Who do we shoot?

Here's one of my favorite scenes from John Ford's film adaptation of Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. Muley and his son confront The Man who has arrived to evict them from their Oklahoma farm. Muley, played by John Qualen (the condemned sad sack fom His Girl Friday), clings to his shotgun:

MULEY: You mean get off my own land?

THE MAN: Now don't go blaming me. It ain't my fault.

SON: Whose fault is it?

THE MAN: You know who owns the land -- the Shawnee Land and Cattle Company.

MULEY: Who's the Shawnee Land and Cattle Comp'ny?

THE MAN: It ain't nobody. It's a company.

SON: They got a pres'dent, ain't they? They got somebody that knows what a shotgun's for, ain't they?

THE MAN: But it ain't his fault, because the bank tells him what to do.

SON: All right. Where's the bank?

THE MAN: Tulsa. But what's the use of picking on him? He ain't anything but the manager, and half crazy hisself, trying to keep up with his orders from the east!

MULEY: (bewildered) Then who do we shoot?

A host of demagogues these days are eager to answer Muley's question. "Want to know who to blame?" they ask, "We'll tell you."

"Shoot the Mexicans," says Lou Dobbs. "Shoot the lazy blacks on welfare," says Grover Norquist. "Shoot the atheists," says James Dobson. "And the gays," adds his chief politico, Tony Perkins. "Shoot the Islamofascists," say Dick Cheney, George W. Bush and the rightwing bloggers. "Shoot 'em all," says Fox News.

None of those suggestions, of course, are of any use to Muley or to his contemporary counterparts, because none of those scapegoats are really the source of their problems. But the demagogues don't give a rat's ass about solving Muley's problems. Their only concern is making sure that he keeps his shotgun pointed somewhere else, somewhere that doesn't threaten the status quo.

Such demagogues are con artists. And they're good at it. But recognizing that is where things get tricky and difficult to talk about.

Good con artists are difficult to prosecute. This is true, in part, because getting conned is viewed differently than being the victim of other forms of crime. There's a sense of shame, or at least of embarrassment, on the part of the victims, so they're less likely than other crime victims to report the crimes. Con artists know this, and they exploit it -- sometimes compounding that embarrassment by working a con that relies on the mark's greed or chauvinism or some other trait they are unlikely to be proud of and thus making the victim feel complicit in their own victimhood.

It's never easy to tell someone they're being conned. "You've been hoodwinked. You've been had. You've been took," Malcolm X said. "You've been bamboozled." But nobody wants to hear that, even if it's true. Especially not if it's true. It sounds too much like, "You've been a sucker." Or even, "You've been stupid." It seems to add insult to injury so people reject both the message and the messenger. Even if that means continuing to subject themselves to the ongoing injury of the scam. They are, after all, accustomed to it.

Consider, for example, the state-run lotteries. These "games" (scratch-off cards? What joyous fun!) are exempt from federal truth in advertising laws because they aren't fair games -- the pay-out is woefully disproportionate to the odds. Having to explain that the state-sponsored lottery is a stacked deck and a bad bet would likely result in fewer people "playing" (Wheee!), and thus a reduction in the revenue from these lotteries.

That exemption and the lotteries themselves are con games. Yet no politician is ever going to say that. To say that would cost that politician votes across the board. Those who don't waste their money on the lotteries would realize that such a politician was threatening to cut off a sleazy-but-significant source of state revenue that doesn't cost them a penny. That would mean, for them, either an increase in taxes or a reduction in services -- not a popular message. Those who do "play" the lottery would interpret "You've been hoodwinked" as "You're stupid," and that's not going to win many votes either.

The demagogue/con-men wouldn't be sitting idle, either, if some recklessly principled politician were to take such a stance. They would attack that politician as, of course, an "elitist," portraying her or him as sneering and condescending to the salt-of-the-earth, just folks, red-blooded Americans of the heartland. "You've got a chance to keep your farm, Muley," they would say. "You just need to win the lottery. But those elitists don't want you to have that chance. ..."

That cry of "elitism" always follows any attempt to cast light onto what Rick Perlstein calls "The Big Con." A chorus of such cries greeted Thomas Frank's book What's the Matter With Kansas? That book offers an insightful look at how the scapegoating of "liberal elites" has become an integral aspect of maintaining the Big Con. It was thus bitterly ironic, but not at all surprising, that the scapegoaters seized on its publication as a chance to attack Frank as an "elitist" or "limousine liberal." "You see that, Muley?" the demagogues said. "He thinks there's something wrong with you. We like you just the way you are."

This brings us, of course, to Barack Obama and the ridiculousness of the past week here in the Keystone State. At a fundraiser in California, Obama was asked, in essence, "What's the matter with Pennsylvania?" His answer echoed much of Frank's analysis:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. ...And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

That is, among other things, an astute summary of many of the bugbears and distractions the demagogues employ in order to keep the red states red and the shotguns pointed somewhere else.

