The Firearm Problem

In response to Ms. Hausmann’s post: Who’s the Real Killer? I would like to point out and clarify a few issues.

My own position on gun control is something of a shaky one. Certainly I believe that Americans should have access to and be able to enjoy the use of firearms; however I’m not sure how much freedom individuals should have with their firearms. Idealistically I do support Ms. Hausmann’s argument. Conversely, I have a few problems with the details of that argument.

While it is true that the men who cobbled together the Bill of Rights felt that gun ownership was important, this does not make for a solid argument to limit gun control. This is particularly apparent when you consider that George Washington argued against a standing Army. In the modern world this would be inconceivable. So this would seem to be more an argument for the obsolete nature of the 2^nd Amendment.

The reference to Eisenhower is much more compelling. (A exceptional reference by the way.) Does the easy answer mean the right answer? An economic system built partly around military contracts probably carries with it certain darkly violent negative consequences. So might the outlawing of firearms. Though, when we look at the statistics, maybe upholding the 2^nd Amendment also has dark consequences.

The argument is made that Australia and England have seen a sharp increase in gun violence since outlawing firearms. Snopes.com argues this an incorrect interpretation of the Australian statistics. As we can see from the graph on above, the amount of gun ownership seems to correlate directly to gun deaths. Though, like all statistics, the people correlating the data usually have an agenda. An example of manipulating statistics (or not) can be found here. They are trying to make the point that the United States just happens to be more violent, but I find it a little shocking that we rate so much significantly higher than countries that have a similar culture and legal structure. We are just under Northern Ireland in 1994. In 1994 the IRA finally declared a ceasefire, but only on the 31^st of August. The fact that we were ranked barely under a country torn apart by sectarian violence, and our violence was mostly made up of firearms, seems to suggest a problem.

To do away with guns would not end violence. However, it would make violent crime a significantly trickier proposition. It seems to me that these statistics do a pretty good job of suggesting the cost in life of legalized firearms. Now, while the cost in life is significant, as Ms. Hausmann points out, there are plenty of other ways to kill people. In fact, most of the arguments against gun control point out that most places that outlawed guns and have low incidences of gun violence, already had lower violence. So while the old adage “Guns don’t kill people, I do,” is certainly true, guns make it significantly easier to kill. It also makes killing in bulk easier.

The big question is would outlawing guns actually save lives? It would probably save several thousand a year (wild guess) but it might not be that statistically significant. As I mentioned above, killing is still going to happen. Actual murder rates occur somewhat independently of firearms.

So are a few thousand people worth our freedom? As Thomas Jefferson said: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” I suppose that includes our liberty to bear arms. (But it seems kind of creepy to me.)

Islam in America: Government Class Edition.

Intro and Background:

The national dialogue over the proposed Islamic Community Center: Park 51 struck something of a raw nerve with me. Much like when you bang your elbow or knee on the corner of furniture and then hop around the room screaming expletives, my anger had a similar reactionary bent to it. Over time I was able to synthesize a number of arguments into this essay here.

This essay is less essay and more of a fancy Facebook post. (For example: I have a tendency to use capitalization liberally and in such a way that makes me feel good.) It started when a friend posted a news story about how Ron Paul had supported the “Ground Zero Mosque” and my friend admitted he might have changed his mind. It was somewhat unclear as to what he met, but almost as soon as I agreed with Ron Paul, a number of individuals responded against me, including my friend’s father. The ensuing debate went on for several weeks encompassing disagreements over the nature of Islam, oppression in Islamic countries, and whether all Muslims were complicit in the attack of 9/11. Implicit in the debate seemed to be the superiority of Christianity and that as long as the Government didn’t get involved; stopping the “Mosque” would not be a violation of the 1^st Amendment. (Which, I guess, is technically true.)

The context of this is an angry, frustrated summer of Mosque protests and Koran burnings. I’m sure I missed a number of important points, but then this is written in the context of a debate of specifics with an attempt to have universal readership. I hope it is successful.

