![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Del's right: I was dazzled enough by the first site I came to comparing Homeland Security figures that I didn't look at it critically or go looking for a better presentation. The Federation of American Scientists has a
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] ">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]
<a href="http://ritaxis.livejournal.com/223590.html">Del's right</a>: I was dazzled enough by the <a href="http://www.nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=156&Itemid=132">first site</a> I came to comparing Homeland Security figures that I didn't look at it critically or go looking for a better presentation. <a href="http://www.fas.org/main/home.jsp"> The Federation of American Scientists</a> has a <a href="www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/RL33770.pdf"">PDF file</a> with tables in it, and as expected, the situation, which looked plenty confusing before, looks even more confusing when you look at the numbers in a richer context.
In other words, last night I didn't think the numbers did a good job of "proving" anything other than that some states got a surprisingly high amount of Homeland Security money -- surprising in that they have no foreign borders (not that I personally fear anything from Canada or Mexico. Really. I can envision a time and circumstance under which Canada and Mexico might act to counter US actions, but only if the US keeps on in this cartoon-extreme fashion to become a seriously weakened enemy of everything human), no ports, not much in the way of military installations, and little national resources to protect. I just thought of another reason these states might be getting especially high funding. Just because they have little else going on, they may have representatives and lobbyists fighting fiercely for that money, working many angles to get it.
Let me reiterate that I don't begrudge extra money and attention to other states. I was raised on the old principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." It's just the right thing. However, when policy is aimed, not at levelling the conditions for people living in the different states, but at punishing some states and rewarding others: when political power is padded so that voters in some states have a fraction of the influence of voters in other states: when California is forced to take on the expense and dislocation of a February (!) primary in order to have its vote count at all: when the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa <i>Caucus</i> -- a caucus which is in no way representative of the voters of the state, let alone the country -- have each, individually, much more clout than the primaries of all the populous states put together -- there's something wrong. There's something wrong when states like New York and California are commonly referred to as if they were burdens on the country instead of the backbone of the country.
I get angry when I hear a long speech on the radio about "small town America" being more patriotic than "the East Coast and the West Coast." where they talk about how they believe in "the American ideal" and we don't, where they talk about "traditional American values" as being something inherent in not-California, not-New York. I get angry when punitive funding is put into play and people smirk about it on the radio and television.
This is the thing. I think California is as American as you get, for good or ill. I think the traditional American values include the melting pot and the rainbow (as well as xenophobia and caste-producing racism, but I'm going to follow precedent and talk mostly about the values I approve of): I think traditional American values include difficult, complex democratic action: I think traditional American values include hard work, innovation,and commitment: I think traditional American values include open-mindedness, scientific inquiry, and education for all (we still have a damned good educational system, especially at the college level, despite a generation of active efforts to destroy it): and I think traditional American values include the pursuit of culture, high and low (chattaqua, anyone?).
California gives a lot to the country, and it needs a lot from the country. It needs a lot that it doesn't get. Instead of more brutal border guards and more crowded prisons, we need decent health care, education, and protection for our huge, diverse, and extremely valuable immigrant population. We need the freedom to explore ways to save the environment we're in and protect the food and water supply. We don't need the federal government telling us that we can't have tighter, better, more-enforced laws on food safety, occupational safety, and the environment. We don't need the federal government telling us we have to adopt a failed and brutal educational policy from Texas.
Notice this complaint ranges all over. That's because all these things are interconnected. It's not about absolute dollars, and it's not even about absolutely relative dollars. I wouldn't care one bit that wyoming got a disproportionately large amount of federal money if this fact were not coupled with active attempts to harm and disempower California and Californians and bitter, hateful ungratefulness, including regular accusations of un-Americanness.
I would be the last person to deny that that "small-town America" everybody keeps valorizing is getting shafted too, in their own ways. But. I think they're getting shafted because they're buying into the system that shafts California. I think that if California were to be treated fairly, so would they be. Remember "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need?"
In other words, last night I didn't think the numbers did a good job of "proving" anything other than that some states got a surprisingly high amount of Homeland Security money -- surprising in that they have no foreign borders (not that I personally fear anything from Canada or Mexico. Really. I can envision a time and circumstance under which Canada and Mexico might act to counter US actions, but only if the US keeps on in this cartoon-extreme fashion to become a seriously weakened enemy of everything human), no ports, not much in the way of military installations, and little national resources to protect. I just thought of another reason these states might be getting especially high funding. Just because they have little else going on, they may have representatives and lobbyists fighting fiercely for that money, working many angles to get it.
Let me reiterate that I don't begrudge extra money and attention to other states. I was raised on the old principle "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." It's just the right thing. However, when policy is aimed, not at levelling the conditions for people living in the different states, but at punishing some states and rewarding others: when political power is padded so that voters in some states have a fraction of the influence of voters in other states: when California is forced to take on the expense and dislocation of a February (!) primary in order to have its vote count at all: when the New Hampshire primary and the Iowa <i>Caucus</i> -- a caucus which is in no way representative of the voters of the state, let alone the country -- have each, individually, much more clout than the primaries of all the populous states put together -- there's something wrong. There's something wrong when states like New York and California are commonly referred to as if they were burdens on the country instead of the backbone of the country.
I get angry when I hear a long speech on the radio about "small town America" being more patriotic than "the East Coast and the West Coast." where they talk about how they believe in "the American ideal" and we don't, where they talk about "traditional American values" as being something inherent in not-California, not-New York. I get angry when punitive funding is put into play and people smirk about it on the radio and television.
This is the thing. I think California is as American as you get, for good or ill. I think the traditional American values include the melting pot and the rainbow (as well as xenophobia and caste-producing racism, but I'm going to follow precedent and talk mostly about the values I approve of): I think traditional American values include difficult, complex democratic action: I think traditional American values include hard work, innovation,and commitment: I think traditional American values include open-mindedness, scientific inquiry, and education for all (we still have a damned good educational system, especially at the college level, despite a generation of active efforts to destroy it): and I think traditional American values include the pursuit of culture, high and low (chattaqua, anyone?).
California gives a lot to the country, and it needs a lot from the country. It needs a lot that it doesn't get. Instead of more brutal border guards and more crowded prisons, we need decent health care, education, and protection for our huge, diverse, and extremely valuable immigrant population. We need the freedom to explore ways to save the environment we're in and protect the food and water supply. We don't need the federal government telling us that we can't have tighter, better, more-enforced laws on food safety, occupational safety, and the environment. We don't need the federal government telling us we have to adopt a failed and brutal educational policy from Texas.
Notice this complaint ranges all over. That's because all these things are interconnected. It's not about absolute dollars, and it's not even about absolutely relative dollars. I wouldn't care one bit that wyoming got a disproportionately large amount of federal money if this fact were not coupled with active attempts to harm and disempower California and Californians and bitter, hateful ungratefulness, including regular accusations of un-Americanness.
I would be the last person to deny that that "small-town America" everybody keeps valorizing is getting shafted too, in their own ways. But. I think they're getting shafted because they're buying into the system that shafts California. I think that if California were to be treated fairly, so would they be. Remember "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need?"
Tags: