Finding a balance

I'm trying.

I find myself getting a little too caught up in the constant daily flow of political and other news information emanating from various news sources, both on TV and online. I enjoy being informed, and I think it's important that all of us try to do so. I think that is part of being a good citizen. I'm still stunned when I hear someone say, "Oh, I don't pay attention to all that stuff. It's boring/stupid/unimportant/too upsetting." The only one I'll agree with on occasion is the latter. I find myself getting so angry and agitated about things lately that it's coloring my entire world. I maintain a little more balance over on Facebook, because I find amusing and fun things to intersperse with the political and religious, and my friends keep me laughing with a lot of fun posts and comments. I've been more heavy-handed here, and that's part of the reason I haven't been posting as much lately. I can only handle so much.

Amazingly enough, it's not so much the politicians themselves, although I do get disgusted with some of the antics I see (and we're seeing plenty these days). What I'm more frustrated with is a lot of my fellow citizens who seem to embrace the endless contradictions of their anti-Obama movement. Their mantra is "defend the Constitution!" But they're the first to cheer the scuttling of it by the Arizona legislature, who decided it's perfectly okay to stop someone and check their papers merely because of the way they look. They champion the stripping of the rights of an American citizen who has been accused of a crime but not yet convicted, all the while defending every American citizen's right to buy a gun, regardless of possible history of mental illness, and sometimes with no background check at all. (Something is wrong when people can buy guns at garage sales.)

They accept blatant lies and conspiracy theories spilling from the mouths of those on a certain "fair and balanced" network and on the radio, without bothering to check the facts themselves. They forward me emails about Obama being a secret Muslim, about Michelle racking up a huge bill at a New York City hotel by ordering lobster and caviar, about how a birth certificate isn't the same as a certificate of live birth...and when I debunk all these claims using Snopes or PolitiFact or FactCheck and send that back to them, they send me another forwarded email about how the people who run Snopes are mysterious liberals who don't really check things at all, so I send them an email back containing the link to the PolitiFact or FactCheck article that debunks that. It's mind-boggling.

Then there are the charges that the Obama administration is either socialist, communist, or fascist. (Maybe one day they'll pick one.) The "regime" is compared to that of Hitler, which I think means that the accusers have no concept of history or scale. The administration is soft on terror—and remember, no terrorist attacks occurred on American soil during President Bush's administration...Rudy Giuliani said so!—they deliberately caused the massive BP oil spill in order to stop offshore drilling (despite having authorized it just a few weeks before), they want to force women to have abortions, Obama wants to create a dictatorship (never mind the fact that he was democratically elected), the administration wants to stop people from being Christians, and they want to kill Grandma by forcing her to appear before a death panel and make her case for why she should be allowed to live.

I'm so fucking sick of it. It's all bullshit, and anyone who buys all of this hook, line, and sinker is a fucking retard. Are there problems that need to be addressed? Of course. Do I agree with everything the President has done? No, I do not. However, he is our duly and democratically elected Commander in Chief, and if you don't like it, by all means cast your vote against him in the next election, and voice your disagreements with his policies. I will even defend your right to pray for his death if that's the way you get your jollies, and if your god is so psychotic that you think he just might kill the President of the United States for you because of your prayer, then you two have a ball together. But if all you've got is lies, contradictions, and bullshit, I'm really sick of hearing it.

So yeah, I'm not in a good place right now, and although I'll keep writing about a lot of this stuff—it’s my bag, baby—I think I'll just leave the loonies to their fun. Enjoy your constant hand-wringing and mental anguish about your country being taken over by godless liberals and people who don't look exactly like you. The rest of us will just go methodically and efficiently about our business.

Still paranoid

I'm reading last week's issue of Time, the one with Glenn Beck on the cover. I swear, I have to turn the magazine face down, because I can't stand having that mug looking up at me. The article itself wasn't all that substantive (but then, neither is Beck), but what I loved was the editor's opening letter to readers. He referenced a paper written by Richard Hofstadter, who was a historian and history professor at Columbia. The paper, The Paranoid Style in American Politics, was published in 1964, but it is incredibly relevant to today's situation and to our larger history.

