Heather Michon's Open Salon Blog

Patriotism in the Age of the Phony

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:11:44 -0500

It is so hard not to be a cynic.

How could it be otherwise? We live in the Age of the Phony.

What once used to be confined mostly to the entertainment industry has infested our national consciousness -- including, most dangerously, our political discourse.

Campaigns are little more sophisticated marketing campaigns. Our political parties feed us poll-tested candidates with poll-tested ideas. Our media focuses on drama and process rather than issues and results. The loudest and most radical voices on both sides of the political spectrum dominate the discussion without actually adding anything to it.

The rancorous voices are so loud that they are distracting us from the very real dangers that we face. There is a growing sense that we are at the end of the our American Empire. As I've said before, I think rumors of our demise are a bit premature, but the signs of stress are everywhere.

Our failure, if it comes, isn't going to be because of geopolitical shifts. We've weathered those before. Our fate rests a lot closer to home. Somewhere along the road, we stopped thinking about ourselves as members of a grand democratic experiment, and so our democracy is dying.

"Everyone in the world knows that America is a miracle....except Americans, because we don't teach it," actor and activist Richard Dreyfuss said in a forum at the Miller Center for Public Affairs in Charlottesville, Virginia yesterday.

Over the last several years, Dreyfuss has become a leading voice for the teaching of civics in America, and has recently launched the non-profit Dreyfuss Initiative to promote and support a new civics curriculum for our nation's schools.

"We are a nation bound only by ideas," he says. There is no "American" gene that transmits these ideas through the generations. It's something that "has to be taught and taught and taught" or it can easily be lost. And since, for the most part, we don't teach it anymore "we are seeing now the crop we have sown."

As recent studies have shown, that crop is scrawny. In September, the Oklahoma Council of Public Affairs conducted a phone survey of 1,000 high school students in advance of Constitution Day. Pollsters drew random 10 questions from the U.S. Citizenship test. Only 2.8 percent of students got a passing score. Lest you are ready to insert Oklahoma joke here, those results match similar polls taken all over the country. [However: are these polls giving us the real story? Read more here, link provided by OS'er Semiautodictat.] Most adults probably wouldn't do much better. (You are welcome to give it a try. Post your results in the comments....if you dare.)

But Dreyfuss is not just about knowing how many stripes there are in the American flag and what they represent. "Good citizenship is not about voting," he says. It's about understanding the philosophical and historical trends that brought us to the flashpoint of creation -- then looking at how our creation, our republic, has survived through the decades.

He also wants people to have the "pre-partisan tools" of logic and reason to carry forth into rhetorical battle. This nation was founded by dissenters and debaters, but today, "we fear debate. We fear dissent." We've forgotten that "you can have a debate in a civil tone and have an enjoyable discussion."

"I'm not against any opinion," he says. "I'm against the one opinion."

That is as it should be.

While I sometimes fanaticize about starting life anew in another country, I always come back to the same, simple statement: I love my country. I love its history. I love its landscapes. I love its contradictions and its imperfections and its hang-ups and its relentless stubbornness and its inability to admit mistakes.

I don't love blind faith. I don't love having my morals or ethics or patriotism or IQ questioned because I support a woman's right to choose or because I think responsible private citizens should be able to own guns. I support the troops, but hate the wars they're being asked to fight. I support a president when his policies make sense.

For one golden hour at the Miller Center yesterday, all that was OK. My particular form of patriotism was not a love that dare not speak its name. It was mine.

It felt great. Everyone should try it.

***Update***

For those readers who would like to hear Mr. Dreyfuss speak for himself, there are audio and video links at

http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/forum/detail/5550

The forum runs a little over one hour, and is well worth every minute.

(I try to duck the cameras, but I'm in one of the lower benches in the back, wearing a short-sleeved green blouse and frantically scribbling notes!)

***Update II***

After speaking at UVA's Miller Center, Mr. Dreyfuss did a similar forum at St Anne's-Belfield, a private school in Charlottesville -- but with a much different reaction. Kevin Levin, a history teacher at the school and author of the excellent blog Civil War Memory, writes about it in his post

The Richard Dreyfuss Show

The Hijab Martyr

Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:11:21 -0500

In August 2008, a 32-year old Egyptian-born pharmacist named Marwa al-Sherbini took her son, Mustafa, to a children's playground near their home in the northern German city of Dresden.

She asked a man to please move from a swing so her little boy could play.

Alex Wiens, an ethnic German who immigrated from Russia in 2003, looked at her dark complexion and her hijab and began to rail at her, calling her a "bitch," a "slut," a "terrorist," an "Islamist." At one point, he even tried to rip off her headscarf.

