Category: Everything Political

Captain America #602

What with Spider-Man and Wolverine and Iron Man being some of the biggest movies of the last ten years, everyone’s a comic-book superhero fan now. Or so I thought, until the huge controversy over an issue of Captain America erupted a month or so back.

SHAKOOOOOOM!

Story goes like this: in this comic, this dude Captain America and his long-time buddy the Falcon go investigating an anti-government group of villains called the Watchdogs. (None of these characters are new. Cap came along at the start of the 40s, Falcon in the 70s and the Watchdogs in the 80s.) Cap and Falcon carry out surveillance on an anti-tax rally in a middle-American town.

Big group of people holding signs like “America 4 Sale” and “Stop the socialists!” and “Tea bag the libs before they tea bag YOU!” Says Falcon, who is black, about the prospect of infiltration: “I don’t exactly see a black man from Harlem fitting in with a bunch of angry white folks.” So they come up with a plan: Falcon pretends to be an IRS man turning up in a bar threatening an audit, while Cap pretends to be a roving trucker who punches out the IRS man and wins over the locals.

KRAKOW!

Then the blogs got involved! It started here:

So, there you have it, America. Tea Party protesters just “hate the government,” they are racists, they are all white folks, they are angry, and they associate with secretive white supremacist groups that want to over throw the U.S. government.
Bet you didn’t know that when you were indulging your right as a citizen to protest your government that you were a dangerous white supremacist that wants to destroy the country, did you? Bet you didn’t realize that your reverence for the U.S. Constitution was a subversive thing to do, did you? And I’ll also bet that you never imagined that you’d scare the little blue panties off of Captain America!

GANOOSH!

Soon the entire rightosphere was raging with animus and fury, overcome by a frightful and all-consuming hunger for vengeance! Rich Johnston has the overview. Even Glenn Beck, crying, screaming superstar of the political rightiest, devoted some airtime to the comic. Fox News grabbed the story and made much hay out of story writer Brubaker’s left-leaning Twitter-expressed politics. Faced with this uproar, Marvel hastily damage controlled to say “it’s part one of the story, give us a chance to show you the whole picture” and “we didn’t mean for it to specifically be a tea party rally”.

SMACKASH!

Meanwhile, comics people cashed in their copies of the suddenly-in-demand Cap 602 for easy cash money.

KACHING!

And now the whole storm is gone and forgotten, except not by me because I found a copy of Cap 602 and of course I bought it. Because I had to see for myself what the fuss was all about. And here’s the thing: there isn’t much to get fussed about, here. To the extent there is, it’s in the plan to get in with the anti-government extremists by punching out a black civil servant. Even in the shorthand and broad-strokes storytelling of comics, that’s kinda weak.

What I like about this whole saga is how perfectly it encapsulates the way popular politics works in the U.S. right now. (Similar patterns are apparent elsewhere, but in the U.S. this process is very well-established.) The network of conservative blogs, always voracious for content, grab on to anything that emerges in their network and start howling enthusiastically. When enough of them do this, it works its way through to the radio hosts, and if it gets play there it finally surfaces into the Fox News circuit. If it still has legs, it will go on to all those mouthpiece shows Fox has clogging its broadcast schedule. The fundamental narrative is always one of conservative victimization.

It’s an amazing system with a slick and efficient beauty. To use the jargon, the Republicans have figured out how to crowdsource their propaganda machine. I have to admire it. But it is horrible, too, because it’s all sound and fury with no real thought or analysis. Everyone grabbed on and started whacking without much care to check the validity of the initial complaint. Indeed, the bit of the original post that had some merit (the supposed subtext of racism to the IRS agent scene) fell by the wayside immediately. The story just became about that one picture of the tea party rally, evaluated solely in the context of frothing blog posts. Such is the nature of this machine – it generates noise and anger and emails and phone calls, but it doesn’t generate anything remotely like understanding.

Which has been to the amusement of those who’ve followed the Captain America character, whose writers have an unsurprising history of making none-too-subtle political points with their work. In his first ever appearance, he was punching out Hitler on the cover of his new comic – which was remarkable because the U.S.A. wasn’t even in the war at that stage.

And then (as the Slog notes) there was the time Cap found out Richard Nixon was involved in a criminal conspiracy, and watched as Nixon shot himself in the Oval Office.

Or the time Ronald Reagan turned into an evil snake-man.

Hands off our dial!


Just back from a protest outside Parliament to protect Radio NZ, our public broadcaster. I figure about 150-200 people there, which isn’t bad for a protest pulled out of nothing on Facebook by a guy in Hamilton.
Here’s the Facebook group, with nearly 15K members as I type.
Here’s the campaign page, Hands off our dial, just launched this morning with snazzy petition to sign.
If you’re a Kiwi I reckon you should give this some support. Russel Norman said it best at the protest today – what we’re really trying to protect is our democracy, because a functional and fair democracy is only possible with a strong public-owned media.
Get involved.

nef: A Bit Rich


Finished reading the report that was in the last Friday Linky about comparative pay levels. Quality-wise it’s a mixed bag, but I appreciated it, so here’s some more thoughts.
The report is called A Bit Rich and it’s by the new economics foundation or nef (the lower-case is deliberate, frustratingly). The report is short and easy-reading, and it weaves together two strands.
First, busting myths of pay and value. The report works through ten myths surrounding pay levels for jobs, and dismantles them. The myths they attack include: “The City of London is essential for the UK economy”, “We need to pay high salaries to attract and retain talent in the UK”, and “The rich contribute more to society”.
The mythbusting is set about with vigour and usually follows the same pattern – a common-sense argument bolstered by a reference to one or maybe two pieces of supporting research. It isn’t rigorous argument, but it’s effective rhetoric because of the conflict between the common-sense argument and the myth. Take, for example, Myth 6: “The private sector is more efficient than the public sector”. This is certainly a belief that is widespread and often taken as inarguable. WikiAnswer states it baldly: “Generally the private sector is more efficient because efficiency means lower cost and more profit. The public sector doesn’t have to worry about profit so there is no incentive to be efficient.”
The common-sense argument nef gives in response simply points out that lower costs have their own price. They give the example of hospital cleaners, where profit-incentives lead to reduced cleaning quality which leads to negative health outcomes. So, efficiency measurements are misleading unless social and environmental outcomes are included. There’s nothing complex about this point, and it’s not even a new point, but it’s bracing to see it laid down here in simple language. It isn’t going to convince anyone to change their views if they have really thought about the issue, it simply doesn’t have the firepower for that, but for people who haven’t reflected on this it’s a kick in the pants about accepting received wisdom.
The other strand of the report is the case studies. Six jobs are evaluated using the social return of investment methodology, and their value to society is compared with their salary range. The jobs are deliberately chosen to be provocative, with three high-paying low-social value jobs and three low-paying high-social value jobs. Predictably, these produce deeply troubling results. City bankers destroy £7 of social value for every £1 of social value they generate, and are paid enormous sums for the privilege; childcare workers produce a net gain for society, generating £7 of social value for every £1 they are paid. The appendix discusses how these calculations were performed, and it’s not exactly rigorous. For example, the whole financial crisis and recession is laid at the feet of the City bankers and counted against them. Another example: estimated tax avoidance (to hold against the tax accountant) is referenced to some guy’s blog, and not even to a specific post on that blog.
Again, though, while it isn’t rigorous it does work as effective rhetoric, providing a clear framework for talking about how value in society works and how it is rewarded.
The main point of the report is to argue that pay disparity in the UK is far in excess of what is warranted by any reasonable metric, and to put on the table a maximum wage to balance out the minimum wage. This last idea strikes me as particularly pie-in-the-sky thinking; a legislated maximum wage is almost inconceivable in a developed capitalist country, and even if there was political will it seems unenforceable. I do, however, like the suggestion of a maximum appropriate pay ratio within an organisation, limiting the possible disparity between highest and lowest. Such a measure could only be adopted by the organisation itself, but I think it’s something interesting to talk about.
Ultimately, I enjoyed reading this report, for all its shonky under-analysis. Partly that’s because it fits my preconceptions perfectly, big ol’ lefty that I am. Partly because I think it puts an engaging and readable case on the table for reducing economic disparity within society. This is becoming a more prominent argument recently, largely thanks to Wilkinson and Pickett’s book The Spirit Level: Why More Equal Societies Almost Always Do Better. There’s definitely a move in leftish circles towards perceiving financial inequalities as problematic in and of themselves. New Labourite Peter Mandelson’s famous comment about being “intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich” has become even more problematic in hindsight.
Further, this report clearly signals the interconnectedness of the problems facing society. Economic disparity within and between communities, environmental degradation, failed governance, and the like are all joined. Like a cats cradle, when you tug on one string you inevitably find yourself tangled up in others.