Response to Kirt Poovey:

Unless we find a way to take this conversation in a productive direction this will be my final response. I see no point in continuing a conversation where the gap between the narratives we believe are so incredibly wide as to be almost insurmountable. In an attempt redirect this into positive territory I will point out where I agree with you while looking at Muslim oppression, jihad, when we should interfere with religion, and the consequences of doing too much.

Part 1: Violence and Oppression

First and foremost I agree that Radical Islam is a threat to world stability and safety. It is important that we do everything in our power to stop its spread across the world and its tendency to poison debates (like this one) about Islam. Also, while I disagree with you most of the specific details… the “facts”… you are correct that (at least as far as I can tell from tenuous internet browsing) Muslim countries have tendency to be intolerant of other religions within their borders. Without doing a thorough cultural examination I am willing to admit I might have been too hasty in defending them. Clearly, the countries that choose to be this way are reprehensible and unjust, but let us not emulate them.

To that end of not emulating Muslim countries’ persecution of non-Muslims, I would like to prevent their persecution in the United States (that and it’s constitutional). According to Human Right’s First.org: “In the United States, in 2006, the FBI reported 156 incidents and 191 offenses of anti-Islamic nature, involving 208 victims. The offenses included 24 aggravated assaults, 30 simple assaults, 79 cases of intimidation, 1 robbery, 5 burglaries, 51 cases involving destruction or damage to property, and 1 ‘other’ offense.” You speak of looking at how Islam has been a problem in Europe? Well I’m sure it doesn’t help that violence like this is propagated against Muslims across Europe. This suggests to me that, much like in Northern Ireland, the conflict is more racial, cultural, and socio-economic than religious. Certainly people identify with the religion, but that doesn’t make it the true instigator.

Indeed, where we refuse to acknowledge that Muslims are also being persecuted we make it impossible to choose the best policies for this problem. We fail to see the bigger picture. That is, that while our western governments may not have policies in place to directly oppress Muslims (except for say, France) the oppression nevertheless occurs. Islamic governments and Sharia Law might sometimes be oppressive, limiting, and violent. Too bad they are not alone in having these lovely traits. In the West it’s pretty clear. Our governments don’t oppress (arguably). We do.

Your Iraq example is a pretty good case of how the majority chooses to oppress the minority outside of government control. What if the Christians were much more powerful than the Shia? Would they be able to perpetrate the violence against the Sunni and Shia and American Soldiers? Lest you think this is a ridiculous idea look to Northern Ireland or the Lebanese Civil War.

So it can be universally agreed that radical Islam is dangerous and— considerably less universal— that Muslim countries have a propensity for religious oppression. However, it must be remembered that they do not have a monopoly on oppression in this modern era. It can probably agreed that radical Anything is dangerous.

Part 2: On Jihad as a Hobby

I also agree with you that we should be willing to discuss, as part of the national dialogue, whether or not Islam as a whole is dangerous to our way of life. In fact, we might should extend this to all ideologies and all religions. Perhaps socialism isn’t all bad. Maybe too many Christians are running this country with the hope of an Apocalypse. Should black people be allowed to serve in the highest office? Does too much coffee lead to more wars?

All these are acceptable discussions to have within the context of freedom of speech, however a few of these can only be asked by people that still retain a certain level of ignorance with regard to the subject matter. I think the question of Islam is one of these. The fact that this has become such an important question means that I have to address it whether or not I think it is a legitimate question.

Islam does in many contexts seek to “take over the world.” It is not alone in this attempt. It could be argued that the whole point of the Bible is the subjugation of the world. (If you want me to do it, I will. It will be great fun and I will take great pleasure in it.) However most Christians would argue that the Bible actually seeks to free people from their sin and make the world a better place through Peace and Love and other Hippy Values.

Islam is much the same. Most discussions of Jihad I have seen teach it as an internal struggle against sin. The very fact that most Muslims live peaceably in their community suggests that they are probably not all here to kill us. There does seem to be an underlying assumption in reaction against Islam that these Muslims are sleeper cells waiting to take us over and impose Sharia Law. This is absurd because it would require a level of organization that large diverse groups of people just don’t have.

It might be argued that they don’t need to be organized because this is what their religion teaches. Again, much like Christianity, they have many different sects and conflicts within their own religion, so without an actual internal understanding of Islam it’s dangerous to make statements about the universality of Muslim Jihad.

This is why, like any other religion in the United States, they have a right to practice their religion. They, like any religion in the United Sates, do not have a right to murder, rape, polygamy, child marriage or any other number of destructive and illegal activities. To oppose Islam as a whole is to make sweeping generalizations. These generalizations could soon be aimed at Mormons, Christians, Atheists and whoever else the masses and state decide they don’t like.

Part 3: When to Interfere with Religions

Any ideology or religion has its share of good and bad, nuts and geniuses. These, at least hypothetically, can be plotted along a statistical bell curve. The extremes are on either side, but the vast majority are in the middle. Most people just want to live out their lives and be happy no matter their belief system.

Islam is no different. Certainly in modern times Islam has evolved some particularly anti-social tendencies. Islam also has problems with how it treats women. There are cases of honor killings famously reported within the United States. Clearly we have our own domestic Islamic Terrorists—as well as Right Wing, Eco, and other kinds of domestic terrorists. Where any group of people within the United States commits crimes we will prosecute those crimes. This issue contrasts with the issue of religion. We, as Americans, do not outlaw religions. We do not interfere with the free exercise of religions based on our 1st Amendment. This is not even something that has a caveat. An atrocity committed because of a religion is not religious behavior. It is an atrocity. A crime.

We stop the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints when they marry off underage girls. We arrest Evangelical Christians when they shoot abortion doctors. Would it be better to stop these things before they happen? Of course. Is the answer then to try to limit Mormonism or Christianity? Of course not.

We do not allow the statistical outliers of these groups of people to usurp our view of the groups themselves. We persecute the outliers, not the whole bell curve.

Part 4: The Consequences of Interference

“With that, do we really want the federal government determining limits on religion because once it can define, then it can go crazy (as it has done in the past on other issues?” You ask.

As I have recently discovered, we may not have to ask the federal government to do it, it looks like the masses might make the decision for us. Clearly we both agree on the potential consequences of the government interfering with religion. There’s another dimension to this problem besides the domestic one: the problem it creates for us abroad.

We do not want our enemies to be able to point to us as hypocrites. As General Patraeus has pointed out, some of this mass hysteria behavior does have real world foreign policy consequences. In Iraq and Afghanistan COIN (Counter Insurgency) strategy relies on the ability of American soldiers to earn support from the local Muslim populous. To the extent that Americans back home are seen as Anti-Muslim makes a hard situation impossible. This movement to demonize Islam could actually guarantee a loss in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The insurgency in both countries already works to demonstrate US Soldiers oppress them as an occupational force of Christian Crusaders. The events of the past month have handed them their own rhetoric on a silver platter.

Further, if we choose to make even moderate (or real) Muslims our potential enemy we bolster radical Islam’s power. If we do not allow them to work with us, many of them will turn against us. This is how sectarianism works. It should be easy to be a moderate Muslim in the United States. That way, they have no reason to seek shelter with evil people who would love to use them against us. However, if Christians flock to leaders who make them fear Muslims, Muslims will flock to leaders who make them fear Christians and this problem will get much worse.

The consequences of interference are dire. At home and abroad.

Part 5: Conclusions

“My most important point is this – it is time for we the people of the United States to begin a discussion (as difficult as it may be) as to how far we allow our ‘freedom of religion’ to go.” You say. I feel that I have answered this above. We allow freedom of religion to go all the way. We prosecute crimes. It’s not cut and dry, but it makes the important distinction that needs to remain clear.

