No We Can't Talk About Race

Update:

A modified version of this post (edited for length) has been picked up and reprinted in the August 1st edition of the:

It used to be that there were only two subjects that you were told you shouldn't discuss in public, politics and religion.  And while these two may yet remain on the forbidden list in polite society, we can certainly add a third ... race.   Today it seems, some aren't allowed to talk about race anywhere, while others can talk about nothing else. It has probably always been so, but it seems that while over the years the situation between races improves, the potential to hold a rational conversation on the subject gets no closer than it has on the other two banned subjects.  As someone fascinated with words however, it's interesting to note how much these three in particular have in common:

• Such 'discussions' these days are not so much about achieving consensus (or even hoping to) as much as they are contentious debates in which competing sides attempt to win debating points.
• Those who speak the loudest or interrupt the most are often held to be the most persuasive in such discussions, regardless of the truthfulness or effectiveness of their arguments.
• There are 'trigger words' that dare not be spoken in all three, lest any rational discussion break down (far earlier than would otherwise happen).  
• There are a far too people who appear to make their living off of one subject or the other (and in some cases, more than one).
• Facts and statistics are not as important as feelings and emotions in such discussions; and as such, the former are often subject to multiple interpretation through the window of the latter.

Politicians can't talk about race, but that's because they can't seem to talk about anything these days.  There's something about turning a camera or a microphone on in front of a politician today that creates an electronically generated field that disrupts rationality and enhances party politics instead.  Race, as a consequence, becomes little more than another partisan issue in which the other party's policies (past or present) become not only the issue, but the overriding cause.  And since today's politicians are always fundraising and running for office, any subject worthy of a recorded sound-bite must be one met with carefully prepared rhetoric designed to enhance the officeholder and his or her party, denigrate opponents, and encourage contributions regardless of its relevance.  (In other words, it has to be full of double-speak and bullshit.)

The Media can't talk about race because it's not a subject that lends itself to the six or twenty minute segment (six on TV, twenty on radio).  The current mainstream media is after all a business enterprise built around the interruptions of its commercials.  Any subject being covered by the media must therefore be capable of being diced up into convenient segments in order to accommodate this monetary necessity.  While this might work for a birth in the British Royal Family, the opening of the State Fair, or the latest Lindsay Lohan arrest, it's not a format that lends itself to anything resembling weighty discussion on so serious a subject.  Besides, most of what passes for punditry in the mainstream media has already divided itself into ideological or political camps that must be zealously promoted and defended in order to serve the true purpose of the medium ... ratings.

Churches can't talk about race because they have their own axes to grind.  Religion has enough a problem getting past the normal dichotomy between enforcing top-down 'Official Religious Doctrine' and the dealing with the local policy interpretations of its various ministries on a multi-national basis.  Throw in the flaws of human nature and personal idiosyncrasies of those standing behind what passes for a pulpit and you end up with a confusing inconsistency that most true believers find easier to ignore.  Besides, Churches survive through the willing contributions of their congregations.  Even with the ability to offer veiled threats of eternal damnation, they must at least to some extent follow the same rules used by politicians and the media, lest they risk the anger of their audience / contributors. 

The general public can't talk about race because they're scared to death of it.  In today's Twitter connected, Facebook addicted, politically correct society, an incorrect public pronouncement on such a subject could well make one an unemployable social pariah, soon abandoned by even friends and family electronically and otherwise.  (Who knows, writing this may have cooked my own goose.)  Life moves damned fast these days and there's little time (and often less interest) in doing proper research on anything that doesn't help you pay the bills every month.  Accepting this as the world we live in, grown lazy from a lack of exercise in free will, and unable to easily discover source material not already tainted with the prejudices of politics, media, and organized religion; far too many happily accept the instant gratification of the pre-packaged answers supplied without question.  

Besides, discussions of race are generational; and such conversations, like the species, continue to evolve (well, in most cases anyway).  Those old enough to remember real historic discrimination are fewer every day.  For the rest of us, the differences which one generation cannot get beyond are far less apparent to their offspring, and all but invisible (if not inconsequential) to succeeding ones.  Any multi-generational discussion therefore becomes difficult (if not impossible), since there is no singular frame of reference for them to use.

Oh I know that we would like to talk about race, that we should talk about it, and that somehow we have to keep on trying to do so; but it's unlikely today that any conversation that we begin will end up the one that we started with, the one that we want, or the one we should have.

October Terror Alert: DEBATE

October has begun, and while some look forward to putting on decorative costumes and begging for treats at the end of the month, others (far more insidious) are already attempting to disguise themselves as best they can in more traditional attire, while begging instead for votes.  With the big game in the election cycle but a month away and playoff contests long since begun, it's of little surprise that the Department of Just Blowing Security has slid another of their Cheetos-stained notifications from under the door of the DJBSS Command Center.  (They of course must deliver their communiques in such a fashion since we keep the door to this attic room locked at all times ... for their protection as well as ours.)

It's in fact about the potential damage of these purported playoff contests that the DJBSS is attempting to warn us about.  They are talking about of course, about the bombastic battles of political doublespeak known in common parlance these days as a DEBATE.  These current contests of cognitive thought however, should not be confused with historical bouts of magniloquent grandeur like those of the Lincoln / Douglas debates of the late 1850's where issues of sweeping import were contended by articulate statesmen and triumph was achieved by making successful argument based on fact and reasoned opinion; but far more like the Kennedy / Nixon debate of 1960, where manipulation of the thermostat, good lighting, and bad makeup carried far greater impact in the election that followed than the arguments being made by the two candidates that night.

The very term itself seems to carry a far different meaning these days than that of the classical form, standing now for Dialectic Exercise Blocking Any Thought or Elucidation of issues.  This process, once designed for reasoned discussion, clarification of political issues, and divining a candidate's beliefs and positions has instead become bastardized into one of carefully staged posturing and professionally written obfuscation. Where once the incontestability of the facts in an argument carried the day, such events are now instead a mainstream media event in which candidate arguments are limited to less time than that required for the average bowel movement, and where the only winners are the media themselves.  Where once winners and losers were decided by the logic of their assertions, reasoned argument, and facts used in support of them, we are presented instead with degraded attempts at a series of 'zingers' and 'clever sound bites' that will be endlessly repeated in paid candidate commercials ... not because of their truth, but because 'they're catchy and are easy to remember'.

Limited attendance at such events will probably not have a adverse impact on a person's ability to reason out future decisions logically, but prolonged exposure to these displays of bad manners and even worse behavior can have deleterious effects on the minds of those who expect to exercise their electoral rights and responsibilities.  Attempts to make voting decisions on candidates or issues based on what has become little more than the indecent exposure of public natural fertilizer production can in fact cause .... well, the kind of government that we live with far too often today.

If for some reason, you begin to suffer from depression incurred by attending such toxic events, or feel an indecisiveness that makes you believe that you may have already been over-exposed to this year's political DEBATE process, feel free to contact the DJBSS at 1-800-RAT-BUTT.  While personal ignorance of the dangers is no excuse and will engender little sympathy in those on the phone banks (meaning that they probably won't give a rat's ass about your particular exhibition of poor judgment).  If however, you can catch these normally cranky bastards in a good mood, they might at least recommend a number of products of the brewer's, winemaker's, or distiller's art that have in fact served as a prophylactic measure prior to such exposure, and as a medicinal treatment to minimize the most painful symptoms if taken during or after such encounters. 

They might also let you know that if for some reason the intake of these organic compounds fails to immediately minimize outward manifestations of intellectual infection, continued treatment using various forms of these chemical hydroxyls should be continued until either the evidence of your symptoms begin to dissipate or you realize that you no longer care that you have them.  Successful treatment can normally be recognized when the pronouncements of those participating in such vocal violations of decency are no longer considered inspiring or offensive, but instead only tedious and mildly amusing.

Since this is a Presidential election year, it's expected that such deplorable and disgusting behavior will be going on at the local, state, and national level on a rather grand scale and for most of the month.  The terror threat for October has therefore been raised to brown; the color of the massive quantities of bullshit that will no doubt be produced as part of their efforts.


      

Presidential Debate Zingers

(Anyone expecting serious political analysis in what follows will find themselves disappointed at best.)  

Well we're only one day away from what the media has been hyping as the most momentous political event of this year's presidential election (at least so far).  It's not that I don't understand how the media has lost all sense, other than their own sense of self-importance, can believe that watching two politicians dodging direct answers to often set up questions in front of cameras is in any way unusual, let alone consequential (at least in a sarcastic way).  After all, there are going to be three more debates for presidential candidates, and one for their running mates.  Of course, such contestation will be on every regular and all the news networks, giving it some significance; but given that many will choose to ignore such posturing, they might also want to consider the importance of the day when the nation's electorate actually gets to cast ballots (unless of course, you think that some of them will be similarly be voting four times) as a day of equal or greater importance.

I've examined the records of these two debate participants (part of the job), noting in passing that this first face-off will be heard in the Rocky Mountain state, and have come to the conclusion that this one may well be shaping up to be as exciting as a singing contest between Coloradans John Denver vs Dan Fogelberg.  Both have delivered some outstanding efforts in the past (Denver and Fogelberg, not Obama and Romney), but neither seems likely to produce an outstanding performance this week, having achieved room temperature some years back (pick your pair here).

