Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Cognitive Dissonance, Mark Sanford and the Current Republican Electorate
In modern psychology, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort experienced when simultaneously holding two or more conflicting cognitions: ideas, beliefs, values or emotional reactions. In a state of dissonance, people may sometimes feel "disequilibrium": frustration, hunger, dread, guilt, anger, embarrassment, anxiety . . . . Cognitive dissonance theory explains human behavior by positing that people have a bias to seek consonance between their expectations and reality. According to Festinger, people engage in a process he termed "dissonance reduction", which can be achieved in one of three ways: lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors, adding consonant elements, or changing one of the dissonant factors.[6] This bias sheds light on otherwise puzzling, irrational, and even destructive behavior. (Emphasis added)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
**************************
I have not seen anyone yet discuss the role cognitive dissonance might have played in yesterday's special election in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District, an election that saw the self-confessed philanderer and disgraced former governor Mark Sanford win over Elizabeth Colbert Busch (ECB). The district went overwhelmingly for Romney in 2012 (by 18 percentage points), so I think it fair to label the district a pocket Republican borough. And yet, Elizabeth Colbert Busch lost by only 9 points, only one half the margin by which Obama lost in 2009. Why is that?
Cognitive dissonance theory offers one explanation for why Sanford managed to win but also why ECB managed to halve the margin by which a Dem last lost the district.
In short, Republicans in the district were faced with two conflicting "ideas, beliefs, [or] values." Specifically, Sanford was and is a self-confessed adulterer who used public money to finance his extra-marital excursions while keeping his own staff and the people of his state unaware of his whereabouts. This much is well known and thus should need no further elucidation. One can be sure that white male Republicans in the First District knew only too well about Sanford's sordid past. Against this, though, ECB offered herself to voters as a representative of, if not a progressive, then certainly a pro-choice, pro-LGBT, pro-government position.
And so cognitive dissonance enters into the arena. Republican voters felt massive anxiety, because the misogyny they manifest daily and felt toward ECB conflicted with someone (Sanford) who had violated the 'family values' those same Republican voters publicly proclaim each Sunday when they go to church and, for many, throughout the week.
Festinger hypothesized that cognitive dissonance (or the anxiety produced thereof) could be reduced -- brought into consonance -- if one of the discordant beliefs lost some of its importance. I would argue that this is exactly what transpired in SC's 1st yesterday. Republican voters reduced the importance they gave to 'family values' while maintaining their misogyny full-blown. To the extent ECB was viewed as a proxy for Obama, Republican voters maintained their racism full-blown. To the extent ECB was viwed as a proxy for non-hetero sexual identity, Republican voters maintained their homophobia full-blown.
It is easy to dismiss Republican voters as 'hypocritical' for loudly and publicly proclaiming 'family values,' while simultaneously voting for a scalawag like Sanford. By the same token, though, one must then explain why that hypocrisy exists at such an obvious level; I think cognitive dissonance explains the obvious hypocrisy better than do appeals to Republicans' innate 'evil,' 'ignorance,' and so on. Don't get me wrong: Republicans are evil and ignorant, but that does not explain why they are such obvious and public hypocrites.
I am unsure what, if any lessons, this race and its outcome hold for Democratic and Progressive strategists, nor how those strategists could exploit cognitive dissonance to achieve electoral successes. But I think there is reason to be cautiously optimistic. Because cognitive dissonance cuts both ways. If many Republicans reduced their anxiety by devaluing 'family values,', I think large numbers of Republican voters reduced their anxiety by changing their views on gun control, LGBT issues and government's role in our lives. Remember that the Mormon Romney won the district by 18 points in 2012 (a cognitive dissonance story in itself), but a mere year later Sanford only won by 9 points. This result tells me that some voters reduced their cognitive dissonance by lowering the importance they ascribed to ECB's ideological stances. In other words, ECB seems to have convinced some voters previously inclined to vote Republican that her election would not herald the Apocalypse.
My musings above prompt some additional questions:
Is it fair to say that the Republican Party today is misogynist, racist and\or homophobic?
Had Democrats run a white male espousing an identical platform to ECB's, would he have fared any better against Sanford?
By the same token, would a black male espousing a platform identical to ECB's have done worse?
How might progressives exploit cognitive dissonance in coming elections to win progressive victories?
And finally, if Republican voters have reduced the importance they give to 'family values,' might this create an opening to drive a stake through the hearts of the demagogues and charlatans nurtured by such appeals to "family values"?
Sunday, May 5, 2013
Zach Galifianakis and Me: A Memoir
Here's something you'll never see in Braille: "If you see something, say something."
Zach Galifianakis, Saturday Night Live, May 4, 2013
**********
In 1998, I began playing covers and newly written original songs each Monday evening at an open mike in Santa Monica, CA at a wonderful venue on Pier St. called simply 'Creativity.' The venue had an enormous stage and seating for about 50-75 audience members. I was an amateur on the pop music scene and had only recently begun writing my own songs, so the Monday open mike was a chance to play before other musicians and stand-up comedians, all of us trying to break in to our respective entertainment fields and all searching for that key to unlock entry to the entertainment world.
