Candidate Bush in 2000 promised to usher in a new era of personal responsibility.
Well, it’s about time!
I think personal responsibility – accountability, if you will – is something that we are desparately short of in these trying times. And I for one applaud young George’s suggestion that we renew our focus on holding people accountable. Well done, George. Go and get yourself a pretzel!
And of course, the arch-enemy of accountability is hypocrisy, so let’s begin the new era with a review of George’s own accountability. Let’s start with the war in Iraq, shall we?
George was pretty sure that Saddam represented a grave threat to America. He said in defending his invasion, “Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people.” In fact, he wasn’t just saying there is a body of intelligence which strongly suggests that Hussein has WMDs. He was certain; he knew it; “there was no doubt.”
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.”
“'I’m confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program.”
And as for the connection between Al-Qaida and Saddam, Bush said, “We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaida members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases.”
So, when confronted with unmistakable evidence that both propositions were wrong – that Iraq in fact did not have WMDs, and that it did not in fact have any meaningful contacts with Al-Qaida, the President took full responsibility, and humbly apologized to a forgiving nation.
Oh, wait, no he didn’t. First, he just lied:
“We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.”
But then he argued that he didn’t really say WMDs at all. He had meant to say WMD “related program activities,” which in fact was born out. And as for Al-Qaida, well, they never really meant that there were ties between the 9/11 attack and Iraq, just between Al-Qaida terrorists and Iraq (which would be true for dozens of countries, of course, including the US, who had “ties” to Osama Bin Ladn himself during the USSR’s Afghan war.
OK, so Bush isn’t big on accepting responsibity for leading the US into a war by mistake. (A pretty big “oopsie” by any measure.) What about taking personal responsibility for his domestic policies?
Well, when he proposed a massive tax cut, fears of a deficit arose amidst a weakening economy. However, George was sure that deficits wouldn’t materialize: “we can proceed with tax relief without fear of budget deficits, even if the economy softens.” Whew! Hang on…
We ended up having record deficits. Which is a problem, according to George:
“Many of you have talked about the need to pay down our national debt. . . I agree. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to act now.”
It turns out, though, that taking responsibility for these deficits means that they’re not really that important after all, as Vice President Cheney explained: “ Reagan proved that deficits don't matter.”
But surely the massive tax cuts were designed to create jobs, right?
“He has proposed a jobs and economic growth plan that would help create 510,000 new jobs this year and a total of 1.4 million new jobs by the end of next year. The president will not be satisfied until everyone looking for work can find it. “ – White House press release
The President’s plan will help the economy to create 1.4 million new jobs by the end of 2004.” – same
So, when the economy failed to produce any additional jobs, and in fact ended up actually losing jobs, the President took personal responsibility, right?
I think by now you know the answer. The failure to create jobs is given the “bush’ treatment: first it is denied -- “we have too created jobs.” Then it is argues that job creation isn’t really relevant, and that the paltry level of jobs is in fact more than adequate, since those without jobs are too stupid and/or lazy to actually get one, so that the job loss is in fact not real since everyone who deserves a job has one. Plus you can always sell things on e-bay.”
And before we conclude this screed, who can forget candidate Bush’s accusation against President Gore in 2000: “If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that.” Thank God!
Coming Next: The Republicans’ Dire Predictions Are Always Wrong
Thursday, October 21, 2004
The Case for Permitting Children to Work.
Over at the Sadly, no blog, there is a challenge to mimic one of the right’s trademarks, the contrarian “case for” piece. You know, the Case for Invading Brazil, of The Case for Outlawing Democrats, etc.
So here’s my entry.
The Case for Restoring Children’s Right-to-Work
In a perhaps over-zealous effort to infantlize the nation's youth, Thoedore Roosevelt, so-called Republican, gave in to the goo-goo crowd of his day and flat-out outlawed child labor. The harmful effects of this dubious decree reverberate to this day.
Consider the case of Marilyn O'Leary, a third grade student in Floral Park, a suburb of New York City. Marilyn would like to have some money to buy a new Barbie video game. But sadly, Marilyn's parents have not given her the money she needs, claiming that Marilyn needs to focus more on the left-wing agenda that passes for social studies at her local union-dominated school.
And because of this country's misguided labor laws, Marilyn has forfeited her right to work.
In a small building behind a Hess gas station, Eduardo Martinez has a small factory, affixing stickers to various promotional items, like a toy gas truck. Because of the small size of some of the items Mr. Martinez would dearly love to have children, preferably 10 and under, to handle the work. But his right to hire the best worker for the job, at a price that the market deems fair, is utterly and completely cut off.
The time has come in this country to abandon antiquated notions of paternalism, and join the rest of the world in competing with our full might. If Guatemalan children can affix designer logos to polo shirts, just wait til Mrs. Frossberger's third grade class at Floral Park Elementary School gets their hands on a needle and thread. Look out Indonesia: soon, we'll have polo shirts in Wal-Mart for just 99 cents.
So here’s my entry.
The Case for Restoring Children’s Right-to-Work
In a perhaps over-zealous effort to infantlize the nation's youth, Thoedore Roosevelt, so-called Republican, gave in to the goo-goo crowd of his day and flat-out outlawed child labor. The harmful effects of this dubious decree reverberate to this day.
Consider the case of Marilyn O'Leary, a third grade student in Floral Park, a suburb of New York City. Marilyn would like to have some money to buy a new Barbie video game. But sadly, Marilyn's parents have not given her the money she needs, claiming that Marilyn needs to focus more on the left-wing agenda that passes for social studies at her local union-dominated school.
And because of this country's misguided labor laws, Marilyn has forfeited her right to work.
In a small building behind a Hess gas station, Eduardo Martinez has a small factory, affixing stickers to various promotional items, like a toy gas truck. Because of the small size of some of the items Mr. Martinez would dearly love to have children, preferably 10 and under, to handle the work. But his right to hire the best worker for the job, at a price that the market deems fair, is utterly and completely cut off.
The time has come in this country to abandon antiquated notions of paternalism, and join the rest of the world in competing with our full might. If Guatemalan children can affix designer logos to polo shirts, just wait til Mrs. Frossberger's third grade class at Floral Park Elementary School gets their hands on a needle and thread. Look out Indonesia: soon, we'll have polo shirts in Wal-Mart for just 99 cents.
A Grand Unified Theory explaining the basic Fundamentals of American Politics, in language that is Simple to Understand.
There have been many attempts to explain American politics in terms of two competing ideas, from Tories and Rebels, Whigs and Tories, Democrats and Republicans, Conservative and Liberal, even male and female. And I suppose it’s no original contribution to note that there is another dichotomy, change vs. status quo, that underlies much of our political life. But I rarely hear these words used in our political discourse, which I think is a disservice to our society.
It may be that the change/status quo pair is more or less synonymous with the unsatisfied/satisfied. While one can look at things from a variety of perspectives, looking at our political life as a contest between those who would change things and those who would preserve things as they are explains quite a bit, and illuminates just how far our culture has swung to the preservers, and how far it has to go until the changers have their day.
Of course, I use the terms preservers, conservatives and Republicans more or less synonymously, as are changers, liberals, progressives and Democrats. I think, however, that the impulses toward change (for/against) are powerful motivators and drive much of our political rhetoric.
Currently, Republicans and Democrats are locked in what appears to be a dead-heat death match for the White House. Republicans tell voters that the world is uniquely dangerous, and that their man Bush is uniquely able to defend (preserve) their safe, comfortable lives. Further, the Republicans argue that if the other man should win, terrible and disruptive things would ensue: taxes would rise, government would become fat and lazy, schools would return to the “soft bigotry” of the past, and the government would take over our healthcare system and ruin it. Democrats insist that while security is paramount, we aren’t doing enough (dissatisfied with the status quo), and that other areas of our lives – jobs, healthcare, education – are in desperate need of change.
In short, Republicans are running on a platform of preserving the status quo, while pointing out that the other party is proposing all manner of scary changes. The Dems acknowledge that preserving our physical safety is key, but propose to make changes to further that goal. Further, they propose numerous changes designed to address areas of dissatisfaction. They point to the other guy as a do-nothing leader whose efforts to implement change have been a failure.
I believe that there is an ideal balance between change and anti-change, and that the interplay of these opposing forces in our society generally serves our interest well. Consider a world made up entirely of anti-changers – Republicans, if you will. It’s easy to guess that we wouldn’t have Medicare or Medicaid, or Social Security or even the minimum wage or anti-child labor laws. Indeed, I don’t think it’s unfair to wonder whether we’d still be living in an essentially feudal society, where those who controlled wealth and power used it to advance their own interests, and helped others only as their consciences dictated.
Now consider the opposite world where there are only those who desire change – liberals run amok. Would it be a society where basic concepts like private property and the rule of law had trouble persisting? I confess it’s a little hard to imagine what it would look like, but it’s easy to imagine that we’d be pursuing change for change’s sake, and that our standard of living would be far lower as society’s resources were routinely used to effectuate changes. We would, however, probably have free cable tv with all the premium services for everybody – and therein lies the problem. Without a semi-permanent infrastructure of institutions and conventions that resist change, wealth creation becomes much more challenging, as generations of communists can attest.
No, the ideal world is not one-sided. It is the constant friction between the two forces that produces the best results over time, though in a majority-rule society, a slight advantage to the forces for change is probably desirable, for it is in the end the forces of change that light the way to the future, even if they are stronger for having overcome the forces that would have us stay right where we are.
It may be that the change/status quo pair is more or less synonymous with the unsatisfied/satisfied. While one can look at things from a variety of perspectives, looking at our political life as a contest between those who would change things and those who would preserve things as they are explains quite a bit, and illuminates just how far our culture has swung to the preservers, and how far it has to go until the changers have their day.
Of course, I use the terms preservers, conservatives and Republicans more or less synonymously, as are changers, liberals, progressives and Democrats. I think, however, that the impulses toward change (for/against) are powerful motivators and drive much of our political rhetoric.
Currently, Republicans and Democrats are locked in what appears to be a dead-heat death match for the White House. Republicans tell voters that the world is uniquely dangerous, and that their man Bush is uniquely able to defend (preserve) their safe, comfortable lives. Further, the Republicans argue that if the other man should win, terrible and disruptive things would ensue: taxes would rise, government would become fat and lazy, schools would return to the “soft bigotry” of the past, and the government would take over our healthcare system and ruin it. Democrats insist that while security is paramount, we aren’t doing enough (dissatisfied with the status quo), and that other areas of our lives – jobs, healthcare, education – are in desperate need of change.
In short, Republicans are running on a platform of preserving the status quo, while pointing out that the other party is proposing all manner of scary changes. The Dems acknowledge that preserving our physical safety is key, but propose to make changes to further that goal. Further, they propose numerous changes designed to address areas of dissatisfaction. They point to the other guy as a do-nothing leader whose efforts to implement change have been a failure.
I believe that there is an ideal balance between change and anti-change, and that the interplay of these opposing forces in our society generally serves our interest well. Consider a world made up entirely of anti-changers – Republicans, if you will. It’s easy to guess that we wouldn’t have Medicare or Medicaid, or Social Security or even the minimum wage or anti-child labor laws. Indeed, I don’t think it’s unfair to wonder whether we’d still be living in an essentially feudal society, where those who controlled wealth and power used it to advance their own interests, and helped others only as their consciences dictated.
Now consider the opposite world where there are only those who desire change – liberals run amok. Would it be a society where basic concepts like private property and the rule of law had trouble persisting? I confess it’s a little hard to imagine what it would look like, but it’s easy to imagine that we’d be pursuing change for change’s sake, and that our standard of living would be far lower as society’s resources were routinely used to effectuate changes. We would, however, probably have free cable tv with all the premium services for everybody – and therein lies the problem. Without a semi-permanent infrastructure of institutions and conventions that resist change, wealth creation becomes much more challenging, as generations of communists can attest.
No, the ideal world is not one-sided. It is the constant friction between the two forces that produces the best results over time, though in a majority-rule society, a slight advantage to the forces for change is probably desirable, for it is in the end the forces of change that light the way to the future, even if they are stronger for having overcome the forces that would have us stay right where we are.
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Random Thoughts Turning Into the Home Stretch
Couple of errant matters:
I am still just absolutely dumbfounded that there are any Americans who want to re-up with Bush let alone almost half. Even those that say they plan to vote for the President seem to struggle to come up with any reasons, other than he seems tougher on terrorists and that the economy is improving. Apparently, the encroaching fascism doesn’t seem to be a worry.
I can’t help but think when this guy gets in and introduces 1) national flat tax that just kills the middle class, 2) privatization of Social Security (that so unbalances the system that we will have a budget deficit approaching a billion), and Syria/Iran (Iraq 2.0), there’s gonna be lots of Bush supporters who are going to plead either that they didn’t know he was gonna do these things (even though he says he is), or two, no one told them what bad news this guy was. Oh, and a whole lotta, “Gee, I’m sorry I helped trash freedom and democracy. Whoops! My bad.”
Then the grown-ups will have to take over and clean up this God-awful mess.
I sometimes think that the Dems aren’t really ready to take back the reins of power. So much of the Democratic rhetoric is essentially an attack on the Repubs and Bush, and so little (too little?) is on the vision for the future. With a bit more time, we will certainly bring many more Americans over to our world view of hope and optimism, but right now an awful lot of us still seem utterly trapped by fear and hatred.
The Dems have not quite finished sharpening their message. If we do regain some element of power, we will still have before us the hard work of articulating and selling a basic message. Everyone knows the right’s message: the liberals are tax and spend, big government types who have no God and are completely amoral. But the counterpart from our side is still not fully gelled. The Repubs are heartless robber barons who could give a fig about working class people, and will screw the little people every chance they get. While this seems clear to me, it’s not “soup” until it becomes an unspoken premise of The Media’s thinking.
Plus, that’s just the negative side. On the positive side, everyone knows the Repub vision: smaller government, lower taxes, um…OK that’s about it. But everyone knows it. On our side, we’re still carrying the negative image the Repubs paint of us, and haven’t yet articulated our own vision. In other words, we’re still busy fending off the false attack of the right that what we really want is Big Government and higher taxes. The idea that what we want is better healthcare, schools that work, tax fairness, incentives for businesses to innovate, etc., is still only penciled in.
The right is unified by a single big idea: that the private market place is more efficient than government programs. Our big idea is still a bit murky: it’s something like the government has a useful role to play in correcting the injustices of the market (like only rich people being able to afford health care). But to me, at least, it’s still not there. Somehow or other, I think our big idea will have to take off from the idea of the government as value-adder.
On a related note, from my own perspective, I think the job market remains rather depressed for all but the most low-level jobs. I see precious little hiring of anyone other than customer service types and salespeople. I still don’t see new corporate spending on anything really new. Cowardice reigns! Spend on sure things only – nothing else. Risk is for the poor, not those with means.
I am still just absolutely dumbfounded that there are any Americans who want to re-up with Bush let alone almost half. Even those that say they plan to vote for the President seem to struggle to come up with any reasons, other than he seems tougher on terrorists and that the economy is improving. Apparently, the encroaching fascism doesn’t seem to be a worry.
I can’t help but think when this guy gets in and introduces 1) national flat tax that just kills the middle class, 2) privatization of Social Security (that so unbalances the system that we will have a budget deficit approaching a billion), and Syria/Iran (Iraq 2.0), there’s gonna be lots of Bush supporters who are going to plead either that they didn’t know he was gonna do these things (even though he says he is), or two, no one told them what bad news this guy was. Oh, and a whole lotta, “Gee, I’m sorry I helped trash freedom and democracy. Whoops! My bad.”
Then the grown-ups will have to take over and clean up this God-awful mess.
I sometimes think that the Dems aren’t really ready to take back the reins of power. So much of the Democratic rhetoric is essentially an attack on the Repubs and Bush, and so little (too little?) is on the vision for the future. With a bit more time, we will certainly bring many more Americans over to our world view of hope and optimism, but right now an awful lot of us still seem utterly trapped by fear and hatred.
The Dems have not quite finished sharpening their message. If we do regain some element of power, we will still have before us the hard work of articulating and selling a basic message. Everyone knows the right’s message: the liberals are tax and spend, big government types who have no God and are completely amoral. But the counterpart from our side is still not fully gelled. The Repubs are heartless robber barons who could give a fig about working class people, and will screw the little people every chance they get. While this seems clear to me, it’s not “soup” until it becomes an unspoken premise of The Media’s thinking.
Plus, that’s just the negative side. On the positive side, everyone knows the Repub vision: smaller government, lower taxes, um…OK that’s about it. But everyone knows it. On our side, we’re still carrying the negative image the Repubs paint of us, and haven’t yet articulated our own vision. In other words, we’re still busy fending off the false attack of the right that what we really want is Big Government and higher taxes. The idea that what we want is better healthcare, schools that work, tax fairness, incentives for businesses to innovate, etc., is still only penciled in.
The right is unified by a single big idea: that the private market place is more efficient than government programs. Our big idea is still a bit murky: it’s something like the government has a useful role to play in correcting the injustices of the market (like only rich people being able to afford health care). But to me, at least, it’s still not there. Somehow or other, I think our big idea will have to take off from the idea of the government as value-adder.