The incumbent President's talking heads are already saying that it's likely that Romney will likely win this first debate, citing his experience in recent full contact efforts in the Republican primaries.  This seems somewhat strange, considering in how little esteem they hold any Republicans.  When you add that these same people believe that their candidate is the smartest person on the planet and therefore one who finds such mundane duties as security briefings and meetings with foreign leaders as unnecessary, such pronouncements seem rather incongruous.  There's also something almost tawdry in setting the nation's expectations about your candidate's ability to lead so high, and his ability to defend the way he's done so the last four years so low.

On the other hand, Barack Obama's opponent has shown himself over the last two election cycles as a true 'plain Jane, white bread' Republican, often full of retread ideas; coming off as dull as only a politician can, and as compelling as an allergy commercial.  Being a mainstream Republican, one must also keep in mind his party's latent ability to as the WSJ's Stephen Moore has said, "never to pass up an opportunity to pass up an opportunity", refusing to recognize or take advantage when their opponents expose a policy weakness in a very public way.  

Failure to allow any other serious candidates into the debate since the Ross Perot debacle now means that there's something to be said for the idea that both the media and the two major political parties have turned presidential dialectics into a 'Last Comic Standing' event.  There's compelling evidence to make one think they've succeeded so well, that it's now little more than two clowns doing extended stand-up tours full of their best 'one liners'.  There are those who go even further to say that the tragic humor in this process is that there's far less difference between the party platforms (routines) than they'd like us to believe; much like there's far less difference in the speed at which they're driving the nation off of the 'Thelma and Louise' cliff approaching.

Unfortunately, it's the very media that has been hyping the upcoming contest as critical to deciding who the next leader of this nation is (close elections make good television), that will immediately be casting aside 90% of what's said after the debate is over.  They will instead make a big deal out of a couple of the 'Zingers' delivered by one candidate or another.   The President himself in a recent speech in Las Vegas reinforced this point, hinting that his opponent might even have a 'Zinger advantage'.  

(For those who may not know, a 'Zinger' is a term used to describe a witty remark.  Real Zingers however are cake treats with creme filling, shipped to stores under both the Hostess and Dolly Madison brands, though both are owned by the same Interstate Bakeries.  Neither of the tastier versions unfortunately, will be delivered by either candidate at the debate venue.)         

Based on the writing skills available to current politicians, it seems likely that a memorable line or two might come out of these debates.  Unfortunately, it's equally likely that little else will be remembered from each night's event.  Regardless of political persuasion, these lines will be played ad nauseum on the news, and used in paid political ads as well.  Most are occasionally clever, seldom truly memorable, and usually of far more concern to the media repeating them than to voters who they expect to judge candidates by them.

Without being able to predict the winner of the first debate, let alone the four that follow (including that of the VP's), and without being able to anticipate the eventual victor in election itself; there is one conclusion that I have already been able to come to regarding the entire debate process and its Zingers however:  

I always liked Twinkies better anyway.

   

TFP Column: Civil Political Discourse

I know that I'm supposed to be on vacation, but as I was getting ready to take this break, there remained a couple of efforts that were promised and delivered; and only now being released.  That included a piece that I wrote Saturday for the TFP.

In my particular case, it meant going back and looking at a subject that I had worked through a while back, that of "Civil Political Discourse".  It seemed that a couple of things needed to be presented to a wider audience whose political memory stretches no father back than Watergate (if that far) to point out that campaigns have used questionable rhetoric for as long as they've had campaigns in this country.

As for the concept of a debate, the definition of that word has likewise apparently disappeared into the mists of time; and like that of compromise, has become a form of politically expedient spinelessness.  Apparently schools no longer teach of some of the great political debates that it's had in its history, and that these ideological confrontations are part of a forgotten past.

What shouldn't be forgotten though, is that the 4th of July is fast upon us, and if you want to know the fireworks schedules and everything else going on in Toledo and Northwest Ohio for the holiday and the week; you're going to be able to find it in Toledo largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly newspaper for the last three years, the Toledo Free Press.

By the way, you'd be well-advised to check out last weekends special tribute to those who have served and are serving in the military from NW Ohio in the "2012 Military Yearbook" edition.

TFP Column: Presidential Debates

There's another debate of Republican candidates for President today, which leaves me looking forward to the evening's festivities with much the same feeling that I would have if I had an appointment tonight to get a root canal ... without anesthetic.

Don't get me wrong, I think that the Republicans should do everything that they can to learn about those seeking the highest office in the land in the hopes that Obama can continue channeling Jimmy Carter and become a one-term President.  That being said, someone ought to smack the news networks for turning such important opportunities to discover what nominees are made of into a sick parody of the Jerry Springer show.  