The venue Creativity seemed tailor-made for my efforts, as its proprietor kept the Open Mike strictly acoustic. (Although this occurred during the hey-day of the "Unplugged" fad that swept alternative rock, I suspect the devotion to acoustic had as much to do with the proprietor not wishing to pay ASCAP and other fees.) The stand-up comedians at the time were practicing a new form of comedy called 'Alternative Comedy" or "Alternative Standup". Rather than recite a pre-canned and memorized routine, the stand-up comedians would stand on the stage holding little notebooks or pieces of paper with their observations of funny things that had happened to them just that day or that week.
One night, a mild-mannered and diminutive figure took the stage. Short and a little overweight, he seemed to pause briefly as he squinted at the tiny notebook he held in his hands. I no longer remember what he said next. But Zach Galifianakis proceeded to set the room on fire in the next 5 minutes. Keep in mind that this was a room half-full of professional stand-up comedians and, still, it is fair to say, Zach had the entire room convulsing in the type of hysterical, transformative laughter one associates with a Jack Benny or Robin Williams. I mean, everyone in the audience is laughing non-stop and I am laughing so hard my sides hurt.
Zach did not show up every Monday night. In fact, among the performers at Creativity, Zach was probably one of the more irregular of performers. (No doubt, his professional career in show-biz was already beginning to take root.) But every time he came, the room hushed in anticipation of his latest observations. Each time, the room would be reduced to that same level of existential laughter I witnessed on his first performace. And all this from a tiny little spiral notebook filled with mundane observations.
The venue Creativity eventually folded, unable to pay the sky-high Santa Monica rents from the meager offerings of its entertainiment and the poverty of its clientele. Many of the comedians subsequently relocated to a new open mike at the Gypsy Cafe, a restaurant in Westwood, CA, just down the street from the UCLA campus. This was a comedy-only open mike and no musicians were ever featured there. But I had made so many friends among the comedians at Creativity that it was only natural that I would migrate there to see the comedy open mike.
I saw many of my favorites at the Gypsy each week. There was the very funny and profane Arthur Montmorency, who went on to write for That 70s Show. (I heard later on the grapevine that Arthur died of a drug overdose, a victim of his own success perhaps.) There was Maria Bamford, who has gone on to enjoy success of her own. There were so many other hilarious comics whose names and routines have now escaped me over these past 15 years. And there was the positively Dickensian Lean Gene, a hugely obese man who was unable to ever elicit a single genuine unforced laugh from the audience, partly because he was so grotesque but mainly because he was so desperately unfuuny and so pathetic in his desperation to be loved by the audience and failure to understand how unfunny he really was. (I heard on the same grapevine that Lean Gene died of a massive coronary, brought on by his morbid obesity. But maybe also by a broken heart that none of us knew existed?) Every once in awhile these days, I will see a name in the media and will say to Alma, my wife, "Hey, I knew so and so back at the Gypsy or Creativity." For the most part, though, the names and acts of these stand-up comedians have faded into obscurity.
About this same time, I had pushed my songwriting and performing career in its natural trajectory for a singer-songwriter, as I styled myself at the time. I had entered the studio of one of my associates from the open mike circuit and begun recording some of my songs. Before I knew it, I had 15-20 songs recorded in the studio and so, the next logical step was, make my own CD. Audio CDs, to the un-initiated, are (or were) the coin of the realm among aspiring musicians on the circuit, a sort of audio business card, if you will, a way to generate a little revenue off mostly non-paying live gigs, a way to get your work "out there," bascially a rite of passage for any serious aspiring original musician.
In April of 2000, my CD Living in the Shadows finally came out. Ah, what delusions of grandeur I had as I placed my order for 1,000 CDs (getting a nice per-CD volume discount in return for my hubris). I proceeded to sell a few copies on CDBaby.com, a few copies at gigs I was playing around town, and a few to my friends and acquaintances from the open-mike circuit.
Here's how I know that Zach is not just a great comedian, but a wonderful human being to boot. I happened to bump into Zach in March of 2001 at a local coffee shop in Santa Monica (right next to the now-defunct Creativity performance space). He was sitting there by himself alone, with a cup of coffee in a disposable cup, working on a personal digital assistant as I recall. His face brightened when he saw me and I sat down next to him. "So what have you been up to?" he asked. I told him I had come out with the CD and was trying to sell it. He immediately without question reached into his pocket and pulled out $10 (my asking price at the time). I gave him a CD and then I asked him what he had been up to. "Well," he said, "I was just asked to audition to be a writer for Saturday Night Live and my agent thinks I should. But I don't know."
Had I been more of a decent human being and less a star-struck publicity whore myself, I might have probed Zach just a little bit to find out the cause of his reservations. Instead, I thought to seize the opportunity and said, "Hey, let me give you another CD so you can pass it along." He took the 2nd copy of the CD, stuffed in in his satchel with the first and his PDA, and we left to go our separate ways. I learned later that Zach's misgivings were not my imagination and that his writing stint with SNL lasted only two weeks. I have often thought back on that encounter as not one of my finer moments and, while I doubt that Zach ever remembers it, I hope he does not go "Ugh" should a memory of it ever cross his horizon.