On a related note, from my own perspective, I think the job market remains rather depressed for all but the most low-level jobs. I see precious little hiring of anyone other than customer service types and salespeople. I still don’t see new corporate spending on anything really new. Cowardice reigns! Spend on sure things only – nothing else. Risk is for the poor, not those with means.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
Debate III In a Nutshell
Kerry easily carries off a mature, presidential performance, nicely highlighted by the sniveling, “class-clown” act of the incumbent. The actual president (footnote omitted) was unbelievably juvenile in his performance. He seems uninterested and unaware of what his job entails. He seems to think the job description is something like “Believer-in-Chief.” I was as floored as I ever am that someone so obviously ill-equipped for the job was in the job.
I thought Bob Schieffer did a magnificently bad job. I really couldn’t believe the question about the President’s faith:
I thought Bob Schieffer did a magnificently bad job. I really couldn’t believe the question about the President’s faith:
You were asked before the invasion, or after the invasion, of Iraq if you'd checked with your dad. And I believe, I don't remember the quote exactly, but I believe you said you had checked with a higher authority. I would like to ask you, what part does your faith play on your policy decisions?
What in the world is this question supposed to elicit? What did Bob expect Kerry was going to be able to say “in response?” This struck me as an overt effort to give the President a chance to speechify in his trademark Unprepared Student style about faith at the end of the proceedings. I was especially surprised when the question turned away from what I thought was going to be something a wee bit challenging, like, “What led you to reject the judgment of your father and others in his administration that invading Iraq was a mistake because of the risk that we would get bogged down in a quagmire with no real exit strategy?”
Or something.
The real stunners of the night to me were:
-- When the President blamed the flu vaccine shortage on foreigners (the British), said we were working with some less foreign foreigners (the Canadians), and that the patriotic thing to do was to simply do without. Yikes!
-- The President lying about his intemperate remarks about wanting Osama dead or alive (of course). I think this may well be the symbolic nail in the coffin of his re-election campaign. It’s just too easy for the media to replay the two clips right after each other. And as far more perceptive minds than I have noted, it cuts right to the heart of the public’s dissatisfaction with the administration. It is a clear demonstration of the “taking their eye off the ball” charge, it is a clear demonstration that the President is plainly a liar, it is a clear demonstration that the President lacks the maturity to accept any kind of responsibility, and it is a clear demonstration that the President lacks the judgment to handle such an awesome responsibility.
-- I was struck by how obviously inconsistent the President’s remarks were about government sponsored health care. On the one hand, he seemed to think it was, I suppose like all government services, poor quality and likely to lead to abuse (“government- run health will lead to poor-quality health”). But on the other, he seemed quite proud of the government run health care programs: “Veterans are getting very good health care under my administration.” I’m surprised even the muddled press hasn’t picked up on this. Pretty obvious, in my view.
-- The President saying that what unemployed workers really are interested in is education, specifically the No Child Left behind Act. Well, in about three weeks Mr. Bush may have the opportunity to learn first hand what unemployed people are interested in. I’m pretty sure it ain’t higher fourth grade reading scores. He topped off this corker with the “reading is the new civil right” quote. Which I thought was pretty remarkable. What’s the next civil right, I wonder? The right to electricity? Freedom from the 100 hour workweek? (Actually, if Bush wins, we might just be campaigning for that…)
-- Kerry’s smackdown of Bush’s lame defense of his funding for NCLB – actually, two of them. First, “He'll tell you he's raised the money, and he has. But he didn't put in what he promised, and that makes a difference in the lives of our children.” A point which was not rebutted. Second, “You don't measure it by a percentage increase. Mr. President, you measure it by whether you're getting the job done.” KO, Kerry.
-- One for those paying close attention, perhaps, but I thought it was choice: Kerry’s smackdown of Bush defense of his performance on Pell grants. “But you know why the Pell Grants have gone up in their numbers? Because more people qualify for them because they don't have money.” Kerry surely could have hit this more crisply, but for those paying attention, this was pretty devastating: Bush can cite one million more families qualifying for Pell grants because he has made more families worse enough off that they qualify. Too bad the available pool of funds hasn’t been increased (in fact it’s been decreased).
Highlights anyway.
Oh, and by the way, just why won’t anyone in the press ever hold these Repubs responsible for their bad judgments. Every single time we’ve raised the minimum wage, the Repubs have been 100% certain that a catastrophic economic collapse will ensue, and they’ve been wrong every single time. In fact, every time we do something over the Repubs objections (which is every time we do something that doesn’t have as its primary purpose benefiting corporate America), the objections turn out to be crap. And never once have I seen a reporter call these guys on it. They’re now claiming that if Kerry gets in, he’ll tax everyone to death. Didn’t they make the same claims about Bill Clinton? Weren’t they proven embarrassingly wrong?
And that concludes the screed for the day. Respond, if you dare…
Tuesday, October 12, 2004
Sinclair Broadcasting – A Classic What To Think
The last few days have seen the leftwing blogosphere apoplectic over the decision by the Sinclair Broadcasting Company to air on the many TV stations is owns a documentary titled “Stolen Honor” that is about the allegations that Kerry’s Viet Nam service was less than honorable.
Those of us on the left are falling for the bait, “Big Time.” There’s a database of Sinclair’s advertisers, complete with names and phone numbers, so all of us outraged dems can call the Dayton Ohio Tire Center to complain about their advertising on Sinclair, the license renewal info for each station has been posted so we can all remember to complain at license renewal time, and there’s even some corporate info posted designed to help drive down the company’s stock price.
The outrage stems from the fact that many of these stations are in swing states, and that the allegations have proven effective at getting people to dislike Kerry and support the Other Guy. Oh, and that the allegations are demonstrably false.
All of which misses the point, in my view. Gather round, chillin’, and have the World’s Most Reasonable Man tell you What to Think:
This entire Affair has been orchestrated to prevent the showing of our “Stolen Glory,” “Fahrenheit 911.” There’s been some talk of getting Fahrenheit 911 on broadcast air before the elections. And while Fahrenheit 911 is scrupulously accurate, those on the right can concoct some arguments that suggest there are come cut corners. In my view, there are some corners that may be a wee bit cut, but so what – the overall message is unquestionably accurate.
Like everything else, at the end of the day this is about money. No one would care if the nice fascists over at the Sinclair Broadcasting Company wanted to donate an hour’s worth of air time to show their little exercise in rapid right-wing nuttery. But the fair market value of the time would have to clear the various legal requirements for political donations. (Whether it could clear these hurdles or not, I don’t know.) It would be a significant sum of money, but hardly anything compared with 90 minutes of NBC, ABC and CBS, which is what some on the left have been contemplating. The point is either to make sure that Fahrenheit 911 never sees broadcast air, or that if it does, it will be mind-numbingly expensive.
And that, dears, is What To Think for today.
Those of us on the left are falling for the bait, “Big Time.” There’s a database of Sinclair’s advertisers, complete with names and phone numbers, so all of us outraged dems can call the Dayton Ohio Tire Center to complain about their advertising on Sinclair, the license renewal info for each station has been posted so we can all remember to complain at license renewal time, and there’s even some corporate info posted designed to help drive down the company’s stock price.
The outrage stems from the fact that many of these stations are in swing states, and that the allegations have proven effective at getting people to dislike Kerry and support the Other Guy. Oh, and that the allegations are demonstrably false.
All of which misses the point, in my view. Gather round, chillin’, and have the World’s Most Reasonable Man tell you What to Think:
This entire Affair has been orchestrated to prevent the showing of our “Stolen Glory,” “Fahrenheit 911.” There’s been some talk of getting Fahrenheit 911 on broadcast air before the elections. And while Fahrenheit 911 is scrupulously accurate, those on the right can concoct some arguments that suggest there are come cut corners. In my view, there are some corners that may be a wee bit cut, but so what – the overall message is unquestionably accurate.
Like everything else, at the end of the day this is about money. No one would care if the nice fascists over at the Sinclair Broadcasting Company wanted to donate an hour’s worth of air time to show their little exercise in rapid right-wing nuttery. But the fair market value of the time would have to clear the various legal requirements for political donations. (Whether it could clear these hurdles or not, I don’t know.) It would be a significant sum of money, but hardly anything compared with 90 minutes of NBC, ABC and CBS, which is what some on the left have been contemplating. The point is either to make sure that Fahrenheit 911 never sees broadcast air, or that if it does, it will be mind-numbingly expensive.
And that, dears, is What To Think for today.
Fighting for Our Lives!
In the ingoing vacillation between “We’re all doomed” and “Everything’s Going to be OK,” I’m full tilt into the “We’re all doomed” mode.
Caught a snippet of Randi Rhodes on Air America over the weekend, and she was discussing the book 1984 with a high school English teacher (who was great). And they danced around and almost hit the point that lurched me back into Terrified Mode. One of the secrets of double-think was to keep telling people that things are as we say they, that the past was as we say it was, and that the future will be as we say it will be.
And through the cunning use of double-think, simply repeating the lie over and over, it became indistinguishable from reality. (OK, I’m a little fuzzy on the book. I’ll read it cover to cover soon.) The point that frightened me was the idea that, to get people to believe the lies, they have to learn that what they see and hear with their own two eyes and ears is not reliable. I see this manifested today in the way the news media reports things. Today’s blogosphere is full of complaints that the news media tends to equate Repub giant whopper lies with Dem meaningless mistakes and omissions. True enough. But the big evil is that the media has taught most voters that what the politicians say is not true, that you can’t trust anyone, and that while Bush may have needlessly plunged us into war, trashed the economy and handed the environment over to the coal companies, Kerry’s explanation of some of his Senate votes is a bit muddy, and that his wife is super-rich and he may be a bit of a hypocrite.
People have learned that what the press tells them may very well be false – a cultural attribute the Repubs have helped build by feeding the press lie after lie, so that the public no longer trusts the one institution that is supposed to be their safeguard against tyranny. If the media has been corrupted by lies masquerading as “spin,” and the people no longer trust it, what is the way out?
It may be that we are in fact not on the verge of the huge upswing in progressive fortunes that I generally believe is underway. We may be having the last gasp of freedom before entering the dark world Orwell warned us of. If the Bushes are returned for 4 more years, I fear that those few elements of progressivism that remain will simply be squashed for good, and the days of freedom and light will be delayed even further.
Perhaps we’ll move to Guam, or Spain.
Caught a snippet of Randi Rhodes on Air America over the weekend, and she was discussing the book 1984 with a high school English teacher (who was great). And they danced around and almost hit the point that lurched me back into Terrified Mode. One of the secrets of double-think was to keep telling people that things are as we say they, that the past was as we say it was, and that the future will be as we say it will be.
And through the cunning use of double-think, simply repeating the lie over and over, it became indistinguishable from reality. (OK, I’m a little fuzzy on the book. I’ll read it cover to cover soon.) The point that frightened me was the idea that, to get people to believe the lies, they have to learn that what they see and hear with their own two eyes and ears is not reliable. I see this manifested today in the way the news media reports things. Today’s blogosphere is full of complaints that the news media tends to equate Repub giant whopper lies with Dem meaningless mistakes and omissions. True enough. But the big evil is that the media has taught most voters that what the politicians say is not true, that you can’t trust anyone, and that while Bush may have needlessly plunged us into war, trashed the economy and handed the environment over to the coal companies, Kerry’s explanation of some of his Senate votes is a bit muddy, and that his wife is super-rich and he may be a bit of a hypocrite.
People have learned that what the press tells them may very well be false – a cultural attribute the Repubs have helped build by feeding the press lie after lie, so that the public no longer trusts the one institution that is supposed to be their safeguard against tyranny. If the media has been corrupted by lies masquerading as “spin,” and the people no longer trust it, what is the way out?
It may be that we are in fact not on the verge of the huge upswing in progressive fortunes that I generally believe is underway. We may be having the last gasp of freedom before entering the dark world Orwell warned us of. If the Bushes are returned for 4 more years, I fear that those few elements of progressivism that remain will simply be squashed for good, and the days of freedom and light will be delayed even further.
Perhaps we’ll move to Guam, or Spain.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
Coupla Loose Ends
A couple of loose ends to note. First, I thought Kerry did a superb job overall. But I think he was especially strong in appealing to women, while Bush’s pedantic and arrogant manner must have been off-putting especially to women. Plus, Kerry specifically hitting on the wage-gap for women, and just speaking the word women several times, was huge.
On another note, I absolutely love making the President deny that he’s going bring back the draft. It’s exactly the same as making your opponent deny that he’s beating his wife. Excellent.
I remember when Bush was asked whether he thought he had made any mistakes at his so-called “press conference.” His response was he wished that the question had been submitted in advance (presumably so he could prepare an answer). He then went on to think for a moment and conclude that, thinking back on everything, no, he really couldn’t really think of any. At the debate last night, having had these many months to prepare an answer, he didn’t seem to be any better prepared than he was so many months ago. And still, no real idea of any mistakes. Any adult who has ever encountered a child who’s always in trouble but it’s never their fault will recognize this putz in two seconds.
Big Thought: Remember the build-up to the Iraq invasion? Remember how the President and his people went way, way out of their way to assert their absolute conviction that they were right (phrases like “100% certain,” “no doubt,” “in fact,” etc.)? There’s a reason why: they knew they had to convince a skeptical populace, and they also knew the evidence was beyond thin. And that’s the big point: they knew perfectly well just how lousy their intelligence was. That’s why when the President was asked about mistakes he said there weren’t any (other than a few appointments which didn’t work out, but being such a gentlemen he declined to name them on the air (Paul O’Neill and Richard Clarke you know who you are), but then launched into a lengthy defense of Iraq. In my experience, impassioned defenses where none are called for generally belie a guilty conscience. My suspicion is that the President is going to spend the remainder of his days trying to convince anyone who will listen (and I’m hoping it will be people like Manny Rodriguez, his caddy at the country club) that his invasion of Iraq was justified, even required and noble. But the person he’s most trying to convince is himself.
One last thread: the President has claimed (including in the first debate) that the “miscalculation” (which somehow or other doesn’t count as a mistake) of the “catastrophic victory” (if you wrote this in fiction people would say it wasn’t believable) was the cause of the problems we’ve been seeing in Iraq. But doesn’t anybody remember that the invasion plan was heavily promoted as “shock and awe?” It wasn’t “grind ‘em down,” or “Operation Delayed Victory.” The catastrophic victory was exactly what they told everybody they wanted. The miscalculation was that they simply didn’t believe that the Iraqi’s wouldn’t welcome them as liberators. (“we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”) In fact – once again, I suspect they feared that the event would go off exactly as it “in fact” did, and just desperately wanted to believe that it would go off the way it should in their fantasy.
On another note, I absolutely love making the President deny that he’s going bring back the draft. It’s exactly the same as making your opponent deny that he’s beating his wife. Excellent.
I remember when Bush was asked whether he thought he had made any mistakes at his so-called “press conference.” His response was he wished that the question had been submitted in advance (presumably so he could prepare an answer). He then went on to think for a moment and conclude that, thinking back on everything, no, he really couldn’t really think of any. At the debate last night, having had these many months to prepare an answer, he didn’t seem to be any better prepared than he was so many months ago. And still, no real idea of any mistakes. Any adult who has ever encountered a child who’s always in trouble but it’s never their fault will recognize this putz in two seconds.
Big Thought: Remember the build-up to the Iraq invasion? Remember how the President and his people went way, way out of their way to assert their absolute conviction that they were right (phrases like “100% certain,” “no doubt,” “in fact,” etc.)? There’s a reason why: they knew they had to convince a skeptical populace, and they also knew the evidence was beyond thin. And that’s the big point: they knew perfectly well just how lousy their intelligence was. That’s why when the President was asked about mistakes he said there weren’t any (other than a few appointments which didn’t work out, but being such a gentlemen he declined to name them on the air (Paul O’Neill and Richard Clarke you know who you are), but then launched into a lengthy defense of Iraq. In my experience, impassioned defenses where none are called for generally belie a guilty conscience. My suspicion is that the President is going to spend the remainder of his days trying to convince anyone who will listen (and I’m hoping it will be people like Manny Rodriguez, his caddy at the country club) that his invasion of Iraq was justified, even required and noble. But the person he’s most trying to convince is himself.
One last thread: the President has claimed (including in the first debate) that the “miscalculation” (which somehow or other doesn’t count as a mistake) of the “catastrophic victory” (if you wrote this in fiction people would say it wasn’t believable) was the cause of the problems we’ve been seeing in Iraq. But doesn’t anybody remember that the invasion plan was heavily promoted as “shock and awe?” It wasn’t “grind ‘em down,” or “Operation Delayed Victory.” The catastrophic victory was exactly what they told everybody they wanted. The miscalculation was that they simply didn’t believe that the Iraqi’s wouldn’t welcome them as liberators. (“we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”) In fact – once again, I suspect they feared that the event would go off exactly as it “in fact” did, and just desperately wanted to believe that it would go off the way it should in their fantasy.
Friday, October 08, 2004
Meanwhile, Over on Planet Mordor...
I just watched John Kerry deliver an absolute knock-out blow to the embattled President by exercising utter mastery. But the Pundits of Planet Mordor agree: Bush was far less embarrassing than last time, so it’s about a draw. And hey! How about those wonderful questions from the audience members.
First of all, on the audience: I was struck by just how much courage it took to stand up, and clearly and plainly speak to the President of the United States some pretty harsh words (i.e, “Did you really go fishing in the rain this afternoon?”). I thought every single questioner was quite impressive and showed a lot of gumption. See? I told you Americans were all right. As for the questions themselves, while I agree that they were quite good, the press’ fawning all over them just underscores to me just how bad most “journalists” are at their jobs. These are the questions that they should be discussing every day, and yet they seem quite concerned with things like Bush’s scowling, Kerry’s tan, etc. Memo to press: maybe if you tried a little harder, you could catch the journalistic standard of Missouri Third Grade Teacher Sandy.
On to the main event: Kerry KO’d the bastard by any reasonable measure. He has permanently defanged the flip-flopper charge once and for all. He has poisoned everything the President says about Kerry by charging that the President is just trying to scare us. Kerry did not flip, nor flop, nor was he wighy-washy or muddled or verbose. Not even French. Asked to speak plainly into the camera and say that he would not under any circumstances raise taxes on families earning under $200K, Kerry did just that without the slightest hesitation. Bush’s answers were frankly strange, and fodder for the conspiricists amongst us who believe that the President’s health is in fact declining and causing him to be a Bigger and Bigger Jerk.
As the discussion wore on, I thought the reaction of the audience members was clearly favoring Kerry. I thought Kerry connected with the American people tonight in a way that pretty much cements things for him come the 2d. I really can’t see how, barring some October surprise or other unforeseen-able event, Bush can win this thing. But then, I don’t really see how he’s getting any votes at all. Are there any Americans who think invading Iraq was a good idea? That we had no choice in order to defend ourselves? I mean besides the President and his immediate family (which for these purposes includes the Dark Lord Cheney).
I may have more on this later, but if the polls fail to continue their current Kerry-favoring trend I’d be pretty surprised.
First of all, on the audience: I was struck by just how much courage it took to stand up, and clearly and plainly speak to the President of the United States some pretty harsh words (i.e, “Did you really go fishing in the rain this afternoon?”). I thought every single questioner was quite impressive and showed a lot of gumption. See? I told you Americans were all right. As for the questions themselves, while I agree that they were quite good, the press’ fawning all over them just underscores to me just how bad most “journalists” are at their jobs. These are the questions that they should be discussing every day, and yet they seem quite concerned with things like Bush’s scowling, Kerry’s tan, etc. Memo to press: maybe if you tried a little harder, you could catch the journalistic standard of Missouri Third Grade Teacher Sandy.
On to the main event: Kerry KO’d the bastard by any reasonable measure. He has permanently defanged the flip-flopper charge once and for all. He has poisoned everything the President says about Kerry by charging that the President is just trying to scare us. Kerry did not flip, nor flop, nor was he wighy-washy or muddled or verbose. Not even French. Asked to speak plainly into the camera and say that he would not under any circumstances raise taxes on families earning under $200K, Kerry did just that without the slightest hesitation. Bush’s answers were frankly strange, and fodder for the conspiricists amongst us who believe that the President’s health is in fact declining and causing him to be a Bigger and Bigger Jerk.
As the discussion wore on, I thought the reaction of the audience members was clearly favoring Kerry. I thought Kerry connected with the American people tonight in a way that pretty much cements things for him come the 2d. I really can’t see how, barring some October surprise or other unforeseen-able event, Bush can win this thing. But then, I don’t really see how he’s getting any votes at all. Are there any Americans who think invading Iraq was a good idea? That we had no choice in order to defend ourselves? I mean besides the President and his immediate family (which for these purposes includes the Dark Lord Cheney).
I may have more on this later, but if the polls fail to continue their current Kerry-favoring trend I’d be pretty surprised.
Thursday, October 07, 2004
Cripes.
Looking over the transcript of the VP debates, I’m struck by how easy it would have been to deliver some serious whup-ass on the Vice President. Edwards struck me as very Old Democrat, mouthing his scripted platitudes but not engaging in real debate.
The Vice President started off with a long rambling analysis of why it was a Good Thing to invade Iraq. First, he claimed,
Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; and he had an established relationship with Al Qaida. Specifically, look at George Tenet, the CIA director's testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations two years ago when he talked about a 10-year relationship.
Or something.
An even more compelling example came when Cheney was trying to score points for the “Global Test” remark of Kerry’s (“We heard Senator Kerry say the other night that there ought to be some kind of global test before U.S. troops are deployed preemptively to protect the United States.”). First, Kerry said the opposite:
Secondly, and even more importantly, the global test that Kerry referred to is nothing more than the ability to convince the world (and our fellow citizens) that the government’s actions were justified. To make light of this “global test” is to lampoon none other than Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in the very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence:
OK, so Edwards quoting Jefferson might be a little much, but only a little. But it does bring out a larger issue: all through the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, many people agreed that Saddam Hussein posed a danger and ought to be confronted. But the evidence we had simply did not warrant an invasion. If it did, why aren’t those coutries whose security is actually threatened right there with us? Where’s Iran? Where’s Yemen? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Russia, for heavens’ sake. All these nations were with us in the Gulf War, and none are with us today. If we can’t convince these guys of the danger, then there was good reason to believe that we were overreacting. I think most Americans know in their hearts that the evidence simply did not warrant the kind of actions we’ve undertaken. (Of some concern, though, is the fact that many Americans don’t care: any killing of Muslims is A-OK with them. Sheesh.)
There were several more opportunities for Edwards to shove the dagger in, all basically missed. “Mr. Vice President, you and George Bush have made our supposed lack of consistency the centerpiece of your campaign. Which I can understand, because if I had your sorry record of failure, I wouldn’t want to run on it either. But the plain truth is, no matter how many times you pretend not to understand our positions, they have been absolutely consistent from the get-go. And I think the American people understand that. Even more importantly, however, is the fact that the American people understand that John Kerry wants to take this country in a different direction than the one it’s heading in, and I know on Election Day we’ll see a a majority of Americans agree with us, not you.”
Ah, democratic fantasies of what might have been. Let’s hope for some more ass-whuppin’ tomorrow night in St. Louis. (“Mr. President, being a lazy stupid slimebag is NOT hard work. Now cut it out.”)
The Vice President started off with a long rambling analysis of why it was a Good Thing to invade Iraq. First, he claimed,
It's important to look at all of our developments in Iraq within the broader context of the global war on terror.Thus began the administration’s ever-popular, ever-misleading pap about how taking out Saddam Hussein had something to do with 9/11 and the larger “war on terror.” The truth is the Iraqi invasion had little to with the war on terror, and everything to do with a neo-con fantasy about bringing democracy to the Middle East at the point of a US Army gun. Dark Lord Cheney went on to say recite the latest version of why we went into Iraq:
Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, that they he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad; he paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers; and he had an established relationship with Al Qaida. Specifically, look at George Tenet, the CIA director's testimony before the Committee on Foreign Relations two years ago when he talked about a 10-year relationship.
The effort that we've mounted with respect to Iraq focused specifically on the possibility that this was the most likely nexus between the terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.Deconstructing this is both easy and fun. Almost nothing recited by the Dark Lord turns out to be both true and relevant. But for Edwards, the easy smack down that could have helped put this away for our side would be to say, “Mr. Cheney has tonight recited a whole litany of reason why we had to invade Iraq. All I can say is that not a single one of these reasons was cited by the administration when it asked the US Congress for authority to use force under the certain circumstances, nor the United Nations when seeking to pass the test of global opinion.”
Or something.
An even more compelling example came when Cheney was trying to score points for the “Global Test” remark of Kerry’s (“We heard Senator Kerry say the other night that there ought to be some kind of global test before U.S. troops are deployed preemptively to protect the United States.”). First, Kerry said the opposite:
No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to preempt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.Not that we would need to pass a “test before US troops are deployed to preemptively protect the United States,” as claimed be Cheney, but that Kerry would not cede, “in any way necessary to protect the United States of America.” So right there, boom. Smack-down, baby.
Secondly, and even more importantly, the global test that Kerry referred to is nothing more than the ability to convince the world (and our fellow citizens) that the government’s actions were justified. To make light of this “global test” is to lampoon none other than Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in the very first sentence of the Declaration of Independence:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people toAnd right there, “a decent respect for the opinions of mankind,” is what John Kerry is talking about. And, for what it’s worth, as I’ve written in a previous post, at the heart of our current difficulties: a lack of respect for the opinions of mankind. We might agree or disagree with France or Russia or China or Saudi Arabia, but to dismiss their views as irrelevant and of in interest is the root cause of the anemia of our coalition and our lack of success in Iraq.
dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to
assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which
the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the
opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel
them to the separation.
OK, so Edwards quoting Jefferson might be a little much, but only a little. But it does bring out a larger issue: all through the build-up to the invasion of Iraq, many people agreed that Saddam Hussein posed a danger and ought to be confronted. But the evidence we had simply did not warrant an invasion. If it did, why aren’t those coutries whose security is actually threatened right there with us? Where’s Iran? Where’s Yemen? Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Russia, for heavens’ sake. All these nations were with us in the Gulf War, and none are with us today. If we can’t convince these guys of the danger, then there was good reason to believe that we were overreacting. I think most Americans know in their hearts that the evidence simply did not warrant the kind of actions we’ve undertaken. (Of some concern, though, is the fact that many Americans don’t care: any killing of Muslims is A-OK with them. Sheesh.)
There were several more opportunities for Edwards to shove the dagger in, all basically missed. “Mr. Vice President, you and George Bush have made our supposed lack of consistency the centerpiece of your campaign. Which I can understand, because if I had your sorry record of failure, I wouldn’t want to run on it either. But the plain truth is, no matter how many times you pretend not to understand our positions, they have been absolutely consistent from the get-go. And I think the American people understand that. Even more importantly, however, is the fact that the American people understand that John Kerry wants to take this country in a different direction than the one it’s heading in, and I know on Election Day we’ll see a a majority of Americans agree with us, not you.”
Ah, democratic fantasies of what might have been. Let’s hope for some more ass-whuppin’ tomorrow night in St. Louis. (“Mr. President, being a lazy stupid slimebag is NOT hard work. Now cut it out.”)
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
Edwards Wins!
But Somehow I Don't Feel Victorious
Reviewing last night’s debate, I’m torn by two warring impulses. On the one hand, I believe the Senator did a god job by staying on message, remembering that the voters are choosing between rival candidates for President and not Vice President, and not “taking the bait” that the Vice President so often threw his way. So, kudos to the young Boy Wonder.
But on the other hand, the lack of clearly explaining his positions, his wishy-washy answers – in fact the very things that constitute “staying on message – made me yell at the TV. (I actually listened to more than half of it on the radio, where the Vice President came off far less evil than he did on TV).
I wanted Edwards to say, “You keep saying, over and over, that we were inconsistent in our views on the war. That we blow with the winds of the polls. Well, sir, nothing could be farther from the truth. John Kerry’s and mine position on Iraq has been consistent and crystal clear to anyone who’s bothered to look at our record. We are for disarming Hussein, but against an ill-advised rush to war without a broad coalition of allies and a clear plan for winning the peace.” Or, “Mr. Vice President, you may think my record or the record of Senator Kerry undistinguished. But sir, I beg to differ. I am proud of my service in the Senate, and proud to defend the record of Senator Kerry. Every time your friends –the big insurance companies, the big polluters, the wealthy – have come after my friends – the working people of this country, I’ve sided with the working people, because I know that what’s best for them is what’s best for this country.”
Or something like that.
More later…
Edwards Survives!
Fears of "Dark Spells" Prove Largely Unfounded
Last night Democratic fears were laid to rest when Vice President Cheney did not appear to use any sort of dark magic to place an evil spell on Senator John Edwards, the Democratic Nominee. The Senator's friends and family were pleased, especially since many believed that the insanity of Senator Joseph Lieberman, who faced the Vice President in 2000, was due to just such a spell.
“I was so relieved I thought I was going to cry,” said the Senator’s wife Elizabeth. “When we saw the photos clearly showing the Vice President’s horns and tail, well, we were apprehensive to say the least. But I believe in my heart that my John will come through it all right.”
Kerry campaign advisor Joe Lockhart said, “I thought for a minute there that the Vice President was going to lean over and try to eat the Senator. But it was just a handshake. However, the results from the Senator’s medical exam are not yet final, though based on our review of the videotape, we’re cautiously optimistic this morning.”
Democratic strategists have believed for several years that the inexplicable level of support for the failed Bush administration could only be due to the supernatural powers of Dick Cheney. The first inklings of his special abilities came in 2001 when a poorly-lit video tape of what appeared to be a nighttime satanic ritual in a forest was sent anonymously to Al Gore. On the tape, several men, who have been tentatively identified as prominent neo-conservatives “Scooter” Libby, the Vice President’s chief of staff, Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz and Assistant Secretary for Middle Eastern Affairs Douglas Feith, can be clearly heard chanting, “O Dark Lord, We humble ourselves before your greatness. Death to Terrorists and/or Liberals Forever!” Neither the Vice President’s office nor the White House has commented on the tape to date.
Following review of the tape, many Democrats and para-normal researchers came to believe that the Vice President was using his powers to control the electorate. They cite the fact that, despite conclusive evidence coming to light of the administration’s many policy failures, deception and corruption, over 40% of Americans rate the President as a “strong and resolute leader, with no mixed messages.” The fact that so many poll respondents use almost the same exact language to describe their feelings – “strong,” “resolute,” "beloved leader," “no mixed messages” – has lent some support to the Democrat’s theory that the administration is in fact using magic to interfere with the normal political process.
The debates resume Friday night in St. Louis Missouri, where Senator Kerry and President Bush are slated to take part in an old-fashioned “quilting bee,” with members of the Quilting Society at Quilts on Main in historic St. Charles , Missouri. Senator Kerry is said to be undergoing a secret “preventative” ritual at a Catholic compound in nearby Louisiana this week.
Last night Democratic fears were laid to rest when Vice President Cheney did not appear to use any sort of dark magic to place an evil spell on Senator John Edwards, the Democratic Nominee. The Senator's friends and family were pleased, especially since many believed that the insanity of Senator Joseph Lieberman, who faced the Vice President in 2000, was due to just such a spell.
“I was so relieved I thought I was going to cry,” said the Senator’s wife Elizabeth. “When we saw the photos clearly showing the Vice President’s horns and tail, well, we were apprehensive to say the least. But I believe in my heart that my John will come through it all right.”
Kerry campaign advisor Joe Lockhart said, “I thought for a minute there that the Vice President was going to lean over and try to eat the Senator. But it was just a handshake. However, the results from the Senator’s medical exam are not yet final, though based on our review of the videotape, we’re cautiously optimistic this morning.”
Democratic strategists have believed for several years that the inexplicable level of support for the failed Bush administration could only be due to the supernatural powers of Dick Cheney. The first inklings of his special abilities came in 2001 when a poorly-lit video tape of what appeared to be a nighttime satanic ritual in a forest was sent anonymously to Al Gore. On the tape, several men, who have been tentatively identified as prominent neo-conservatives “Scooter” Libby, the Vice President’s chief of staff, Deputy Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz and Assistant Secretary for Middle Eastern Affairs Douglas Feith, can be clearly heard chanting, “O Dark Lord, We humble ourselves before your greatness. Death to Terrorists and/or Liberals Forever!” Neither the Vice President’s office nor the White House has commented on the tape to date.
Following review of the tape, many Democrats and para-normal researchers came to believe that the Vice President was using his powers to control the electorate. They cite the fact that, despite conclusive evidence coming to light of the administration’s many policy failures, deception and corruption, over 40% of Americans rate the President as a “strong and resolute leader, with no mixed messages.” The fact that so many poll respondents use almost the same exact language to describe their feelings – “strong,” “resolute,” "beloved leader," “no mixed messages” – has lent some support to the Democrat’s theory that the administration is in fact using magic to interfere with the normal political process.
The debates resume Friday night in St. Louis Missouri, where Senator Kerry and President Bush are slated to take part in an old-fashioned “quilting bee,” with members of the Quilting Society at Quilts on Main in historic St. Charles , Missouri. Senator Kerry is said to be undergoing a secret “preventative” ritual at a Catholic compound in nearby Louisiana this week.
Friday, October 01, 2004
One More Thing
In the debate, Bush inadvertently revealed his true point of view about Iraq. In doing so, he revealed why we are going it alone.
“LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?
BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that.
…
LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.
KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, "The enemy attacked us." Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. al Qaeda attacked us.”
I think this exchange made the President mad. He was being accused – justly—of having flubbed the hunt for Osama bin ladn. And he was sensitive about it, especially because he spends almost all his time surrounded with people who dare not even think this thought let alone utter it for fear of harming the Presidential Morale. So in an unguarded moment, he lashed out.
BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.
And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment.
“Ludicrous.” Right there, ladies and gentlemen, is the heart of the matter. When assembling a coalition, we may agree or disagree with our prospective partners. And if we disagree, it’s not going to harm our overall relationship. But the Bush administration didn’t simply disagree with our partners, they dismissed them. We didn’t think they were mistaken, or seriously misjudging the risk, or simply wrong-headed. We thought they were “ludicrous.” We indicated to them that we had disdain for their points of view. “You’re with us or against us.” We showed a fundamental lack of respect for their views.
It’s the lack of respect – for our allies, for the loyal opposition, even ultimately for their own constituency – that will bring these people down.
“LEHRER: Mr. President, new question. Two minutes. Does the Iraq experience make it more likely or less likely that you would take the United States into another preemptive military action?
BUSH: I would hope I never have to. I understand how hard it is to commit troops. Never wanted to commit troops. When I was running -- when we had the debate in 2000, never dreamt I'd be doing that.
…
LEHRER: Senator Kerry, 90 seconds.
KERRY: Jim, the president just said something extraordinarily revealing and frankly very important in this debate. In answer to your question about Iraq and sending people into Iraq, he just said, "The enemy attacked us." Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama bin Laden attacked us. al Qaeda attacked us.”
I think this exchange made the President mad. He was being accused – justly—of having flubbed the hunt for Osama bin ladn. And he was sensitive about it, especially because he spends almost all his time surrounded with people who dare not even think this thought let alone utter it for fear of harming the Presidential Morale. So in an unguarded moment, he lashed out.
BUSH: First of all, of course I know Osama bin Laden attacked us. I know that.
And secondly, to think that another round of resolutions would have caused Saddam Hussein to disarm, disclose, is ludicrous, in my judgment.
“Ludicrous.” Right there, ladies and gentlemen, is the heart of the matter. When assembling a coalition, we may agree or disagree with our prospective partners. And if we disagree, it’s not going to harm our overall relationship. But the Bush administration didn’t simply disagree with our partners, they dismissed them. We didn’t think they were mistaken, or seriously misjudging the risk, or simply wrong-headed. We thought they were “ludicrous.” We indicated to them that we had disdain for their points of view. “You’re with us or against us.” We showed a fundamental lack of respect for their views.
It’s the lack of respect – for our allies, for the loyal opposition, even ultimately for their own constituency – that will bring these people down.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Whomp!
Last night, Senator Kerry stomped all over the hapless Boy-King. In at least one way, the debate was a paradigm for the campaign as a whole. Senator Kerry started off wobbly, meandering from minor point to minor point. The President? Looking strong, sounding strong,, in command. But then…
Senator Kerry started to settle down a bit, and before long (say, after the first 10-15 minutes), found his prosecutorial voice. The President, on the other hand, soon was revealed to have memorized only about 5 minutes of material, so that he quickly seemed oddly repetitive. Soon, Bush fell back to his dis-engaged mode, where he had a hard time following the conversation, and seemed to forget at times even where he was on his own script. Long, awkward pauses. Trying to remember where he was going and coming up with something that didn’t really fit.
By the last 30 minutes, Kerry was rolling, landing solid punch after solid punch. Bush, reeling, out of material, utterly unable to respond coherently.
OK, on to the insta-nalysis.
Bush seemed to be running for President of Springfield High Student Council. He was repeating his straw man arguments as though he were accusing his opponent of being in favor of more homework, while his own view was that homework was bad. Very bad. (“I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently.” “I know Bin Laden attacked us. I know that.” “Whew. That's a loaded question.” “And by the way, the breach on the agreement was not through plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium.” “So I went to the United Nations. I didn't need anybody to tell me to go to the United Nations. I decided to go there myself.” “Actually, you forgot Poland.”
Bush’s logic was the perfect expression of a fascist authoritarian regime. Once the President decides to send the troops into battle, there is no choice but to leave them there, presumably forever if the mission isn’t accomplished. The last time we heard this was from the people that brought us the Viet Nam war, when those who believed that the war was a good idea accused those who disagreed of undermining the troop’s morale. The truth is, those with their hands on the levers of government only gave up in Viet Nam when the troops joined the populace in rejecting the validity of the mission, whether because they disagreed with the mission (creating a free and democratic South Viet Nam) or simply thought it was an un-accomplishable mission (pushing string). The same thing is going on now: Iraq was a foolish engagement, our mission there is misguided, and we will not succeed in creating a free and democratic Iraq by going it alone.
Kerry was terribly presidential. Bush, not so much. Senator Kerry was in command, and showed his raw power and strength. When accused, for like the 49th time, of being weak, inconsistent, inconstant, waffling, irresolute, a wilter, even, Kerry brushed off this nonsense easily. “I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life. And I've never wavered in my life.” Flip-flopper no more.
The terrible burden of doubt flew from the shoulders of Kerry’s supporters to those of Bush’s in a mere 90 minutes. Coming in, Dems worried that if they didn’t get a big win, they’d be in trouble. Repubs worried that Bush could flub it, but if he just stayed on script they’d all be enjoying some fine Randy Travis tunes in D.C. come January 20. By the time the thing was done, the Kerry camp was beginning to think they might be able to get Bruce for the Inauguration. The Bush camp was clearly troubled by their guy’s miserable performance, and by Kerry’s unwillingness to accept the labels Bush tried to tag on him (flip-flopper, weak). Kerry’s guys were psyched that their guy got the job done, “big time,” and that the President seemed so un-Presidential. Kerry’s camp comes out thinking they’ve got a chance to win, Bush’s camp comes out worried they’ve got a chance to lose.
Cripes but Bush came off like an idiot. He seemed to have no ability to discuss the issues in any way other than to speak off the script. “What you like a cookie, Mr. President.” “Jim, the trouble with my opponent is that he thinks we can send mixed messages, and I know you can’t.” “But what about the cookie, Mr. President?” “It’s just not what a commander in chief does, Jim.”
All in all, I’m feeling heartened that my counter-attach theory (below) is panning out. If this was a sporting contest, like say football or baseball, I’m liking the chances of the team trailing slightly and with a lot to prove against a complacent, smug and under-talented bunch of thugs.
Senator Kerry started to settle down a bit, and before long (say, after the first 10-15 minutes), found his prosecutorial voice. The President, on the other hand, soon was revealed to have memorized only about 5 minutes of material, so that he quickly seemed oddly repetitive. Soon, Bush fell back to his dis-engaged mode, where he had a hard time following the conversation, and seemed to forget at times even where he was on his own script. Long, awkward pauses. Trying to remember where he was going and coming up with something that didn’t really fit.
By the last 30 minutes, Kerry was rolling, landing solid punch after solid punch. Bush, reeling, out of material, utterly unable to respond coherently.
OK, on to the insta-nalysis.
Bush seemed to be running for President of Springfield High Student Council. He was repeating his straw man arguments as though he were accusing his opponent of being in favor of more homework, while his own view was that homework was bad. Very bad. (“I know how these people think. I deal with them all the time. I sit down with the world leaders frequently and talk to them on the phone frequently.” “I know Bin Laden attacked us. I know that.” “Whew. That's a loaded question.” “And by the way, the breach on the agreement was not through plutonium. The breach on the agreement is highly enriched uranium.” “So I went to the United Nations. I didn't need anybody to tell me to go to the United Nations. I decided to go there myself.” “Actually, you forgot Poland.”
Bush’s logic was the perfect expression of a fascist authoritarian regime. Once the President decides to send the troops into battle, there is no choice but to leave them there, presumably forever if the mission isn’t accomplished. The last time we heard this was from the people that brought us the Viet Nam war, when those who believed that the war was a good idea accused those who disagreed of undermining the troop’s morale. The truth is, those with their hands on the levers of government only gave up in Viet Nam when the troops joined the populace in rejecting the validity of the mission, whether because they disagreed with the mission (creating a free and democratic South Viet Nam) or simply thought it was an un-accomplishable mission (pushing string). The same thing is going on now: Iraq was a foolish engagement, our mission there is misguided, and we will not succeed in creating a free and democratic Iraq by going it alone.
Kerry was terribly presidential. Bush, not so much. Senator Kerry was in command, and showed his raw power and strength. When accused, for like the 49th time, of being weak, inconsistent, inconstant, waffling, irresolute, a wilter, even, Kerry brushed off this nonsense easily. “I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life. And I've never wavered in my life.” Flip-flopper no more.
The terrible burden of doubt flew from the shoulders of Kerry’s supporters to those of Bush’s in a mere 90 minutes. Coming in, Dems worried that if they didn’t get a big win, they’d be in trouble. Repubs worried that Bush could flub it, but if he just stayed on script they’d all be enjoying some fine Randy Travis tunes in D.C. come January 20. By the time the thing was done, the Kerry camp was beginning to think they might be able to get Bruce for the Inauguration. The Bush camp was clearly troubled by their guy’s miserable performance, and by Kerry’s unwillingness to accept the labels Bush tried to tag on him (flip-flopper, weak). Kerry’s guys were psyched that their guy got the job done, “big time,” and that the President seemed so un-Presidential. Kerry’s camp comes out thinking they’ve got a chance to win, Bush’s camp comes out worried they’ve got a chance to lose.
Cripes but Bush came off like an idiot. He seemed to have no ability to discuss the issues in any way other than to speak off the script. “What you like a cookie, Mr. President.” “Jim, the trouble with my opponent is that he thinks we can send mixed messages, and I know you can’t.” “But what about the cookie, Mr. President?” “It’s just not what a commander in chief does, Jim.”
All in all, I’m feeling heartened that my counter-attach theory (below) is panning out. If this was a sporting contest, like say football or baseball, I’m liking the chances of the team trailing slightly and with a lot to prove against a complacent, smug and under-talented bunch of thugs.
Bush Smackdown!
"Overture, curtain, lights! This is it. The night of nights. No more rehearsing or nursing a part. We know every part by heart!"
In the big ring tonight, Smirking Chimp-Boy vs. The Sen-a-torrr! History awaits the impact of tonight’s debate on the race for the White House. Will it be an utterly-predictable snooze-fest, full of over-rehearsed blurbs devoid of meaning?
Yes.
Will it be the electorate-moving mega-event the Kerry campaign hopes for?
No.
Will it help Kerry on his road to the Presidency?
Absolutely. I believe that Kerry, consciously or not, is pursuing a counter-attack strategy. The basic idea is to let the President make the first thrust, and when he’s shown his hand, counter-attack. It is a powerful strategy, allowing the defender the chance to husband their resources while the other side expends much of their resources and energy in an ultimately unsuccessful parry. The defender lives to fight another day, and now has a comparative advantage: plenty of resources left, while the opponent is depleted. If the counterattack is strong and well-timed, it can be the death blow. A solid performance tonight can be the first drop in a drip-drip-drip strategy of building momentum through Election Day.
At least that’s what I’m hoping. It certainly explains Senator Kerry’s history as a “strong finisher” as well as a prosecutor. A prosecutor must put on a strong prima facie case, but victory lies in being able to discredit the various excuses and defenses that the defendant raises. As the excuses and defenses are discredited, the prima facie case becomes all the stronger. I suspect that is what is happening here.
The President has now spent his attack capital. Kerry is a flip-flopper, irresolute, soft, etc. He has not had any other campaign. If (when!?) Kerry refutes these claims, the President is cooked. The refutation will not only serve to elevate Kerry, but will show the President to be a liar – a belief for which there is already a considerable foundation laid. Most voters are aware that the President stands accused of misleading us into war. If Kerry can show that the flip-flopper charge is bogus, more people will buy into the “frame” of President as untrustworthy. Plus, they’ll have a solid basis to think that Kerry will be a resolute president.
I continue to be optimistic about this race, since I think the exposure of voters to any kind of facts inevitably helps Senator Kerry and hurts President Bush. In truth, in reality, Kerry is a far superior choice to be President than Bush. (As was Gore.) The President’s ability to obfuscate reality by creating a series of diversions ought to be weakened by his having done so and been caught out on it with the Swift Boat deal. As the election nears, the Media will have a harder and harder time pretending that the actual issues facing the electorate are secondary to things such as “tan-gate,” this morning’s newest diversion (Did John Kerry Visit a Tanning Salon?”).
In the end, of course, we’ll get the President we deserve. If too many of us insist on living in a fantasy world, we’ll get a fantastically bad president. If enough of us wake up and smell the coffee, we’ll get a competent guy who’s actually committed to helping the American people and humanity in general.
And, win or lose on November 2, the days of the fascist-Repubs are about done. Americans have come too far to let these petty thieves take away our liberty. A new day is dawning, and whether it’s President Bush or President Kerry, the Rise of The Progressives has begun and shall not end for a generation.
Besides, even if Bush wins, having him around for 4 more years to torture will be fun. Why, the indictments alone will be worth it.
In the big ring tonight, Smirking Chimp-Boy vs. The Sen-a-torrr! History awaits the impact of tonight’s debate on the race for the White House. Will it be an utterly-predictable snooze-fest, full of over-rehearsed blurbs devoid of meaning?
Yes.
Will it be the electorate-moving mega-event the Kerry campaign hopes for?
No.
Will it help Kerry on his road to the Presidency?
Absolutely. I believe that Kerry, consciously or not, is pursuing a counter-attack strategy. The basic idea is to let the President make the first thrust, and when he’s shown his hand, counter-attack. It is a powerful strategy, allowing the defender the chance to husband their resources while the other side expends much of their resources and energy in an ultimately unsuccessful parry. The defender lives to fight another day, and now has a comparative advantage: plenty of resources left, while the opponent is depleted. If the counterattack is strong and well-timed, it can be the death blow. A solid performance tonight can be the first drop in a drip-drip-drip strategy of building momentum through Election Day.
At least that’s what I’m hoping. It certainly explains Senator Kerry’s history as a “strong finisher” as well as a prosecutor. A prosecutor must put on a strong prima facie case, but victory lies in being able to discredit the various excuses and defenses that the defendant raises. As the excuses and defenses are discredited, the prima facie case becomes all the stronger. I suspect that is what is happening here.
The President has now spent his attack capital. Kerry is a flip-flopper, irresolute, soft, etc. He has not had any other campaign. If (when!?) Kerry refutes these claims, the President is cooked. The refutation will not only serve to elevate Kerry, but will show the President to be a liar – a belief for which there is already a considerable foundation laid. Most voters are aware that the President stands accused of misleading us into war. If Kerry can show that the flip-flopper charge is bogus, more people will buy into the “frame” of President as untrustworthy. Plus, they’ll have a solid basis to think that Kerry will be a resolute president.
I continue to be optimistic about this race, since I think the exposure of voters to any kind of facts inevitably helps Senator Kerry and hurts President Bush. In truth, in reality, Kerry is a far superior choice to be President than Bush. (As was Gore.) The President’s ability to obfuscate reality by creating a series of diversions ought to be weakened by his having done so and been caught out on it with the Swift Boat deal. As the election nears, the Media will have a harder and harder time pretending that the actual issues facing the electorate are secondary to things such as “tan-gate,” this morning’s newest diversion (Did John Kerry Visit a Tanning Salon?”).
In the end, of course, we’ll get the President we deserve. If too many of us insist on living in a fantasy world, we’ll get a fantastically bad president. If enough of us wake up and smell the coffee, we’ll get a competent guy who’s actually committed to helping the American people and humanity in general.
And, win or lose on November 2, the days of the fascist-Repubs are about done. Americans have come too far to let these petty thieves take away our liberty. A new day is dawning, and whether it’s President Bush or President Kerry, the Rise of The Progressives has begun and shall not end for a generation.
Besides, even if Bush wins, having him around for 4 more years to torture will be fun. Why, the indictments alone will be worth it.
Sunday, September 26, 2004
This is What I'm Talking About
Over at the American Prospect blog Tapped, there is the following observation today:
"It seems clear that the most important and difficult long-term task facing liberals -- and, really, anyone else interested in returning even the slightest semblance of sanity to American policymaking -- is to begin the work of reversing thirty years of conservative tax revolt dogma."
Truer words ain't been spoken in some time. I think I know the secret path to reversing this idiocy. The core concept is value. Governmental value. The root cause of the public's fear of taxes is the completely erroneous belief that money paid to the government as taxes is money just plain wasted, thrown down the drain. This perception is strongly re-inforced by the way most people are introduced to the tax system: when kids or young adults get that first real paycheck, they see the list of all the various deductions, Fed, FICA, NYS DIS/SU, etc. And they can easily see just how much of what they thought they'd get ("Let's see, 40 hours, $10 an hour, ought otbe about $400 bucks...") goes to taxes.
So we make a big deal out of clearly explaining to people -- generally no less than every two weeks -- that their labor is the primary economic engine of some distant and unconnected thing called The Government. (Apart from keeping score of this grating math, I suspect there is not much other purpose to the bi-weekly distribution of reports of deposits that people get in lieu of paychecks these days).
What we almost never do is the other side of the very same ledger: when people receive government benefits, there is almost no effort made to document in dollars and cents just what people have received. For example, no one receives a statement at the end of every month saying that the federal government has provided national security services costing $38.75. No report from the state of New York saying that the cost of providing the various subway and bus rides, use of the roadways, and other transportation infrastructure comes to $14.21. Nothing from the City of New York (I can't help capitalizing that one!) saying police, fire, sewage, garbage and caring for our young people and providing them with a modest education cost $9.52.
And therein, folks, lies the problem. There is a carefully calibrated system of making sure you knowjust how much you're paying in. And there is almost no system to ensure that you are aare of how much you're taking out. To get Americans back on the bandwagon in terms of adequate public spending (and I can't believe that we haven't fallen way behind the rest of our well-to-do peers), our leaders must begin to help Americans see the value of the government services they receive. Like this: "Like clean air? Clean water? How about pure, unadulterated meat? What about the fact that in our nation, children are not allowed to work in factories. Or that you can rest assured that businesses you interact with meet minimum standards of fair-dealing? If you like these things, then pay your taxes!" I suspect that if most Americans knew the actual cost to them on a monthly basis, of various programs, they'd be more than happy to pay. (Kind of like thinking, "I can't really afford that new plasma TV at $3000, but for just $64 a month, why hell! Why not!") What if we asked Americans if it would be worth it to them to double the number of teachers in our schools, and double the pay of the top half of those teachers? If the answer was, "just $38.56 a year," I think nearly everyone would jump at it. "If you gave up your Starbucks for just one month, we could afford to send every deserving child to the best school they could get into on merit -- all schools would have needs-blind admission." I think that's an easy sell, and the way out of the idiotic tax neurosis the Repubs have sold so well to so many. Most people complain about their taxes, but the truth is that government services are a good value, and that the government is an apparopriate vehicle for us to advance the quality of our citizens lives and ultimately the lives of our fellow humans around the world.
