Making Ignorance Chic & Some Fact-Based History

IMAGE: Trever, Albuquerque Journal

I've always had mixed feelings about columnist Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, believing that some times she was spot on, at others that she was so far out in the ozone that I wondered how she kept such prime real estate in the Times. Of course, anyone that writes regularly hopefully generates similar emotions in their readers as even negative reactions are a sign that there is some depth and energy to what is written. Her most recent column illustrates very well the problem with the current teabag belief in the need to be "just like you" and the reality of the history of our country.

In the Oct. 19, 2010 issue of the Times, Dowd writes of the change in our society as we seem to appreciate ignorance over education. Using Marilyn Monroe as an example, the comparison to Sarah Palin and other teabags is made, noting of Sarah Palin that:

"She says she believes in American exceptionalism. But when it comes to the people running the country, exceptionalism is suspect; leaders should be — as Palin, O’Donnell and Angle keep saying — just like you."

As Dowd notes, Marilyn was an intelligent woman posing as a dumb blond while reading Dostoyevsky and Proust (Russian and French authors respectively). She suffered from a disconnect between her public and private self, caused by a deeply self-reflective personality that she tried to self-medicate leading, ultimately, to her death.

I agree with Dowd that teabags, particularly Sarah Palin, trumpet their ignorance, a bizarre behavior for a woman constantly talking about "American exceptionalism." As I watch these people in action, Palin complains that Obama refuses to acknowledge this exceptionalism as he "kowtows" to foreign leaders. I am constantly puzzled at someone who is so proud of her ignorance yet demands that we maintain this position as the world leader and as we are, she says, better than anyone else. Never mind that it is exactly this attitude that adds to the negative image of America that we have enjoyed since Watergate days.

IMAGE: Dhonig, hypnocrite.blogspot.com

Exceptionalism requires that we be exceptional. We cannot just say it, we need to be it. Just as the teabags seem unable to define their proposed agenda, other than to decimate the Constitution, they are also seemingly unable to define just what are the factors that are important to them that make us exceptional. Palin et al sneer at "elites" which includes anyone from an ivy league school (except Joe Miller), disregarding the fact that President Obama is a classic example of the American dream. He may have attended an elite school, but it is our life in total - particularly the early days - that shapes our character and defines who we are.

I'm not sure how we have come to the point where ignorance is embraced and someone who is "just like you" is our best choice for high office. Certainly our government is designed on a foundation of citizen politicians, but I doubt that the current teabags understand that the citizen representatives in the days they claim to want to return to were not "just like you." People who were able to travel to Washington to serve in Congress were not ignorant. Education was valued and people who had the privilege of learning studied philosophy and literature, science as it was known at the time, and maintained a close connection with their European counterparts. Ignorance was not a value prized by the Founders.

In a time when only white, landowning men could run for office, sons were tutored at home, typically studying, in addition to math and reading and writing, science, Greek, Latin, geography, and history. Even this list is incomplete. In addition to this daylong, thorough education, boys frequently attended boarding school in England, and after completion, often trained as doctors or lawyers prior to returning to America to run their estates. Even then, there was an understanding of the complexity of our world, and the complexity of a democracy made up of a society that included people from varied backgrounds learning to come together. A reading of any early document shows clearly that education was highly valued by our founders. Just the complexity of the language used and the knowledge of law, philosophy, and history are clearly illustrated in the development of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

I understand the disconnect that many people feel during these difficult times when those in Washington seem more and more enclosed in a bubble. When one has lost a job, a home, or is at risk of those losses, when you watch your neighbors experiencing the same, and all around you your world is changing in a direction that frightens you, it is easy to allow yourself to be manipulated by others who claim to have all the answers. We tend to believe people who are like us, so teabag candidates bend over backward trying to demonstrate how like "the people" they are. The phenomenal GOP public relations efforts of the past 40 years has done an excellent job of creating sound bites and buzzwords that appeal to our instant information culture. Conditioned to absorb information in 30-second ads and to understand an entire story in 46-minutes, people who are afraid are vulnerable to others with no moral compass. An attractive, charismatic women such as Sarah Palin turns her lack of intelligence, her ignorance, and her moral  vacuum into a positive as she appeals to peoples' fears.

As Dowd said, back then, it "was cool to be smart." I believe that our Democratic leadership needs to come our of their bubble and understand that the teabags and others in the GOP have filled this need for reassurance in our country by taking the social problems in our country and making them positive campaign talking points, a truly remarkable feat.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k
SOURCES:
The History of Education in America
Education in the Thirteen Colonies
American Education

Maureen Dowd, Why Gandhi Never Won the Nobel Peace Prize

Many people comment on the fact that President Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize, yet Gandhi never did.

Gandhi was nominated five times for a Nobel Peace prize, but politics prevented its award the first four times he was considered, and his assassination prevented it the last.

So, Maureen Dowd, who on Sunday, October 10, 2009, said that because Gandhi had not won a Nobel Peace Prize, it "ain't worth a can of Alpo."

It's easy when you have a nice, cushy gig at the New York Times to forget that those of us who don't, have to make sure our facts are golden. Having graduate degrees means I know how to research, how to fact check, and how to site my sources. I write commentary, but I write commentary based on fact, and if I say someone said something, I give you the link, or provide the source. Maybe Maureen needs to go back to school and relearn basic research.

Actually, with the inter-tubes, it's not that hard. There's these things called search engines and most organizations have websites. Using Google, I found the website of the Nobel Prize Committee and read all about their decision about Gandhi. You can also read about the other prizes, all the prize winners and reasons why the committees have made the decisions that they have made. It's fascinating reading.

Maureen, you should check it out.

According to The Nobel Prize Committee, the only reason that Gandhi did not receive a Nobel Peace Prize is that he was assassinated 2 days before the nomination deadline for 1948. He had received 6 letters of nomination. The committee does not award prizes to the deceased. They actually considered it in Gandhi's case, but because he left no estate to which they could award the cash prize, had left no will, and belonged to no organizations who could have benefited from the funds, the decision was made to award no prize that year. Does this mean that the prize would have gone to Gandhi had he lived? Most likely. They won't say - obviously (if they did, that in effect would be making an award) - but they did say that there was no one living suitable to make the award.

A lawyer living in South  Africa, Gandhi returned to India in 1915 and spent the next years an active nationalist working to end British rule and attempting to unite the Hindus, Muslims, and Christians. He also tried, unsuccessfully, to integrate the untouchables into society. Attempts that were unsuccessful.

Between 1937 and 1947, India experienced 3 conflicts. The first, against British rule in which they succeeded. The second, was between Hindu and Muslim - a conflict that exists to this date, and the third, India's participation in WWII.


In 1947 came the Great Partition. British rule was ended, WWII was over, but attempts to unite the Hindus and Muslims was futile. With partition came the creation of Pakistan and India as two separate states. Along with violence and bloodshed, everyone had to move. Muslims to the west and Pakistan, Hindus to the east. Gandhi's philosophy of non-violence, his teachings, and his followers was credited with reducing the amount of bloodshed during the partition conflicts.


It appeared that war was inevitable between Hindus Muslims in Pakistan and some say he was wavering in his non-violent stance. In fact, his statements on justice for Pakistani Hindus were repeated without his concluding statement that "he had no place in a new order where they wanted an army, a navy, an air force and what not."

On January 30, 1948, Mahatma Gandhi was assassinated.



Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

No, Maureen Dowd, It's Not Alpo

I expected the extreme right to attack President Obama for winning the Nobel Peace Prize. The National Republican Committee in the form of Michael Steele - not known for thinking before speaking - didn't surprise me when he said
:

"...the real question Americans are asking is, “What has President Obama actually accomplished?” It is unfortunate that the president’s star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights. One thing is certain — President Obama won’t be receiving any awards from Americans for job creation, fiscal responsibility, or backing up rhetoric with concrete action."

On Sunday, Bob Schieffer of Meet the Press said the award would change the way we look at the prize. In her column, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times said that because Gandhi never won the prize and because Kissinger did, "it ain't worth a can of Alpo" writing her column as a conversation between W and Clinton - suggesting that they are now BFF's because Obama's winning the prize had erased every reason for strain between the two of them.

Thomas Friedman, also of the times, demands that the prize should instead be given to the American military as they are the ones who have actually brought peace. WTF? Isn't the military made up of soldiers who are sent by their commanders to invade a country that did not attack us? Isn't that called waging war? How does he get waging peace out of that?


Bill Kristol, late of the Times, states that President Obama's receipt of the Peace Prize is anti-American. Excuse me? I find myself insulted by that. I'm an American. I'm not always pleased with the decisions made by the President, but he was elected by a majority of Americans. He has already accomplished a lot. The American people elected an overwhelming majority in both houses of Congress - a clear message that we reject the ideology of the Republican Party and of the previous administration.


The day of the award, the Taliban stated that President Obama did not deserve the award. On his show, Rush Limbaugh said that, amazingly enough, he agreed with the Taliban. And laughed.


And I could go on, and on, and on.


Regardless of what a few people with a very loud platform say, the majority of Americans approve of President Obama, approve of how he is doing his job, approve of his winning the Nobel Peace Prize, and are proud that the prize was awarded to an American. Most people understand that whenever something good happens to an American, we can all be proud.

He won the prize because he campaigned on a platform of ending the two wars the George Bush got us into. He campaigned on a platform of closing Guantanamo and ending torture. He campaigned on a platform of restoring America's place in the world community. He convinced the American people to elect him to change the direction of this country. Archbishop Desmond Tutu was awarded the Peace Prize for his work towards ending apartheid despite the fact that apartheid did not end for another 10 years. Martin Luther King, Jr., was awarded the prize although the issue of race is far from over in this country, Jimmy Carter won the prize for his work towards Middle East peace, although it is obvious peace is still a distant dream. Al Gore won for his work on global warming, yet the earth gets warmer every year.

Clearly, the committee rewards vision and possibility. Clearly, the committee respects work that begins healing. Clearly the committee sees the healing that has begun as President Obama travels the world and repairs the damage done by George Bush and his administration.

So yes, President Obama most definitely, according to the precedents set by the Nobel Committee does deserve the Peace Prize. Because it is, however, based as much on possibilities as actions, we can all look forward to watching him realize the change that he promised us.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k