Now I do not watch many new movies in theatrical release and, after September 11, 2001, music seemed to fade out of my life, replaced with new activism in the progressive and anti-war movements that would occupy much of the next decade. Truth to tell, I don't think I was ever good enough to deserve the big break that is required to make it in show biz. I was talented, but the streets and restaurants of Los Angeles are littered with the resumes of the merely 'talented.' I certainly was not dedicated enough. One of my piano teachers, Richard Cass, once told me, "You have to give it 100% all the time. Because there are many others out there just as talented as you who are giving it 100%." Mr. Cass must have been able to see into my soul, to see that I lacked that certain fortitude, that willingness to stick with it long enough to get my name in the bright lights.
I don't think I thought of Zach once in the next several years. I never saw him after that night when I sold him a CD. But a few years later, while renting a movie, I happened to see his name on the case for The Hangover."Hey, Alma," I said to my wife, "I knew Zach. He was easily the funniest stand-up comedian I ever saw perform on the open mike circuit."
Last night, May 4, we turned on the television to watch Saturday Night Live. Wouldn't you know it? Zach Galifianakis was guest-hosting. The weird thing is that I think the funniest part of the show was Zach's opening monologue from which the joke at the top comes. Zach's performance as an ensemble sketch comedian did not match the comic heights of his best solo work, although he did have some funny moments in the M&M Store routine where he plays a racist and sexist employee trying to apologize to his co-workers or the sketch where he tries to record himself meeting new friends at his house for the first time.
Zach, it seems to me, is funniest as a solo comedian where he has a one-on-one relationship with his audience, unmediated by any distractions. After last night, my wife agrees that Zach is best as a solo performer. I told her that his monologue last night was not nearly as good as the solo Zach I remembered from Creativity and the Gypsy so many years earlier.
I'm not much of a practitioner or participant in the cult of celebrity. My wife all too frequently has to tell me who the latest star or starlet is and what he or she is famous for. I seldom even watch much television any more, aside from current episodes of The Good Wife and re-runs of Cold Case. But I can honestly say that Zach Galifianakis and I once shared the same stage and that I feel honored and privileged to have done so with one so young and manifestly gifted as he. Zach, if you're out there in the blog-o-sphere or one of your assistants reads this, please accept this greeting from years and performances gone by. (The email address on the back of my CD is still valid, if you want to get in touch.:) It is all too fitting that you 'made it.' If any of us were going to 'make it' in the 'Biz,' I am glad that the universe saw fit to reward you for your hard work, dedication and comic genius.
And, Zach, I've never seen any of your movies, so maybe it's time I returned that gesture of generosity you displayed to me so many years ago and rented one of your movies. But, after you have accumulated enough loot and swag from Hollyweird and its offshoots, the open mike circuit desperately needs your talents again to light up a room with unforced and hysterical laughter, to remove all of us -- if only for an all-too-brief moment -- from the hum-drum banality of our existence, if only by rubbing our noses in it. Life is too short and, Zach, we miss you out here in La-La land.
Zach Galifianakis, Saturday Night Live, May 4, 2013
**********
In 1998, I began playing covers and newly written original songs each Monday evening at an open mike in Santa Monica, CA at a wonderful venue on Pier St. called simply 'Creativity.' The venue had an enormous stage and seating for about 50-75 audience members. I was an amateur on the pop music scene and had only recently begun writing my own songs, so the Monday open mike was a chance to play before other musicians and stand-up comedians, all of us trying to break in to our respective entertainment fields and all searching for that key to unlock entry to the entertainment world.
The venue Creativity seemed tailor-made for my efforts, as its proprietor kept the Open Mike strictly acoustic. (Although this occurred during the hey-day of the "Unplugged" fad that swept alternative rock, I suspect the devotion to acoustic had as much to do with the proprietor not wishing to pay ASCAP and other fees.) The stand-up comedians at the time were practicing a new form of comedy called 'Alternative Comedy" or "Alternative Standup". Rather than recite a pre-canned and memorized routine, the stand-up comedians would stand on the stage holding little notebooks or pieces of paper with their observations of funny things that had happened to them just that day or that week.
One night, a mild-mannered and diminutive figure took the stage. Short and a little overweight, he seemed to pause briefly as he squinted at the tiny notebook he held in his hands. I no longer remember what he said next. But Zach Galifianakis proceeded to set the room on fire in the next 5 minutes. Keep in mind that this was a room half-full of professional stand-up comedians and, still, it is fair to say, Zach had the entire room convulsing in the type of hysterical, transformative laughter one associates with a Jack Benny or Robin Williams. I mean, everyone in the audience is laughing non-stop and I am laughing so hard my sides hurt.
Zach did not show up every Monday night. In fact, among the performers at Creativity, Zach was probably one of the more irregular of performers. (No doubt, his professional career in show-biz was already beginning to take root.) But every time he came, the room hushed in anticipation of his latest observations. Each time, the room would be reduced to that same level of existential laughter I witnessed on his first performace. And all this from a tiny little spiral notebook filled with mundane observations.
The venue Creativity eventually folded, unable to pay the sky-high Santa Monica rents from the meager offerings of its entertainiment and the poverty of its clientele. Many of the comedians subsequently relocated to a new open mike at the Gypsy Cafe, a restaurant in Westwood, CA, just down the street from the UCLA campus. This was a comedy-only open mike and no musicians were ever featured there. But I had made so many friends among the comedians at Creativity that it was only natural that I would migrate there to see the comedy open mike.