It was entirely predictable that the demagogues would respond to Obama the same way they responded to Frank. "Elitism!" they cried, tripping over themselves in their best attempts to convey offendedness, desperately trying to brand Obama as a "latte liberal." (The fact that the epithet for a prominent candidate of mixed-race heritage turned out to be "latte" is, of course, a wholly innocent accident of alliteration and it would be wrong to read anything more into that.)

"Then who do we shoot?"

Muley's question is still, more or less, the question asked by every dispossessed, disenfranchised and desperate American family, by everyone whose life seems to be a series of long-odd, low-payout gambles in a rigged game.

We need to be able to talk about this. The Muleys of this world have been ill-served. They've been hoodwinked. They've been had. They've been took. They've been bamboozled. And they will continue to be treated the same way until we find a way to address this honestly.

So we need to be able to talk about this. We need to become the kind of people who are capable of talking about this. If the past week is any indication, we're not there yet.

Comments

[Boze]

This is the best analysis I've read of those remarks last week.

Although I tend to support Republicans, I was fairly impressed with Obama's speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004, and (rather in spite of myself, I confess) I was moved by the speech that he gave when he came to Austin in February of last year. I haven't wanted to believe in him because my disappointment in President Bush has taught me that no politician can be credible, thoughtful, visionary, eloquent, or sincere. "Put not your trust in princes," said Daniel Patrick Moynihan, quoting the Psalms. But the more Obama rages with his "reckless principles" and reckless honesty, the more I begin to believe. And the more I'm convinced there isn't a chance that he can be elected when the day of choosing comes.

[Otter]

I thought it would never happen. I thought the useful idiots backed by the corporations, the banks, and the bosses would always beat the sane, the smart, and the truthful.

But in the spring of last year, in the last weeks of a crowded Democratic primary for mayor of Philadelphia, everyone just said no. Some kind of invisible consensus hit like a sudden rainstorm, and the newspapers saw the writing on the wall and endorsed the best guy, and the voters voted for him, and we sent the two Congressmen and the millionaire packing in favor of a City Councilman who was smart, and sane, and truthful.

It can be done. (But Mayor Nutter, did you have to endorse Hillary?)

Excellent point. I admit I have no idea how to fight demagoguery.

the pay-out is woefully disproportionate to the odds.

Is Fred suggesting that the states and their lottery contractors are fixing the games to maximize their take? I see that as very likely. I know that electronic slot machines are designed like Skinner boxes, offering just enough payout to keep players hooked.

(The fact that the epithet for a prominent candidate of mixed-race heritage turned out to be "latte" is, of course, a wholly innocent accident of alliteration and it would be wrong to read anything more into that.)

Proof that I don't drink coffee - I had to look up "latte" to understand Fred's point.

[Karen]

"You see that, Muley?" the demagogues said. "He thinks there's something wrong with you. We like you just the way you are."

That's the heart of the problem. The elites really don't like Muley the WAY he is, but the certainly prefer that he stay in the PLACE he is -- way down the ladder from them. And if it takes having him shoot the people further down, so be it. We liberals, on the other hand, think that Muley is capable of improving himself, by, among other things, getting over the idea that the Mexislamohomowhatevers are taking over the world and making his life miserable. That we also think that Muley deserves a better life doesn't make any difference. There is much truth to the old saying about "the Devil you know" being preferable to the angel you haven't met. They KNOW what it's like to be a little miserable; they've adjusted to that. Trying to improve might work, or it might just make things that much worse. That's why successful revolutionaries are always from the middle class and not the peasantry. We're used to safety, but they live close enough to the edge to know what they're risking.

[burgundy]

Maybe we're framing it wrong? The issue is not that the Muleys have been had - most people have been had, it's just that some of us are doing well out of the Con so we don't have to question it. But it's not like everyone else is walking around with their eyes wide open and it's just a few sad sacks getting snookered.

[Rick Perlstein]

Thanks for the mention. You've given me some homework.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/did-i-mention-name-blog-sociological

[jamoche]

Don't remember where, but I read something once (and probably remember it incorrectly, but I'm sure I'll be corrected :) ) that most revolutions don't happen because things are bad. People adapt, they get used to whatever state they're in. Revolutions happen when things change - either suddenly get worse, or get just a bit better when it seems obvious it could get a lot better.

[connie]

Your "cling to guns and religion" link is an odd choice--I thought it would refer to that Mormon group in Texas--instead, the news article begins, "In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching..."

