Skip to content

Mapping the USA

This map, which I saw on Digby’s blog, is not terribly surprising for what it illustrates: the incidence of death by firearm in the various states. And yes, once again, despite all our faults, we here in Connecticut can be justly proud of being at the forefront of the forces of reason.


The folks who prepared the graph felt that the only explanation for the disparity is the lax gun laws in the redder states, but I would say that, while that statement is true, the lax gun laws are themselves merely an expected outgrowth of the deeper problem that the redder states are bastions of ignorance and hate.

What struck me on first viewing the map is the fact that this same pattern, with only minor variations (largely because some more northerly states would do better by other measures), would repeat itself if you mapped any number of other unhealthy social phenomena, such as divorce rates, religiosity, rates of illegitimate birth, mean level of education (not to mention the more difficult to measure “quality of education”), access to health care, attendance at high school football games, popularity of schlocky country music, birtherism, tentherism, tea partyism, and of course, support for the Republican party. While more intangible and more difficult to measure, I’d hazard a guess that it also correlates well with the frequency with which politicians claim the moral high ground for their part of the country, the frequency being, of course, inverse to the reality. Additionally, I would also hazard the guess, in fact I’m sure, that the map correlates well with the extent to which the states are net exporters or net importers of federal dollars, the exponents of states rights and individual responsibility being, of course, the most avid suckers at the federal teat.

Make of this what you will. At the moment, these people run the country, and given the wisdom of the founders in giving Wyoming as many Senators as New York or California, not to mention the eminent Schuyler Colfax’s (you remember him, don’t you?) gift of the filibuster, they are likely to retain control as our empire crumbles around us.

My own conclusion is that, were it not for the absolute need to abolish slavery, it would have been better to allow the South to secede in 1860. It’s not too late. Maybe we should re-open talks. The lighter parts of the map could form a bi-coastal republic (California would have to agree to reform its referendum system) and the red parts of the map could try to institutionalize their distorted view of an 18th century mode of government on their godforsaken part of the earth and see how it works out.

Fast tracking sainthood

It appears that good Pope Benedict is in an unseemly rush to sanctify his predecessor. For the non-Catholics among you, I will explain first that the Catholic Church has appointed itself God’s master, so to speak, in that it can declare a person a saint. Many a sinner has apparently entered heaven that way. The process is rigorous. One must perform one miracle from beyond the grave to be beatified, three for full sainthood. That being done, and so declared by God’s vicar here on earth, it is bound in heaven. Apparently there were lots of candidates for miraculous intervention by the Polish Pope, but this one won the laurels:

Church-appointed investigators concluded that a French nun was miraculously cured of Parkinson’s disease after praying to John Paul within weeks of his death on April 2, 2005. He had suffered from the same ailment.

Apparently the Church defines a miracle as any event for which it cannot currently provide an explanation, which leads one to wonder how many saints have snuck into heaven on the basis of miracles that are now completely explicable by modern science. For my own part, I would consider an event miraculous only if it defied the laws of science. If, for example, the sun really did demonstrably stand still in the sky, as we are told it did for Joshua (thus implying an otherwise calamitous halt in the earth’s rotation) without discernible ill effects, that would be a miracle. Falling up might also qualify. Inexplicable medical events are pretty commonplace, and a recovery from Parkinson’s really rates as no more than a mystery, particularly if, as the article hints, there were some questions about the diagnosis in the first place.

But let all that pass. Personally, I suspect that the Pontiff is setting the stage for his successor to be as o’er-hasty to beatify him, as he has been to sanctify his not overly saintly predecessor. My current audiobook is “I, Claudius”, and this beatification scam brought to mind a scene in the book in which Livia, the unspeakably evil widow of Augustus (who has already been raised to godhood by the Roman Senate) pleads with Claudius to do his best to see that she is similarly elected after death, it being her only hope of escaping eternal punishment in the Roman equivalent of hell. One wonders if Benedict, considering his somewhat checkered past, is hoping for a similar get out of jail free card.