I saw many of my favorites at the Gypsy each week. There was the very funny and profane Arthur Montmorency, who went on to write for That 70s Show. (I heard later on the grapevine that Arthur died of a drug overdose, a victim of his own success perhaps.) There was Maria Bamford, who has gone on to enjoy success of her own. There were so many other hilarious comics whose names and routines have now escaped me over these past 15 years. And there was the positively Dickensian Lean Gene, a hugely obese man who was unable to ever elicit a single genuine unforced laugh from the audience, partly because he was so grotesque but mainly because he was so desperately unfuuny and so pathetic in his desperation to be loved by the audience and failure to understand how unfunny he really was. (I heard on the same grapevine that Lean Gene died of a massive coronary, brought on by his morbid obesity. But maybe also by a broken heart that none of us knew existed?) Every once in awhile these days, I will see a name in the media and will say to Alma, my wife, "Hey, I knew so and so back at the Gypsy or Creativity." For the most part, though, the names and acts of these stand-up comedians have faded into obscurity.
About this same time, I had pushed my songwriting and performing career in its natural trajectory for a singer-songwriter, as I styled myself at the time. I had entered the studio of one of my associates from the open mike circuit and begun recording some of my songs. Before I knew it, I had 15-20 songs recorded in the studio and so, the next logical step was, make my own CD. Audio CDs, to the un-initiated, are (or were) the coin of the realm among aspiring musicians on the circuit, a sort of audio business card, if you will, a way to generate a little revenue off mostly non-paying live gigs, a way to get your work "out there," bascially a rite of passage for any serious aspiring original musician.
In April of 2000, my CD Living in the Shadows finally came out. Ah, what delusions of grandeur I had as I placed my order for 1,000 CDs (getting a nice per-CD volume discount in return for my hubris). I proceeded to sell a few copies on CDBaby.com, a few copies at gigs I was playing around town, and a few to my friends and acquaintances from the open-mike circuit.
Here's how I know that Zach is not just a great comedian, but a wonderful human being to boot. I happened to bump into Zach in March of 2001 at a local coffee shop in Santa Monica (right next to the now-defunct Creativity performance space). He was sitting there by himself alone, with a cup of coffee in a disposable cup, working on a personal digital assistant as I recall. His face brightened when he saw me and I sat down next to him. "So what have you been up to?" he asked. I told him I had come out with the CD and was trying to sell it. He immediately without question reached into his pocket and pulled out $10 (my asking price at the time). I gave him a CD and then I asked him what he had been up to. "Well," he said, "I was just asked to audition to be a writer for Saturday Night Live and my agent thinks I should. But I don't know."
Had I been more of a decent human being and less a star-struck publicity whore myself, I might have probed Zach just a little bit to find out the cause of his reservations. Instead, I thought to seize the opportunity and said, "Hey, let me give you another CD so you can pass it along." He took the 2nd copy of the CD, stuffed in in his satchel with the first and his PDA, and we left to go our separate ways. I learned later that Zach's misgivings were not my imagination and that his writing stint with SNL lasted only two weeks. I have often thought back on that encounter as not one of my finer moments and, while I doubt that Zach ever remembers it, I hope he does not go "Ugh" should a memory of it ever cross his horizon.
Now I do not watch many new movies in theatrical release and, after September 11, 2001, music seemed to fade out of my life, replaced with new activism in the progressive and anti-war movements that would occupy much of the next decade. Truth to tell, I don't think I was ever good enough to deserve the big break that is required to make it in show biz. I was talented, but the streets and restaurants of Los Angeles are littered with the resumes of the merely 'talented.' I certainly was not dedicated enough. One of my piano teachers, Richard Cass, once told me, "You have to give it 100% all the time. Because there are many others out there just as talented as you who are giving it 100%." Mr. Cass must have been able to see into my soul, to see that I lacked that certain fortitude, that willingness to stick with it long enough to get my name in the bright lights.
I don't think I thought of Zach once in the next several years. I never saw him after that night when I sold him a CD. But a few years later, while renting a movie, I happened to see his name on the case for The Hangover."Hey, Alma," I said to my wife, "I knew Zach. He was easily the funniest stand-up comedian I ever saw perform on the open mike circuit."
Last night, May 4, we turned on the television to watch Saturday Night Live. Wouldn't you know it? Zach Galifianakis was guest-hosting. The weird thing is that I think the funniest part of the show was Zach's opening monologue from which the joke at the top comes. Zach's performance as an ensemble sketch comedian did not match the comic heights of his best solo work, although he did have some funny moments in the M&M Store routine where he plays a racist and sexist employee trying to apologize to his co-workers or the sketch where he tries to record himself meeting new friends at his house for the first time.
Zach, it seems to me, is funniest as a solo comedian where he has a one-on-one relationship with his audience, unmediated by any distractions. After last night, my wife agrees that Zach is best as a solo performer. I told her that his monologue last night was not nearly as good as the solo Zach I remembered from Creativity and the Gypsy so many years earlier.
