reading about lately has been more macro and long-term in focus. What will America be like 30 years from now? Or 50? Will nation-states still be the dominant political units in 100 years? How will demographic shifts change the political culture in the America my children grow up in? (Actually, I'd like to take a stab at some of these questions, so expect future posts on these topics.)

So if the above are some reasons I've been gone, here is one reason I'm back. I mentioned in a previous post that I now work in an office where Fox News is blaring all day. Well, here's what I've learned, and I've watched enough that I feel qualified to say this. The people at Fox are not chiefly dumb, and they are not chiefly crazy. They are not just right-wingers barking knee-jerk reactions to the day's events. No. They are deliberate and hard working. They're purposeful. They're working hard every day to shape a narrative that, if accepted by the mainstream, would redraw America along a very reactionary line.

I don't want to live in the country they're trying to build, and neither do you. One of the most powerful things we can do to push back is to build a counter-narrative. You and I don't have a 24-hour cable network. But we do have friends and family and neighbors and coworkers who listen to us, and we have Facebook pages and community groups and blogs. We've heard this said a thousand different ways, but it's different when we learn it on our own: We really must speak the truth, or else lies will march all over us.

From Michelangelo to Michelle Malkin, From Botticelli to the Blonde Bombshells of Fox News

Since my last post, my wife and I have been on vacation in Italy. Rome, Pisa, Cinque Terre, Florence, Siena, Venice, Verona. I had thought about doing a post or two from an Internet cafe or something, but drinking local wine and seeing the Renaissance masters won out over blogging every time. The trip was fantastic and mind blowing on so many levels. For one thing, when you see 2,000 years of history in layers right before your eyes, you can't help but think long and hard about the human experience on this planet, about what changes and what remains, and about your own place in it all.

We walked into the Basilica of San Clemente in Rome, a church from the early 12th century, to look at the medieval mosaic behind the altar. In 1857, they discovered that beneath the church, is an older church founded around 392. An archaeologist basically punched through the floor and found it. We climbed down the stairs into the cool damp to see faded frescoes from the fifth or sixth centuries. Then more steps led down to a first century A.D. Roman house that was converted into a temple to Mithras, god of a late-Roman mystery cult that was popular among Roman soldiers.

And this was just one place that we easily might have missed.

We got back to DC on Sunday night, and the next morning I was starting work in a new office, where I'm on rotation for at least a year. There's a lot of new stuff to adjust to, but let me tell you the worst. I'm working in a big room with 40 or 50 other people sitting at computers, and all around the room there are TVs. The boss picks which channel they're on. My boss likes Fox News. So this week I watched over 40 hours of Fox. I think I could file a workers' comp claim for that. Even worse are the conversations that Fox inspires in the office. Yesterday I listened to a couple of guys nearby talk for half an hour about "the myth of climate change." I wanted to walk over and say, "Let's name some other areas where conservatives have ignored science for their own political gain."

Anyway, something's going to have to change, or this year will feel like 20.

Oil Spill: The Real Culprits

One of the many things I've been neglecting to do is blog about the oil spill. Well, here is the chief insight I have about the situation: It sucks. And we're constantly learning that it sucks even more than we previously thought. Sucks.

Here's another thing. It's ridiculous for people to pin this disaster on Obama. "Obama's Katrina" they want so desperately for us to call it. That's not gonna stick, because it doesn't make any sense.

There are two culprits here on which the political backlash must ultimately fall. The first is our oil dependence. As long as we continue to suck oil from the earth, there are going to be spills. The more wells, rigs, and tankers we have, the greater the odds of a major spill. Spills are simply one of the costs of oil. So why is there a major political movement in America calling, essentially, for greater dependence on oil? (Psst! Because the dominant influence in the conservative movement is the short-term interests of large corporations.) "Drill, baby, drill! Drill here, drill now!" Oh please. It's 2010. The quicker we can get off this stuff the better. But it should be no surprise that the major voices of the right want us to go backwards. That's what they do. That's their job as conservatives. They want to conserve stuff for those who have lots of stuff. Oil companies have lots of stuff. The rest of us ought to be working to create the Apollo program/Manhattan Project of alternative energy. This spill should be the kick in the butt that gets us started.

The second culprit is lax regulation of private industry. If enviro-economic disasters of this magnitude are possible (and they obviously are), then I want the federal government breathing down the necks of the oil companies. Or, have the government simply swallow the oil companies and run them for the public good. But oh my! That's a discussion for another post.

So, the Republicans who say this disaster should be the end of Obama--what are they really saying? What are they proposing? That the federal government should be better able to respond to disasters? Yes, I agree our government has been undermined by "government is bad" Reaganist ideology and tax cuts for the wealthy. Government should be bigger and better. Are they saying that we shouldn't be drilling for oil in the Gulf in the first place? I doubt they mean that, unless they've suddenly become radical environmentalists. Are they saying the Dept. of Interior should have prevented this from ever happening? I agree that we should have greater democratic controll of large corporations.