My most important point is this—this issue is based on a misunderstanding of Islam and the seductiveness of fear, and not only is it against our values, it could ultimately lead to our destruction.

As a (former) soldier I swore to defend the Constitution and follow the orders of the President and officers above me. I did not swear to defend the people of the United States. Why? My assumption is this: because someday The People, riled up by fear and sectarianism, may seek to destroy freedoms. We are the United States in our freedoms. Not in our fears.

Warranted responses maybe overstated. Fear may be unwarranted. (We can only hope.)

In response to Ms. Winters’ Climate Change on the Back Burner, Stir as Needed I would like to add my opinion to this discussion. She is correct that more attention needs to be paid the issue, but I am going to demonstrate how it is going to be almost impossible to accomplish anything.

On the one hand, Climate Change is a very real problem and needs to be dealt with. On the other hand, climatology as a discipline seems to be still in its infancy and I’m not entirely convinced that we really understand the full implications of Global Warming.

Certainly predictions such as those coming from Dr. Aiguo Dai are worth heeding, but we should be careful to make sure that there is strong consensus from climatologists before instituting policy. Even he admits that most climate change experts don’t really recognize his projections yet. The 2009 Australian dust storm, while the most dramatic in 70 years, is not unheard of. See the Melbourne dust storm of 1983. The problem with being an expert in a field such as climatology is there is going to be a huge incentive to exaggerate dire predictions for the purpose of gaining all important attention and research money. So while I do agree something needs to be done about Global Warming, I would like to see Dr. Dai’s predictions supported elsewhere.

As far as what to actually do about Global Warming, Ms. Winters is right in saying that this issue is going to be tabled for quite sometime. Between a focus on fighting debt, and a government and populous that is generally opposed to dealing with this problem, we are very limited to what we can do. Furthermore, as the US produces about 1/5^th the world’s carbon dioxide, there is a great burden of responsibility on this country with respect to the issue of Global Warming. Yet at the same time, that means we have a major economic incentive to ignore the problem. China, the world’s largest producer of carbon dioxide (still at about 1/5^th of the world’s CO2) also has major economic incentive to hope this problem goes away.

So between more immediate political problems, economic disincentives, apparent conflict within the scientific community, and general public disbelief, this problem is not going to take care of itself on a political level. Even presuming the above problems did not exist, there would still be the question of exactly how to go about fixing global warming. Is it too late? Have we already reached critical pollution mass? What sorts of programs will stop this looming disaster? What sorts of programs will just protect us? What is feasible? Assuming still that we could coherently answer these questions, there is still the matter of funding. What would it take? How much would it cost?

So, whatever is coming, balmy winter temperatures or weather Armageddon, it looks like our countries’ citizens and politicians will do little to stop it. It will take powerful grassroots movement. It will have to be so forceful, so insistent, that people have to take notice. Or not. No pressure.

In the end, I just hope its bad science.
That’s what I hope.
It’s not what I believe.

An Investment into the Future of Democracy

There is a question that concerned thinkers often ask about the condition of the United States. It goes, in some form or another, like this: “How do we protect our democracy from the ravages of an ignorant and heard-like populous who can be swayed by specious arguments and misguided rhetoric?” It is asked in chalk and with open ended gravity during government classes. It is muttered amongst thoughtful armature philosophers in emotional tones. Media philosophers ask it in ink. Talking heads ask it on the television. Who knows, maybe every concerned citizen asks it (in some form or another) whenever they butt heads with an opposing viewpoint.

Indeed, even those who spew specious arguments and defecate rhetoric tend to point to some straw man variation of their opponents position and say: “Look at the lies and ignorance!” So, I contend, most people would admit to a problem. The trouble is the word: “How?” How indeed?