I'm not much of a practitioner or participant in the cult of celebrity. My wife all too frequently has to tell me who the latest star or starlet is and what he or she is famous for. I seldom even watch much television any more, aside from current episodes of The Good Wife and re-runs of Cold Case. But I can honestly say that Zach Galifianakis and I once shared the same stage and that I feel honored and privileged to have done so with one so young and manifestly gifted as he. Zach, if you're out there in the blog-o-sphere or one of your assistants reads this, please accept this greeting from years and performances gone by. (The email address on the back of my CD is still valid, if you want to get in touch.:) It is all too fitting that you 'made it.' If any of us were going to 'make it' in the 'Biz,' I am glad that the universe saw fit to reward you for your hard work, dedication and comic genius.
And, Zach, I've never seen any of your movies, so maybe it's time I returned that gesture of generosity you displayed to me so many years ago and rented one of your movies. But, after you have accumulated enough loot and swag from Hollyweird and its offshoots, the open mike circuit desperately needs your talents again to light up a room with unforced and hysterical laughter, to remove all of us -- if only for an all-too-brief moment -- from the hum-drum banality of our existence, if only by rubbing our noses in it. Life is too short and, Zach, we miss you out here in La-La land.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Whither the Social Contract?
A startling new poll was released yesterday by Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind:
Startling poll results
FDU surveyed 863 registered voters nationwide and discovered that 29% believe an armed revolution may be necessary in the next few years to protect 'our' liberties. Buried within those aggregate numbers was an even more startling statistic: 44% of Republicans think an armed rebellion may be necessary. (Somewhat more reassuring, albeit still alarming, 18% of Dems felt that armed revolution may be necessary.) In other words, more than 2 out of 5 registered Republican voters now thinks armed rebellion may be necessary.
Keep in mind these are not undocumented immigrants or even permanent residents. These are American citizens and registered voters, fully enfranchised within the existing system, who now see violence as a possible solution.
I think we should be very alarmed by this.
Historically, Americans have resolved their political differences at the ballot boxes and to a lesser but still significant measure through the courts. The only time large numbers of people in the nation has resorted to open, armed rebellion (1861-65), some two million Americans were killed and many more wounded.
What these new poll numbers tell me is that the social contract may be starting to break down, that unwritten contract that says we may disagree and disagree vehemently but we resolve our differences peacefully and without violence. We have other examples in the recent past to counsel us: Rwanda and Bosnia. Those are examples of societies that eschewed the non-violent political process and instead turned to violence to resolve differences. One shudders to imagine an America that devolves to that. But 44% of Republicans think it may be necessary to become just that.
I am not sure what can be done to reverse this now. My thoughts ramble and do not cohere. I would like to see President Obama, Vice President Biden, Speaker Boehner, Minoority Leader Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell convene to tell all Americans, Dem and Repub alike, that political violence is unacceptable, no matter whence it originates and, more important, is ineffective. And to warn that 44% of Republicans that, just like in 1861, any armed rebellion will be met by an implacable and unified federal resolve to suppress it.
But, for all I know, Boehner and McConnell are part of that 44%. That's what truly scares me.
Startling poll results
FDU surveyed 863 registered voters nationwide and discovered that 29% believe an armed revolution may be necessary in the next few years to protect 'our' liberties. Buried within those aggregate numbers was an even more startling statistic: 44% of Republicans think an armed rebellion may be necessary. (Somewhat more reassuring, albeit still alarming, 18% of Dems felt that armed revolution may be necessary.) In other words, more than 2 out of 5 registered Republican voters now thinks armed rebellion may be necessary.
Keep in mind these are not undocumented immigrants or even permanent residents. These are American citizens and registered voters, fully enfranchised within the existing system, who now see violence as a possible solution.
I think we should be very alarmed by this.
Historically, Americans have resolved their political differences at the ballot boxes and to a lesser but still significant measure through the courts. The only time large numbers of people in the nation has resorted to open, armed rebellion (1861-65), some two million Americans were killed and many more wounded.
What these new poll numbers tell me is that the social contract may be starting to break down, that unwritten contract that says we may disagree and disagree vehemently but we resolve our differences peacefully and without violence. We have other examples in the recent past to counsel us: Rwanda and Bosnia. Those are examples of societies that eschewed the non-violent political process and instead turned to violence to resolve differences. One shudders to imagine an America that devolves to that. But 44% of Republicans think it may be necessary to become just that.
I am not sure what can be done to reverse this now. My thoughts ramble and do not cohere. I would like to see President Obama, Vice President Biden, Speaker Boehner, Minoority Leader Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell convene to tell all Americans, Dem and Repub alike, that political violence is unacceptable, no matter whence it originates and, more important, is ineffective. And to warn that 44% of Republicans that, just like in 1861, any armed rebellion will be met by an implacable and unified federal resolve to suppress it.
But, for all I know, Boehner and McConnell are part of that 44%. That's what truly scares me.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Whither the Sixth Amendment?
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a
speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have
been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor,
and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. ("Amendment VI" to the U.S. Constitution. Emphasis added)
A couple days ago, I happened upon an article in my home-town rag, The Los Angeles Times. One brief passage in particular about the pre-Miranda interrogation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev caught my eye:
Wait, what?
The 'Public Safety Exception' to the Miranda rule does not allow the government to deny suspects their rights, e.g., to remain silent or to counsel. It does allow the government to put aside temporarily its obligation to read suspects those rights. In other words, Tsarnaev had the right to an attorney, whether he was advised or not, and he attempted to exercise that right by requesting an attorney.