Friday Night Music

A couple of repeats, each suggested in part by recent events.

My wife suggested this song in tribute to Obama’s masterful performance, which, at least for one brief shining moment, did seem to bridge the troubled waters.

And this one occurred to me, though I won’t try to articulate why.


Channeling the Dead

I recently read an article somewhere on the vast internet, in which the point was made that we Americans have a tendency to venerate our political ancestors that is not necessarily a universal attribute. Britishers, the writer pointed out, do not cite William Pitt to validate their political positions, much less debate about his position on the Euro or whatever else might be roiling our godless cousins across the sea.

Americans, on the other hand, can’t seem to stop themselves from attributing all kinds of opinions to the “founders”. But we don’t stop there. Witness this story on the Huffington Post, where we learn that a Pentagon spokesperson has somehow channeled Martin Luther King, and made the surprising discovery that, were he alive today, J.Edgar Hoover’s nightmare would be an enthusiastic supporter of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

He’s probably right. It has often been observed that many people grow more conservative as they grow older. There is absolutely no reason to believe that this process stops with death, at least judging by the views recently attributed to the Enlightenment types who started our Revolution and wrote our Constitution, all of whom appear to have grown more tradition minded, less open to reason, and more mindlessly religious as the years have rolled over their heads as well as their graves.

Madison Avenue is missing a great opportunity here. Since the opinions of these folks, were they alive, are so easily accessible, or so easily counterfeited, why not use them as advertising spokespersons? If Ben Franklin were alive today, for instance, he’d surely be a Mac kind of guy. Alexander Hamilton could shill for Dell.


Obama does good

In a brief post yesterday, written as I was watching the memorial event for the Arizona victims, I noted my irritation at the, probably unintentional (and therefore even more objectionable) exclusionist religiosity of some of the speakers, notably Eric Holder.

Obama’s speech had none of that, and I think, overall, it was masterful. There will be carping from the right, of course. If he says black they’ll say white and if he switches to accommodate them, they’ll switch right back.

But I don’t think it’ll do them much good this time, because people saw the speech first hand, so it will be harder to misrepresent. Obama was particularly good in that he raised the issue that’s been on everyone’s mind-the poisonous hate coming from the right- without specifically pointing the finger at anyone, or saying anything to which they could really object. He did not, saints be praised, assign blame to both sides equally. For this we can be doubly thankful. First, it would have been untrue, and second, it would be depressing to think that Obama believes in that meme or that he feels he must parrot it. Parenthetically, I was personally pleased that he made only glancing mention of religion.

It’s at times like this that Obama is at his best, trying to get us into contact with the better angels of our nature.

I, for one, had no problem with the cheers. There were at least two reasons for holding that event. First, to both grieve for, and pay tribute to the victims. Second, and ultimately more important, to make the case that we can put this sort of thing behind us if we stick together, reject it, and fight against it. So the cheers were not just for the folks on the ground who distinguished themselves during the massacre, but for all of us who reject violence and hate as a way of dealing with those with whom we disagree and as an affirmation that we can beat the hate back now as we have in the past.

I’ve criticized the guy a lot, but he deserves credit for his handling of the national psyche in this case. He’s got his faults, but isn’t it nice to have a basically decent person in the White House?

Sigh

We are watching the proceedings in Arizona. It appears to be a religious ceremony. Eric Holder just read from an Epistle of Paul, in which we are assured that Jesus, who it is presumed we all worship, is with us.

Thus are large chunks of Americans excluded from the ceremony, including, at least in part, the members of the religion to which Congresswoman Gifford adheres.

Obama, however, appears to be setting the right tone, though I understand the right wing smear machine is already rolling out the Wellstone tactics.

Blue snow

My wife and I have spent the better part of the day digging out from the snowstorm, doing the driveway in stages. I noticed something I never had before; some of the shoveled snow has a faint blue cast to it. I don’t think I was imagining it, since my wife saw it too.