I could point to a number of possible solutions that are either in the works or have been proposed:

- There is a movement to create websites that allow for voters to discover the actual positions of their candidates. This is certainly a big step forward as a far as keeping people voting to their interests, however, it still doesn’t correct for people (and I contend this is most of us) who actually have a flawed set of beliefs in the first place.

- Another possible solution is finding a way to limit negative media influence or, somehow, create a better and more informative media. This is even harder to do than inform voters. What would the legislation look like? How would you enforce something like this? What sort of standards would you put into place? Even if the issue could be resolved, I am not comfortable with the level of tinkering that would probably be necessary to bring such a change about.

My solution: Federally mandated teaching of Logic and Reasoning classes, starting at the grade school level.

The intended consequence of this position is to create a foundation of thoughtful children throughout the United States and thereby a populous of critical thinking adults. One possible collaborative effort to this solution is the eventual improving of the Public School system. I will not entertain that discussion here. I do think that Logic and Reasoning classes will improve educational problems in a small way, but radical changes still need to be made to the current model. I’ll leave that to people like John Taylor Gatto.

The question remains of how exactly to build a curriculum that would support this endeavor. Eric Maisel suggests having a “thinking module,” but his system lacks any particular testability. He proposes, essentially, that 45 minutes out of the school day should be used for idea conundrums that often have no clear answer. Teachers would posit questions that force the students to think about situations and issues in the world around them. This idea is better than nothing. That said, Maisel’s proposal would most likely be swept aside by the needs of teaching to various standardized tests. Failing that, it would be deemphasized and the program would loose moment from the sheer weight of other more concrete disciplines and classes.

I suggest logic and reasoning because it will need to be something that is considerably more concrete and structured than Maisel’s proposal. Logic has a long, and somewhat lost, tradition of almost mathematical reasoning structures. It involves knowing how logical structures work and also an understanding of different logical fallacies. Thus logic is teachable and testable.

There might be some challenge in coming up with a curriculum. However, a couple of curriculums already exist. CriticalThinking.org has a fairly detailed and what seems to be thorough system:

Kientergarden-3^rd Grade

4^th – 6^th Grade

7^th – 9^th Grade

High School

This is just one curriculum. There is also The Critical Thinking Co. No doubt with the Federal mandating of such teaching, many more methods and companies would appear on the market.

There do seem to be several potential objections to this proposal. The first is the aforementioned potential lack of testability, the second is a question of whether or not being taught to think will come with certain biases, and the final potential objection is the usual irritation at Federal Education Mandates.

The first objection concerning testability has, for the most part, been solved by the choice of a logic based study as opposed to Maisel’s “thinking module”. Certainly it will depend on the curriculum. Yet because logic is based, as stated above, on mathematics and general principles, it should not be hard at all to come up with standardized tests that cover logic.

The second objection concerning bias within the material should again be solved by the nature of choosing Logic over Maisel’s method. Maisel’s system runs the risk of asking children to ponder questions that would bring about objections from parents due to the potential conclusions. Depending on the school district, a critical thinking curriculum directed solely at asking questions could be seen to be some sort of brainwashing by “liberal” or “bible thumping” educators. (Depending, of course, on the objectors political biases.) A focus on logic as a discipline should remedy this objection as well. That is, to the extent that the curriculum can be focused on fairly basic, universally agreed upon subject matter, the more likely it will be to be accepted. Logic fulfills this need because it is based not on a subjective set of presuppositions, but rather a universally accepted set of constants that must be agreed upon to have any sort of rational debate. I would question the motives of anyone who opposes the teaching of basic logic.

This leads me to my third potential objection. Certainly their might be some who would oppose this as being some sort of unreasonable federal mandate. These people could, hopefully, be shamed into accepting the proposal if enough other people saw value in it. That is, the motives of those who opposed the teaching of logic classes could hopefully be questioned within the public forum.

There are a number of problems within the education system and a number of difficulties with our democratic process being driven by those who are misinformed. Starting a process whereby everyone has a chance to learn basic logic skills will be the first step to solving both these problems. I honestly don’t understand why it hasn’t been done yet.