If the Times' reporting is to be believed, the government chose to ignore Tsarnaev's request for an attorney and kept right on questioning him.
I'm not an attorney, more like an attorney manque, nurtured on episodes of Perry Mason and Law and Order. But from where I sit, the government willfully violated Tsarnaev's right to an attorney. The Public Safety Exception never allows the government to deny suspects their rights. It only allows the government to delay informing suspects of their rights for a brief period. There is a difference.
As soon as Tsarnaev requested an attorney, whether during the Public Safety Exception or otherwise, the Sixth Amendment required the government to provide him with access to one. So, please, someone, anyone, tell me the U.S. did not jeopardize its entire case by violating Tsarnaev's Sixth Amendment rights.
A couple days ago, I happened upon an article in my home-town rag, The Los Angeles Times. One brief passage in particular about the pre-Miranda interrogation of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev caught my eye:
Until that point, Tsarnaev had been responding to the interagency High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, including admitting his role in the bombing, authorities said. A senior congressional aide said Tsarnaev had asked several times for a lawyer, but that request was ignored since he was being questioned under the public safety exemption to the Miranda rule. (Emphasis added)http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-boston-bombing-20130426,0,5051005.story
Wait, what?
The 'Public Safety Exception' to the Miranda rule does not allow the government to deny suspects their rights, e.g., to remain silent or to counsel. It does allow the government to put aside temporarily its obligation to read suspects those rights. In other words, Tsarnaev had the right to an attorney, whether he was advised or not, and he attempted to exercise that right by requesting an attorney.
If the Times' reporting is to be believed, the government chose to ignore Tsarnaev's request for an attorney and kept right on questioning him.
I'm not an attorney, more like an attorney manque, nurtured on episodes of Perry Mason and Law and Order. But from where I sit, the government willfully violated Tsarnaev's right to an attorney. The Public Safety Exception never allows the government to deny suspects their rights. It only allows the government to delay informing suspects of their rights for a brief period. There is a difference.
As soon as Tsarnaev requested an attorney, whether during the Public Safety Exception or otherwise, the Sixth Amendment required the government to provide him with access to one. So, please, someone, anyone, tell me the U.S. did not jeopardize its entire case by violating Tsarnaev's Sixth Amendment rights.
Wednesday, April 24, 2013
What is "Blowback"?
Salon.com is reporting that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, suspected in the Boston Marathon bombing, has confessed from his hospital bed to U.S. interrogators that he and his brother planted the bombs to protest the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This might make a good time to discuss 'blow back' and what it is and is not.
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_confesses/
Put bluntly, the Brothers Tsarnaev's bombing attack is not 'blow back'. The attack may indeed be retaliation. But "blow back" has come to mean a particular type of reaction to U.S. foreign policy. Specifically, according to writers like Chalmers Johnson, blow back occurs when the American people are largely kept in the dark about the consequences of America's foreign policy until the inevitable and eminently predictable blow is struck against her. The American people are thus mystified at this display of seeming 'motiveless malignity.'
Since it can be safely assumed that the American people were largely aware of the consequences of the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan -- whether they disagree or not with those consequences -- the Marathon Bombing hardly constitutes blow back.
Contrast Tsarnaev's alleged motive with Osama bin Laden's fatwa, issued prior to 9-11, that authorized the attack upon the U.S. In his fatwa, bin Laden mentions several grievances, two of which strike me as ones largely hidden from the American public: the preventable deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children during the decade of the 90s as a result of U.N. sanctions on so-called dual use items (sanctions maintained largely at the insistence of the U.S.) and the continued presence and basing of U.S. troops on Saudi Arabian soil after the end of the First Gulf War (aka "Operation Desert Shield\Storm"). In each of these cases, the American public was largely unaware of the effects its foreign policy was having upon the people of the Middle East. Thus, when 9-11 occurred, it could rightly be seen as an instance of 'blow back,' given that Al Qaeda's response seemed to lack any motivation, so much so as to allow Bush to claim ludicrously that AQ hated us 'for our freedoms.'
While I have been saying, since 2001, that attacks like the Marathon Bomber were inevitable and would come when the people of the Middle East and Central Asia were ready to strike and not according to our timetable, I have also never felt that attacks like the Marathon Bomber constitute 'blow back.' In the case of the Marathon Bomber, the motives were already known or should have been known.
No American can therefore say that he or she could not have seen this coming. Indeed, a more pointed question is why it did not come sooner. Nor can any American any longer hide from the probability that attacks like these will continue as long as we contiinue our murderous and criminal policies in the Middle East.
I found the story and images of the 8-year-old victim, Martin Richard, particularly poingant. In one such photo, Richard is seen holding a sign that says "No more hurting people . . . Peace." Surely one so young possessed of such wisdom should be inoculated from the murderous consequences of the Bush Junta and its successor regimes. Indeed, I had flattered myself that my 8 years of bi- and thrice-weekly vigiling in the streets of Los Angeles had similarly inoculated my wife (maker of my signs) and me. Alas, I see now that such is fond delusion. And, if I'm being honest with myself, it is fond delusion. For where is the outrage for the deaths of the 12 Afghan children killed in a NATO airstrike in Afghanistan just 9 days before the Marathon bombing? There is no outrage, just a numbed and deafening silence. Those 12 Afghan children were just as innocent as Richard, lives as full of promise as his. And those 12 Afghan children are suddenly dead, just as Richard is. Perhaps Richard would have been the next Einstein, perhaps one of those Afghan chidlren would have been the next Salk. We shall never know.