There. Now we've got that sorted.
"It seems clear that the most important and difficult long-term task facing liberals -- and, really, anyone else interested in returning even the slightest semblance of sanity to American policymaking -- is to begin the work of reversing thirty years of conservative tax revolt dogma."
Truer words ain't been spoken in some time. I think I know the secret path to reversing this idiocy. The core concept is value. Governmental value. The root cause of the public's fear of taxes is the completely erroneous belief that money paid to the government as taxes is money just plain wasted, thrown down the drain. This perception is strongly re-inforced by the way most people are introduced to the tax system: when kids or young adults get that first real paycheck, they see the list of all the various deductions, Fed, FICA, NYS DIS/SU, etc. And they can easily see just how much of what they thought they'd get ("Let's see, 40 hours, $10 an hour, ought otbe about $400 bucks...") goes to taxes.
So we make a big deal out of clearly explaining to people -- generally no less than every two weeks -- that their labor is the primary economic engine of some distant and unconnected thing called The Government. (Apart from keeping score of this grating math, I suspect there is not much other purpose to the bi-weekly distribution of reports of deposits that people get in lieu of paychecks these days).
What we almost never do is the other side of the very same ledger: when people receive government benefits, there is almost no effort made to document in dollars and cents just what people have received. For example, no one receives a statement at the end of every month saying that the federal government has provided national security services costing $38.75. No report from the state of New York saying that the cost of providing the various subway and bus rides, use of the roadways, and other transportation infrastructure comes to $14.21. Nothing from the City of New York (I can't help capitalizing that one!) saying police, fire, sewage, garbage and caring for our young people and providing them with a modest education cost $9.52.
And therein, folks, lies the problem. There is a carefully calibrated system of making sure you knowjust how much you're paying in. And there is almost no system to ensure that you are aare of how much you're taking out. To get Americans back on the bandwagon in terms of adequate public spending (and I can't believe that we haven't fallen way behind the rest of our well-to-do peers), our leaders must begin to help Americans see the value of the government services they receive. Like this: "Like clean air? Clean water? How about pure, unadulterated meat? What about the fact that in our nation, children are not allowed to work in factories. Or that you can rest assured that businesses you interact with meet minimum standards of fair-dealing? If you like these things, then pay your taxes!" I suspect that if most Americans knew the actual cost to them on a monthly basis, of various programs, they'd be more than happy to pay. (Kind of like thinking, "I can't really afford that new plasma TV at $3000, but for just $64 a month, why hell! Why not!") What if we asked Americans if it would be worth it to them to double the number of teachers in our schools, and double the pay of the top half of those teachers? If the answer was, "just $38.56 a year," I think nearly everyone would jump at it. "If you gave up your Starbucks for just one month, we could afford to send every deserving child to the best school they could get into on merit -- all schools would have needs-blind admission." I think that's an easy sell, and the way out of the idiotic tax neurosis the Repubs have sold so well to so many. Most people complain about their taxes, but the truth is that government services are a good value, and that the government is an apparopriate vehicle for us to advance the quality of our citizens lives and ultimately the lives of our fellow humans around the world.
There. Now we've got that sorted.
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Here's someone else's post -- and my response
Over on AirAmerica Radio, I saw this post which struck me as penetrating and worthwhile:
"'m going absolutely insane considering the idea that there is even a remote possibility that Bush may actually win another term as President (if that is even what you can call him). I have done a lot of thinking about how this could possibly be the situation we find ourselves in. The only conclusion I can reach is that it's the fault of the citizens. Of course you can point fingers at the media, at the lying liars, and the absolute circumvention of good-faith political discourse. However, if the people do not go the extra mile and look past the propaganda, the fault falls on their shoulders. Here are all the offenders that I can think of, feel free to add to this list.Overly "Macho" MenFor some reason, many men have decided that the macho thing to do is support Bush. This insane "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" mentality that many men adopt in order to prove some self percieved testosterone quota has been met meshes perfectly with Bush's unwavering dedication to war.Religious FanaticsOverly religious people believe that their beliefs are more important than the United States. They believe that the constitution should be subserviant to the bible, even when the two are in contradiction. Bush caters to these people at every turn. I know he isn't one of them completely because war profiteering isn't exactly a Christian activity (although that fact hasn't stopped them in the past).Irrationally Frightened PeopleWe live in a post-9/11 world. Obviously, 2004 comes after 2001. However, when Bush and his supporters bring that fact up time and time again, they are really saying "be afraid, be very afraid". The idea that terrorists didn't exist before 9/11 is a crazy one, and the expectation that attacks will hit the United States with voracious frequency is completely counter-intuitive. Yet that is the exact assertion planted when "post-9/11 world" is uttered before some rediculous comment. Unfortunately this preface to a statement, to many people, gives the statement a visceral response. These people believe that Bush has somehow thwarted all kinds of attacks because reality doesn't fit their expectations. They believe Bush will keep us safe, even though every single act on his part proves otherwise.Greedy PeopleSome people refer to this group as "fiscal conservatives". They would gladly do away with many important social programs just to save fifty bucks in taxes. These people only see the ® next to Bush's name and assume that their interest in "small government" will be met. They are duped into thinking that it's true because, at the expense of the security of the United States' economy, Bush gives them tax cuts that we cannot afford. They don't understand that, in the long run, they will wish they could give that money back when they realize what they have lost is worth a lot more than fifty dollars. These people also don't realize that the republican spending platform far exceeds the democrats.Out-Of-Control "Nationalists"The insane idea that blindly supporting the president is a prerequisite to being an American is an extremely dangerous proposition. One man deciding what an entire nation does without question is called a dictatorship. The people guilty of this un-American American Nationalism are the ones who say "screw the UN". They are the same ones who feel unilateralism, for any reason, is preferable. These are the people who claim that not supporting the war is somehow an inslut to the troops. They also claim that pointing out any flaw in the United States or its actions is an indicator that you hate America. These people love Bush because he loves to tell the rest of the world to shove it.Stupid PeopleTo a certain extent this is an umbrella for the other groups, however, there are plenty of people that don't fit into the other categories that still fit into this category. These morons can't see past the propaganda of Republican pundits. They believe the answer to the question "Why shouldn't we hold Bush accountable" is "because Kerry is a Flip Flopper". Logic eludes these people at every turn. For some reason the facts are lightly dealt with after the conclusion is drawn, and in dealing with the facts, they pick and choose which ones to look at depending on whether or not the information fits the conclusion they have already reached. Unfortunately, stupid people are the majority in both the United States and the rest of the world.-This is my first post, thanks for bearing with me.. I look forward to some discourse based in reason and fact (for a change). "
From a poster called richbleak, I believe.
Here's my reply:Re: Richbleak’s thoughtful post:
I have been struggling with the same questions, and have long thought the “blame-Bush/blame-the-media” story line allows our fellow citizens off the hook far too easily. The truth is about half of us approve of Mr. Bush – did in 2000, and do now. I think your breakdown touches on the main strains of Bush support, though I’m sure people could and will quibble with some details.
Americans have a long and shameful history of embracing the sort of public madness which is currently raging across our land. From the very beginning, fanatical zealotry has been a persistent strain in our nation’s history. Breaking it generally requires two things: 1) a sort of fanaticism-fatigue, where expending so much energy on something so abstract and irrelevant seems less and less worthwhile to more and more people; and 2) a catalytic event/leader. The current election cycle seems to me to demonstrate increasing fatigue. We nearly had a catalyst in Howard Dean’s mad dash for true progressivism. Whether or not John Kerry’s run for the WH will be catalytic will turn on whether he wins.
I alternate, basically based on the last thing I read, between being absolutely convinced that this current cycle of public hysteria is breaking like a wave, and will soon seem as silly and shameful as McCarthyism, or alternately being absolutely convinced that we are in fact trudging inexorably down the same path that Germany and Italy went down in the 30’s, and that the insipient fascism we’re seeing has a strong enough hold that we’re all doomed and had better move to remote New Zealand ASAP.
For many, trying to influence which of these visions comes to pass involved political activism. I know it does for me. But it also requires us to remember that our deluded fellow citizens aren’t truly all that different from the rest of us, and that what unites is can be stronger than what divides us. I come from red-state country, have family there, and still visit often. I talk with people who support Bush and can be categorized as overly macho, religious fanatics, irrationally frightened, greedy, nationalists and/or stupid. It seems to me that what these folks have in common is fear. Machismo is an outward response to in inner insecurity, no? And, when I hear religious fanatics explicating their elaborate theories at length, the thought I cannot stop having is that these people are desperately trying to convince themselves, not anyone else. To want so badly to believe in these palpably unbelievable stories shows, to me, enormous fear. I think greed is just greed in some cases, but when I hear middle-class people talk about politics, it is mostly fear that the liberal democrats are going to take what little they have in the form of high taxes. I could go on, but I think most thoughtful people will agree that Bush supporters are powerfully driven by fear. The best way to win them over is not to attack them, or make fun of them, but to support them, embrace them, help them understand that the path out of fear is not hatred, as the Bushes say, but is through hope and love, as the Democrats say. Republican thought plays a valid and useful role in our system when it is the voice of caution, the reminder that people sometimes behave badly, and the keeper of our worst fears. Similarly, Democrats are the party of change, progress, hope and the future – keeper of our fondest hopes and desires. The fair interplay of these forces produces appropriate change over time. We shall see, soon enough, whether this balance is to be restored, or whether the forces of evil have even more triumphs in store. But the best way I can see to effect the outcome is to recognize that those on the right are not so different from those on the left, that in most respects we really do agree on most things, and that like it or not, we are certainly stuck with each other so the best course is to make the best of our common strengths and interests.
I see a lot of hate and vitriol on liberal sites, and I can certainly understand the frustration. I am of course not immune from it. But it is not the way to move things forward.
Thoughts, anyone?
"'m going absolutely insane considering the idea that there is even a remote possibility that Bush may actually win another term as President (if that is even what you can call him). I have done a lot of thinking about how this could possibly be the situation we find ourselves in. The only conclusion I can reach is that it's the fault of the citizens. Of course you can point fingers at the media, at the lying liars, and the absolute circumvention of good-faith political discourse. However, if the people do not go the extra mile and look past the propaganda, the fault falls on their shoulders. Here are all the offenders that I can think of, feel free to add to this list.Overly "Macho" MenFor some reason, many men have decided that the macho thing to do is support Bush. This insane "kill 'em all and let god sort 'em out" mentality that many men adopt in order to prove some self percieved testosterone quota has been met meshes perfectly with Bush's unwavering dedication to war.Religious FanaticsOverly religious people believe that their beliefs are more important than the United States. They believe that the constitution should be subserviant to the bible, even when the two are in contradiction. Bush caters to these people at every turn. I know he isn't one of them completely because war profiteering isn't exactly a Christian activity (although that fact hasn't stopped them in the past).Irrationally Frightened PeopleWe live in a post-9/11 world. Obviously, 2004 comes after 2001. However, when Bush and his supporters bring that fact up time and time again, they are really saying "be afraid, be very afraid". The idea that terrorists didn't exist before 9/11 is a crazy one, and the expectation that attacks will hit the United States with voracious frequency is completely counter-intuitive. Yet that is the exact assertion planted when "post-9/11 world" is uttered before some rediculous comment. Unfortunately this preface to a statement, to many people, gives the statement a visceral response. These people believe that Bush has somehow thwarted all kinds of attacks because reality doesn't fit their expectations. They believe Bush will keep us safe, even though every single act on his part proves otherwise.Greedy PeopleSome people refer to this group as "fiscal conservatives". They would gladly do away with many important social programs just to save fifty bucks in taxes. These people only see the ® next to Bush's name and assume that their interest in "small government" will be met. They are duped into thinking that it's true because, at the expense of the security of the United States' economy, Bush gives them tax cuts that we cannot afford. They don't understand that, in the long run, they will wish they could give that money back when they realize what they have lost is worth a lot more than fifty dollars. These people also don't realize that the republican spending platform far exceeds the democrats.Out-Of-Control "Nationalists"The insane idea that blindly supporting the president is a prerequisite to being an American is an extremely dangerous proposition. One man deciding what an entire nation does without question is called a dictatorship. The people guilty of this un-American American Nationalism are the ones who say "screw the UN". They are the same ones who feel unilateralism, for any reason, is preferable. These are the people who claim that not supporting the war is somehow an inslut to the troops. They also claim that pointing out any flaw in the United States or its actions is an indicator that you hate America. These people love Bush because he loves to tell the rest of the world to shove it.Stupid PeopleTo a certain extent this is an umbrella for the other groups, however, there are plenty of people that don't fit into the other categories that still fit into this category. These morons can't see past the propaganda of Republican pundits. They believe the answer to the question "Why shouldn't we hold Bush accountable" is "because Kerry is a Flip Flopper". Logic eludes these people at every turn. For some reason the facts are lightly dealt with after the conclusion is drawn, and in dealing with the facts, they pick and choose which ones to look at depending on whether or not the information fits the conclusion they have already reached. Unfortunately, stupid people are the majority in both the United States and the rest of the world.-This is my first post, thanks for bearing with me.. I look forward to some discourse based in reason and fact (for a change). "
From a poster called richbleak, I believe.
Here's my reply:Re: Richbleak’s thoughtful post:
I have been struggling with the same questions, and have long thought the “blame-Bush/blame-the-media” story line allows our fellow citizens off the hook far too easily. The truth is about half of us approve of Mr. Bush – did in 2000, and do now. I think your breakdown touches on the main strains of Bush support, though I’m sure people could and will quibble with some details.
Americans have a long and shameful history of embracing the sort of public madness which is currently raging across our land. From the very beginning, fanatical zealotry has been a persistent strain in our nation’s history. Breaking it generally requires two things: 1) a sort of fanaticism-fatigue, where expending so much energy on something so abstract and irrelevant seems less and less worthwhile to more and more people; and 2) a catalytic event/leader. The current election cycle seems to me to demonstrate increasing fatigue. We nearly had a catalyst in Howard Dean’s mad dash for true progressivism. Whether or not John Kerry’s run for the WH will be catalytic will turn on whether he wins.
I alternate, basically based on the last thing I read, between being absolutely convinced that this current cycle of public hysteria is breaking like a wave, and will soon seem as silly and shameful as McCarthyism, or alternately being absolutely convinced that we are in fact trudging inexorably down the same path that Germany and Italy went down in the 30’s, and that the insipient fascism we’re seeing has a strong enough hold that we’re all doomed and had better move to remote New Zealand ASAP.
For many, trying to influence which of these visions comes to pass involved political activism. I know it does for me. But it also requires us to remember that our deluded fellow citizens aren’t truly all that different from the rest of us, and that what unites is can be stronger than what divides us. I come from red-state country, have family there, and still visit often. I talk with people who support Bush and can be categorized as overly macho, religious fanatics, irrationally frightened, greedy, nationalists and/or stupid. It seems to me that what these folks have in common is fear. Machismo is an outward response to in inner insecurity, no? And, when I hear religious fanatics explicating their elaborate theories at length, the thought I cannot stop having is that these people are desperately trying to convince themselves, not anyone else. To want so badly to believe in these palpably unbelievable stories shows, to me, enormous fear. I think greed is just greed in some cases, but when I hear middle-class people talk about politics, it is mostly fear that the liberal democrats are going to take what little they have in the form of high taxes. I could go on, but I think most thoughtful people will agree that Bush supporters are powerfully driven by fear. The best way to win them over is not to attack them, or make fun of them, but to support them, embrace them, help them understand that the path out of fear is not hatred, as the Bushes say, but is through hope and love, as the Democrats say. Republican thought plays a valid and useful role in our system when it is the voice of caution, the reminder that people sometimes behave badly, and the keeper of our worst fears. Similarly, Democrats are the party of change, progress, hope and the future – keeper of our fondest hopes and desires. The fair interplay of these forces produces appropriate change over time. We shall see, soon enough, whether this balance is to be restored, or whether the forces of evil have even more triumphs in store. But the best way I can see to effect the outcome is to recognize that those on the right are not so different from those on the left, that in most respects we really do agree on most things, and that like it or not, we are certainly stuck with each other so the best course is to make the best of our common strengths and interests.
I see a lot of hate and vitriol on liberal sites, and I can certainly understand the frustration. I am of course not immune from it. But it is not the way to move things forward.
Thoughts, anyone?
Tuesday, September 14, 2004
Just a Thought
I didn't want to lose this thought. A compelling and thorough debunking of much of the radical right can be constructed by introducing the concept of accountability. Almost every idea these guys have ever had has turned out to be wrong. (Truthfully, in theory conservatives' job is to be wrong: the proper role of conservatives is to point out all the dangers that might arise from a given proposed course of action. When they are right (which of course happens), we don't proceed. But when we proceed against their opinions, they are almost always wrong. For example, Republicans were dead certain that the 1993 budget was going to lead to a stock market failure, a tremendous loss of jobs, business failures, and if I remember correctly, a plague of locusts.
This is the idea behind my suggestion that the problem with the anti-gay constitutional amendment is not just that it's pure evil, but that procedurally, we should take first things first. I believe it was the current president's father who was pretty sure, along with most of his republican friends, that if we didn't pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit falg burning, our society would decay into the lowest kind of moral debasement. So, first things first: flag burning, then gay people.
A crazy person is running, with the full support of the republican party, for senate in Oklahoma, primarily on the platform that there is a gay agenda that is sweeping its way into every nook and cranny of our society: "That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today," hw says. Let's hold this clown accountable and see what happens as that agenda is in fact spread across the entire nation, and we all agree that hating people because of their sexual orientation is immoral and must end.
Kind of like the republicans who thought if we provided medical care to those too poor to obtain it otherwise, that millions would quit their jobs to get the free care. I could go on....feel free to add your own.
This is the idea behind my suggestion that the problem with the anti-gay constitutional amendment is not just that it's pure evil, but that procedurally, we should take first things first. I believe it was the current president's father who was pretty sure, along with most of his republican friends, that if we didn't pass a constitutional amendment to prohibit falg burning, our society would decay into the lowest kind of moral debasement. So, first things first: flag burning, then gay people.
A crazy person is running, with the full support of the republican party, for senate in Oklahoma, primarily on the platform that there is a gay agenda that is sweeping its way into every nook and cranny of our society: "That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom that we face today," hw says. Let's hold this clown accountable and see what happens as that agenda is in fact spread across the entire nation, and we all agree that hating people because of their sexual orientation is immoral and must end.
Kind of like the republicans who thought if we provided medical care to those too poor to obtain it otherwise, that millions would quit their jobs to get the free care. I could go on....feel free to add your own.
Thursday, September 09, 2004
Post du Jour
Yet another day, yet another post.
A quick auto-bio note:
My mother dropped me off for 1st Grade and a cried like a baby. I had been in both 4-year-old and 5-year-old (as we called them) kindergarten, and still cried like the world had ended. I recall that after about 30 seconds I was fine. My first grade teacher, Mrs. Bassett (no relation that I know of), was not especially warm or nurturing, but she was a good Moravian woman who loved us children as best she knew how, and was able to get us excited about reading, math, and of course, lunch.
On the political front, not much news, but still have an idea for a good Kerry ad. The basic idea is to create a political ad using the strategies and production values of Madison Avenue, a la the famous anti-health care reform ad, “Harry & Louise.” We open on a shot of an old pick-up high-tailin’ it down a dusty road in some canyon out West. (We hear a twang or two of 100% Genuine Country Music under it, introducing). We cut to a shot from a camera mounted on the side and in front of the driver, clearly capturing both driver and passenger. These are proto-typical “good ol’ boys,” wearing cowboy hats, mustaches, with a gunrack.clearly visible.
Driver: “So. We’re s’posed to vote fer Bush.
Passenger: Uh-huh.
[Pause.] Cut to shot of the truck arriving at old-fashioned gas station.
Shot of door opening, Driver exiting.
D: Well, I ain’t gonna.
P: What’re you gonna do, vote for Kerry?
D: Yep.
P: Never thought I’d see the day old Sam Hillers would vote for a Dem-o-crat.
D: Uh-hmm.
P: John Kerry?
D: Yep. He’ll be all right. You’ll see.
Cut and open on Kerry/Edwards 04 w/ legal VO.
I think that’s pretty much there, though I’m sure someone with Actual Talent could improve it a lot.
The larger point is that we need to stop producing commercials that argue our way in, and start producing spots that let us connect to prospective voters emotionally. In my spot, I’m trying to burnish Kerry with some of that Good Ol’ Marlboro Man strength. Trucks, cowboy hats, few words – they add up to traditional American strength. The point is to give voters permission to think that Kerry’ll do “all right. You’ll see.”
I’m sure if we could round up some folks with actual talent, we could think of more and better ideas that would allow voters to connect with Kerry on a more emotional level. How about something like this:
Open on a shot of Kerry in a busy kitchen with his family. We’re moving pots, cleaning dishes, etc. John comes over to the camera and says:JK: Hi. The best times are the ones I spend with my family, even though it can get pretty crazy. But I wanted to remind you that the issues I’m fighting for – families, healthcare, education, our security – are really important to all of us. So don’t forget, this November 2, take the time to get out and vote. Whether you’re someone who never misses a chance to cast a ballot, or a first timer or someone who just doesn’t think it matters, do all of us a favor and get out to vote. If you’d like help learning where to vote, or need any special assistance with transportation or anything else, call 1800THEVOTE.”
Daughter: Come on, Dad, we’re going to cut the cake.
Cut to KE04 and legal VO.
Obviously, the point of this one is to set up Kerry in a warm and family-oriented environment, and to show how much confidence he has in his candidacy. No need to beg for people to vote for him – just get out and vote. Maybe this is too cute, but I’d love to try it and see. I think in the hands of a sympathetic director, this could be great. Of course, the other challenge is that neither JK nor his family are professional actors. But maybe they could pull it off nonetheless.
That’s it for now.
A quick auto-bio note:
My mother dropped me off for 1st Grade and a cried like a baby. I had been in both 4-year-old and 5-year-old (as we called them) kindergarten, and still cried like the world had ended. I recall that after about 30 seconds I was fine. My first grade teacher, Mrs. Bassett (no relation that I know of), was not especially warm or nurturing, but she was a good Moravian woman who loved us children as best she knew how, and was able to get us excited about reading, math, and of course, lunch.
On the political front, not much news, but still have an idea for a good Kerry ad. The basic idea is to create a political ad using the strategies and production values of Madison Avenue, a la the famous anti-health care reform ad, “Harry & Louise.” We open on a shot of an old pick-up high-tailin’ it down a dusty road in some canyon out West. (We hear a twang or two of 100% Genuine Country Music under it, introducing). We cut to a shot from a camera mounted on the side and in front of the driver, clearly capturing both driver and passenger. These are proto-typical “good ol’ boys,” wearing cowboy hats, mustaches, with a gunrack.clearly visible.
Driver: “So. We’re s’posed to vote fer Bush.
Passenger: Uh-huh.
[Pause.] Cut to shot of the truck arriving at old-fashioned gas station.
Shot of door opening, Driver exiting.
D: Well, I ain’t gonna.
P: What’re you gonna do, vote for Kerry?
D: Yep.
P: Never thought I’d see the day old Sam Hillers would vote for a Dem-o-crat.
D: Uh-hmm.
P: John Kerry?
D: Yep. He’ll be all right. You’ll see.
Cut and open on Kerry/Edwards 04 w/ legal VO.
I think that’s pretty much there, though I’m sure someone with Actual Talent could improve it a lot.
The larger point is that we need to stop producing commercials that argue our way in, and start producing spots that let us connect to prospective voters emotionally. In my spot, I’m trying to burnish Kerry with some of that Good Ol’ Marlboro Man strength. Trucks, cowboy hats, few words – they add up to traditional American strength. The point is to give voters permission to think that Kerry’ll do “all right. You’ll see.”
I’m sure if we could round up some folks with actual talent, we could think of more and better ideas that would allow voters to connect with Kerry on a more emotional level. How about something like this:
Open on a shot of Kerry in a busy kitchen with his family. We’re moving pots, cleaning dishes, etc. John comes over to the camera and says:JK: Hi. The best times are the ones I spend with my family, even though it can get pretty crazy. But I wanted to remind you that the issues I’m fighting for – families, healthcare, education, our security – are really important to all of us. So don’t forget, this November 2, take the time to get out and vote. Whether you’re someone who never misses a chance to cast a ballot, or a first timer or someone who just doesn’t think it matters, do all of us a favor and get out to vote. If you’d like help learning where to vote, or need any special assistance with transportation or anything else, call 1800THEVOTE.”
Daughter: Come on, Dad, we’re going to cut the cake.
Cut to KE04 and legal VO.
Obviously, the point of this one is to set up Kerry in a warm and family-oriented environment, and to show how much confidence he has in his candidacy. No need to beg for people to vote for him – just get out and vote. Maybe this is too cute, but I’d love to try it and see. I think in the hands of a sympathetic director, this could be great. Of course, the other challenge is that neither JK nor his family are professional actors. But maybe they could pull it off nonetheless.
That’s it for now.
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
Where Have You Been?!?!
OK, so I’ll be getting like a C+ in blogging, what with the infrequent updates and all. Maybe there’ll be extra points for excessive verbosity.
Maybe not. OK, probably not.
Any hoo, back to the keys.
It’s a couple of days after Labor Day, and the race for the White House (or perhaps we should call it, more aptly, “The Race to Prevent The End of Civilization As We Know It,” or more positively, “The Race to Save the World From a US Fascist Dictator”), is on full bore. Most recently, the “Vice President” laid it out to the American people pretty straight: Vote for Kerry and you’ll probably get blown up by terrorists. That should simplify things for many of my fellow voters. Bush=Life, Kerry=Death. E-Z.
This past August 22, my dear beloved mother passed away, succumbing to the liver disease she had been struggling with for some time. The medicos all say it isn’t painful, but she thought it was – at least that’s what she said, and I for one believed her. I know in her final weeks, when she was not conscious and increasingly unable to ingest any food, she didn’t seem to be all that comfortable. I wonder what those final weeks were like for her. I can only pray that they were sleep-like, full of wonderful thoughts and dreams. And now, I can only pray that she is re-united with her beloved family members who had gone before her – her parents, grandparents, uncles, cousins, aunts – even the unborn child we lost to miscarriage. (I can’t help thinking of my mother united with a spirit in the after-life who will be perpetually a baby – truly, my mother’s idea of heaven. She loved babies.)
Meantime, perhaps provoked by the shock of the loss, but clearly predating it, my impulses to somehow re-invent myself and my life are raging. Let’s move to France. Let’s buy a business. Let’s move to the country. Something. Anything. More than ever, I’m feeling the urge to cut my losses and get a fresh hand from the dealer. Who know where it will lead? Given the realities of family life, the commitments to our community, etc., I suspect it will all lead absolutely nowhere. Maybe end up with a useless overpriced red sports car. Who knows. Or, perhaps we’ll end up in Alaska! Or France!
So, here’s a paragraph for the autobiography:
I was born in 1960, but my earliest memories are about 1964. I can remember receiving at my 4th Birthday party a pair of yellow plastic cups that you turned upside down, each one strung through with a length of plastic tubing to be used as handles, so that you could walk on them and be about three inches higher. Neat.
I can certainly remember my 4-year-old kindergarten teachers, Mrs. Krauss and Mrs. Stone. Krauss was the jovial vaguely German one, Stone a bit more reserved, perhaps even a bit stern. We had great fun, played with big green wooden blocks and did plenty of finger painting. Thus began an academic career that would ultimately lead to a J.D. degree, and include decreasing levels of blocks and finger-painting, to the point where there were virtually no blocks nor finger-painting in law school. (Hard to see why anyone would attend law school given these kinds of deficiencies.)
More early memories later…
Maybe not. OK, probably not.
Any hoo, back to the keys.
It’s a couple of days after Labor Day, and the race for the White House (or perhaps we should call it, more aptly, “The Race to Prevent The End of Civilization As We Know It,” or more positively, “The Race to Save the World From a US Fascist Dictator”), is on full bore. Most recently, the “Vice President” laid it out to the American people pretty straight: Vote for Kerry and you’ll probably get blown up by terrorists. That should simplify things for many of my fellow voters. Bush=Life, Kerry=Death. E-Z.
This past August 22, my dear beloved mother passed away, succumbing to the liver disease she had been struggling with for some time. The medicos all say it isn’t painful, but she thought it was – at least that’s what she said, and I for one believed her. I know in her final weeks, when she was not conscious and increasingly unable to ingest any food, she didn’t seem to be all that comfortable. I wonder what those final weeks were like for her. I can only pray that they were sleep-like, full of wonderful thoughts and dreams. And now, I can only pray that she is re-united with her beloved family members who had gone before her – her parents, grandparents, uncles, cousins, aunts – even the unborn child we lost to miscarriage. (I can’t help thinking of my mother united with a spirit in the after-life who will be perpetually a baby – truly, my mother’s idea of heaven. She loved babies.)
Meantime, perhaps provoked by the shock of the loss, but clearly predating it, my impulses to somehow re-invent myself and my life are raging. Let’s move to France. Let’s buy a business. Let’s move to the country. Something. Anything. More than ever, I’m feeling the urge to cut my losses and get a fresh hand from the dealer. Who know where it will lead? Given the realities of family life, the commitments to our community, etc., I suspect it will all lead absolutely nowhere. Maybe end up with a useless overpriced red sports car. Who knows. Or, perhaps we’ll end up in Alaska! Or France!
So, here’s a paragraph for the autobiography:
I was born in 1960, but my earliest memories are about 1964. I can remember receiving at my 4th Birthday party a pair of yellow plastic cups that you turned upside down, each one strung through with a length of plastic tubing to be used as handles, so that you could walk on them and be about three inches higher. Neat.
I can certainly remember my 4-year-old kindergarten teachers, Mrs. Krauss and Mrs. Stone. Krauss was the jovial vaguely German one, Stone a bit more reserved, perhaps even a bit stern. We had great fun, played with big green wooden blocks and did plenty of finger painting. Thus began an academic career that would ultimately lead to a J.D. degree, and include decreasing levels of blocks and finger-painting, to the point where there were virtually no blocks nor finger-painting in law school. (Hard to see why anyone would attend law school given these kinds of deficiencies.)
More early memories later…
Saturday, August 21, 2004
Just read Garrison Keillor’s e-mail interview with David Talbot in Salon, who expresses the thought that he is writing highly partison polemics against the right these days because he feels the country is “slipping away.” Great words for a thought I have all the time: it’s starting to feel like the mid-1930’s in Germany here: we can see Very Bad Things occurring, brought on by the calculated actions of Very bad People, and yet we seem nearly powerless to do stop it.
Except we’re not. We could vote the bastards out. This exact moment, I’d like to think Senator Kerry will eke out a narrow win. But the big picture indicators aren’t so clear. Economy is improving. Iraq will be better off. Nader is on the ballot in enough states to force Kerry to win big if he’s gonna win at all. And finally, the cause for greatest alarm: 45% of my fellow Americans think George Bush is a wonderful leader.
Certainly some of the blame can be laid at the feet of our lazy, inept and foolish media. But theie ultimate goal is to sell soap. If Americans flocked to cable news channels where all they did all day long was discuss ways we could improve the lives of our fellow citizens, there’d by a dozen such channels. Old Ben Franklin was right in this as in so many things: “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” We now face the exact danger the good Doctor warned us of. Will we Americans be able to reclaim our heritage of freedom? I think we will, but it’ll be a close thing.
Perhaps it will teach us that we must be constantly on guard against the inherent dangers of a free and democratic society.
I wonder if we aren’t reaping some of the rewards of our inattention (and in the case of some antii-taxers, all out war) on quality public education. Our press corps is so poorly educated that they do not seem to recognize any of the fundamental truths of the political process. They seem totally unaware of their complicity in bringing about the downfall of democracy—remembering that democracy is not a partison concept, but a national one. Again, as old BF put it, “It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.”
Indeed, those who would be the masters of our unfree society are actively campaigning against free speech. Anyone who dares to gainsay their lies and foolishness is shouted down as a pariah, a fringe lunatic who should be ignored. Once more, Ben Franklin: “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” Aye, Dr. Franklin, aye.
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” America remains at its heart a virtuous nation. But that virtue is under attack by those whose interests in threatens. It is not virtuous to abandon civil institutions like government, schools and libraries in favor of corporations. When I see the members of the US Olympic team mumble through or ignore altogether the words of the US national anthem, I wonder if their children will remember when Olympians were members of nations first, corporate sponsors second. Or will they stand on the platform to receive their gold medal, while the FedEx anthem plays, or the Nike theme song?
My friend Ray likes to think that corporations shouldn’t be treated like second class citizens because, after all, they are comprised of inddividuals: shareholders, employees, customers, vendors, etc. And of course, corporations are composed of such people. But a corporation is by legal definition an entity designed and solely dedicated to the diverting of wealth from all its constituents to its shareholders. It is a model that has many virtues since it allows many people to exchange their commodity (labor, capital, etc.) for a commodity they value more highly (money, power, etc.) But ultimately, the model is just that: a model. It is a means to an end. When we lose sight of that end, we begin to lose ourselves. And boy, have we started to lose sight of the end.
The goal is not to amass more toys than the other kids. The goal is to have as many of us as possible have the greatest number of toys possible. And if that means limiting the number of toys any one person can have so that there is enough to go around, so be it. The slight dimunition in initiative caused by the limit is regrettable and its effects should be minimized. But the limit is not to be avoided for that reason.