In Fear of the Fright Wing

"I would have never started watching Fox News if it wasn't for the fact that Beck was on there. And it was the things that he did, it was the things he exposed that blew my mind." - Byron Williams, who, on 18 July 2010 got into a 12 minute firefight with police, his intended target: The Tides Foundation

Okay, so what? We have some yahoo that gets a mini-arsenal and then drives down to San Francisco with the intent of putting lots of little holes in philanthropists and activists. Yes, he’s crazy. Yes, he’s wrong. Yes, it’s *expletive* evil. Does it matter that he watched Fox News? Not exactly.

Media Matters’ John Hamilton argues otherwise in “Progressive Hunter”. Mr. Hamilton suggests that, generally speaking, the right wing media outlets create a system whereby violent populist sentiment is encouraged against various groups of innocent people, and specifically tries to correlate Glenn Beck’s rhetoric with the actions of Byron Williams. To some extent he is correct, but even within the thread of his own post there are many suggestions that Beck and Fox News really shouldn’t be blamed.

First thing: Media Matters. They say on their About Us page: “Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation.” I do like that Media Matters admits to bias in this backhanded way. In fact, I’m not even sure we can begrudge them this detail. Fox News had been around for almost a decade and somebody felt it was time to oppose the conservative Spin Doctors. I get it. Still, there seems to be something deeply frustrating about so much effort put forth with the sole intention of stopping persons who step across one line of misinformation. Why not oppose all media misinformation?

Media Matters provides excellently brutal attacks when the conservative Echo Chamber needs to be shattered. Media Matters seems to be weaker when making assertions such as this one. Their bias leads them to misdiagnosis. Maybe even—could it be—misinformation. We should be able to safely assume, therefore, that Media Matters is going to appeal to people who are generally left of center and harbor a distaste for Fox News.

John Hamilton himself worked as a Producer for Democracy Now which seems to be one of the more legitimate sources for very left wing ideas. While they list him as a current independent journalist, he is interviewed in the above link over this story. Incidentally, he is also listed as a source for the Huffington Post over this same story. This sounds like a liberal Echo Chamber to me.

In all fairness to Mr. Hamilton he does a Herculean amount of effort to trace the history of this particularly unusual conspiracy theory and bring it full circle with a refutation by the end. He talks to Williams extensively, quoting him alongside Glenn Beck and others to try and track the genesis of Williams’ misdeeds. He includes a reasonably detailed look at the ridiculousness of the theories.

These are all great things. In fact, I would argue that the last three-fourths of the article are generally spot on. Simple quotations and facts based sentences provide a reasonable framework to assume that extremist rhetoric is dangerous when mixed with certain types of people. The reader would be then follow to his own biased (or not) conclusions.

Even here it is tricky. Mr. Hamilton wants to jump quickly over the reference to Alex Jones and get to the meatier controversy of Glenn Beck. The problem is that between Alex Jones and Glenn Beck it would seem to me that Jones would be the more likely of the two to inspire violence. Non-provable? Certainly. Nevertheless, Beck is a kitten in the vehemence of his rhetoric next to Jones. Yet Hamilton spends all his time interrogating Williams over Beck despite the fact that Williams was a follower of Jones and claims to have already reached the same conclusions as Beck. Thus there seems to be a timeline flaw in Mr. Hamilton’s explanation of events.

Even disregarding that subtle misdirection of the evidence, the problem with the latter, narrative side of this article is it entices one to make the Post Hoc Fallacy. Should we read only the non-italics part of this article, there would be a powerful sense lodged in our mind that unstable people who watch or listen to Glenn Beck have a tendency to attempt to murder innocents.