I won't tell you that you have to read the full article, because I'm all about you reading what you want to read, but I can tell you that I found it completely fascinating.

Hofstadter's essay is about the prevalence and persistence of conspiracy theories in American politics. They have existed since we, as a country, have existed, going back to the late 1700's, with various campaigns against the Illuminati, the Freemasons, Communism, the UN, even Catholicism. They persist today in vague theories of the threat of the Bilderberg Group, as well as with the Birthers, and most recently, the Deathers. Hofstadter attributes this to a pervasive paranoia among a small segment of society. In reading the article, I've distilled it to several pertinent points and characteristics of this sort of belief system.

Dispossession

Those who are quick to believe that there is some sort of secret society intent on destroying our country feel that their "way of life" is in danger from outside forces. There is a resistance to change, including changes in social mores and societal attitudes; in order to combat this nebulous threat, they find a conspiracy or group of "others" on which to place the blame for what they see as our moral decay.

Infiltration

The government, the "international banks," the media...all are run or influenced by the above subversive agents. It is incredibly difficult for the paranoid to fight such all-encompassing conspiracy, and there is a feeling of futility in getting others to believe him/her.

Elimination

There is a sense of absolute good vs. absolute evil. There can be no compromise through normal channels of political discourse, so the enemy must be totally eradicated, either physically or politically.

As a member of the avant-garde who is capable of perceiving the conspiracy before it is fully obvious to an as yet unaroused public, the paranoid is a militant leader. He does not see social conflict as something to be mediated and compromised, in the manner of the working politician. Since what is at stake is always a conflict between absolute good and absolute evil, what is necessary is not compromise but the will to fight things out to a finish. Since the enemy is thought of as being totally evil and totally unappeasable, he must be totally eliminated—if not from the world, at least from the theatre of operations to which the paranoid directs his attention. This demand for total triumph leads to the formulation of hopelessly unrealistic goals, and since these goals are not even remotely attainable, failure constantly heightens the paranoid’s sense of frustration. Even partial success leaves him with the same feeling of powerlessness with which he began, and this in turn only strengthens his awareness of the vast and terrifying quality of the enemy he opposes.

The embrace of "renegades"

Those who escape the clutches and tell the secrets of these "hidden societies" are automatically believed. Whether a former Freemason telling tales of discipline or a former nun speaking of widespread sexual abuse at the hands of priests as if it is all an expected aspect of ritual, anyone who reinforces the paranoid's beliefs which are already in place is welcomed and believed. This also serves to show the paranoid that the secret organizations are not omnipotent; they can be overcome, and redemption is possible for those who have been subjected to the group’s evil ways.

Extensive "evidence"

These paranoids will compile lengthy lists of facts that support their theories. This is not necessarily to convince those who disagree—after all, the paranoid is visionary and can see things that others cannot—but to bolster and protect their own beliefs.

Resistance to enlightenment

Because of their extreme views, these people are often left behind and ignored when it is time to make decisions. They create a self-fulfilling prophecy, in effect. With their strongly-held beliefs and unwillingness to listen to opposing views, as well as their denial of irrefutable facts, they place themselves on the periphery of the discussion...and then point to their ostracism as evidence of the wide reach of the group which they oppose.

Perhaps the central situation conducive to the diffusion of the paranoid tendency is a confrontation of opposed interests which are (or are felt to be) totally irreconcilable, and thus by nature not susceptible to the normal political processes of bargain and compromise. The situation becomes worse when the representatives of a particular social interest—perhaps because of the very unrealistic and unrealizable nature of its demands—are shut out of the political process. Having no access to political bargaining or the making of decisions, they find their original conception that the world of power is sinister and malicious fully confirmed. They see only the consequences of power—and this through distorting lenses—and have no chance to observe its actual machinery. A distinguished historian has said that one of the most valuable things about history is that it teaches us how things do not happen. It is precisely this kind of awareness that the paranoid fails to develop. He has a special resistance of his own, of course, to developing such awareness, but circumstances often deprive him of exposure to events that might enlighten him—and in any case he resists enlightenment.