Whatever word comes after "teaching", this is a bad idea. The Scopes Trial ended the same way: teachers were barred from teaching, students were barred from learning. The only way to defeat wrong ideas is to bring them into the light, expose them as false, and move on. Whether it is evolution or intelligent design, the major ideas and problems of each should be taught, allowing the students to see which is more scientifically valid.

Students hear these theories argued on the evening news, it would be nice for them to know what is being argued (this article at msnbc proves that intelligent design is in the news). Keeping the students ignorant of intelligent design is foolish and short-sighted.

[LL]

I do think Obama's answer could have been better (I DON'T agree that it was elitist, but of course it would be taken that way, the same way Hillary's "stay at home and bake cookies" comment was taken out of context and made into an insult that it wasn't). I think he should have asked back, "What IS wrong with Pennsylvania?" Made the questioner list the things wrong and then addressed how he hoped to help. Make the press work for him. Eh, maybe I've been working in advertising too long.

Yeah, I'm sick of the "elitist" BS too, though I think it is starting to backfire on the Republicans. After too long under their "non-elitist" rule, I think a lot of people are beginning to think that a president you can have a beer with is not as important as a president who can operate a doorknob and doesn't go around saying shit like, "I have a mandate" and "I am the Decider." Somebody who doesn't publicly congratulate people who have monumentally botched fairly important things that the Republicans always claim they can do better than Democrats.

All I ever hope for from a president is that he/she doesn't make things worse. I don't dare to hope he can make things better.

[Gramina]

"The Muleys of this world have been ill-served. They've been hoodwinked. They've been had. They've been took. They've been bamboozled."

...They've been cheated. They've been lied to. Those are words that don't push the "Are you saying I've been stupid??" buttons quite as strongly; and they're true words. A system has been established that has the clear and unavoidable (within that system) effect of giving power to the powerful, and taking power away from those who have very little to start with. Any kindergartener will call that "cheating" and say "but that's not fair!"

I still don't know how to make it clear to people who desperately want to believe that they could win the lottery/ slots/ whatver, or more importantly that they could do the social and economic equivalent. The lure of "as long as there's an elite, I might be able to join it" seems utterly irrationally powerful.

Chicken and the egg: how do we eliminate that desire to "rate" -- not just to have power, but to have *more than* someone else? I just don't know.

[hf]

Religion, yes. Church attendance correlates with certain traits that in turn correlate with fear and lack of education*, both of which may relate to poverty. I'm less sure about the guns. Seems like that would only hold true for militia types, not people who enjoy hunting or the shooting range.

Connie, what do you believe the words "ignorant of intelligent design" mean?

*Probably because college lets you meet different people and have new experiences, not because of 'intelligence'.

[not someone else]

Chicken and the egg: how do we eliminate that desire to "rate" -- not just to have power, but to have *more than* someone else? I just don't know.

Well, generally, channel it into something that doesn't fuck with other people.

Thus, the existence of sports and other competitive games.

[jamoche]

The words that come after "teaching" are "in biology class". Since it's not science, it doesn't belong in biology class. But most of the people who object to non-science being taught in a science class have no problem with it being taught in a non-science class, where it's obvious that it is, in fact, not science.

[josh]

"Shoot Bush" say the 'liberals'; "shoot the businesses" "shoot the rednecks" "shoot those foreigners stealing your jobs" "shoot those ignorant religious people" &etc

Fun, isn't it?

[ChristianPinko]

But Fred, Paul Krugman reported that in fact low-income Americans do NOT vote Republican (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin). His assertions are supported by CNN's exit poll data from the 2000 election (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/index.epolls.html) and 2004 election (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html). If anything, it's better-educated liberals who've been bamboozled into thinking that lower-income Americans don't understand which party is on their side.

My supposition is that nowadays people don't realize how prosperous the white working class in fact is. Their wages have stagnated for the last several decades, but they are stagnating at a high level. (If you like, check out Census data to see how low poverty rates are among whites.) I think that people are confusing working-class culture (drinking Bud, NASCAR, classic rock, etc.) with low income.

The white working class abandoned the Democrats because they had become part of the "haves." Largely due to New-Deal and post-WW2 liberalism, white working Americans have been able to buy homes in the suburbs, and vote for Republicans who will protect their stuff from the angry brown underclass.

[Brel]

Josh is to a fair degree right. It is not just conservatives but also those of every ideology that attempt to give stock answers to people's problems. The way to heal the susceptibility of the masses to demagoguery must thus be broad enough to address all types of "con artists".

My suggestion? Give them all--us all--the vision to see everyone around us as dealing with what is ultimately the same strain of suffering merely manifesting itself in different ways. When they understand that the impoverished black man, the homosexual, the atheist, the illegal immigrant, and yes, the rich capitalist who is so blinded by monetary gain as to view suicide as a viable option for dealing with financial loss are all broken... then we might be getting somewhere.