However, Mr. Hamilton doesn’t leave us that assumption to make. He forces it on us right in the first-fourth of the article, the part in italics. He states:

Conspiracy theory-fueled extremism has long been a reaction to progressive government in the United States. Half a century ago, historian Richard Hofstadter wrote that right-wing thought had come to be dominated by the belief that Communist agents had infiltrated all levels of American government and society. The right, he explained, had identified a "sustained conspiracy, running over more than a generation, and reaching its climax in Roosevelt's New Deal, to undermine free capitalism, to bring the economy under the direction of the federal government, and to pave the way for socialism or communism."

Really? Mr. Hamilton is not saying because of McCarthyism all of the right wing is paranoid and delusional, but he hopes you'll subconsciously accept the idea. Mr. Hamilton does not expound on, explain, or modify Hofstadter’s assertion.

The most damming point: Mr. Hamilton states that because of the Oklahoma City bombing, the Knoxville Church bombs, and assassinations of abortion doctors “right-wing domestic terror plots are a fact of life in America.” There is no reference to the Weather Underground, Black Liberation Army, May 19^th Communist Organization, James J. Lee, Animal Liberation Front, or any other kind of Eco-Terrorism. In refusing to acknowledge that both sides have fringe crazies that will continue to use violence, Mr. Hamilton is showing himself to be not a Media Watchdog, but rather a partisan spokesperson. He is barely better than the people he critiques.

People on the right side of the argument will point to this article and say, “See, they’re calling us dangerous! We must defend our freedoms!” And the whole cycle starts all over again.

Tea Party?

“The Tea Party isn’t extreme,” says Dallas radio talk show host Mark Davis. “It’s overdue.”

I agree in part. The Tea Party supports an overarching idea that actually makes a lot of sense. It argues, at least theoretically, for more careful spending policies. That is not extreme. Most people, even liberals, would probably support that idea. Furthermore, this type of movement energizes people into excited and passionate community participants. These are the details that Mr. Davis wants to emphasize— that and the pure conservatism he claims it represents. Here is where he starts to lose my support.

Now Mr. Davis’ builds the supporting structure of his entire opinion here on the assumption that conservatism is definitively better than anything else. This is significant. I intend to argue this point later here, but for now I would like to point out that he clearly expects his audience to agree with him. He is a conservative radio talk show host in a conservative leaning city. His assumes the readers accept his position. A pity. He has no need to build a compelling argument so he does not.

Unfortunately this type of shoddy, emotional assumption seems to be a reoccurring theme with the Tea Party. Head in sand, fingers in ears, brain off and mouth on overdrive.

The editorial begins by describing Barry Goldwater as the first member of the new conservative movement who, despite the knowledge that he had no chance to beat LBJ, valiantly campaigned to limit the scope of big government with a losing presidential race. “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice,” Goldwater said. Enamored with this dangerous sort of absolutism, Mr. Davis claims that Goldwater “fired the first shot” in a battle conservatives were to wage for 50 years against the juggernaut of big bad government.

This builds a narrative of conservatism in terms of a sort of political martyrdom. It defines conservatism as vague opposition to government programs with Goldwater as its first martyr. It seems to me that a man who opposed the civil rights bill and refused to censure Joseph McCarthy would be a poor figurehead. I don’t know for certain. Certainly listening to some Tea Party people this seems an apt comparison. They would prefer the tyranny of the masses over the tyranny of the Federal Government requiring everyone to play nice. They would seek out radical Muslims in a sort of neo-McCarthyism.

I don’t want to undermine the conservative idea that a large, unwieldy government is a bad idea. Certainly poorly managed programs potentially undermine society and freedom, but that is different than government programs equaling tyranny. Here he seems to wield conservatism as a holy sword, vague and uncompromising.

Mr. Davis briefly continues the thread of the supposed history of conservatism, following it into the Regan era and on into more recent times. Then he says something sort of odd: “But under Congresses led by both parties, the size, scope and arrogance of government has brought us to today's obvious breaking point. Evidence stretches from ocean to ocean, and its name is the tea party.” Really Mr.Davis? Maybe it’s just a bunch of angry, paranoid people who get their information from disreputable news sources? Again, an example of his willingness to correlate events which probably are much more complicated.