I remember when I was in Alaska learning that glaciers get a distinctly blue cast because the ice is extremely low in oxygen, which, at least if this site is correct, is not the cause of blue snow, which apparently has something to do with the scattering of light, in a process that is apparently the reverse of what makes the sky blue:

When light passes through ice, however, the red light is absorbed while the blue is transmitted. Were the operating process scattering as in the atmosphere, then the transmitted light would be red, not blue. However, because of the large size of snow grains and ice crystals, all wavelengths of visible light are scattered equally. Scattering therefore does not play an appreciable role in determining the color of the transmitted light. It takes an appreciable thickness of pure ice to absorb enough red light so that only the blue is transmitted. You can see the effect in snow at fairly shallow depths because the light is bounced around repeatedly between ice grains, losing a little red at each bounce. You can even see a gradation of color within a hole poked in clean, deep snow. Near the opening, the transmitted light will be yellowish. As the depth increases, the corer will pass through yellowish-green, greenish-blue and finally vivid blue. If the hole is deep enough, the color and light disappear completely when all the light is absorbed.

I have no idea if this accounts for the phenomenon that we observed. Maybe it was another sign that God hates gays, like dying birds in Arkansas.

Update: I think I actually managed to capture the blue cast in this picture, which you might have to make full screen (double click on pic) to see.

Have I just been missing this for the past 60 years?


Great minds

I believe it was Emerson who said that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds”. The operative word is “foolish”, but that is often ignored. Among American conservatives, there are apparently no little minds, as they are comfortably inconsistent, whether foolishly or not.

They have of late been proving their minds are not little by their adherence to a quite different maxim: the best defense is a good offense, to which one might add “whether the defense (or offense) be consistent or not.

Sensing some vulnerability to the charge that their rhetoric may have spurred the Arizona assassin, they are, at one and the same time claiming that it was his mental illness alone that led him to kill and that the violent rhetoric that they spew has no effect and, by its nature, could have no effect on any unstable individual (because presumably no one is really listening, and, in any even, no one would ever take them seriously). At the same time it is the case that he was, against all the evidence, a left winger, and was driven to his deeds not by the violent rhetoric that they spew, but by dry and dusty tomes such as “The Communist Manifesto” (which does not, as it turns out, feature Congresspeople in crosshairs) or “Mein Kampf”, which the right has lately converted to a piece of communist propaganda. Thus, we are to believe that exposure to hate filled propaganda both did and did not drive the man to kill, and that his presumed mental illness was solely and not solely responsible for his decision to engage in what was, by any measure, a political act with quite specific political targets, both of whom had been marked out by hate radio.

In one thing they will prove to be consistent. They will, as always, succeed in getting most of the media to spread the blame for hate filled rhetoric evenly among those who spew it and those who don’t. Who knows, the media may even buy into Rush Limbaugh’s latest claim:

“What Mr. Loughner knows is that he has the full support of a major political party in this country. He’s sitting there in jail; he knows what’s going on. He knows that a Democrat [sic] Party — the Democrat [sic] Party — is attempting to find anybody but him to blame.

“He knows if he plays his cards right that he’s just a ‘victim.’ He’s the latest in a never ending parade of victims brought about by the ‘unfairness of America.’ The ‘bigotry, racism, homophobia’ of America. The ‘mean-spiritedness of America.’ […]

“That smiling mugshot — this guy clearly understands he’s getting all the attention, and he understands he’s got a political party doing everything it can, plus a local sheriff doing everything they can to make sure he’s not convicted of murder.”

Certainly it’s not likely any Republican will disavow Rush. After all, they will probably agree with him. When convenient (e.g., when no Muslims are involved) it is impossible for them to understand that someone who encourages the mentally unstable to perform violent acts has a share of the responsibility when they do in fact go out and kill the targets chosen for them by the fomenters.

