From Catchphrase to Cliche

Barack Obama's election may be one of the most exciting in history.  Much has been made, because of the historic nature of the event.  The most interesting thing over the last several weeks has been the constant references to Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals.  The book is definitely worth reading.  Pundits like to draw the Lincoln/Obama comparisons; national legislators from Illinois, lawyers, overcame difficult family circumstances, and the most notable: Lincoln brought down slavery and Obama is a result of the action.

A new comparison emerged in the weeks after the election finished: The Team of Rivals.  This idea was alluded to somewhat during the campaign, but really too hold in the 2-3 weeks afterward.  So far, it may be a fair assessment, but Obama needs to pull in more rivals.  Bring on Hillary certainly qualifies, Biden qualifies, but his campaign was so short it almost seems like a stretch.  I wonder though, does the Team of Rivals even matter?

I have no personal problem with Obama*, again it's the media pushing it's spin on things.  I've heard the phrase "Team of Rivals" so much lately, it's gone from catch-phrase to cliche.  Having a team of rivals doesn't mean anything really.  It doesn't equal success.  In oder to be successful and avoid groupthink, having people with opposing view points is essential.  That teases out the intricacies of difficult situations and decisions.  It's not guarantee for success, but it does increase the probability.

A team of rivals can be as much of a detriment as a help.  If the team members cannot get along well enough to come to a reasonable decision, then all is lost.  That's one of the problems when we look at the Democrats vs. the Republicans.  Both parties are corrupt morally and neither has the interests in their respective constituents any more than using them to make it through the current election cycle.  They are a team of rivals and they do little to truly improve the nation.  I hear a lot of lip-service, but not a lot of real action.  My point is that a team of rivals is not an automatic recipe for success, though it might improve the chances.  Even though Lincoln had a team of rivals, it was not the reason for the success.  He succeeded because he saw past rivalry in order to pick the best people for the job.  The fact that they were at one time rivals is more an adjective, then a noun in this case.

*That's barring any emerging issues with the Blagojevich fiasco going on a the moment.  So far Obama appears to be innocent of any wrong doing.  I doubt he's got a clean background coming from the Chicago machine zone.  Maybe his goals are lofty enough that he was able to succeed without playing ball too much.  So far it doesn't look like he was willing to play ball with Blagojevich.  I hope that's the case.  That may not save Obama if Blagojevich decides to try and bring Obama down with him.  

The Corporation

I finally had the chance to watch the film The Corporation.  The film centers on the evil committed by corporations as a way to show the failings of capitalism.  The film also includes and all-star cast with the likes of Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, and even Milton Friedman.  As a whole the film does make its arguments in a convincing way, but so did Loose Change (Counter-point).  It certainly is a film worth watching, but its bias skews much of the valuable information.  Below is some background to the film, my major criticisms of the film and some recommendations of how it could be more worthwhile.

An overview of the film is also available on wikipedia and the web-page is linked above.  The film was directed by film-makers Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott and written by Joel Bakan (who also authored the book of the same name released about the same time).  It was release in 2003 and is one of the most seen canadian documentaries.  Only Bakan appears to have some relevant education and experience, he being a lawyer. Both Achbar and Abbott are film-makers by trade, so the business credentials may be lacking somewhat.  I don't think that disqualifies from making a film about business, but it is worth keeping in mind in understanding where they may be coming from.

The major players are Naomi Klein, Noam Chomsky, and Michael Moore.  Naomi Klein is of course famous for last year's book The Shock Doctrine, in which she took a little known Milton Friedman phrase and morphed it into a doctrine she believes was used to justify the Iraq war (her book has been challenged by Johan Norberg of the Cato Institute).  Noam Chomsky is of course professor of Linguistics from MIT.  He's notable for his anarchist views and outspoken criticism of US foreign policy and capitalism (it was a Chomsky book that Hugo Chavez said was suggested reading for all people during a UN appearance).  Chomsky is also the subject of another film by Achbar, Manufacturing Consent.  Most people should be familiar with Michael Moore.  He may be the most famous documentary film-maker in history and he has a fairly strong following.  Milton Friedman is also part of the film, though his time is somewhat short, his appearance is significant.  Milton Friedman is the most important economist of the last 50 years with a very liberal position when it comes to businesses and how they operate.  Friedman is the most significant counter-weight in the film.  There are many other participants who contribute to the film, but these four were the most significant in my mind.