The oil spill is not, nor should it be, a political disaster for the left just because we have a Democratic president right now. But it is a disaster--environmentally and economically--for the Gulf Coast and the country. And if the country can see through the right's talking heads, it will be a disaster that spurs us on to something good.

Activists and Commandos

This wasn't one of my planned "Back to Bloggin'!" topics. In fact, I don't think I've ever blogged about Israel/Palestine.

But here's what I find shocking about the Israeli raid of the Gaza-bound activists' flotilla: Israel had plenty of advance warning that the boats were coming, and they still killed 9 people. This wasn't some sneak attack by the activists. It wasn't a fleet of smugglers that the Israeli Navy stumbled upon in the night. It was a big lumbering group of 700 activists carrying 10,000 tons of aid for the blockaded Gaza Strip. Their whole purpose was to run into Israel's Navy to call attention to the blockade and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The boats were world news before they even left Turkey. And one of the most advanced militaries in the world could not stop the ships without killing people.

The Israeli Defense Forces released video of the raid that showed people on the Mavi Marmara attacking with poles and clubs the IDF commandos who were rappelling onto the ship. It's understandable that those soldiers may have feared for their lives and therefore decided to shoot. And there's a lot of debate on the Internet right now about whether blame lies with the commandos or the activists. It's kind of missing the point. Exonerating the commandos does not exonerate Israeli leadership.

At some point, that's the direction this discussion has to turn. More people are going to be asking, Why has Israel sealed off Gaza from the world? What is life like in Gaza under the blockade? Why does Israel seem to play by its own rules on this stuff? That these questions are now in the global media shows that the protest had its intended effect, at least in the short term. But it's still sickening that 9 people were shot dead for it.

The Rumors of BTM's Death Are Greatly Exaggerated!

It's about time to get this blog back on the road. It's been three weeks since I last posted. I can sense you, good reader, drifting toward Glenn Beck-ism in the absence of my guidance.

Here are some upcoming posts on BTM:

• What the reactions to the oil spill say about the state of American politics.
• A funny thing happened on the way to the Jefferson Memorial.
• Geopolitical forecasting for the next century or so.

So turn off Fox News, close the Drudge Report, and ignore the forwarded emails from your right-wing uncle. We're getting the band back together!

Republicans On A Plane: Things Overheard

Last Friday, April 30th, I was flying from DC to Atlanta to visit family. Standing at the gate at Reagan Airport, waiting to board my flight, I began getting strong readings on my Republidar (radar for detecting Republicans). I looked around and noticed an unusual number of middle-aged white men in suits. They all seemed to know each other, all seemed really satisfied with themselves, and all were wearing matching lapel pins. There were even a couple in light-toned suits with cowboy hats. I knew they had to be Republican congressmen.

At first I didn't recognize any of them. But when I finally boarded and took my seat, I saw that I was sitting across the aisle from Rep. Tom Price (R-GA). This is Tom "I object! I object!" Price, one of the former medical doctors in the House Republican conference. Strangely, in the recent health care debate it was really important to him that many Americans remain unable to visit a doctor. Sitting on Price's left was a Tea Party guy (he said he'd been to a Tea Party rally recently) who was happy as hell to be sitting next to a Republican representative. The guy talked Price's ear off, and to Price's credit, he engaged the guy in conversation for almost the entire flight, even though the Congressman was visibly exhausted. Their conversation, from what I could hear, was normal conservative stuff about government being completely inept and useless. I wanted to lean across the aisle and say, "Congressman, if government really is that worthless, will you please resign from Congress?"

I later learned that one of the guys sitting in front of me was Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), another former medical doctor who worked hard to prevent more Americans from getting medical coverage. Back in March, Broun compared health care reform to--I kid you not--"the Great War of Yankee Aggression." Real champions of the people, these guys. What is it with Southern Republicans glorifying the Confederacy?

Oh, there was an actual champion of the people on the flight. Just before they closed the main cabin door, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) hurried on board. As he walked past my row, he saw Price and Broun and joked, "Oh, look at the friendly faces!" They didn't crack a smile or say a word. When Grayson was out of ear shot, Price said to Broun and Tea Party Guy, "In November, we are gonna send him home."

When we landed and pulled up to the gate in Atlanta, I was standing in the aisle between Broun and Price, who were talking about "the agenda for next year." Broun seemed really excited. He said he'd been talking with people (I presume other House Republicans) about being "really bold" and doing "really big stuff." They both talked about running their plans by John Boehner and Eric Cantor, the Republican Leader and Republican Whip. They were certain about Republicans taking the majority in the House. Speaking of the elections in November, Broun said to Price, "I'm hearing from [name I forget]'s pollster that it's gonna be anywhere from 60 to 70 seats." Price answered, "Yeah, I'm hearing 60 seats, 60 seats."

So there you have it. The Confederates are confident. They're practically measuring the drapes in the Speaker's office. I don't know; maybe they will take the majority. But I think in 2012, Democrats riding on Obama's coattail would take it back. And in the long run, America is moving steadily to the Left, and the Confederates/Republicans are on the wrong side of history.