Sherbini brought charges against him for insult and abuse in the German courts. Weins was found guilty and given a fine of about $1000. He appealed.

On July 1, 2009, Sherbini -- three months pregnant with her second child -- arrived in appeals court to give her testimony.

During the hearing, Weins pulled out a 7-inch long kitchen knife and, in full view of her son, her husband, and the stunned courtroom, stabbed her 18 times.

Within moments she was dead, and her husband, who leaped to her defense, was critically wounded from more a dozen stab wounds. He survived, and was on hand on November 11 to watch Alex Wiens sentenced to life in prison without possibility of parole.

Since her death, Sherbini has been dubbed the "hijab martyr," killed for her Muslim faith, made obvious to a rabid xenophobe by her headscarf. Muslims in Europe and Egypt have rallied in the streets to protest both the killing and what they perceive as a lack of interest by Germans in combating anti-Muslim violence and discrimination within their country. It has become yet another wedge between two often sharply divided communities.

This story came to mind yesterday after reading Deborah Young's excellent OS post "Why Western Feminist Is Incompatible With Islam." Deb's argument is correct, but incidents like the Sherbini murder show the difficulties in dealing with that incompatibility.

Westerners are in a bind, because they can't deny legal immigrants entry to their countries without violating deeply-held principles of religious tolerance, and once Muslims are in a given country they can't be prevented from practicing their faith like millions of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Neopaganists, Rastafarians or Africans tribal faiths. Yet much about Islamic philosophy is directly counter to European philosophy. And neither side is fully invested in trying to bridge the gap.

Feminists have been completely silent on the Sherbini murder. Why? This was a educated woman with a career and an a family who -- rather than give in to a misogynistic, racist attack -- used the laws of her adopted country to find justice. She died, brutally, in the defense of her rights. In my mind, that makes her a feminist martyr. Feminists should have rallied to her cause when she was alive, and they should have joined the mourners in the streets when she died.

To do so would have gotten them further with the Muslim community their current tactic of presenting all Muslim women as oppressed, dominated, and in need of secular salvation. This is the message behind every public debate on the wearing of the hijab, the chador, or the burqa: we'll free you of the shackles of your clothing, and you'll step into the light of reason.

Certainly, there are women who are oppressed by Islam, and where that manifests itself as physical or mental abuse, any state has the right to step in and give those women the help that they need AND to punish their abusers.

But what about those women who are committed to their faith because it is their faith? Women who adopt the hijab or even the burqa as a sign of religious fidelity, just as a Christian might wear a cross or carry a rosary? Do we have the moral right to get between a woman and her religious philosophy because we find it disagreeable? Is it right to force women to live a philosophy they didn't come to on their own?

There is no one Islam, just as their is no one Christianity or one Judiasm. Most religions tend to merge with the culture around it. In the West, Islam will become more Westernized -- not overnight, but over time. Women will look at the culture around them and decide how they want to reconcile their religious beliefs with that culture.

Some will even become feminists.

###

If you haven't yet, please hop over to Deborah Young's blog and read "Why Western Feminist Is Incompatible With Islam

Did Health Reform Have To Come At the Cost Our Rights?

Mon, 9 Nov 2009 08:11:17 -0500

As Democrats in the House of Representatives exchanged high-fives and flicked each others' butts with metaphorical wet towels after passing the health insurance reform bill this weekend on a narrow 220-215 vote, millions of pro-choice women learned that this "victory" came at the cost of their rights.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic leadership caved to a coalition of pro-life Democrats led by Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI), who threatened to torpedo the passage of HR 3962 unless the House agreed that would bar insurance companies participating in the health insurance "exchange" and any insurance company receiving Federal funds of any kind from covering abortions, except in the most extreme cases.

Under an earlier compromise at least one insurance plan in the exchange would have to provide abortion as part of its service, but at the last moment the pro-life coalition reneged and refused to throw their support behind the bill unless the Rep. Stupak's amendment was brought to the floor for a vote. It sailed through with a vote of 240-194.

To be clear, the Stupek Amendment does not outlaw abortion. It just adds yet another barrier, yet another hurtle, that women have to jump in order to obtain a perfectly legal, Constitutionally-protected medical procedure. Like may bills and amendments and rules passed by the Federal and state governments since 1973, it seeks to impose public morality on what the Supreme Court has definitively and consistently ruled a private matter.

Practically, one could argue that the amendment makes little difference. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a 2001 survey found that about 75% of women pay out-of-pocket for abortion services, with only 13% submitting to insurance. Not all insurance policies cover abortions now, and of course, Federal funds cannot be used to pay for abortions.

Philosophically, it's a kick to the head.