The movie analyzes corporations as "persons" and repeats the concept that a corporation is a legal person.  This point is driven home like no other point in the film.  This becomes most significant when the corporation is diagnosed psychologically.  The tactic is treating the corporation as a person and then assigning it human traits, which conveniently fit the bill for a psychopath.  The trait is cited and then a corporation is shown to have committed an act that fits the trait.  I find this tactic very dishonest, because it's easy to steer people's minds down a track when you set such narrow criteria and cherry-pick examples.  The film-makers also fail here, because each trait is "fulfilled" by a different corporation.  If they wanted to show that corporations in general were psychopathic, they should have picked many corporations and shown how they all compared against the psychopathic traits.  Because the purpose of the film is to maintain the effects of drama and not serve as a scientific analysis, it's not surprising that effort was avoided.  This is really just a straw-man argument and resembles some of the tactics used in the 9/11 conspiracy film Loose Change, which uses similar manipulative language and news reports to build a story that 9/11 was an inside job.

Like Loose Change, The Corporation needs some serious fact checking.  I have not had the time to look into every claim made by the film.  In fact, I don't necessarily think that they are lying or making things up.  I don't doubt that much of what they show happened.  The problem comes in the telling of the story and the way facts can be turned around a bit or motives assigned that may or may not exist.  Two that stick out came from Michael Moore's mouth.  I already have enough trouble taking what he says seriously.  He is not  reliable source for much of anything.  I believe he poorly understands information and does not sufficiently understand the counters to his arguments.  In the film he talks about Coke selling Fanta in Nazi Germany as a way to make money on both sides.  A simple search on snopes brings up strong counters to what Moore stated.  While he wasn't entirely wrong, he got enough wrong to create a great deal of distortion.  He also referenced the Columbine Massacre and the fact that Lockheed Martin is the largest employer in Littleton.  His point being that the parents fail to make the connection between what they do for a living, building WMDs, and the Massacre.  The connection is a stretch and not very meaningful.  I also take issue with the fact that he implies that all Lockheed Martin makes is WMDs.  I am a Lockheed Martin employee (just to expose my bias) and I don't work on WMDs; I work on satellites.  A great deal of the work at Lockheed Martin has little to do with war or WMDs.

Since the psychopathy of corporations are the center of the film, you would expect that the film-makers would have had a solution.  Not really.  It's mostly that corporations are bad and it's in their DNA.  The very existence of the corporation is the problem.  What's the solution, Government?  The same group who had trouble handling Hurricane Kartrina?  I'm not anti-government by any means, but I find that to be a lazy solution to any problem.  It doesn't really address the actual problems caused by corporations.  It also negates all the evil that has been done by governments as well.  It takes a very noble government to control itself when it has the kind of power it seems some people want to give it.  Corporations may be legal persons, but they have no emotions.  Milton Friedman is quoted with his famous line that corporations' only obligation is to get a return to the shareholders.  Because this is be true, it's easier to hold corporations accountable than it is the government when something goes wrong.  The only wrench is when government and corporations get too friendly.

While much of the film bothered me intellectually, there were some things I found beneficial.  The inclusion of Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, former chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, I thought was a nice touch to the film.  The film-makers included footage of a protest outside of Moody-Stuart's home.  The protesters hung a sign on the house accusing him of being a murderer of the environment, because he was the head of an oil company.  In the footage, Moody-Stuart actually came out and reacted well to the protest and ended up having tea with the protesters and a rather nice discussion.  This story added a human element and showed that the film-makers understood the fact that the heads of corporations are people too.  I think this fit in the film without affecting their premise, because they are looking at corporations as something separate from humanity.

The Corporation could be a better film.  I think it made some good point in showing what some corporations have done and the negative effects that resulted.  Certainly, there are many instances where corporations have done horrible things, whether intentional or not.  I think it's important to know about those kinds of events so they don't continue and the damage can be minimized.  To really bring that home, the film-makers should have emphasized the good that corporations do as well.  Rather than show the corporation as a psychopath, the misdeeds have been the center of the film with the people who committed the misdeeds held accountable.  The film could have been an analysis of the market system and how bad things may occur, then suggest ways to fix the any problems.  Unfortunately the film falls short and amounts to a propaganda film against the capitalist system.  I still recommend the film, but more to know what's being said than for any educational value.  Part one can be found here; you can follow the trail to get the rest of the film.  Part one of a critique can be found here.

Prop 8 and the Aftermath

Gay Marriage is perhaps the issue of our time. In California, where the major gay marriage battle took place, Prop 8 passed reversing the state Supreme Court ruling from the Spring. In my short lifetime* I have never seen a political issue that raised such a ruckus. I knew that no matter how the vote came out emotions would continue to flare. I did not expect what has since happened. The numerous protests have far exceeded my expectations.

It appears obvious that the emotions for the pro-gay marriage crowd are more greatly stirred up than the opponents. Had the vote gone the other way, I doubt the protests would have been so numerous and well attended. Candlelight vigils would be more likely with lots of punditry and plans for potential legal changes. I don't see this as an issue of one side being better more mature, but actions fueled by different emotions. From what I can tell the pro-gay marriage proponents see this as the civil rights struggle of their lifetime. On the other side, the opponents see themselves as protecting something that's sacred to them. If pushed into the right corner, they could act the way that the pro-gay marriage supporters have.

Many of the pro-gay marriage folks blame the passage of Prop 8 on the LDS church due to it's strong support of the measure. While the LDS church did provide a great deal of man power and financial support (via individual member contributions). The LDS presence in California is rather small and not near enough to sway an election, at least as far as voter support is concerned. The efforts for the LDS members certainly had an impact, but that's not unusual. It's common for people who believe in a cause to put in a little bit extra to support public policy they believe is right. Being better organized is not a crime.

While I believe the efforts of the faith groups in California did much to pass the proposition, the No-on-8 people hurt themselves as well. They committed the worst public relations nightmare...ON PURPOSE. Of course they probably did not think it would be a problem, and I'm willing to be that many still don't considering what's happened in the weeks since. Stealing lawn signs, while somewhat innocuous, is still a major problem. It's not so much that it happened, it's the scale on which it happened. Both sides were party to this particular indiscretion, however, it appears that the No-on-8 group perpetrated this on a grander scale. Combine that with the vandalism that occurred, and you have a serious problem.

The vote on November 4th did not quell the emotions, and may have insighted even more anger. I haven't heard as much about vandalism, though I've heard of threats against supporters of Prop 8. The most prominent might be Scott Eckern, the former Art Director from the California Musical Theater. Eckern donated $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign and was essentially forced out of his job. Now boycotts are planned for all things Utah, even the Sundance Film Festival, which is interesting since Robert Redford likely would have opposed Prop 8 (I don't know for sure).

Proponents of gay marriage continue to do themselves a disservice by the public behavior that's making the news.  Rarely is such behavior justified.  It continues to damage the reputation of the position.  This group would be better served by taking the high road, rather than submit to the basest emotions that's enslaved them.  Granted the displays are largely performed by a minority, but not enough voices from the camp at large have risen to condemn the behavior.  If there are voice's that have not been loud enough.  If the gay community wants to be taken seriously and people listen to them, they much reach out.  Being angry and passing blame will continue the most damaging factor surrounding this issue.  People who oppose gay marriage should be allowed to due so without retaliation.  I support the rights to boycott, but I do not support intimidation and vandalism.  That amounts to totalitarianism and violates the spirit of the rights these folks claim to be after.

The real solution is to privatize marriage.  Marriage is a religious ceremony and should remain so.  We would be better served to have the domestic partnership or civil unions for all at the state level, and let the religions take care of the marriage aspect.  I think that two adults should be able to have the same rights as a married couples.  This is especially important when it comes to visitation rights and medical decisions.  This is more than about marriage.  This can cover cases of an elderly parent and a child where the child is responsible for the care of the elderly adult.  I think there are a lot of situations where these rights can come in very handy for the benefit of society.