[Geds]

It was entirely predictable that the demagogues would respond to Obama the same way they responded to Frank. "Elitism!" they cried, tripping over themselves in their best attempts to convey offendedness

The thing that completely boggles my mind about this one was this: isn't it the media elites yelling the loudest about Obama's elitism? I mean, I'm not up on my blue collar Pennsylvania political blogging, but the fact that neither Obama no Clinton's polls budged while the media was accusing Obama of elitist looking down upon-ness tells me that nobody on that apparently horribly mis-represented bitter side really cared that much about it. Or they were already anti-Obama to begin with...

Connie, what do you believe the words "ignorant of intelligent design" mean?

Don't bother asking, hf. Connie seems like a somewhat well-disguised troll that shouldn't be fed...

[MikhailBorg]

"Intelligent design" = "the god I worship is not smart enough, creative enough, or powerful enough to have invented evolution."

[LL]

RE "The thing that completely boggles my mind about this one was this: isn't it the media elites yelling the loudest about Obama's elitism? I mean, I'm not up on my blue collar Pennsylvania political blogging, but the fact that neither Obama no Clinton's polls budged while the media was accusing Obama of elitist looking down upon-ness tells me that nobody on that apparently horribly mis-represented bitter side really cared that much about it."

Yes, it is the "media elites" doing that, because they love to highlight "controversy." Or manufacture it, if they can. Because they're lazy and they think everyone else is, too. It's easier to do the "Obama said something some people don't like, and here's what they had to say" story than it is to actually say anything meaningful. They think controversy makes better TV. Journalism used to actually mean something. Now it consists largely of regurgitating the different interest groups' talking points back at each other. I'm glad I don't have to do that for a living. At least advertising is up-front about the fact that it's for sale.

[josh]

Brel-that's basically what I was saying, although you put it much more eloquently than me :)

[Jeff]

Consider, for example, the state-run lotteries. These "games" (scratch-off cards? What joyous fun!) are exempt from federal truth in advertising laws because they aren't fair games -- the pay-out is woefully disproportionate to the odds. Having to explain that the state-sponsored lottery is a stacked deck and a bad bet would likely result in fewer people "playing" (Wheee!), and thus a reduction in the revenue from these lotteries.

There's a difference between the "scratchers" and the lottery. Scratchers have a low but fixed rate of return, and they are kind of fun. Every once in a while, I'll get a batch of about 20 (which gives a rate of return of about $1 for every $2 spent). I do so as a form of entertainment, not because I'm going to get rich (top prize on scratchers is usually much lower than the lottery).

"Shoot Bush" say the 'liberals'

Bush has killed more Americans than bin Laden. He's personally approved of torture. Why shouldn't we "shoot" him?

[spluffer]

Just so happens that Thomas Frank has an article in the WSJ today on this very topic.

[Naked Bunny with a Whip]

Keeping the students ignorant of intelligent design is foolish and short-sighted.

Mm hm. Mm hm. And what other religion-oriented pseudoscience do you want taught in science class? Young-Earth Creationism? Flat Earth? The demon-possession theory of disease? Jesus personally holds atoms together? Where does it stop?

"Teach the controversy"? Okay. Thing is, there's no scientific controversy, so this would be best taught in Social Studies. And, again, where do you stop? Holocaust denial? Vaccines cause autism? Where? How much of modern science do you expect our 16-year-olds to evaluate?

[Turcano]

I know that electronic slot machines are designed like Skinner boxes, offering just enough payout to keep players hooked.

As a native of Nevada, I can attest that, with the exceptions of poker and blackjack, that applies to all games of chance (these two are different because they leave some room for skill).

The thing that completely boggles my mind about this one was this: isn't it the media elites yelling the loudest about Obama's elitism?

Just look at the Democratic debate not long after; I couldn't help but feel that the moderators were gunning for Obama, and judging from the blogosphere, I'm hardly alone in that assessment.

[Hellsau]

Our well-disguised troll is suggesting that anything someone is shouting loud enough that some children can overhear should be taught to them directly. For years I have been warning that the end is nigh, and hopefully some prudent school administrators will take my prophecy to heart.

[Eric B.]

I agree with your analysis on Obama's remarks. I will admit I got upset at first and cried "elitism." I did so because there are a lot of liberal elitists out there saying that stuff about us "red staters." So, it was a reflex reaction, for me. I calmed myself down, though.

[practicallyevil]

Religion, yes. Church attendance correlates with certain traits that in turn correlate with fear and lack of education*, both of which may relate to poverty. I'm less sure about the guns. Seems like that would only hold true for militia types, not people who enjoy hunting or the shooting range.