Just like helping people in need: helping people in need will no doubt entail problems of people either feigning need when it does not in truth exist, or of motivating some to seek out need knowing that it will be addressed by others’ generosity. Real problems indeed – problems that should be addressed with real care. But not problems sufficiently vexing to forbid the helping of others, or to make that help so niggardly and stingy that it is nearly no help at all. We are a virtuous people – mostly, still. How can we let the moneyed interests convince us not to use our own money to help our brothers and sisters who need it? How have we let them convince us that the best way to help others is solely by helping ourselves. Self-indulgence is not virtue, and those that ask us to celebrate it appeal to our worst selves. Those that ask us to lend a selfless helping hand to our neighbors see the virtue in us. We should thank and celebrate them.
Except we’re not. We could vote the bastards out. This exact moment, I’d like to think Senator Kerry will eke out a narrow win. But the big picture indicators aren’t so clear. Economy is improving. Iraq will be better off. Nader is on the ballot in enough states to force Kerry to win big if he’s gonna win at all. And finally, the cause for greatest alarm: 45% of my fellow Americans think George Bush is a wonderful leader.
Certainly some of the blame can be laid at the feet of our lazy, inept and foolish media. But theie ultimate goal is to sell soap. If Americans flocked to cable news channels where all they did all day long was discuss ways we could improve the lives of our fellow citizens, there’d by a dozen such channels. Old Ben Franklin was right in this as in so many things: “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” We now face the exact danger the good Doctor warned us of. Will we Americans be able to reclaim our heritage of freedom? I think we will, but it’ll be a close thing.
Perhaps it will teach us that we must be constantly on guard against the inherent dangers of a free and democratic society.
I wonder if we aren’t reaping some of the rewards of our inattention (and in the case of some antii-taxers, all out war) on quality public education. Our press corps is so poorly educated that they do not seem to recognize any of the fundamental truths of the political process. They seem totally unaware of their complicity in bringing about the downfall of democracy—remembering that democracy is not a partison concept, but a national one. Again, as old BF put it, “It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.”
Indeed, those who would be the masters of our unfree society are actively campaigning against free speech. Anyone who dares to gainsay their lies and foolishness is shouted down as a pariah, a fringe lunatic who should be ignored. Once more, Ben Franklin: “Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.” Aye, Dr. Franklin, aye.
“Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.” America remains at its heart a virtuous nation. But that virtue is under attack by those whose interests in threatens. It is not virtuous to abandon civil institutions like government, schools and libraries in favor of corporations. When I see the members of the US Olympic team mumble through or ignore altogether the words of the US national anthem, I wonder if their children will remember when Olympians were members of nations first, corporate sponsors second. Or will they stand on the platform to receive their gold medal, while the FedEx anthem plays, or the Nike theme song?
My friend Ray likes to think that corporations shouldn’t be treated like second class citizens because, after all, they are comprised of inddividuals: shareholders, employees, customers, vendors, etc. And of course, corporations are composed of such people. But a corporation is by legal definition an entity designed and solely dedicated to the diverting of wealth from all its constituents to its shareholders. It is a model that has many virtues since it allows many people to exchange their commodity (labor, capital, etc.) for a commodity they value more highly (money, power, etc.) But ultimately, the model is just that: a model. It is a means to an end. When we lose sight of that end, we begin to lose ourselves. And boy, have we started to lose sight of the end.
The goal is not to amass more toys than the other kids. The goal is to have as many of us as possible have the greatest number of toys possible. And if that means limiting the number of toys any one person can have so that there is enough to go around, so be it. The slight dimunition in initiative caused by the limit is regrettable and its effects should be minimized. But the limit is not to be avoided for that reason.
Just like helping people in need: helping people in need will no doubt entail problems of people either feigning need when it does not in truth exist, or of motivating some to seek out need knowing that it will be addressed by others’ generosity. Real problems indeed – problems that should be addressed with real care. But not problems sufficiently vexing to forbid the helping of others, or to make that help so niggardly and stingy that it is nearly no help at all. We are a virtuous people – mostly, still. How can we let the moneyed interests convince us not to use our own money to help our brothers and sisters who need it? How have we let them convince us that the best way to help others is solely by helping ourselves. Self-indulgence is not virtue, and those that ask us to celebrate it appeal to our worst selves. Those that ask us to lend a selfless helping hand to our neighbors see the virtue in us. We should thank and celebrate them.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Auto-Bio Update
"I was born of a poor black sharecropper in rural Mississippi in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and three."
That's how a proper auto-biography should start, it seems to me, and should slowly and inexorably build to something like, "And that's why I've devoted the last years of my life to working with my foundation to stamp out child poverty once and for all."
My auto-biography isn't going to quite fit that mold. More of a, "I watched a great deal of TV as a kid, mostly Pop-Eye, Hercules and Mighty Mouse, and on Saturdays quite a bit of Bugs Bunny." And building in essentially random lurches to something like, "And so, as the end of my days approach, I cherish fondly my 15 year plaque for continuous service in the Deli/Appetizer Department, and look forward hopefully to the grandkid getting out of the joint and into a halfway house, hopefully for good this time."
So I'm a bit daunted by the prospect, and have more or less resolved to start work on my little tale in whatever random bits seem to pop onto the keyboard.
Like when I was 14 or so and went to Montreal with Rickety Basket, and we drank and (I at least) made out with a girl.
That's how a proper auto-biography should start, it seems to me, and should slowly and inexorably build to something like, "And that's why I've devoted the last years of my life to working with my foundation to stamp out child poverty once and for all."
My auto-biography isn't going to quite fit that mold. More of a, "I watched a great deal of TV as a kid, mostly Pop-Eye, Hercules and Mighty Mouse, and on Saturdays quite a bit of Bugs Bunny." And building in essentially random lurches to something like, "And so, as the end of my days approach, I cherish fondly my 15 year plaque for continuous service in the Deli/Appetizer Department, and look forward hopefully to the grandkid getting out of the joint and into a halfway house, hopefully for good this time."
So I'm a bit daunted by the prospect, and have more or less resolved to start work on my little tale in whatever random bits seem to pop onto the keyboard.
Like when I was 14 or so and went to Montreal with Rickety Basket, and we drank and (I at least) made out with a girl.
Fahreheit 911
Just saw Michael Moore's movie. Very impressive.
I was expecting a loose, wallowing, sloppy mess, similar to some of his previous work. Instead, I was treated to a much tighter, much less self-indulgent, much more patient and thoughtful work. Kudos to MM, and Hazzah! for the Republic.
Amongst my reactions:
- Rather than being shocked or disappointed at the Preznit's failure to act once told of the attack on WTC, I found myself feeling sorry for him. He seemed to be clearly disengaged from the reading with the kids activity. Instead, he seemed aware that he should be thinking Serious Thoughts and perhaps Doing Something. I mentioned this to Kathleen who pointed out that those were exactly the reasons she found it so damning. Had he stayed engaged with the kids, or not shown any understanding of what he was told, then he'd be aloof, neglectful. Rather, he was perfectly aware of the potential gravity of the news, and rather than deciding on a course of action (even if that course was to continue the reading activity), he seemed palpably unsure what to do. Probably the right view.
- Intense anger at the crappy lives we subject far too many of our countrymen to. Notably the gaggle of young black men who are ripe targets for the Marine recruiters, who seemed so bright, so thoughtful -- in short, so capable of contributing to society, yet likely destined not to realize anything like their true potential. Also true of Lila Liscomb, who's been abused horribly by the economic tumult in her region, and whose grief over the pointless loss of her son would touch the hardest heart.
- Strong sense that, contrary to the Conventional Wisdom, this film can and will change people's minds. There's developed a strand of CV that says the film is largely preaching to the choir, and that few marginal voters and no Bush supporters would have their minds changed. Crap. I don't see how one could absorb the information in this film and not come away with the sense that the Preznit lied us into Iraq, and that we are failing miserably in the basic blocking and tackling of so-called "homeland defense."
- An overwhelming desire to do something so that the young black guys (ripe pickin's for the Marine recruiters), Lila Liscomb, and hell, all those poor soldiers in Iraq, even those two dumb bastards trolling the parking lot at the down-market mall -- all of them-- could hold jobs that gave them both adequate income as well as real respect and dignity. Do Something like start a business that could grow large enough to make a real difference.
Double dare any comments on this one...
I was expecting a loose, wallowing, sloppy mess, similar to some of his previous work. Instead, I was treated to a much tighter, much less self-indulgent, much more patient and thoughtful work. Kudos to MM, and Hazzah! for the Republic.
Amongst my reactions:
- Rather than being shocked or disappointed at the Preznit's failure to act once told of the attack on WTC, I found myself feeling sorry for him. He seemed to be clearly disengaged from the reading with the kids activity. Instead, he seemed aware that he should be thinking Serious Thoughts and perhaps Doing Something. I mentioned this to Kathleen who pointed out that those were exactly the reasons she found it so damning. Had he stayed engaged with the kids, or not shown any understanding of what he was told, then he'd be aloof, neglectful. Rather, he was perfectly aware of the potential gravity of the news, and rather than deciding on a course of action (even if that course was to continue the reading activity), he seemed palpably unsure what to do. Probably the right view.
- Intense anger at the crappy lives we subject far too many of our countrymen to. Notably the gaggle of young black men who are ripe targets for the Marine recruiters, who seemed so bright, so thoughtful -- in short, so capable of contributing to society, yet likely destined not to realize anything like their true potential. Also true of Lila Liscomb, who's been abused horribly by the economic tumult in her region, and whose grief over the pointless loss of her son would touch the hardest heart.
- Strong sense that, contrary to the Conventional Wisdom, this film can and will change people's minds. There's developed a strand of CV that says the film is largely preaching to the choir, and that few marginal voters and no Bush supporters would have their minds changed. Crap. I don't see how one could absorb the information in this film and not come away with the sense that the Preznit lied us into Iraq, and that we are failing miserably in the basic blocking and tackling of so-called "homeland defense."
- An overwhelming desire to do something so that the young black guys (ripe pickin's for the Marine recruiters), Lila Liscomb, and hell, all those poor soldiers in Iraq, even those two dumb bastards trolling the parking lot at the down-market mall -- all of them-- could hold jobs that gave them both adequate income as well as real respect and dignity. Do Something like start a business that could grow large enough to make a real difference.
Double dare any comments on this one...
Personal
I'm resolving to spend at least some time every day writing, so I might as well do it here.
I'm a bit worried about my work appearing in public, but somehow or other that seems to be part of what's compelling me to do it.
I heard that dreadful Fleetwood Mac song "Don't Stop Dreamin' 'Bout Tomorrow" on the radio yesterday. I am also reading Bill Clinton's auto-biography. Together, a Clintonian interlude in my thinking.
Clinton's book is thoroughly enjoyable -- so far. I'm about half way through, and he's toying with running in '92. He's a wonderful writer, and has led an interesting life. In the spirit of his own philosophy (as reflected in that damn Fleetwood Mac song), I'm looking forward to the next volume.
I'd like to start writing my own auto-biography, and it occurs to me that my impulse to do so is in fact forward looking rather than historical (thanks, Bill.) I'm about at the mid-point of my reasonable life expectancy, and taking the time to do a summary will of course be helpful to my own efforts that great things lay ahead (some pretty great things are in the past, after all). But I'm thinking of it more as a note to the "generations a-comin.'" My own mother lies unconscious, unlikely to survive more than a few more days or weeks. My father is in OK shape, but the effects of aging have left him more or less bed-ridden and unable to care for himself. (A woman at his old-folks-home, Kirkland Village, has evidently completed a biography of him as a labor of love.) So thoughts of mortality, of the finite nature of the life, are heavy in the air, and are no doubt afflicting my own psyche. Hence, the thought about the mid-life auto-biography.
Stay tuned. With God's grace, more tomorrow.
I'm a bit worried about my work appearing in public, but somehow or other that seems to be part of what's compelling me to do it.
I heard that dreadful Fleetwood Mac song "Don't Stop Dreamin' 'Bout Tomorrow" on the radio yesterday. I am also reading Bill Clinton's auto-biography. Together, a Clintonian interlude in my thinking.
Clinton's book is thoroughly enjoyable -- so far. I'm about half way through, and he's toying with running in '92. He's a wonderful writer, and has led an interesting life. In the spirit of his own philosophy (as reflected in that damn Fleetwood Mac song), I'm looking forward to the next volume.
I'd like to start writing my own auto-biography, and it occurs to me that my impulse to do so is in fact forward looking rather than historical (thanks, Bill.) I'm about at the mid-point of my reasonable life expectancy, and taking the time to do a summary will of course be helpful to my own efforts that great things lay ahead (some pretty great things are in the past, after all). But I'm thinking of it more as a note to the "generations a-comin.'" My own mother lies unconscious, unlikely to survive more than a few more days or weeks. My father is in OK shape, but the effects of aging have left him more or less bed-ridden and unable to care for himself. (A woman at his old-folks-home, Kirkland Village, has evidently completed a biography of him as a labor of love.) So thoughts of mortality, of the finite nature of the life, are heavy in the air, and are no doubt afflicting my own psyche. Hence, the thought about the mid-life auto-biography.
Stay tuned. With God's grace, more tomorrow.
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Who to be Really Mad At...
Is it the idiot Preznit? Well, he is a poor politician and an even poorer policy-maker, but no, he's not at the top of the list. Why, he and his people and just taking advantage of the way the game's played (sort of like the Yankees).
So, it must be the evil corrupt press, right? No! Evil and corrupt, yes. Probably even lazy and a bit stupid. But the press' problem is not that they are biased in favor of conservative (though their coverage undeniably is). The main problem is that they are scared -- part of a burgeoning trend toward cowqardice in our society, which I believe is linked to the corporatization not just of journalism, but of our society as a whole.
The press' problem is that a) they are scared of getting yelled at by crazy right wingers and b) they have only one real goal: selling soap. If Americans lined up for liberal propaganda coming from their news, why, that's what they'd be selling. And you know what, that might just be happening. Air America seems to have better and better advertising on their air. Maybe there is money to be made pandering to the left.
Meantime, the crux of the press' problem is that they do not disclose their own biases. Fox News, on the other hand, pretty clear who they're rooting for. But so-called mainstream journos do not disclose their own biases in favor of the liberals. So, when a conservative says something foolish and outlandish, it's covered as "controversial," or "hard-hitting." Were a liberal to do the same thing, it'd be "insane," or "nutty." How can they be so different? Because the unspoken premise of the mainstream is that the liberals are the good guys, and are held to a higher standard. Dems are supposed to be normal, sensible, reasoned, scrupulously correct. Repubs, on the other hand, are the Snidely Whiplashes, and are supposed to be liars, self-serving, vitriolic rich bastards.
So, thus, the press.
But that's not who to really be mad at...
The folsk that deserve the highest level of opprobium, based on their highest level of responsibility, is the approximately one-half of our fellow citizens who think that Bush is not an idiot, and that the conservatives have really gotten things going in the right way. Conservatives have a valuable role to play in our system, but the current crop (dating back to poor old Ronald Reagan), is not playing their part. These guys are interested in power for power's sake, and for no other ends. And their ambition and lack of caring is so naked, that for so many voters to miss it is an act of intentional self-delusion. The right-wing's agenda is no secret.
The good news is, like McCarthy-ism, when this things falls, it will fall quickly and completely. Our society will resume its progressive ways, inexorably -- the only question is when. One of these days, perhpas even before the election, eenough Americans are going to wake up and say, hey, wait a minute -- why isn't the government -- my government, our government -- making more of a difference in my life and in the lives of my fellow voters? When that day comes, we start the next chapter.
Comment, if you dare!
So, it must be the evil corrupt press, right? No! Evil and corrupt, yes. Probably even lazy and a bit stupid. But the press' problem is not that they are biased in favor of conservative (though their coverage undeniably is). The main problem is that they are scared -- part of a burgeoning trend toward cowqardice in our society, which I believe is linked to the corporatization not just of journalism, but of our society as a whole.
The press' problem is that a) they are scared of getting yelled at by crazy right wingers and b) they have only one real goal: selling soap. If Americans lined up for liberal propaganda coming from their news, why, that's what they'd be selling. And you know what, that might just be happening. Air America seems to have better and better advertising on their air. Maybe there is money to be made pandering to the left.
Meantime, the crux of the press' problem is that they do not disclose their own biases. Fox News, on the other hand, pretty clear who they're rooting for. But so-called mainstream journos do not disclose their own biases in favor of the liberals. So, when a conservative says something foolish and outlandish, it's covered as "controversial," or "hard-hitting." Were a liberal to do the same thing, it'd be "insane," or "nutty." How can they be so different? Because the unspoken premise of the mainstream is that the liberals are the good guys, and are held to a higher standard. Dems are supposed to be normal, sensible, reasoned, scrupulously correct. Repubs, on the other hand, are the Snidely Whiplashes, and are supposed to be liars, self-serving, vitriolic rich bastards.
So, thus, the press.
But that's not who to really be mad at...
The folsk that deserve the highest level of opprobium, based on their highest level of responsibility, is the approximately one-half of our fellow citizens who think that Bush is not an idiot, and that the conservatives have really gotten things going in the right way. Conservatives have a valuable role to play in our system, but the current crop (dating back to poor old Ronald Reagan), is not playing their part. These guys are interested in power for power's sake, and for no other ends. And their ambition and lack of caring is so naked, that for so many voters to miss it is an act of intentional self-delusion. The right-wing's agenda is no secret.