Waitangi Day


2010’s Waitangi Day passed in peaceful fashion, with some surprising symbolism. The tino rangatiratanga flag, representing Maori aspirations for self-governance, was officially flown outside Parliament. Prime Minister John Key went on to Waitangi marae arm-in-arm with perennial Waitangi powerhouse Titewhai Harawira, both of them politely ignoring the series of fierce battles that keep erupting between Key’s government and Titewhai’s most prominent son Hone.
All this suggests to me something of a Nixon-to-China effect. There’s been significant grumbling from National’s base even though the decisions are coming from their leadership, and I can only imagine the response if a left-leaning Labour government had taken these steps*. It may be that this National government, whatever else it does, might deliver a significant step forward in NZ race relations. Two steps, even.
* Of course, relations between Labour and Maoridom were in tatters by the end of Labour’s run, so Auntie Helen wouldn’t have been able to do this anyway.
National has made huge ground from its agreement with the Maori Party. It gains legitimacy, credibility and mana from working with them and maintaining a solid relationship. I think it works in their favour to hit back hard against Hone Harawira; as long as the relationship overall remains strong, a bit of a stoush is entirely appropriate. It’s a continual big win for the Nats.
Not so sure about the Maori Party. It seems to me they’re playing a long game, looking to establish themselves as a political presence and build good relationships into the major political parties. But Harawira’s regular outbursts are emblematic of what they’re not doing, which is spending any political capital against some of National’s more egregious policy moves. Balancing long-term political viability against the well-being of their constituency is a tricky road, and I don’t envy the decisions they must be forced into making in caucus.
Anyway, aside from all that, it’s nice to see a Waitangi Day that is chilled out. Perhaps no coincidence that it fell on a weekend this year – why would anyone want to spoil a perfectly nice sunny Saturday with all that politics?

Changing systems

Those systems that don’t produce the outcomes we desire? We can change them, right?
The theory is easy. There’re inputs and outputs. We say we want more of this than that, and we set it to accept certain types of inputs, and tweak the desired output level, and voila.
The reality is complicated. Systems are not simple black-box processes we can toy with in isolation. They exist in relationship with other systems. Sometimes they’re part of massively nested sets of such complexity that it’s really hard to figure out what’s going on, let alone understand what changes will have what effects (see: the global economy).
Economists are a perfect case, actually. Lots of extremely smart people invest a lot of time into developing comprehensive models of the economic system, what goes in and what comes out and how changing x will affect y. Everything’s riding on these models – everyone wants them to be accurate as they can be. But, as those who heard This American Life last week know, even the most highly paid analysts don’t really know what the heck is going on.
For any system complex enough to survive in the real world, it’s tough to make adjustments that give the desired results, and even tougher to make adjustments that only give the desired results.
This doesn’t make us helpless, though, because every system is ultimately responsive to our human characteristics. This fact might give us some clues about where might find points of intervention.
(to be continued, but in a few days, because I need to think this next step through some more. and some examples might be nice too, instead of just talking in generalities all the time)
(I had planned to blog about something completely different all this week, but this is what’s come out. huh.)

It’s not the thinking, it’s how we’re thinking.

(with apologies to ALAC)
Things aren’t working as they should.
Everywhere you look there are systems that don’t deliver what we as a society want them to deliver. Law enforcement, workforce management, politics, education, media, to name five that come to mind for some reason.
Why is everything broken?
Answer: it’s not. These systems work perfectly. Keep a system running and it will inevitably trend towards finding the smoothest, least complicated way it can do what it does.
The systems fail us not because they’re broke, but because they have to interact with something that they cannot control and that we did not design: us.
We resist change. We resent uncertainty. We fear difference. We desire status. We react emotionally not logically. We interpret the world as stories. We construct for ourselves a self-identity.
Everything that doesn’t work comes from the way we think.
We break the world for ourselves.
And this means we can fix it.

Protest: How Not To

It has not been a good week for protesting here in the land of the long white cloud.
The Save Manners Mall campaign was snapped trying to hire protesters to ensure good numbers for its next march.
I believe it’s a sign of innocence, not conniving. The campaign’s organizer has not impressed me with her insight or forethought. I don’t support the campaign at all – it opposes the redirection of a crucial bus route through a pedestrianized street, and while I agree that public and pedestrian space should be conserved, I place a higher priority on a functioning public transport system (both for the environmental impacts, and out of recognition that the health of a pedestrian city is dependent on the functioning of its public transport system.) Still, I was happy for the campaign to push its points, the pressure they exerted would hopefully ensure city councilors followed through on their promises to make up the loss of pedestrian space elsewhere in the neighbourhood.
Now, this – sheer foolishness that has surely killed this campaign stone dead. It was rightly excoriated by Stephen Price at Media Law Journal, who identifies the greatest damage as being to the credibility of popular protest itself.
But up the country in Auckland, another protest showed that perhaps there isn’t that much credibility to damage, as the “March for democracy” (an attempt to force the govt. to Listen To The People i.e. take those badly-worded referenda and make them into some sort of binding law goddammit) pulled a fraction of the expected numbers, and was even hijacked by a bunch of people taking the proverbial.
Russell Brown shakes his head sadly at some of the idiocy on display, while Editing the Herald exults in the madness.
It’s all a bit wild and woolly, in other words, and I remain unconvinced about the merits of popular demonstration as a tool of political influence. Of course, those who read the Johann Hari article on reformed jihadists in the Friday Linky will see that protest can achieve other ends; and I wouldn’t support the 350 movement and actions if I didn’t think protest was entirely purposeless.
Still, not the best day for citizen action.

