What’s the Government to Do?

In article published today on Slate, David Weigel  examines the impact the Arizona shootings will have on the upcoming legislative session. In his piece, Weigel concludes that while the tragedy ought to make the 112th Congress consider stricter gun laws and the way our country handles the mentally ill, nothing will likely change, due in part to politicians being afraid to touch these “hot button” issues and procedural roadblocks Republicans would present in the House. Weigel represents a growing voice of young, progressive, pundits, highly visible in the social-media community, asking what the Federal government will do in response to the assassination attempt of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords.

Why are they calling on the Federal government to respond to the situation at all? Where do the government’s responsibility lie?

Obviously, since a Federal judge was killed and there was an attempt on a Congresswoman’s life, the Federal government has a responsibility to prosecute the alleged shooter to the fullest extent possible, but with a Justice Department led by Eric Holder, that does not seem very likely.

Outside of that, what exactly do we need the Federal government to do? To suggest, as Weigel does, that stricter gun laws may have prevented the massacre is anecdotal at best. Yes, it seems likely that the alleged shooter obtained his weapon legally, but Weigel’s argument assumes that the alleged shooter would not have obtained a weapon by some other means. Let’s assume for a moment he was not allowed to purchase his weapon legally and because of that gave up on his planned killing spree. It would represent one instance where a gun crime was prevented due to the lack of legal access to a gun, as opposed to the mass of gun violence committed with illegally obtained guns each year. It would be the exception to the rule. Are Arizona gun laws too lenient? I don’t know, that’s for the residents of Arizona to decide, not the Federal government.

How about mental health? Obviously, the alleged shooter had some mental issues. On a whole, the care for the mentally ill in this country could be a lot better. I think it’s great if we, as a nation, can use this tragedy as a chance to consider those who suffer from mental illness and explore ways to better treat them. But again, not a Federal issue. It’s a system best left to the states and the private sector.

In the end, it seems that the Generation Y progressives are just like their predecessors and never miss an opportunity to exploit a national tragedy to expand the size of the Federal government. Some things, it seems, will never change!

Vulgar Display of Ignorance

In the hours following the tragic Arizona shootings, many media members have engaged in what can best be described as a vulgar display of ignorance, choosing to play a game of political finger-pointing, rather than simply reporting the facts. Void of any evidence to link the shoot to the Tea Party or any of its affiliates, progressives began an aggressive campaign to link the shooter to the group. Only minutes after news of the shooting broke, several left-leaning figures, including Daily Kos founder, Markos Moullitsas, began posting tweets that seemed to imply that the rhetoric of certain conservative leaders, such as Sarah Palin, could have led to the shootings. As the day progressed and we learned more about the suspect, more and more progressive journalists began to engage in similar tactics, ignoring the facts about the suspect, and instead building on the assertion that conservative rhetoric played some role in causing the senseless act of violence.

Several writers from Slate, including Dave Weigel, New York Times contributor, Heidi Moore, and Wonkette’s Ana Marie Cox all used their Twitter stream to blithely point their fingers at the right for causing the day’s events. Even Pima County Sheriff, Clarence Dupnik, joined in the fray, decrying “rhetoric of hatred, mistrust of governmentt, paranoia about government that inflames public daily, especially unbalanced people.”  Sheriff Dupnik went on to lash out the Arizona state legislature for being too soft on gun control. Thankfully, Fox News’ Megyn Kelly displayed the intestinal fortitude to hold the Sheriff accountable when he appeared on her program.

I understand the human need to try and find some closure when something as horrific as the shooting of Rep. Gabby Gifford occurs. On 9/11, we all asked, “who could do this to us and why?” When you examine the history of the alleged shooter, Jared Loughner, you see a young man with a history of exhibiting signs of extreme mental unbalance. The sad fact is that it is a difficult proposition to understand what motivates mentally unbalanced or mentally unstable people and this is what causes so many people distress about this particular case. We may never be able to wrap this case up, place it a box of understanding and prevent a similar event from happening again. It does seem that were will remain some loose ends remaining, even if and when Mr. Loughner is prosecuted. This scares the hell out a lot of people.

For whatever reason, conservatives deal with uncertainty better than progressives. Even the most extreme right-wingers I follow on Twitter refrained from pointing fingers at the Left for this tragedy. In fact, almost all of the conservatives I followed offered their sincere condolences to all those effected and seemed shocked that progressives would attempt to politicize the situation.