Speaking of inconsistency, isn’t it interesting that they also have no problem blaming his actions entirely on an assumed mental illness, when they are so very reluctant to agree that mental illness should be exculpatory in any other context.

Afterword: It is an inconvenient fact for the right that the assassin did not have the good grace to either kill himself or get himself killed in the process of the massacre. He will go on trial for his life, and his mental state will no doubt be in play. I don’t do criminal law, but my instincts tell me he might get more mileage blaming present day right wing rhetoric for his misdeeds than To Kill a Mockingbird. Could be wrong, though.

Bowdlerizing Twain

In the year just past, the unexpurgated, if somewhat bloated, Autobiography of Mark Twain was released, after the lapse of the 100 years he deemed necessary to safely publish it. But in the past few days we have learned that Twain will never outrun controversy, and never escape the narrow minded side of America that he so much loathed. Over at the Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates (or is it Jamelle Bouie, the authorship is quite unclear) bemoans the latest attempt to sanitize American history. In a nutshell:

Twain scholar Alan Gribben and NewSouth Books plan to release a version of Huckleberry Finn, in a single volume with The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, that does away with the “n” word (as well as the “in” word, “Injun”) by replacing it with the word “slave.”

I know nothing about Gribben, though the publisher’s monicker, suggestive of an intent to whitewash Southern history, raises questions. While I agree with Coates that it’s never a good idea to sugar coat history, my objections to this desecration go much further.Twain was a brilliant writer, perhaps in no respect was he more brilliant than in his pitch perfect ability to replicate the speech of the people of the Mississippi, both black and white. What Gribben has done is the equivalent of putting a mustache on the Mona Lisa, a dress on the Venus de Milo, or a kazoo solo at the end of Beethoven’s 9th.

It may be, as Gribben states, that Twain has disappeared from America’s schools because they can not handle his language, but the answer to that problem is to elevate America’s schools rather than dumb down America’s greatest book.

I truly believe that most kids, black or white, can understand, with a little help from an able teacher, that Twain was replicating a reality that we have, hopefully, left behind, and that the use of the word “slave” in the place of “nigger” replaces truth with a fraudulent truthiness.

In his preface to the book, Twain insists that it has no moral, and, sadly, many people seem to have taken him at his word. Twain may or may not have had modern notions of racial equality, but he was light years ahead of most of his contemporaries, and Huck Finn, in particular, demonstrates that fact. Jim may talk funny, but he’s the only adult male in the book with integrity. Moreover, he’s the instrument through which Huck comes to a realization that he can no longer subscribe to the South’s peculiar morality.

All along, Huck fully intended to return Jim to slavery, since he was fully indoctrinated into the code of the slave society. To him, slavery was not evil. Assisting a runaway slave was evil. When Jim is turned in as a runaway by the Duke and the Dauphin, Huck’s initial concern is to make sure he is returned to the relative comfort of Miss Watson’s home, rather than to some harsher fate. But Huck metamorphizes:

Once I said to myself it would be a thousand times better for Jim to be a slave at home where his family was, as long as he’d got to be a slave, and so I’d better write a letter to Tom Sawyer and tell him to tell Miss Watson where he was. But I soon give up that notion for two things: she’d be mad and disgusted at his rascality and ungratefulness for leaving her, and so she’d sell him straight down the river again; and if she didn’t, everybody naturally despises an ungrateful nigger, and they’d make Jim feel it all the time, and so he’d feel ornery and disgraced. And then think of me! It would get all around that Huck Finn helped a nigger to get his freedom; and if I was ever to see anybody from that town again I’d be ready to get down and lick his boots for shame. That’s just the way: a person does a low-down thing, and then he don’t want to take no consequences of it. Thinks as long as he can hide, it ain’t no disgrace. That was my fix exactly. The more I studied about this the more my conscience went to grinding me, and the more wicked and low-down and ornery I got to feeling. And at last, when it hit me all of a sudden that here was the plain hand of Providence slapping me in the face and letting me know my wickedness was being watched all the time from up there in heaven,whilst I was stealing a poor old woman’s nigger that hadn’t ever done me no harm, and now was showing me there’s One that’s always on the lookout, and ain’t a-going to allow no such miserable doings to go only just so fur and no further, I most dropped in my tracks I was so scared. Well, I tried the best I could to kinder soften it up somehow for myself by saying I was brung up wicked, and so I warn’t so much to blame; but something inside of me kept saying, “There was the Sunday-school, you could a gone to it; and if you’d a done it they’d a learnt you there that people that acts as I’d been acting about that nigger goes to everlasting fire.”