The good news is, like McCarthy-ism, when this things falls, it will fall quickly and completely. Our society will resume its progressive ways, inexorably -- the only question is when. One of these days, perhpas even before the election, eenough Americans are going to wake up and say, hey, wait a minute -- why isn't the government -- my government, our government -- making more of a difference in my life and in the lives of my fellow voters? When that day comes, we start the next chapter.
Comment, if you dare!
Hang on a minute...
The Senate yesterday debated the merits of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. As obivously ludicrous and fundamentally mean-spirited as this is, I prefer to tweak this latest "Hey-Look-Over-There-At-That-Shiny-Thing" tactic on precedural grounds.
I recall that during the 1992 campaign, just about the most important thing we could do to save our society and protect our children from an amoral, caotic future was to amend the constitution...to outlaw flag burning.
I don't believe such an amendment has been adopted yet.
So my favorite retort to the RNC idiots on gay marriage is, "first things first." Let's get the whole flag-burning problem squared away, then turn to gay marriage.
I recall that during the 1992 campaign, just about the most important thing we could do to save our society and protect our children from an amoral, caotic future was to amend the constitution...to outlaw flag burning.
I don't believe such an amendment has been adopted yet.
So my favorite retort to the RNC idiots on gay marriage is, "first things first." Let's get the whole flag-burning problem squared away, then turn to gay marriage.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Talk of the Day
Today's political chatter is all about Bill Clinton's Big Book. The reviews are so far pretty predictable -- complaints mostly that the book is too long (who remembers the Emperor of Austria in Amadeus complaining that Mozart's brilliant work was very good except that it had "too many notes"). Some complain that it is not self-flagellating enough, or that it spends too much time on policy, or that it is rambling and unfocused.
Haven't read it myself. My guess is that none of this is true. First, it is likely neither too long nor too short -- just right. Secondly, it is probably just self-flagellating enough. Third, it probably spends just enough time on policy, and finally it is likely neither rambling nor unfocused.
I'm guessing that the book is in fact very good -- engaging, thoughtful, entertaining, etc. I'm still not sure why the mainstream press has such a hard time with this, other than it would reveal their 8 years of Clinton bashing as the unjustifiable smear that it largely was.
Meantime, Bush lies regularly and often (as did Reagan), and somehow his moral fitness to hold office isn't a question. (This proving it was about the sex). Even the President's own betrayal of voters (promising to clamp down on factory emissions or mercury levels, for example, or providing real prescription drug benefits to seniors) is not seen as far worse than President Clinton's betrayal of his marriage vows.
Down still remains up, but there is an undeniable, inexorable growth in the forces of goodness and light. Day by day, the cracks in the moribund facade of the Republican Right grow, and the day when it all comes tumbling down nears. Will it arrive in time for the election in November? Hard to say. No matter what, the tide has turned and the Day of the Progressives is on the way.
The question is, will that day come in time to avert the disaster that is growing in the Muslim world, which President Bush seems intent on precipitating? Let's hope so.
And let's hope that history proves out the greatness of President Kerry.
There. Now it's your turn.
Today's political chatter is all about Bill Clinton's Big Book. The reviews are so far pretty predictable -- complaints mostly that the book is too long (who remembers the Emperor of Austria in Amadeus complaining that Mozart's brilliant work was very good except that it had "too many notes"). Some complain that it is not self-flagellating enough, or that it spends too much time on policy, or that it is rambling and unfocused.
Haven't read it myself. My guess is that none of this is true. First, it is likely neither too long nor too short -- just right. Secondly, it is probably just self-flagellating enough. Third, it probably spends just enough time on policy, and finally it is likely neither rambling nor unfocused.
I'm guessing that the book is in fact very good -- engaging, thoughtful, entertaining, etc. I'm still not sure why the mainstream press has such a hard time with this, other than it would reveal their 8 years of Clinton bashing as the unjustifiable smear that it largely was.
Meantime, Bush lies regularly and often (as did Reagan), and somehow his moral fitness to hold office isn't a question. (This proving it was about the sex). Even the President's own betrayal of voters (promising to clamp down on factory emissions or mercury levels, for example, or providing real prescription drug benefits to seniors) is not seen as far worse than President Clinton's betrayal of his marriage vows.
Down still remains up, but there is an undeniable, inexorable growth in the forces of goodness and light. Day by day, the cracks in the moribund facade of the Republican Right grow, and the day when it all comes tumbling down nears. Will it arrive in time for the election in November? Hard to say. No matter what, the tide has turned and the Day of the Progressives is on the way.
The question is, will that day come in time to avert the disaster that is growing in the Muslim world, which President Bush seems intent on precipitating? Let's hope so.
And let's hope that history proves out the greatness of President Kerry.
There. Now it's your turn.
Monday, June 14, 2004
Ronald Reagan
The nation mourns the loss of a two-term, popular President. Which is as it should be.
For me, the big lesson about the nation's reaction to the death of President Reagan (which was rather similar to the reaction to his presidency -- gushing, fawning by and large, with a signifincant slice of bilous outrage) is that people react to the person, not to the message. As a conservative, Reagan was only so-so. Big tax increases, larger government, odd foreign adventures, etc. But his rhetoric, and indeed his whole personality, was conservative, and since people liked him, they accepte his message.
I'm sure there are other, probably generational/demographic, forces that underlie Reagan's success. But his agreeable, likable persona is a key reason why he is remembered so fondly, even though he should be one of our least popular presidents based on his policies.
All of which makes me nervous about John Kerry. Haven't seen enough yet to know whether or not he's a likable guy. Nor has Bush shown enough negative traits to turn off enough people. No matter how you cut it, something like 40-45% of all Americans continue to support the President, even though (again) by any reasonable measure his presidency has been a disaster. I think for many of his supporters, it's hard to get past his genial, downhome, plain-speaking, authentic manner.
I continue to worry that our side needs to do a much better job of reaching out to "red-state" repubs and helping them see why we reject so much of the republican credo, and why ours is not only far less scary than they;ve been led to believe, but is actually preferable to what they've got.
And, I think we'll need a "gipper" of our own to do that, and I don't think Senator Kerry is that guy. (I suspect if he loses to Bush he'll become a figure much like Barry Goldwater -- someone on whose shoulders the next generation of pregressives stands).
Post away!
For me, the big lesson about the nation's reaction to the death of President Reagan (which was rather similar to the reaction to his presidency -- gushing, fawning by and large, with a signifincant slice of bilous outrage) is that people react to the person, not to the message. As a conservative, Reagan was only so-so. Big tax increases, larger government, odd foreign adventures, etc. But his rhetoric, and indeed his whole personality, was conservative, and since people liked him, they accepte his message.
I'm sure there are other, probably generational/demographic, forces that underlie Reagan's success. But his agreeable, likable persona is a key reason why he is remembered so fondly, even though he should be one of our least popular presidents based on his policies.
All of which makes me nervous about John Kerry. Haven't seen enough yet to know whether or not he's a likable guy. Nor has Bush shown enough negative traits to turn off enough people. No matter how you cut it, something like 40-45% of all Americans continue to support the President, even though (again) by any reasonable measure his presidency has been a disaster. I think for many of his supporters, it's hard to get past his genial, downhome, plain-speaking, authentic manner.
I continue to worry that our side needs to do a much better job of reaching out to "red-state" repubs and helping them see why we reject so much of the republican credo, and why ours is not only far less scary than they;ve been led to believe, but is actually preferable to what they've got.
And, I think we'll need a "gipper" of our own to do that, and I don't think Senator Kerry is that guy. (I suspect if he loses to Bush he'll become a figure much like Barry Goldwater -- someone on whose shoulders the next generation of pregressives stands).
Post away!
Tuesday, June 08, 2004
Welcome to What To Think
Welcome to the first posting on "What To Think." The mission of this blog is to declare in plain terms what you should think. The focus will be largely on matters political, but may wonder off into other areas should I develop the sense that people need to be told What To Think about other topics.
I pretend no special knowledge, skills, background, insight or even intellgence. I am just exactly dumb enough to think that these deficits are no bar to being able to divine and explain The Truth. So, pretty dumb.
Opening thought for the day:
The liberal critique of the conservative movement is now well-defined and in high dudgeon. If liberals are to avoid the same pitfalls as the conservatives (whose entire point of view is a critique of the left), we must move the discussion onto why liberals are better for most Americans.
It's great to have a liberal attack machine that is starting to compete with the well-oiled machine of the right. But we must start to talk about things that we will do in office that will meaningfully improve the lives of most voters.
I believe that liberals' future lies in focusing on the value of government services. All voters value clean air, pure water, etc. All voters value national security and law and order. All voters value adequate investments in infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc.). All voters value quality education.
The way to capture the necessary portion of voters who now support the bad guys (repubs) is to help them see that the things they value most -- environment, security, infrastructure, education -- are best promoted by the dems. The repubs have no credibility on these issues.
To those that say that the repubs will simply continue to lie to voters about their positions and accomplishments I can only say, there has never been a time in our history when the truth didn't prevail. When the "greatest generation" stood on the brink of annihilation in 1941, they didn't see how they could win. All they had was faith -- faith that the righteous will prevail. So too am I consoled by the same faith.
Americans are not a petty, smug or arrogant group. On the contrary, we are large-minded, generous to a fault, humble. We live in a free and open democratic system, and we will have a government that reflects our will. It may take a bit of patience tog et there, but we will get there. In fact, we are already well on our way.
Here are some basic principles.
1. The government is not the problem. It is not a foreign entity that has landed here from another planet. It is the instrument through which we take universal action as a nation. It is exactly the kind of government we want. It can be effective or not, large or small, dedicated or indifferent, but we are not without ability to shape and control it. Just as repubs are fond of saying when dems bash corporations, "hey, companies are just collections of people," so too are governments just collections of people.
2. The government provides significant value. Taxes are by and large a good deal. Government services benefit each of us in numerous ways each and every day. All those services cost money. For what we pay, we get decent value. The debate should be around how to get the best value, not how to get no value. Money paid in taxes is not wasted. Much of it goes to worthy causes.
3. We deserve a society that takes better care of its needy. My experience is that under republican rule, recipients of government services are too often made to feel that the government is doing them a favor they don't really deserve. When I see how schools are build using cheap designs, cheap materials, etc., the message I see us sending is, "we don't really care enough about school children to spend a decent sum on them." When I see a welfare center that looks like a waiting room at a bus depot, the message I see us sending welfare recipients is, "you have failed and we can hardly stand to support you at a subsistence level."
Wouldn't we really prefer school buildings that said, "Welcome leaders of tomorrow! Enter the temple of knowledge!" (When I look at older schools, this seems closer to the message we used to send.) Or welfare offices that said, "Worry not. We will help you get back to the life you deserve."
4. Our government must weigh the interests of all its citizens, not just those who have access to capital and power. Minimum working conditions should provide a life of dignity to those at the bottom rung -- even if it means those who own businesses must make a little less. Men and women who choose to work in public service, like the military, should earn a living wage, even if people could be found to do the work for less. (I think of the NYPD -- most of whom could use a raise, but don't get it for fear that the taxpayers won't fund it. You know what -- most taxpayers would never miss the extra 3 cents a week they'd pay so that civil servants could do a little better.)
5. Truth matters. Just getting up and saying things because they advance your position without regard to their truth or falsity is simply not acceptable. There is a line -- which can be hard to draw -- between spinning and lying. But draw it we must, or else we end up with things like "John McCain is against breast cancer research," or "Ronald Reagan saved our economy by cutting our taxes." Or that global warming is just a theory, or that evolution is just as legitimate as the Bible. Our society needs mechanisms to talk about issues. When truth is irrelevant, we damage those mechanisms.
6. There is more that unites us than divides us. As a nation, we are in many ways quite homogeneous. We should focus on the common values we broadly share, and de-emphasize the areas where we strongly disagree and are fractitious. The debate around abortion is of course important to our society; however, it ought not to drown out discussion of other importnat things like economic justice, racial inequality and the need for quality education.
7. Those with more means should pay more than those with less. Progressive taxation is a simple issue of fundamental fairness. Rich people can afford to pay a larger portion of their incomes to support necessary government services than poor or middle class people can.
8. Our future lies in strengthening our ties to the other humans on the planet. Americans are a great and wonderful people. So too are the Armenians, Brazilians, and Indonesians. The Koreans, Mexicans and Swedes. The Peruvians, French and Vietnamese. And on and on. One day in the not-too-distant future, the idea of nationhood will be more like city-hood today. One can hardly imagine the good citizens of Houston rising up in arms against the evi-doers of Dallas. Someday, we'll think like that about Americans and Russians, Chinese and Indians, even Iraqis and Iranians.
Well, that should get things started. Fire away.
I pretend no special knowledge, skills, background, insight or even intellgence. I am just exactly dumb enough to think that these deficits are no bar to being able to divine and explain The Truth. So, pretty dumb.
Opening thought for the day:
The liberal critique of the conservative movement is now well-defined and in high dudgeon. If liberals are to avoid the same pitfalls as the conservatives (whose entire point of view is a critique of the left), we must move the discussion onto why liberals are better for most Americans.
It's great to have a liberal attack machine that is starting to compete with the well-oiled machine of the right. But we must start to talk about things that we will do in office that will meaningfully improve the lives of most voters.
I believe that liberals' future lies in focusing on the value of government services. All voters value clean air, pure water, etc. All voters value national security and law and order. All voters value adequate investments in infrastructure (roads, sewers, etc.). All voters value quality education.
The way to capture the necessary portion of voters who now support the bad guys (repubs) is to help them see that the things they value most -- environment, security, infrastructure, education -- are best promoted by the dems. The repubs have no credibility on these issues.
To those that say that the repubs will simply continue to lie to voters about their positions and accomplishments I can only say, there has never been a time in our history when the truth didn't prevail. When the "greatest generation" stood on the brink of annihilation in 1941, they didn't see how they could win. All they had was faith -- faith that the righteous will prevail. So too am I consoled by the same faith.
Americans are not a petty, smug or arrogant group. On the contrary, we are large-minded, generous to a fault, humble. We live in a free and open democratic system, and we will have a government that reflects our will. It may take a bit of patience tog et there, but we will get there. In fact, we are already well on our way.
Here are some basic principles.
1. The government is not the problem. It is not a foreign entity that has landed here from another planet. It is the instrument through which we take universal action as a nation. It is exactly the kind of government we want. It can be effective or not, large or small, dedicated or indifferent, but we are not without ability to shape and control it. Just as repubs are fond of saying when dems bash corporations, "hey, companies are just collections of people," so too are governments just collections of people.
2. The government provides significant value. Taxes are by and large a good deal. Government services benefit each of us in numerous ways each and every day. All those services cost money. For what we pay, we get decent value. The debate should be around how to get the best value, not how to get no value. Money paid in taxes is not wasted. Much of it goes to worthy causes.
3. We deserve a society that takes better care of its needy. My experience is that under republican rule, recipients of government services are too often made to feel that the government is doing them a favor they don't really deserve. When I see how schools are build using cheap designs, cheap materials, etc., the message I see us sending is, "we don't really care enough about school children to spend a decent sum on them." When I see a welfare center that looks like a waiting room at a bus depot, the message I see us sending welfare recipients is, "you have failed and we can hardly stand to support you at a subsistence level."
Wouldn't we really prefer school buildings that said, "Welcome leaders of tomorrow! Enter the temple of knowledge!" (When I look at older schools, this seems closer to the message we used to send.) Or welfare offices that said, "Worry not. We will help you get back to the life you deserve."
4. Our government must weigh the interests of all its citizens, not just those who have access to capital and power. Minimum working conditions should provide a life of dignity to those at the bottom rung -- even if it means those who own businesses must make a little less. Men and women who choose to work in public service, like the military, should earn a living wage, even if people could be found to do the work for less. (I think of the NYPD -- most of whom could use a raise, but don't get it for fear that the taxpayers won't fund it. You know what -- most taxpayers would never miss the extra 3 cents a week they'd pay so that civil servants could do a little better.)
5. Truth matters. Just getting up and saying things because they advance your position without regard to their truth or falsity is simply not acceptable. There is a line -- which can be hard to draw -- between spinning and lying. But draw it we must, or else we end up with things like "John McCain is against breast cancer research," or "Ronald Reagan saved our economy by cutting our taxes." Or that global warming is just a theory, or that evolution is just as legitimate as the Bible. Our society needs mechanisms to talk about issues. When truth is irrelevant, we damage those mechanisms.
6. There is more that unites us than divides us. As a nation, we are in many ways quite homogeneous. We should focus on the common values we broadly share, and de-emphasize the areas where we strongly disagree and are fractitious. The debate around abortion is of course important to our society; however, it ought not to drown out discussion of other importnat things like economic justice, racial inequality and the need for quality education.
7. Those with more means should pay more than those with less. Progressive taxation is a simple issue of fundamental fairness. Rich people can afford to pay a larger portion of their incomes to support necessary government services than poor or middle class people can.
8. Our future lies in strengthening our ties to the other humans on the planet. Americans are a great and wonderful people. So too are the Armenians, Brazilians, and Indonesians. The Koreans, Mexicans and Swedes. The Peruvians, French and Vietnamese. And on and on. One day in the not-too-distant future, the idea of nationhood will be more like city-hood today. One can hardly imagine the good citizens of Houston rising up in arms against the evi-doers of Dallas. Someday, we'll think like that about Americans and Russians, Chinese and Indians, even Iraqis and Iranians.
Well, that should get things started. Fire away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)