Nobel Obama

I know everyone and their brother has done this to death but I’ve been away, indulge me.
Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The entire right wing commentariat in the U.S. spat on their pancakes. The reality-based community wasn’t exactly delighted, though.
e.g. my buddy R at Judge & Jury raised his eyebrows at the Nobel committee’s decision to offer the big prize to Obama. He is cynical for the same reasons as a lot of folk: too soon! What has Obama even actually done?
See also this neato cartoon by some guy who drew a cover for a Pearl Jam record
Counterpoint: a worthwhile discussion at the ever-sensible Making Light, with Abi Sutherland noting in the original post that while it does seem early, it will serve as incentive as well as award, and Charlie Stross saying “I think it’s premature unless the incentive thing is taken into account — but it’s not wholly inappropriate…”
Obama accepted (but for “the movement”). GMS was one of many hoping he’d turn it down, but he was given pause by an Andrew Sullivan reader who saw it as an endorsement of optimism in and about the US. Something to that, maybe.
Me? I think it’s cool. I think Obama deserves it about as much as many of the Nobel’s other awardees, which doesn’t say terribly much I know. It makes a lot of sense to me that he receive this award now, when he still embodies the hopes and dreams of progressives and peace-lovers around the world – before he disappoints us all utterly. Which, of course, he will. In a sense, the award is about a moment of change-potential that has arrived – something definitely to be celebrated and honoured. And, at the same time it lays down a narrative of how that potential will be squandered.
I mean, I’m still up with Obama. He’s better than the alternatives, seems clear to me. The way he’s doing foreign policy has changed the international ground incredibly in a very short time, profoundly for the better. I still have big hopes he’s gonna do more good than harm, and will step up to the plate on climate change. But he’s not going be Superman, or even Spider-Man. Foolish to expect it. Maybe the reason everyone’s reacted so badly here is because the award just forces us to acknowledge how much we expects of Obama, and how secretly we all know he isn’t going to live up to those expectations.
But anyway. Gotta give the man some respect. Win a Nobel Peace Prize at the same time as you’re fighting two wars? That takes 18 charisma. No doubt.

Right Gettin’ Fringier

Let’s talk about politics in the USA, huh? Ten years ago, the right-wing talk radio masses were still in a fury at Bill Clinton. Clinton was accused of:

Out at the fringes, people talked darkly about the Clintons getting people bumped off for co-operating with the Whitewater investigators (they really, really didn’t).
Now, it’s 2009, and we’re back with a Democrat President. Now, the right-wing talk radio masses and Fox News punditry are:

It really has gone bananas over there. The political ground has shifted significantly in the direction of completely bugfunk.
This is the other legacy of the Bush era. On the one hand, Bush’s ineptitude and his complete capitulation to the Cheney faction led to massive social division, which created a thus-far unique opportunity for a black man to win the nomination and be elected. On the other hand, that same social division has allowed the right-wing base to fall completely off Planet Sanity. This is the logical conclusion of the mindset that derided the reality-based community.
And yes, this matters. Because when your civic discourse starts out with people shouting that the President of the United States faked his own birth certificate, there’s nowhere useful you can go; you really need to throw the whole thing out and start over. Except you can’t. There’s no easy way out of this; like a crayfish in a pot, we’re stuck here now.
This is not good. With all this chaos, it’s hard to actually engage with what the Obama administration is doing. While the terrified Glenn Beck base tremble in fear that Obama is too far to the left, many voices in the progressive movement are beginning to claim that Obama is in fact too far to the right; that the clothes worn by the Obama administration include a surprising number of CheneyBush hand-me-downs. But how can these criticisms possibly be taken up and addressed by the citizenry, when there are birthers punching the window glass and screaming through cupped hands?
Bill Clinton said the other day that the forces against Obama are being driven by the same forces within the GOP as ever. He’s right – but what those forces are tapping into has mutated, like a Toxic Avenger villain who’s spent too long in the radioactive slime. Things have changed. It doesn’t get any prettier from here on in.