But I do know that further attacks on us will come until the foreign policy of the United States undergoes a radical change and until the perpetrators of all the death, torture and destruction have been held fully to account. Until both conditions are satisifed, we will not be experiencing blow back. But we will be experiencing retaliation. There is a difference.
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_confesses/
Put bluntly, the Brothers Tsarnaev's bombing attack is not 'blow back'. The attack may indeed be retaliation. But "blow back" has come to mean a particular type of reaction to U.S. foreign policy. Specifically, according to writers like Chalmers Johnson, blow back occurs when the American people are largely kept in the dark about the consequences of America's foreign policy until the inevitable and eminently predictable blow is struck against her. The American people are thus mystified at this display of seeming 'motiveless malignity.'
Since it can be safely assumed that the American people were largely aware of the consequences of the invasions and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan -- whether they disagree or not with those consequences -- the Marathon Bombing hardly constitutes blow back.
Contrast Tsarnaev's alleged motive with Osama bin Laden's fatwa, issued prior to 9-11, that authorized the attack upon the U.S. In his fatwa, bin Laden mentions several grievances, two of which strike me as ones largely hidden from the American public: the preventable deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children during the decade of the 90s as a result of U.N. sanctions on so-called dual use items (sanctions maintained largely at the insistence of the U.S.) and the continued presence and basing of U.S. troops on Saudi Arabian soil after the end of the First Gulf War (aka "Operation Desert Shield\Storm"). In each of these cases, the American public was largely unaware of the effects its foreign policy was having upon the people of the Middle East. Thus, when 9-11 occurred, it could rightly be seen as an instance of 'blow back,' given that Al Qaeda's response seemed to lack any motivation, so much so as to allow Bush to claim ludicrously that AQ hated us 'for our freedoms.'
While I have been saying, since 2001, that attacks like the Marathon Bomber were inevitable and would come when the people of the Middle East and Central Asia were ready to strike and not according to our timetable, I have also never felt that attacks like the Marathon Bomber constitute 'blow back.' In the case of the Marathon Bomber, the motives were already known or should have been known.
No American can therefore say that he or she could not have seen this coming. Indeed, a more pointed question is why it did not come sooner. Nor can any American any longer hide from the probability that attacks like these will continue as long as we contiinue our murderous and criminal policies in the Middle East.
I found the story and images of the 8-year-old victim, Martin Richard, particularly poingant. In one such photo, Richard is seen holding a sign that says "No more hurting people . . . Peace." Surely one so young possessed of such wisdom should be inoculated from the murderous consequences of the Bush Junta and its successor regimes. Indeed, I had flattered myself that my 8 years of bi- and thrice-weekly vigiling in the streets of Los Angeles had similarly inoculated my wife (maker of my signs) and me. Alas, I see now that such is fond delusion. And, if I'm being honest with myself, it is fond delusion. For where is the outrage for the deaths of the 12 Afghan children killed in a NATO airstrike in Afghanistan just 9 days before the Marathon bombing? There is no outrage, just a numbed and deafening silence. Those 12 Afghan children were just as innocent as Richard, lives as full of promise as his. And those 12 Afghan children are suddenly dead, just as Richard is. Perhaps Richard would have been the next Einstein, perhaps one of those Afghan chidlren would have been the next Salk. We shall never know.
But I do know that further attacks on us will come until the foreign policy of the United States undergoes a radical change and until the perpetrators of all the death, torture and destruction have been held fully to account. Until both conditions are satisifed, we will not be experiencing blow back. But we will be experiencing retaliation. There is a difference.
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
50th Anniversary of the Death of an American Hero
A little reminder popped up on my Yahoo Calendar
Moore was killed on April 23, 1963, while walking down a highway in rural Alabama. He was en route to Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett's office in Jackson, MS to deliver a letter urging the segregationist Barnett to accept racial integration.
Moore's body was discovered along that Alabama highway, shot by two .22 caliber bullets, about an hour after he had been interviewed by a reporter from a local radio station. As far as I know, no arrest has ever been made in the case and Moore's killer(s) have never been brought to justice.
Just one among many victims of Southern racial prejudice. But Moore is noteworthy for another reason: Moore had suffered a nervous breakdown a few years earlier and had subsequently been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.
Moore began his activism by campaigning for the rights of the mentally ill and subsequently segued into civil rights for African Americans and all minorities.
Moore was killed on April 23, 1963, while walking down a highway in rural Alabama. He was en route to Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett's office in Jackson, MS to deliver a letter urging the segregationist Barnett to accept racial integration.
Moore's body was discovered along that Alabama highway, shot by two .22 caliber bullets, about an hour after he had been interviewed by a reporter from a local radio station. As far as I know, no arrest has ever been made in the case and Moore's killer(s) have never been brought to justice.
Just one among many victims of Southern racial prejudice. But Moore is noteworthy for another reason: Moore had suffered a nervous breakdown a few years earlier and had subsequently been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia.