He continues on, discussing Tea Party support as broad and including Independent and Democrat support. This is essentially true, though barely. In point of fact, the voting record of Tea Party supporters suggests only about ¼ are Independents. Only 5% are Democrats.

I could deconstruct this argument, piece by painful piece. However, I think my reader and I would find the process painful and tedious and I am given to hyperbole. So let us instead assume that Mr. Davis is correct in summarizing that the Tea Party is full of good intentions and is a powerful and effective force for conservatism. That is, conservatism defined as the opposition to bloated government.

That’s fine. How then, pray tell, did the Tea Party also become about Anti-Muslim, Anti-Immigration, Anti-Obama, and socialist paranoid issues? If the Tea Party as a movement is just a reaction to big government why did it only appear after Obama came into office? Clearly Mr. Davis is manipulating the narrative to try and make this strange, very American movement into something more pure than is actually the case.

Mr. Davis concludes: “Again the voices saying enough is enough are labeled ‘extreme.’ I suppose everything is relative. Running the country into the ground financially and trampling the Constitution are mainstream; trying to stop those efforts is extreme. Right. I have another adjective for those efforts: overdue.”

Uh, No. Mr. Davis has failed to do anything but assume that the Tea Party is a homogeneous group of warriors opposed to big government. He hasn’t really examined a lot of the talk and assumptions that have come out of this movement. He is willing to claim that the choices of the Democrats and Obama are against the constitution. There is no thought that eight years of bad financial market policy combined with tax breaks and wars have run the country into the ground. It’s poor history at best. It’s willful manipulation of sympathetic readers at worst. I think this article represents the later.

There seems to be a continuation of the conservative echo chamber here. The implication, to me, is that conservative ideas are accepted on faith. From the Tea Party perspective (apparently) there is no reason to examine real issues because people like Mr. Davis already know the answers. The political reality is that we probably can’t expect that much from the Tea Party other than more of the same. Only the same has become more thoughtless. More angry. This is sad. These efforts are overdue. It’s sad to see them get derailed so soon.

Mr. and Mrs. Smith Go to Washington

The average American’s interests are best served by people like them that they elect into Congress. This is the heart of our Representative System. Well, at least in theory. So when a movement of highly motivated, idyllic people decide to take matters in their own hands to influence the United States for the better who are we to quibble?

The Tea Party movement has changed the political dynamics in several different districts. This has made the establishment a little bit nervous as long established Republican Congressmen scramble to defeat Americans untainted by the political process in primaries across the state. This movement proves what happens when highly motivated people decide to get involved in the political process.

However, the NPR article “Another Tea Party Win? All Eyes are on Delaware” discusses how this not necessarily in the best move for the Republicans as it may make wins more difficult for districts that pit a far Right Wing candidate against Democrats. Mostly the article focuses on the primary race between Delaware Senator Mike Castle and challenger Christine O’Donnell and the interesting political implications of the race. It seems that the Republicans are dead set on trying to keep Castle in the seat. This makes it a clear fight between the Tea Party and the Republican Party.

It also leaves me with an unsettling question: Is it really good that so much outside influence is thrown into House and Senate races from outside sources (e.g. Sarah Palin)? I recognize that this is nothing new in politics, but doesn’t it undermine the supposed grassroots and average Joe narrative of the Tea Party?

For a slightly more interesting narrative check out the Slate article “The Weekend of Magical Thinking.” To me, the most interesting thing seems to be the way people like Ralph Reed and Newt Gingrich have been able to use the excitement generated by these motivated Americans to reboot their political power. Again, this seems to run counter to the supposed purity of the Tea Party.

I like things with color and sound. So here are some of the less articulate members of the movement that seems to be changing the face of American Politics and (possibly) our Government.