While they're at it, someone ought to smack the candidates for allowing the media to treat them with such disrespect in venues largely reminiscent of a circus.  Before it's all done, someone ought to smack the electorate around a bit for either not paying attention to what's going on, or encouraging this People magazine version of politics.

Before all of this corporal punishment is properly administered (Damn, where are the Jesuits when you need them?),  what everyone ought to do is read my take on the current debate process on the TFP rather curiously titled, "Presidential Debates".

And when you're done catching up on the political world, you might even want to find out what's going on in Toledo and NW Ohio in the mid-week Star edition before reading Toledo's largest Sunday circulation and Ohio's Best Weekly Newspaper this weekend, the Toledo Free Press.

TFP Column: I've Been Framed ... Badly

The debate is heating up in Congress over the debt limit, and the rhetoric from both sides of the aisle has little to do with the issues at hand. Congress has in fact become little more than a shopaholic whose credit cards are over the limit. 


Even before today's madness began, I was seeing trends in the discussion which were disturbing. It's bad enough when lawmakers can't come up with the answer, it's worse when they don't even know how to ask the question. This led to my offering for this week's Toledo Free Press, "I've Been Framed ... Badly". 


I even managed to use the words of economists who are much smarter than I am about everything, but most especially about what this debate is actually about and how Congress is treating their entrenched positions. I hope that you find the words of Thomas Sowell, Walter E Williams, and Henry Rosovsky as interesting and enlightening as I did. I hope that the words I used to fill in the gaps between also have some value. 


Speaking of value, what could be a better value than this week's TFP (it is after all, a free newspaper published twice a week). With the short week, the Star edition will be on the stands before you know it, with the regular weekend edition only a few short days behind. Summer is finally beginning to make an appearance, so you ought to spend some time outside enjoying Toledo's largest Sunday circulation newspaper, the Toledo Free Press.

Post-Debate Thoughts

For those of you who missed it last night, I was lucky enough to participate on the panel for a debate between Rich Iott and Jack Smith, the two Republican challengers to Rep. Marcy Kaptur for Ohio's 9th Congressional District. This debate was held under the sponsorship of a Tea Party group, The Children of Liberty and the Toledo Free Press; and was moderated by Fred Lefebvre of WSPD. 


Let me say first that I appreciated the opportunity to sit on this panel and share some thinking with fellow panelists Kristen Rapin of the TFP and Scott Allegrini of The Children of Liberty. The time that we spent going over potential questions was both enjoyable and educational for me, and I believe that the questions that we finally came up with together served the debate pretty well. Next let me say that I was extremely impressed with how well organized this event was. While having no prior experience participating in such events, this one seemed to come off pretty well. Not only did it get going on time, but it ended on time as well; and I believe that Scott and the Children of Liberty deserve a tremendous amount of credit for doing the required prep work so that this could happen. 


Once things got going, the credit should go to Fred, who kept things on track and on pace. His experience and ability in dealing with both politicians and regular people were readily apparent, and he managed to keep the mood in the room light while retaining the serious nature of the proceedings. 


I would also like to say that I was impressed with both of the candidates. Mr. Iott and Mr. Smith did a great job of keeping their answers to the questions posed both on topic and within the time limits proposed. Since I am a registered Independent and have no vote to cast in the upcoming primary, it is not my place to choose. I believe however, that either would serve the Republican Party well in the general election. Each brings different talents to the position that would be an asset, and both seem firmly grounded in more traditional conservative values. 


While both are inexperienced in the political arena, unlike many of the more experienced members holding office they seem to understand the Constitutional limits of Congressional representation. Mr. Iott's business experience could serve him well and might also give him an understanding of what is required to jump start the economy. It seems likely that such business connections could also help in the area of fund-raising. Mr. Smith's law enforcement and military experience should likewise be an asset should he make it all the way through. While not having direct experience in politics, like our current Mayor in Toledo he has certainly been exposed to and dealt with politicians over the years, which cannot help but be an asset. 


On a final note, isn't amazing that with a Republican Primary coming up on May 4th, that having a debate between the two candidates fell to the Children of Liberty? Where were either of the groups claiming leadership of the Lucas County Republican Party? Absent such leadership, where were any of the other local county Republican Party leaders, any of the local Republican Groups, or failing all of that, the state Republican Party. With the rhetoric out there about taking back leadership in the House and Senate, what chance are either of these candidates to have if their party cannot get them in front of potential voters? 
(I may try and do more with the notes that I attempted to scribble while participating in this, but no promises. Asking questions, listening to answers and writing notes at the same time left me with some rather unusual chicken scratchings on a legal pad.)