Moore began his activism by campaigning for the rights of the mentally ill and subsequently segued into civil rights for African Americans and all minorities.
I posted this to make sure Moore's memory lives on and to remind everyone that mental illness is just like any other illness. Some of its victims can behave villainously. Some, like Moore, can behave heroically.
RIP William Lewis Moore. This country and this world are a better place because you walked our highways, if only for a short while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lewis_Moore
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and the Eyes of the World
I can't believe it. The U.S. Government has announced that it will not immediately read Dzhokhar Tsarnaev his Miranda warning, invoking the so-called 'Public Safety Exception' as its so-called rationale. This Exception, created by the Rehnquist Court in 1984, allows authorities to question detainees for up to 48 hours about threats to the public or to law enforcement before advising the detainee of his or her various rights, notably the right to remain silent and right to an attorney. Should the detainee speak during this Public Safety Exception period, his or her comments can be admitted into court to be used against him.
OK, sure, you say. The police need to find out if there are any other threats to the public that the detainee knows about and that compelling state interest outweighs the need to keep the detainee fully informed of his rights. What's the problem?
Ah, but there's the rub. Because, you see, the detainee already has the right to remain silent. Tsarnaev could know about 6 more bombs set to detonate in the next 24 hours and he has the absolute right to remain silent about them. All the Miranda rule does is require the government to formally apprise Tsarnaev of his right to silence. Same goes for his other rights. Tsarnaev has an absolute right to request an attorney at any time. All the Miranda rule does is require the government to formally apprise Tsarnaev of his right to an attorney. And all the Public Safety Exception does is relax the requirement that the government Mirandize Tsarnaev before seeking testimony that it then uses in a case against him.
So Tsarnaev has these rights already, it's not the government's fault if Tsarnaev doesn't understand his rights and Public Safety demands that the government not inform him of these rights so that it can try to elicit information from him that it can use against him, provided that information deals with issues affecting the Public Safety.
See a problem there? Well, let's see. Tsarnaev will be facing the death penalty since the case is now in U.S. jurisdiction (as 'terrorism') and the government basically can try to trick him into further implicating himself.
Jesus H. Christ, don't these legal beagles in the Justice Department understand that the entire civilized world (most of which resolutely opposes the death penalty in all cases) is watching us to make sure that we really have left the days of the Bush-Cheney torture regime behind? Anything that gives the appearance that we are playing fast and loose with Tsarnaev's rights in our system and the world will be entitled to claim that the Bush-Cheney torture regime was not an exception but is part of a new norm.
President Obama, I thought you were some hot-shot constitutional lawyer, law professor or both. Do you really intend to give the rest of the world the impression that we are playing fast and loose with the life of a 19-year-old by playing legal tricks on him?
Come on, Obama, do the right thing. Instruct prosecutors to Mirandize Tsarnaev as soon as he is capable of understanding the Miranda warning. If there truly is a public safety concern - and I think there might be - immunize Tsarnaev for any information he gives about future bombs or other conspirators. But whatever you do, don't try to trick him into further implicating himself. The whole world is watching. You are better than this and America is better than this. And the whole world is watching.
.
OK, sure, you say. The police need to find out if there are any other threats to the public that the detainee knows about and that compelling state interest outweighs the need to keep the detainee fully informed of his rights. What's the problem?
Ah, but there's the rub. Because, you see, the detainee already has the right to remain silent. Tsarnaev could know about 6 more bombs set to detonate in the next 24 hours and he has the absolute right to remain silent about them. All the Miranda rule does is require the government to formally apprise Tsarnaev of his right to silence. Same goes for his other rights. Tsarnaev has an absolute right to request an attorney at any time. All the Miranda rule does is require the government to formally apprise Tsarnaev of his right to an attorney. And all the Public Safety Exception does is relax the requirement that the government Mirandize Tsarnaev before seeking testimony that it then uses in a case against him.
So Tsarnaev has these rights already, it's not the government's fault if Tsarnaev doesn't understand his rights and Public Safety demands that the government not inform him of these rights so that it can try to elicit information from him that it can use against him, provided that information deals with issues affecting the Public Safety.
See a problem there? Well, let's see. Tsarnaev will be facing the death penalty since the case is now in U.S. jurisdiction (as 'terrorism') and the government basically can try to trick him into further implicating himself.
Jesus H. Christ, don't these legal beagles in the Justice Department understand that the entire civilized world (most of which resolutely opposes the death penalty in all cases) is watching us to make sure that we really have left the days of the Bush-Cheney torture regime behind? Anything that gives the appearance that we are playing fast and loose with Tsarnaev's rights in our system and the world will be entitled to claim that the Bush-Cheney torture regime was not an exception but is part of a new norm.
President Obama, I thought you were some hot-shot constitutional lawyer, law professor or both. Do you really intend to give the rest of the world the impression that we are playing fast and loose with the life of a 19-year-old by playing legal tricks on him?
Come on, Obama, do the right thing. Instruct prosecutors to Mirandize Tsarnaev as soon as he is capable of understanding the Miranda warning. If there truly is a public safety concern - and I think there might be - immunize Tsarnaev for any information he gives about future bombs or other conspirators. But whatever you do, don't try to trick him into further implicating himself. The whole world is watching. You are better than this and America is better than this. And the whole world is watching.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)