It made me shiver. And I about made up my mind to pray, and see if I couldn’t try to quit being the kind of a boy I was and be better. So I kneeled down. But the words wouldn’t come. Why wouldn’t they? It warn’t no use to try and hide it from Him. Nor from me, neither. I knowed very well why they wouldn’t come. It was because my heart warn’t right; it was because I warn’t square; it was because I was playing double. I was letting on to give up sin, but away inside of me I was holding on to the biggest one of all. I was trying to make my mouth say I would do the right thing and the clean thing, and go and write to that nigger’s owner and tell where he was; but deep down in me I knowed it was a lie, and He knowed it. You can’t pray a lie — I found that out.

So I was full of trouble, full as I could be; and didn’t know what to do. At last I had an idea; and I says, I’ll go and write the letter — and then see if I can pray. Why, it was astonishing, the way I felt as light as a feather right straight off, and my troubles all gone. So I got a piece of paper and a pencil, all glad and excited, and set down and wrote:

Miss Watson, your runaway nigger Jim is down here two mile below Pikesville, and Mr. Phelps has got him and he will give him up for the reward if you send.
HUCK FINN.

I felt good and all washed clean of sin for the first time I had ever felt so in my life, and I knowed I could pray now. But I didn’t do it straight off, but laid the paper down and set there thinking — thinking how good it was all this happened so, and how near I come to being lost and going to hell. And went on thinking. And got to thinking over our trip down the river; and I see Jim before me all the time: in the day and in the night-time, sometimes moonlight, sometimes storms, and we a-floating along, talking and singing and laughing. But somehow I couldn’t seem to strike no places to harden me against him, but only the other kind. I’d see him standing my watch on top of his’n, ‘stead of calling me, so I could go on sleeping; and see him how glad he was when I come back out of the fog; and when I come to him again in the swamp, up there where the feud was; and such-like times; and would always call me honey, and pet me and do everything he could think of for me, and how good he always was; and at last I struck the time I saved him by telling the men we had small-pox aboard, and he was so grateful, and said I was the best friend old Jim ever had in the world, and the only one he’s got now; and then I happened to look around and see that paper.

It was a close place. I took it up, and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself:

“All right, then, I’ll go to hell” — and tore it up.

How can anyone think that the man who wrote that was a racist? Is it really so very hard to teach the lesson of that passage, regardless of the presence of the offending word? And how could anyone dare to think they could improve on prose that good?

Let the false equivalencies begin!

It seems fairly clear that, whatever his mental state, the guy who killed six people and shot a Congresswoman in Arizona was heavily influenced by right wing crazy talk. He is not the first person to have killed under the influence of Beck, Limbaugh, et. al, and he will most likely not be the last.

Now the right wing apologists will gin up the “both sides do it” meme, and the line will be pushed by a compliant “mainstream” media that these incidents are the result of partisan rhetoric on both sides. My wife tells me that the effort has begun to apply tarnish to the left by, of all crazy things, citing a Kos diarist who stated that someone was “dead to” him or her. That phrase, as I understand it at least, carries not a whiff or implication of violence, but it will no doubt suffice.

Despite the fact that one of their colleagues took a bullet, House Democrats, and national Democrats generally will no doubt either adopt the meme or allow the Republicans claims to go unanswered.

I sincerely hope that I will soon learn I’m dead wrong about this, but …