Another kicker on the marriage front is the issue of polygamy.  So far the gay marriage supporters have not made effort to gain equality for those small towns in southern Utah and northern Arizona.  If they did that, they'd actually be consistent when they say they are just looking for equality.  I know there are issues in some of the compounds where underage marriages are forced, but looking at things from the side of consenting adults you could make the same case the gay marriage supporters are making.  I can probably guarantee that most of them would oppose the idea.

The issue of polygamy left me thinking about the issue in a different way.  If people marry polygamously in this country, they go to jail (in theory at least).  What if gay people get married, do they go to jail?  Gay marriage is simply not recognized.  Why the inconsistency in the 21st century?  Shouldn't we just say that polygamous marriages are not recognized.  Perhaps you could fine people if they are able to sneak one into the legal system, then just annul it.  I guess it's the cohabitation thing that gets people into trouble, but is the government going to arrest some guy that's living with multiple women who are merely girlfriends?  I doubt it.  Maybe it's just one of those imponderables.

That's my take on the aftermath.

* Contrary to what my wife says, I still consider myself relatively young.

American Talib*

Last night I listened to a speech by Frank Lindh (it's an hour with the Q&A at the end, but well worth it), the father of John Walker Lindh, given at the Commonwealth Club of California**.  His speech was given about two years closer to the incident.  I rarely hear anything at all about John Walker Lindh now.

I remember the pictures of John Walker Lindh when this hit the news.  Knowing his age at the time, I just hoped that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.  After listening to the speech by Frank Lindh, I still lean toward that conclusion.  My knowledge of the situation is limited, because I haven't studied it very deeply.  I am glad that he was given the reduced 20 year sentence, because from what I remember and from what Frank Lindh states in his speech, the media*** as a body were ready to hang this guy.  Politicians weren't too nice either.  I think if they could have held a public execution at Yankee Stadium, you'd have a sell-out crowd and some massive profits for scalpers.

In the chaos that emerged around 9/11, it's was hard to really get a bearing on what was going on.  I remember waking up to 107.5 The End thinking it was a prank.  I was half asleep and couldn't make out everything they were saying.  I finally tried another station the second or third time the alarm went off and realized something was really going on.  I had to go to another apartment, because we were TV free, to actually see the footage.  I think the events for the next several months are similar what I experienced that morning.  John Walker Lindh became an easy target due to the inflamed emotions at that time and many did rush to judgment.

Frank Lindh portrays his son as a sincere seeker of Islam; somebody who had a deep connection with the religion and wanted to serve the nobel goals it espoused.  His reason for being in Afghanistan was to help people he felt needed his assistance.  His original destination was Pakistan, but after being there for a time, he joined a cause he felt was nobel.  Frank indicates that John had support for going to Pakistan, but went to Afghanistan without informing his family (Frank stated that had John contacted him about it, he would have said no).

I am left with the question as to why John did not discuss going to Afghanistan with his parents, where he's had a practice of doing so.  Was it because he knew what they would say and he felt strongly about going?  Did he know he was getting involved in something he knew he shouldn't be?  Was he dragged into something without time to think or act?  From the speech it's not entirely clear, what the exact story is.  We may have to wait before we get the full story of what happened.

Frank gives a vivid accounting of what happened based on what he knows and does a good job of setting up the historical context of the events.  Even though he criticizes the media, he acknowledges the motivation and spirit of the time the events took place.  It's possible that had John Walker Lindh been found at a later date, the media would have handled things differently, but still with severity.

My biggest issue with the speech came during the Q&A session.  A few questions were asked containing the implied assumption the John was a terrorist, or at least along those lines.  Frank seemed to tackle setting that straight more than answering the question.  I don't have a problem with him correcting what may be a misconception, but the way he did so came across a little too defensive for my taste.  Overall the speech was interesting and I could tell this was told by a passionate father who cares deeply for his son.  The question is whether that passion and love has clouded his judgment.

I do hope that the story told by Frank Lindh is accurate.  It's hard to say for sure.  Considering one statement John made in an email regarding the Cole bombing where he stated that the US ship being in the harbor was considered an act of war and it was justified.  That statement isn't that helpful without the proper context.  John might be better of to remain in prison.  I think that it will be hard for him to earn a living and some nut will try to pull something.  That would be tragic, if he is innocent of being a traitor.

* I know the common way to say it is American Taliban, but that's plural and John Walker Lindh is only one person.