Slow down there hf, while people may cling to guns and religion out of bitterness it doesn't mean anyone who participates in these activities is a bitter dirt farmer who only believes in God because they are too thick to comprehend anything else. Their is absolutely nothing wrong with enjoying religion or guns for that matter in moderation, but people who hunt prairie dogs with M-16's and yell 2nd Amendment every time wants some reasonable gun control, or those who want to teach intelligent in school, and call those who try and stop them secular humanist vampires, these are the people lead astray by the demagogues.

They have one true joy in life, but the jobs are gone and the man is there to foreclose on there house, they try to wonder why but the demagogues shout, look some ones trying to take away that thing you want. Desperate and bitter they put too much importance on one aspect of life, (guns, religion, gambling, what have you), while the demagogues pointing them towards these things make the rest of their life worse.

[aunursa]

The reason that Obama's answer is causing him problems is that he generalized about small-town America as if the electorate were uniform. Do some voters get bitter about the dismal state of their regional economy? Of course. Do some of them cling to guns or religion or anti-immigrant sentiment as a result? I'll grant that such people do in fact exist.

But Obama suggest that all the people who oppose gun control and/or are serious about their religion do so because of such bitterness. In other words, no one really holds such positions based on principle. No one could actually favor personal gun ownership as an inalienable right. No one would really be as serious about religion as they seem to be. It's all just a panacea. Agree or disagree, understand why people who actually do hold such positions based on principle or deeply-held beliefs would be offended by the implication that their faith and political positions are merely the result of economic adversity or governmental inaction.

This overgeneralization is no different from conservatives who try to assign common motivations for all liberals who hold certain positions. If Obama had merely indicated that he was trying to explain the motivations of some -- rather than that of all -- this would have been a minor issue.

[Geds]

"Teach the controversy"? Okay. Thing is, there's no scientific controversy, so this would be best taught in Social Studies. And, again, where do you stop? Holocaust denial? Vaccines cause autism?

That's nice. I'll have to endeavor to remember this train of thought if the issue comes up in conversation.

[bad Jim]

Aunursa, it's pretty clear that Obama didn't suggest that all of the bitter people cling to god & guns or xenophobia, much less suggest that the only reason they cling to their shibboleths was because of their bitterness. He merely suggested that, because neither party ever does anything about their situation, they focus instead on identity issues over which they feel they have some control.

They can't do anything about factories closing or fuel prices, but by God they can vote to stop fairies marrying, and so forth, and this really does nothing to improve things for anyone.

There really are people who believe the Democrats are trying to take away God and their guns. Is anyone willing to suggest that these fears, thus stated, are reasonable?

[Cat]

I actually rather enjoy scratch tickets, but I absolutely cannot gamble. Far too much pressure--I can't even watch Jeopardy without my stomach going all knotty--so I just offer to scratch my gran's tickets, because she buys them to win money, but hates scratching them.

If they wanted to sell me a sheet of scratchy stuff with a nice picture underneath or something, and no chance of winning or losing or anything, I would pay a dollar for that now and then, and consider it money well spent. It's very therapeutic. I don't think it would be as therapeutic, though, if I were expecting something more out of it.

[not_scottbot]

'Their only concern is making sure that he keeps his shotgun pointed somewhere else, somewhere that doesn't threaten the status quo.'

Since this is an Obama related thread, the point about keeping anger from overturning the applecart of the rich is completely correct. But do consider another aspect to demagogery - making sure that the shotgun is pointed, and the trigger is pulled. We are much closer to this than many Americans might accept, our acceptance of torture showing how close the edge truly is. And the defense of Yoo's tenure by other tenured law professors is much scarier to me than almost any other development in the past year. Nazism did not rise from a foul swamp, it settled in like an evil fog in the minds of many of the most educated members of German society.

Mencken's definition of a demagogue as "one who will preach doctrines he knows to be untrue to men he knows to be idiots" is very American. The German version, as put on very public display, was something else.

Hellsau - nice accusation about 'trolling' - soon, other accusations will fly, such as 'Naked Bunny With A Whip' being a sockpuppet, right? But then, with a name that can be translated as 'Bright Pig,' I'm not surprised.

[Mabus]

Gramina: ...They've been cheated. They've been lied to. Those are words that don't push the "Are you saying I've been stupid??" buttons quite as strongly; and they're true words. A system has been established that has the clear and unavoidable (within that system) effect of giving power to the powerful, and taking power away from those who have very little to start with. Any kindergartener will call that "cheating" and say "but that's not fair!"

Actually, no. The system is designed to reward people for their behavior--if you work hard, and at jobs that most people value, you will be able to get the things you value. If as a side effect the powerful get more power and the weak lose theirs, so be it. It's still fair, because it's based on their own behavior. (A strong case can be made that the system is not actually functioning this way any more, but most of the fixes I have seen suggested by non-conservatives will not restore it to that state, but change it to something radically different.)