Hofstadter asserts that such paranoid behavior is not unique to any party, or even to this country. At the time of his article was published, the Communist threat was still very much a part of our lives and our policies as a nation, so it primarily addresses right wing conspiracy theorists. Of course, we've seen it happen on the left as well, with those "Truthers" who believe that 9/11 was a Bush-driven plot to get us into war. I'm sure this happens in other countries, too, but our nation is somewhat unique in its rugged sense of individuality along with its ethnic and religious conflicts. I see this as much riper soil for the rampant growth of conspiracy theories. Hofstadter concludes:

We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.

I found myself oddly—and you would think paradoxically—comforted by Hofstadter’s essay. I've been very uneasy and quite disturbed by the current tone of the political debate. I find it hateful and counterproductive. This piece showed me that we are experiencing nothing new. This sort of behavior has been a part of American politics since our country has been in existence. I don't agree with it, and I don't understand it, but at least I've recognized it. Despite the turmoil and despite the hatred of a small, vocal few, I believe that we will weather this storm, and I hope we'll come out stronger. We are strengthened by discussion, but diminished by blind opposition and senseless arguments.

This article was published 45 years ago, but speaks truth to power today. I have to wonder...at what point does healthy skepticism turn to complete distrust? There is a big difference between disagreeing with policies and believing in a secret plot to take over the country...if not the world. Let's stay rooted in reality, and address the problems at hand, rather than trying to banish non-existent bogeymen or quixotically tilt at windmills.

Conspiracy Theory

The Wall Street Journal published a story today about Chinese and Russian cyberspies hacking into utility companies' computer systems. This report is flying fast and furious around the Net, and I just got a Forward email about the "syberspies." Folks, if you're going to forward something like that along to me, first of all, don't. But if you just have to forward it, please make sure it's spelled correctly.

I saw a mention of the big blackout of 2003, in which a person believed it to be the result of a terrorist attack, and used that blackout as an illustration of how vulnerable our electric grid is to such attacks.

Some of you who are new here probably don't know that Ken has a degree in Electrical Engineering, and works as a project manager for AEP, one of the largest utility companies in the country. When that blackout happened, it was a big deal in the company, because they were the ones that essentially stopped the blackout from continuing west, when its automated protection systems disconnected completely from the grid. Ken got news of the causes of the situation before the official investigation findings were released, and it was pretty interesting to hear about what happened and why.

You know what caused the blackout? Increased usage during a hot summer day led power lines to heat up and sag into trees that weren't trimmed well enough. As soon as lines touched the trees, they shorted, resulting in power being shunted to other lines, in turn making them hotter and more unstable. These fluctuations resulted in a cascade of shutdowns and outages, exacerbated by both computer failure and operator failure. AEP's automated protection systems recognized what was happening with the grid, and disconnected, stopping the cascade and preventing a surge for demand on AEP's grid, which would have resulted in even more outages.

It all came back to untrimmed trees. Now, unless a terrorist cell infiltrated the companies involved in trimming the trees and maliciously left the trees in question untrimmed while they took a long lunch, there was absolutely no terrorist involvement there whatsoever. That's the problem I have with conspiracy theories. I'd rather find out the rational explanation of something than chalk it up to nebulous threats and nefarious plots, à la Art Bell.

Does that mean that utility companies' computer systems are unhackable? Depends on the system. The websites accessible by consumers for information, bill paying, etc., would probably be vulnerable to the same hackers that get into banking, hospital, and other systems. The systems that control operation, however, are by regulation separate from the other systems. The NRC's (the plant that Ken is involved with is nuclear) cyber security regulations mandate that operational systems be separate from administrative systems which include such components as consumer-accessible sites. It is impossible to access operational systems unless you are physically at the system itself.

So am I worried about terrorists hacking into our accounting systems and wreaking a little havoc there? I suppose it's possible, but it's not something I lose sleep over. It seems that there are worse things that they could come up with. Am I worried about them hacking into our operation systems and taking over control of our power plants and electric grid?

No.