**You can access the Commonwealth Club of California on iTunes as a podcast.  The podcast is the regular weekly radio show.  They invite speakers from all areas and interests (Naomi Klein, PJ O'Rourke, Anthony Bourdain, etc...).  It's a worthwhile podcast to check out.  I recommend that along with the Authors @ Google series that can be found on You Tube.

*** According to Lindh there were numerous headlines and articles condemning his son.  I couldn't find much, except for place that charge money.  Maybe more to be updated.

Pregnant Man?

This should be filed under "Why is this news?".  If it were an actual man who got pregnant, that would be news.  If it's a woman who had a sex change, it stupid.  It's not miraculous or amazing, or newsworthy when somebody gets pregnant when they were born with the proper equipment.  If a hermaphrodite gets pregnant, that's more newsworthy than this nonsense.  The attention this story gets has more to do with some people's fascination with oddities of people than of anything truly amazing.  From what I've seen of the trailers, Barbara does ask some direct questions.  The fact that she performs the interview at all is a little disappointing.  I have no personal ill will toward the transgender people.  I don't doubt there is something very complicated going on with them.  I can't imagine going through that kind of surgery if somebody is just mildly confused about their identity.  I'm pretty sure that this kind of issue runs pretty deep and it's something I probably will never come close to understanding.

That said, the story does not deserve that much attention, at least stop referring to Thomas as a pregnant man.  It's just not the same.  

Obama-nation

I ceratainly see Obama's election to the presidency of the U.S. is historic.  I don't consider myself a fan of Obama, but as I stated earlier, I will give him a chance.  My differences with him are largely philosophical, but I like him personally.  Most of my gripes deal with the public image and deification of Obama.  This clip is from Gene Healy of the Cato Institute and he's expressing himself right after Obama was declared the winner.  I do agree with him in some ways, though I do think that he comes across as too cynical.  I want to live with as little government involvement in my life as possible.  I don't like The way that Healy basically roots for Obama's failure as a president.

I have mixed feelings.  I don't want the government follow the track it's been on for the last 8 years for sure.  I hope that Obama can do some good things to correct that and at least restore some dignity to the Office of the President.  Obama comes across as a person who is willing to listen and to learn.  He does have the chance to be this era's Abraham Lincoln.  As Dan Carlin states on this edition of his podcast (follow the link - it's about an hour, but it's really good), Obama will be tempted by the powers that Mr. Bush is leaving him.  The question is whether he can keep his nose clean.  I'd really admire the guy if one of the first things he did in office was to undue the Bush policies of wiretapping and such.  I do think that Obama has to be an extraordinary president.  It won't be enough to be better than Bush.  Homer Simpson could do that with a can of Duff Beer in his hand.

The most important thing about Obama winning the White House is the mental barrier that's been torn down.  He's the first legitimate black candidate to ever run for the presidency.  I don't think it taking so long is a just result of racism, maybe more a hangover from previous years of racism.  I think that it boils down to him being a candidate who appealed to more than just one segment of the population.  I don't think it would have worked in the '70's or '80's, but I think the '90's could have seen a black president, had the right person came a long.  It's easy to have a long list of white presidents, when they are virtually the only ones who run.  The mental barrier that Obama may have broken I think opens the door for people of other races to run.  There's already talk of the Louisiana governor running in 2012, who happens to be of Indian descent.  It may be a little gimmicky at this point, but I think it's good that this is happening.

Obama's victory, plus Hillary's campaign, changed things for women as well.  Sarah Palin could have backed things up a little bit.  The field is more open for women, though I still think that it will be harder for a woman in this country than for a black man.  I think it requires more of a paradigm shift, because of the way that our political system runs.  Hillary's run does show though that's it's not just a pipe dream, as much as I dislike her (maybe I did a little too much Rush in the early '90's).

What's with the McCain People

I didn't really like any candidate this  election.  I bashed on Obama, more the status bestowed by the media, extensively.  I don't have as much to say about McCain.  Since he was behind most of the way, it's hard for the media worship to get to me.  Why do people boo the announcement?  Did the Kerry people boo in 2004?  Do these people not understand how Bush screwed things up so that McCain didn't have a chance?