Democracy is an ongoing debate over the relation of the individual to the State. The Stupak Amendment reinforces the idea that it's entirely OK for the Federal government to insert itself in between an individual and her medical care (inasmuch as medical care has become tied to health insurance) on moral grounds, Constitutional right to privacy be damned.

And, by singling abortion out from thousands upon thousands of other medical procedures, it follows the pattern set by similar laws of trying to slap that big old scarlet "A" on the uteri all women who might need to seek the procedure.

If an insurance plan covers other gynecological and obstetric services, why not abortion? There's no medical reason to exclude it. Not only is it one of the most common surgeries performed today, it's one of the safest, with only 0.3% of surgical abortions resulting in hospitalization due to complications. First-trimester abortions pose no significant risk of problems in future pregnancies, and exhaustive studies in the U.S. and Europe have shown no link between abortion and breast or other cancers later in life.

There are plenty of people who will say: "I don't want my tax dollars to fund someone else's abortion."

To which I reply: "Fine. Don't pay your taxes."

We don't get to pick and choose. Taxes go to pay for all sorts of things one group or another finds morally repugnant. Taxes fund wars. Taxes fund medical research. Taxes fund "faith-based initiatives." Taxes fund "abstinence-only" education and traditional contraception. Taxes fund provocative art.

But war and science and faith and stupidity and contraception and art are all legal. So is abortion.

If you feel that strongly about the issue, refuse to pay into that system, and face the consequences.

But do not support laws that fly in the face of something we all should cherish: the right to make difficult and personal medical decisions without the interference of outsiders.

-------------------

Updated: 100 Days In Tehran

Fri, 6 Nov 2009 11:11:36 -0500

**Breaking: Iran announced today that the three Americans will be charged with espionage. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking from Berlin, said: "We believe strongly that there is no evidence to support any charge whatsoever. We would renew our request on behalf of these three young people and their families that the Iranian government exercise compassion and release them so they can return home, and we will continue to make that case."

Read Kathy Riordan's piece on this breaking story.

Sunday will mark the 100 day of captivity for Americans Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd, and Josh Fattal. The three were seized by Iranian forces when they accidentally crossed the border between Iran and Iraqi Kurdistan in the mountains east of Sulaimaniyah on July 31.

Their story has been met with an almighty "meh" by the media and the public-at-large. To call attention to their plight, their families and supporters are holding candle-light vigils across the country this Sunday, November 8.

As with imprisoned journalists Laura Ling and Euna Lee, I find the lack of interest and occasional bursts of outright contempt surrounding this case...sad. At best, it shows a profound misunderstanding of international relations. At worst, it shows a lack of compassion for fellow citizens in a bad spot.

We all know the arguments. Stupid and/or Ugly Americans acting all entitled are getting what they deserve, so why are we wasting our tax dollars on freeing them? "I'm sorry for the kids, but they went into a known hot zone and crossed into another country illegally. Most nations frown on this," says one representative HuffPo commenter.

First of all, these "kids" we no more "kids" than Lee and Ling were "girls." Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal are 27, Sarah Shourd is 31. Bauer is a freelance photojournalist who has spent the better part of seven years in the Middle East and North Africa. Shroud -- his girlfriend -- is a teacher with the Iraqi Student Project, providing education to displaced Iraqi children in Damascus. Fattal is an environmentalist with a number of stamps in his passport. They aren't neophyte travelers. Bauer and Shourd speak Arabic.

Second, the Kurdish Autonomous Region isn't a "known hot zone."

Iraqi Kurdistan is largely peaceful democracy about the size of Ireland. It has a functioning government, well-developed security force and and a low crime rate. Tourism is, if not booming, at least growing, and the government is dumping millions of aid dollars into revitalizing tourist areas.

No tourist, American or otherwise, has been hurt or killed in the area since around 1992. And there is no record of anyone ever being picked up by Iranian forces along that border.

Like all experienced travelers, the three hikers and their friend, Shon Meckfessel, asked locals the best places to see during their week in Kurdistan. "Every one of them told us to visit a place called Ahmed Awa," Meckfessel has written. "Not one of these people mentioned that Ahmed Awa was anywhere near the Iranian border. In fact, on the wall of our hotel there were three photos of tourists standing near the Ahmed Awa waterfall." Because he was coming down with a cold, he decided to stay behind while the other three spent a couple days camping near the falls.

Meckfessel stayed in phone contact with the three during the trip. "I am absolutely certain that they had no knowledge of their proximity to the Iranian border or they would have never continued in that direction." At about 11:30 on the morning of July 31, "Shane told me they were planning to turn around soon." But at 1:33 that afternoon, Shane called to say "they were being taken into custody and that I should call the embassy."