The lure of "as long as there's an elite, I might be able to join it" seems utterly irrationally powerful.

Chicken and the egg: how do we eliminate that desire to "rate" -- not just to have power, but to have *more than* someone else? I just don't know.

I'm not interested in joining an elite. I'm interested in being rewarded according to my works. If I'm a lazy bum, I should end up on the street. There's nothing unfair about rewarding people for hard or smart work, or about punishing them for performing below their abilities. There is something unfair about giving something for nothing, which is what the Democrats keep proposing to Muley--"Let us give you a handout, it will make your life better, we know you can't help yourself." Do liberals not understand how insulting this is?

And Muley also knows that that handout is taken from the pockets of other people--not the liberals who are offering it to him. A government that has the power to pick the pockets of Bill Gates certainly has the power to rob Muley clean. Such a government is more threatening, more dangerous, than any mere corporation could ever be. Muley says, "If you were really just being generous, you would give me your money. A few bucks from your pocket would at least be honest charity, even if it weren't enough to help much. Stop robbing other people--even rich people--and making me your accessory after the fact."

I would love to live the kind of lifestyle the elite does. But I don't want it because it's elite. I want it because it's comfortable and exciting all at once. I want to be able to fly across the country if I choose. I want to be able to watch all the movies and read all the books and eat all the tasty foods there are. Poor people who support an equalitarian society think that if everything were distributed evenly there would be enough for everyone. But there isn't, there can't be--we live in a world of scarcity, though that scarcity is disguised by the fact that a few people have enough to live well, and ameliorated by the fact that people work hard and produce all they can, because they have to to live at all. If everyone got to live like Bill Gates the resources of the planet would be consumed in a matter of days, maybe even hours. It's better that some people get to live well than that everyone be equal and miserable, even if I'm not one of the fortunate. And I know that that's not much comfort to the guy at the bottom--I'm far enough down to realize that anyone much lower than me has too crummy a life to care about abstractions like that. But there is no fix--only the illusion of one.

[bad Jim]

An egalitarian society might not be a luxurious society, but, if Europe is any example, it would be much better in significant respects than the USA today. Universal health care at half its present cost, free college education, a living wage for every job and generous vacations are within our grasp, if we can only let go of the fear that in such a state someone undeserving might be rewarded.

[Jesurgislac]

Mabus: The system is designed to reward people for their behavior--if you work hard, and at jobs that most people value, you will be able to get the things you value.

Bwah! Sorry, I'm just slightly overcome. Mabus, if you look around and pay attention, you will see that most people in the US work hard at jobs most people value... and many of them - millions! don't get the things most people value: decent healthcare, a decent place to live, enough to eat. The notion that "all you have to do is work hard at a job people value" may be true, but only if you carefully define "a job people value" to mean exclusively "the kind of job that pays extremely well and provides excellent benefits" - which does not apply to sewage workers, street cleaners, farm workers, teachers... a host of jobs that have immense practical value, which keep the US running from day to day and generation to generation, which do not pay enough to ensure that the people who do them, no matter how hard they work, will be able to get the things most people value. And if you think about what you know, you know this is so. It doesn't matter how hard a farm laborer works, nor how much people value farm labor in principle: they'll still not get basic levels of health care when they're living in a country where basic levels of health care are a privilege that millions of people can't aspire to.

[Jesurgislac]

Mabus: And Muley also knows that that handout is taken from the pockets of other people--not the liberals who are offering it to him.

Yeah, because Muley's been told by the elite that liberals don't pay taxes.

[Praline]

"Teach the controversy"? Okay. Thing is, there's no scientific controversy, so this would be best taught in Social Studies.

You know, that's actually a good idea. Somebody should try that.

What's The Matter With Kansas? is very good.

Not much else to add, apart from 'What Fred said.' Really excellent article.

[rm]

I envision a novel called _The Grapes of Atlas_ in which Muley plays an Objectivist Okie refugee who makes the Okies understand that there is no solution to their troubles, so they should be happy that at least their suffering and labor supports somebody in wealth and luxury. They drive away the labor organizers and volunteer to work in slavery.

[MercuryBlue]

Mabus: I'm inclined to think that everyone is entitled to an adequate quantity of healthy food, a safe place to live, either a full-time minimum-wage job at which they earn a living wage or enough help from (preferably) friends/family/private charity or (to cover everyone) the government to make up the difference, etc, etc, all the necessities of life, by reason of being alive and human. Lazy bums included. What people aren't entitled to, and which they should have to work more hours per week and/or make more than minimum wage to get, are the luxuries. If we can just get it through our collective head that nobody is so deserving of luxuries that they can't sacrifice a few to ensure everyone has the necessities, we shouldn't have all that much trouble ensuring that everyone does have the necessities.

[Phoenix]

Don't remember where, but I read something once (and probably remember it incorrectly, but I'm sure I'll be corrected :) ) that most revolutions don't happen because things are bad. People adapt, they get used to whatever state they're in. Revolutions happen when things change - either suddenly get worse, or get just a bit better when it seems obvious it could get a lot better.

Posted by: jamoche | Apr 21, 2008 at 05:39 PM

The way I remember it is that revolutions happen when things get better and then worse. Not sure where I read it; possibly Maslow.

[connie]

hf: "ignorant of intelligent design" means not having learned what ID is, what its proponents offer as proof, what its detractors offer as proof. Without studying ID, I cannot have a conversation with someone who has studied it. My arguments will always be, "That's just foolish." Where the ID proponent is offering ideas, I'm offering ignorance. I did not learn ID in high school nor in college. Years of science classes, yet my only answer is, "That's just foolish." I don't care enough about the origins of the planet to spend time learning about intelligent design, but like piano lessons, I wish I had had to learn when I was younger so that I would not be ignorant as an adult.

Naked Bunny: flat-earth, demon possession theory, etc. Are not continually in the news, are they? Intelligent design is. The article relates that two other states are also deciding whether this should be taught in school. And most definitely "vaccines cause autism" should be mentioned in some way: parents are refusing vaccinations for their children because they believe it is true. This issue has been the subject of at least seven major studies, so scientists have taken it seriously for years. If teens were presented with the studies, they could see that vaccinations are safe, and when told in the future that it is a dangerous practice, they will remember the studies that they have seen for themselves, and vaccinate their children.

Jamoche: "Since it's not science, it doesn't belong in biology class." I googled intelligent design to see if scientists are the ones behind it, or if it's a religious thing. According to wikipedia, the people behind ID are a UC Berkeley law professor, a biochemist, a geophysicist, and a philosopher. I wouldn't expect the law professor or philosopher to conduct any experiments or analyze data the way the biochemist or geophysicist would. Neither do I expect UC Berkeley professors or philosophers to be complete idiots who'll believe anything they're told by their local church. I cannot evaluate the biochemist's science from a wikipedia entry, but I expect his book would include biochemistry, not just religious opinion. I also expect that other biochemists have critiqued his work. This teaching of intelligent design and its criticism by other biochemists need not take a week or even a half hour, but it seems that adults should have some knowledge of a subject that is mentioned so often in the news.

[Jesurgislac]

This teaching of intelligent design and its criticism by other biochemists need not take a week or even a half hour, but it seems that adults should have some knowledge of a subject that is mentioned so often in the news.

Sure. In social studies, and in discussion in a civics class about *why* the biology department doesn't "teach intelligent design". In a biology or general science class, you teach evolution, because that's science: the various religiously-inspired attacks on the theory of evolution, such as "intelligent design" are part of the history of science, but the only function of mentioning them in a science class would be to say that scientifically, they are completely wrong.

[KnightHawk]

*de-lurk*

Here's the thing Connie: you don't need an argument against ID or Creationism or Young Earth or whatever, other than "That's foolish". Their entire argument is based upon the presupposition that God exists. Without that foundation, the entire argument falls apart, and, honestly, even for the sake of a debate, that’s not an assumtion I’m willing to conceed.

I’m an agnostic; I don’t know if there’s a god, and you don’t know, regurdless of the sparkely feelings you may have expereinced during revival. You suspect there’s a god, but until you can offer concrete proof, all arguments springing from your assumption god is a reality are suspect, due to the fact you can’t prove you under lying argument.

On an unrelated note, am I the only one thinking Mabus is contending for the new title of Slack’s evil libertarian now that Scott’s gone?

Love. Peace. Metallica.

[J]

I cannot evaluate the biochemist's science from a wikipedia entry, but I expect his book would include biochemistry, not just religious opinion.

And yet, you would be expecting erroneously.

I also expect that other biochemists have critiqued his work.

They haven't, because scientific communication usually doesn't work by having individual scientists publish books. ANYONE can find a publisher and publishers are concerned with publishing books that sell and/or support their mission, NOT ones that are rigorously fact-checked; you'd better believe that Regnery and Tyndale House don't have on-staff review boards of to determine the scientific validity of the books they publish.

Biochemists--like any other branch of science--critique each others' work in the pages of scientific journals. These are not venues conducive to the floating of abstract theories about how life simply cannot be explained by any means other than resort to a supreme being. A biochemical theory of intelligent design would necessarily have to involve reproducible biochemical experiments--of the test-tubes-and-bunsen-burners variety, y'know?--and not just assertions, no matter how logically intricate.

There is nothing at all in the world right now to stop a creationist from getting a PhD in science from a respectable institution of higher learning. There MIGHT be something to stop him or her from actually getting an honest-to-goodness teaching or research post at a place like this (again, remember that professors of science, unlike professors of anything else, primarily are charged with producing research and not just teaching undergrads).

But anyway, a fair number of intelligent designer people have what seem like real scientific creds, at least in the form of degrees on the wall. But what distinguishes a scientist is NOT just having a fancy degree but actually, y'know, producing science. Writing books is not producing science; non-fiction books are secondary sources (hence, the footnotes).

[J]

Shit. Didn't close mah tags.

[kodiak]

"I cannot evaluate ... but I expect his book would include biochemistry, not just religious opinion. I also expect that other biochemists have critiqued his work."

Connie, please look at the words you have chosen to use. They are very non-commital and show that you expect a whole lot from others when you aren't willing to put in any effort on your end. I would think that someone who wants us to "teach the controversy" would have *at least* read the books/reviews/studies available and attempted to evaluate them on their merits. Instead, you've told us what you think ID should be if we were to take the words of its proponents at face value.

Unfortunately, what you expect of the ID movement isn't what's there and what they are actually doing. You've based your point of view on faulty expectations, and personally I'm offended that you have the audacity to scold us when you don't take the time and due diligence to properly evaluate the matter.

No wonder your response to them is "that's foolish" you haven't taken the effort to get a better answer. That's not bad schooling, that's sheer laziness on your part.

[MikhailBorg]

I've often wondered why so many of God's worshipers are so eager to place limits on what he had in mind. I mean, really, just what's so offensive about evolution in the first place? Or, skipping back a few hundred years, what's wrong with the idea that the sun doesn't in fact go around the earth?

I suspect it's an unwillingness to face the possibility that the human race is not the apex of Creation, the final, finished, perfect product. The inconceivable size and age of the universe suggest that God may have other irons in the fire, and may be up to something besides micromanaging the affairs of a single race of sentients who - let's be charitable - are beginning to figure a few things out and may do fairly well for themselves.

The more we learn about the Universe, the more we suspect that humanity may not be the Gold Master. We might not even be a Release Candidate, but still be stuck in deep Beta. That, I suspect, is what's truly intolerable.

[Jake]

Well, history of science is often a big part of highschool science class, so if students are hearing that Galileo was persecuting by the church, they may as well also hear that religious groups had major objections to Darwin. And it couldn't hurt to tell them that the only differences between Darwin and Galileo are that 1) Darwin only published 150-odd years ago, so many religious groups haven't had time to see the error of their ways yet and 2) The cultural contexts are very different, so that while the church could openly and violently oppose Galileo, the legal system in the US (e.g. the establishment clause of the constitution) prevents them from being so heavy-handed about evolution. Instead they have to use sneaky, cargo-cult methods of pretending their religious views are science. Hence "Intelligent Design."

[balt]

Actually, biology class is an excellent place to teach about intelligent design, if you've got strong enough teachers. Biology is usually the first true science class most high school students in America take. The goal of the class is at least as much teaching about the scientific method as it is about the stages of mitosis. Examining why intelligent design is not real science fits in the curriculum very well. But I'm not sure that is what the proponents of intelligent design have in mind.

[Fred Davis]

Their entire argument is based upon the presupposition that God exists.

Actually ID, like the 18th century theory layed out in natural theology which it is almost identical to, is based around the hypothesis that the only mechanism which can explain observed biological systems is one requiring a being or entity that has the power to create species on a whim.

The trouble with that hypothesis is that it fell over when Darwin outlined an alternative mechanism that didn't explicitly require that a supreme being (which could potentionally be things not god, like with LB and the alien abduction/disintegrator ray theories) actually came unto the complex protein strings of primodial earth and spent several millions years to design scrotums and superfluous organs all over the place, while creating tape worms and did all those other things which was famously mocked in the Monty Python song all things dull and ugly:

All things dull and ugly, All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty, The Lord God made the lot;
Each little snake that poisons, Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom, He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous, All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous, The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet, Each beastly little squid.
Who made the spikey urchin? Who made the sharks? He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous, All pox both great and small.
Putrid, foul and gangrenous, The Lord God made them all.

ID, if by some weird unfathamoble breach of common sense it should turn out to actually be right, makes various hypothesis about the Nature Of God falsifiable - and I'm pretty sure all those polythiestic religions (where the gods are all petty, jealous psychopaths who spend all their time using humans as props in their epic LARPing of the RapeBear script) are gonna be the ones that aren't going to be almost immediately disproven by experimentation.

ID and the abrahamic faiths with their superlative based conception of god are mutually incompatible because clearly God, if his works are truly representative of his will, is a Rape-Swan with tragic flaws dripping from his cloaca.