While we may never be able to understand the motives behind Saturday’s shooting, or understand why bad things happen to good people, we can do our part to help the country move forward. First, we quit trying to point the finger of blame at political figures we disagree with for causing this tragedy. The only person responsible is the person who pulled the trigger. It’s now in the hands of the judicial system to handle the prosecution. Next, support your elected officials by showing up at their next public meeting in your community. Even if you disagree with their positions, show up, let them know how you about the issues that matter to you, but remember they “are human and need to be loved, just like everybody else”, so leave them with a handshake and a smile. Don’t let this shooting scare you away from being politically active and aware. Finally, find a way to engage in constructive dialogue with those you disagree with politically.

Hate the Game, Not the Playa!

A tweet from Slate caught my eye tonight—@Slate: Ever wonder how much news is created by under 140 characters from @SarahPalinUSA? Introducing the Palin Tweet Index! http://slate.me/gKIhfT . For the past two years, Slate writers have dissected literally every one of the Palin family’s social media mumblings, no matter how mundane. I sometimes wonder if the writers are like the homophobe who tries to shield his true sexual orientation by constantly casting disparaging remarks at other gay people, or do they suffer from something even more pathological.  They certainly obsess over her enough; their site features a “department” called “Palinisms”, which exists solely to memorialize Palin’s speaking snafus. One Slate writer, Jacob Weisberg, even published an entire book on the subject.

Let’s be clear, pundits on the right are guilty of equally egregious ad hominem attacks on progressive figures. If you ever have the misfortune of landing on an ABC radio affiliate in the afternoon, you will hear Sean Hannity and Mark Levin try with every ounce of their being to come up with some utterly juvenile nickname for Democratic politicians. Indeed, Hannity and Levin spend far more time name-calling than addressing real issues. Similarly, the right-wing blogs focus a majority of their attention in attacking the character of adversarial politicians.

Politics evoke emotions and these emotions are sometimes hard to channel constructively, yet we must if we ever want engage in positive political dialogue. This does not mean we need to cave-in on issues. On the contrary, we should be even more vociferous on the issues. Debating the issues requires us to examine an opposing point of view and rationally construct a rebuttal. It is how we nurture and grow our democracy. When we focus our attention instead on the PEOPLE we disagree with, we function a little less like our “founding fathers” intended and a little more like the rest of the world.

Who is Ezra Klein?

Last week, The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein puzzled many when he said the Constitution “…is confusing because it was written more than a hundred years ago.” Klein’s popularity, especially on MSNBC, has long puzzled me, but this statement took it another level and begs the question, who exactly is Ezra Klein? Reading his Wikipedia bio, it sounds like Klein is just another kid with a blog, yet progressives view him as much, much more.

I’ve tried reading Klein’s work in the Post, but it comes off very amateurish, repeating worn out progressive talking points, adding nothing original to political debate.  For example, consider his December 30, 2010 column, “What the tea party wants from the Constitution.” It begins with an ad hominem attack on the GOP and then opens into a passive voice-filled, incoherent tirade against tea party affiliated politicians’ intent to require all legislation to carry with it “a statement from its sponsor outlining where in the Constitution Congress is empowered to enact such legislation.” In the end, the article merely mimics what Klein’s colleagues at Slate have been writing for months. Stripped down to its core, Klein’s writing is nothing more than a “tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” Clearly, the Post bought into Klein for his image and nothing else.

Klein comes off as nothing more than a beard-less hipster parrot, incapable of forming an original thought, but because he started blogging before blogging was cool, and because he can tweet about Bon Iver or the Avett Brothers, the Post felt he could score with young readers. Landing a job with the Post offers many perks, chief among them working for a prestigious American newspaper, but also the ability to work with all of the subsidiaries of the Washington Post Company and the Post’s cozy connections with MSNBC–all of which are darlings of the Left.  Now, instead of running out Eugene Robinson for the millionth time, the Post can run out Klein, someone far more palatable to a younger demographic.

The Cheapening of Liberal Arts Education

An article published in the March 31, 2010 edition of the New York Times, examining the burgeoning role of psychology and neuroscience in college English departments, sparked a debate on a recent podcast of Slate’s “Culture Gabfest,” regarding the future of college English departments and humanities studies as a whole. The three panelists expressed outrage at the thought of English departments nationwide filling their curriculum with theoretical science (i.e. using MRI scans of people’s brains as they read different texts to determine the impact they have on the brain), in hopes of adding practical applications to their degree program, thus attracting more students, but sacrificing the notion of literature for literature’s sake.

I test drove literally every degree program that the humanities department at my colleges offered before ultimately earning a bachelor’s degree in English. The question of whether or not these departments should do more to make their degrees more marketable is one that I’ve wrestled with for some time. Even though we were the brightest, most creative and unique students on campus and even though we took the most interesting classes, being able to write a paper on the role of misogyny in Hamlet or being able to thoroughly explain the difference between an Italian sonnet and a Shakespearean sonnet has yet to earn me a single job.

God knows I spent many a sleepless night in college asking myself, “what in the hell are you going to do with a degree in (depending on the semester and college: philosophy, history, religion, political science or English),“ but through it all, I never once considered pursuing a degree outside the field of humanities. For me, and many other liberal arts students, college was never about developing marketable skills, but rather about the pursuit of knowledge and honing our analytical skills, which in turn produces students prepared for any field.

Like the podcast panelists, I too am outraged at attempts to cheapen a classical education in the name of economics (and make no mistake about it, this is ALL about economics). I graduated from Texas A&M University-Texarkana, a rural, commuter school in far Northeast Texas. Of all the students in the school’s English department, I was the only one not seeking teacher certification. As a result, much of the departments curriculum was geared towards training these students for the classroom. I always felt the courses, especially the reading lists, to be extremely watered down. As President of the university’s English club, I tried to expand the scope of the department’s emphasis, sponsoring student symposiums and starting a book club where we would tackle some of the best contemporary literary fiction.

I don’t blame my professors. Their hands were tied by administrators who had in essence turned the English department into a glorified vocational school. While I don’t fear Yale, Stanford, Duke, etc. will ever turn their English departments into a trade school, I do fear the trend of cheapening liberal arts education will continue to spread like a virus across academia. The only way to stop the spread is to convince students that knowledge is far more valuable than any salary they may earn in their career

Top 5 Podcasts

Since getting my first iPod as a gift some four years ago, I’ve downloaded countless gigs of all forms of media. One of my favorite things to download is podcasts. Over the last few years, I’ve tried out hundreds of different podcasts, but have now narrowed it down to 15 or 20 that I listen to on a regular basis. I thought I would share with you my top 5 podcasts:

1.) Slate Culture Gabfest – This is a must listen if you want to stay current on all things related to culture. The shows regular panel consists of Dana Stevens, Julia Turner and Stephen Metcalf, though they are frequently joined by other members of the Slate.Com staff. The content leans towards the “high brow” and much of it involves material published in Northeast publications (i.e. New York Times, The New Yorker, Atlantic Monthly, etc.), but it provides an inside look at what intellectual elitists all over the nation are talking about.  The most recent episode included a review of the controversial new Lee Daniels’ movie Precious, a review of the Ian McEwan novel Black Dogs to coincide with the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall and Jim Windolf’s recent Vanity Fair article on “cuteness.”

2.)  Slate Political Gabfest – Functions in pretty much the same fashion as the Culture Gabfest–three person panel discusses three issues–only involving politics instead of cultural issues. The normal panel consists of John Dickerson, Emily Bazelon and Slate managing editor, David Plotz. Be warned, the panel leans Left–far Left, but it’s entertaining and informative all the same.

3.) Anything You Ever Wanted to Know – This show is produced by KERA, Dallas’ local public radio station. The show airs each Friday afternoon, but I always listen to it via podcast. The show provides an open forum for listeners to submit questions, either on the phone or through e-mail, to be answered by other members of the listening audience and is moderated by Jeff Whittington. Over the past three years, I’ve learned some fascinating things from the show.

4.) The Writer’s Almanac Podcast – Hosted by Garrison Keillor, the show serves as a “this day in literary history” for lovers of words.  Normally, Keillor lists off several key events for each day and then will focus heavily on one birthday or event before reading a selected “poem of the day.” More than anything else, the show has introduced me to some great new poetry.

5.) NPR Playback – While the other podcasts I listed are released on a weekly or daily basies, the NPR Playback podcast is released on a monthly basis and features audio clips from the archives from 20 years prior. For example, the November podcast features audio from NPR segments from November 1984. I love being transported back to the 80′s and this podcast does just that.