Yes, most nations frown on border incursions. But any citizen of any country should expect the support of their fellow citizens and their government when imprisoned in foreign jails, no matter what they've done. That isn't just fluffy idealism: it's international law

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 1963 -- which Iran has signed -- "provides that consular officers shall be free to communicate with their nationals and to have access to them," to check up on them and offer legal advice when they can. It doesn't matter if you're a lost hiker or a journalist trying to get a story, or a humanitarian trying to help refugees, or a drug mule with a half-pound of heroin shoved up your privates. You are still a citizen, and you still have rights.

It wasn't until last month the Iran allowed Swiss diplomats, who act as our representative in Iran, some brief visits with the three. Iran maintains that an investigation against them is still in process, but conventional wisdom is that they are holding on to them as leverage in future negotiations. What is the dividing line between "criminals" and "political hostages"? You tell me.

If you are so inclined, I hope you will consider attending a vigil if there is one in your area this weekend, signing a petition, or joining a Facebook group to keep up with developments. More information on Fattal, Bauer and Shourd can be found at freethehikers.org.

-----------------------------

Vaguely related posts:

The Obamas, the Date Night, & the Public Purse

Tue, 3 Nov 2009 10:11:36 -0500

The cover story in this weekend's New York Times Magazine was sedately entitled "The Obamas' Marriage," but might as well have been called "Oh My God I'm Hanging Out In the Oval Office With Barack n' Michelle!"

Jodi Kantor is hardly the first reporter to switch off her reasoning module in the presence of celebrity, and she managed to produce a nice pile of fluff to read over Sunday brunch. No harm done.

But the Date Night discussion irked me..

Early in her piece, Kantor presents President Obama "lamenting what has happened to nights out with his wife."

"I would say the one time during our stay here in the White House so far that has...annoyed me...was when I took Michelle to New York and people made it into a political issue."

He'd be just as happy to take the shuttle up and have a night in the Big Apple with "no fuss and no muss and no photographers,” he told Kantor. “That would please me greatly.”

“The notion that I just couldn’t take my wife out on a date without it being a political issue was not something I was happy with.” He allowed that everything becomes political, but “what I value most about my marriage is that it is separate and apart from a lot of the silliness of Washington, and Michelle is not part of that silliness.”

How do politicians do that? Don't they worry about lightening?

That whole conversation sounds great: this is a man who genuinely loves his wife, and whose wife genuinely loves him, God bless 'em. Those Mean Old Republicans are trying to get in the way of True Love, the dastardly dogs. Can't a President have any privacy with his lady?

Forget for a moment that this is a conversation taking place in the context of an image-burnishing interview on this supposedly "separate and apart" union. Forget for a moment that nobody forced Barack Obama to run for an office that garanteed his world and his family's world would shrink down to the size of a security zone for the better part of a decade. Forget for a moment that if it were his party out of power, he'd damn well be making the same complaints.

I don't know that people are particularly wrong to raise questions about the expense of that outing or any presidential expenditure not in the public interest.

Date Night involved days of advance work by security teams, the use of three small planes and two helicopters, plus the shutting down several streets and some ferry traffic during parts of the visit. The tab for presidential security is not made public, so estimates of the cost range from the absurdly low $25,000 to the more believable $73,000 to an absurd-but-sadly-still-believable $1 million.

Consider this: CBS News recently reported that in his first nine months in office, Obama has attended 23 fundraisers for the Democratic Party. This is compared to Bill Clinton, who made attended five in his first year, and George W., who attended just six.

Campaign finance laws require the Party to pick up some of the expense, but the lion's share is paid by the taxpayer. This is because fundraisers are usually pegged to "official" events, like a speech or town hall meeting, to both legitimize the trip and shift the costs, and because Secret Service costs are always paid out of the public purse.

It adds up. A 2006 Congressional oversight report found that in 2002, the Bush White House racked up $6.5 million -- just in flight expenses -- on political trips. Less than $200,000 needed to be reimbursed.

There is no reason not to release, in detail, how much a president, ANY president, spends on official and non-official travel. There's no reason for taxpayers not to question how that money is being spent. One would think this is a non-arguable point. It just makes sense.

A huge amount of public distrust of government stems from the sense that we're constantly being rooked by it. If the government, from the Executive Branch on down, was required to be more open about its operational expenses, those expenses would undoubtedly fall. Shame is a wonderful tool. We've trained generations of politicians to be shameless, and we need to reverse that trend.

As for the Obamas' Date Night, good for them. But with tens of millions out of work and untold millions more hanging on by a thread, maybe out of solidarity they could do what the rest of us are doing: Netflix and take-out.

------------------------------

Vaguely related previous posts: