Uneven Ground

Reasons I Will Now Learn to Knit

2009-12-14T16:49:00.002-05:00

1) A dissected frog
2) plankton
3) the human brain

There are others, but these are the best. Unfortunately, I can't copy the photos so you should go to this website.

Sweet cheeks and cupcakes

2009-11-10T07:52:00.004-05:00

I watched Moon last night and, despite the absolutely gratuitous shower scene, it was a good solid movie. I watched it expecting more surprises, though. I thought it was going to be one of those 'clever' movies. Some reviews presented it as a psychological thriller but it is more of a psychological drama. Sam Rockwell gives a phenomenal performance.

I won't spoil it for you.

I also made marble cupcakes last night - chocolate and vanilla. I tweaked the recipe a little because I had no chocolate and white chocolate chips but they turned out really well, if a bit heavy for my taste.

Thus far I have made:
Banana bread - 3 stars, too heavy and sweet and the bananas sunk to the bottom.

Mint chocolate chip fairy cakes - 6 stars, used mashed up mint chocolate bar. They were light and easy to eat. Next time I'll use more chocolate bits.

Scones - 6 stars for my first couple of batches, which were made using wholemeal flour. Every time I've made scones the dough has been incredibly sticky and I've had to add more flour, and more flour, until I finally have something manageable. Also, I don't have a rolling pin or a cutter so I just have to pat out the dough and tear bits off, which, because the dough is so sticky, always ends up in a mess. The resulting scones are lumpy and crumbly but still delicious.

My last batch was the best - I added some allspice and cinnamon to give it that extra aroma and a hint of flavor. 8 stars, I think, but perhaps the bar is too low at the moment.

Marble cupcakes - 6 stars for decent, moist cupcakes.

Jesus, Mary and Toast

2009-10-28T07:26:00.003-04:00

A selection of the many appearances of holy figures in the past decade. They don't include the office building Mary, broken by some vandal. But they do have this picture:

Which actually looks like Clara Bow, or maybe Mae West.

2008-12-15T09:42:00.002-05:00

The financial reports are bad (though sometimes amusing) and here in Scotland the days are getting much shorter (sunrise today was at 8.38 and sunset will be at 15.33) - so it's nice to escape for a while to the Mekong...

Health Care: a lot for the few or a little for the many?

2008-12-11T08:14:00.006-05:00

As I get older, and realize that I will probably not live forever despite my strict adherence to a wine and cheese diet, I appreciate more the importance of good health care.

When I lived in Kentucky I worked a decent job that provided some health care. This covered, wonderfully enough, my dental needs but not my need for old-lady prescription glasses and contact lenses. I never had a hospital experience there so I can't really comment on that, but I know I would have had to pay a certain amount for each visit.

Since coming to the UK I am consistently amazed at the 'free at point of care' concept. Now I have no insurance but, because we are on a low-income, I get free dental care (which is also offered to every woman for the first year after she gives birth). I just enjoyed having my wisdom teeth out for free - joy.

For the general population, if you can find an NHS dentist over here (good luck, they are out there) then you get a portion of your basic dental care covered.

Everyone gets free eye tests and a discount on glasses.

I especially appreciated the health system when I got pregnant. Not only did I receive free care and advice, I had a midwife who visited my house and talked me through everything. There were lots of options from which I could choose, in terms of the type of hospital stay and birthing plan (including access to a birthing pool). Of course, some of this was determined by my location. In the end, a hospital birth made the most sense because I did not want to be in screaming agony (epidurals are not generally offered at birthing centers) - but to each their own.

The follow-up care is also pretty comprehensive. You get a health visitor who, well, visits. Trust me, this is very valuable when you have just had a baby, haven't showered in weeks, are still bleeding/scarred, and when you've not been through it all before.

All in all I have a pretty positive view of the NHS. Granted, I read about MRSA and I've waited for hours in waiting rooms, but I prefer this broken-down system to the broken-down system in the US no question.

The trick is, however, to find a balance between the 'advanced and innovative' health care in the US (advanced and innovative being code words for expensive) and the 'free and egalitarian' health care of the UK (free and egalitarian being a code words for inefficient).

One of the differences between the two systems (outside of the structural, bureaucratic differences) is the focus in the US on the individual paying for their own health care needs. That is, if you have private insurance, or even employer-based insurance, you are paying now for some circumstances that might occur in the future to yourself. Even then, of course, there is no guarantee that you will be covered for everything.

The same might generally be said of the UK except that, because the NHS is a national behemoth, the cost of healthcare comes out of your paycheck in taxes and is poured into the NHS system. Your money might be paying for some little child's cancer treatment (as long as it's not new or experimental) or some junkie's methadone dose.

I know this isn't actually how it works - certainly not on the US side where your money paid to a private insurer covers them just in case one of their other clients gets dreadfully ill and they actually decide to pay out - but there is a fundamental difference in ethos that I think is important. It is the reason why people like Michael Moore look over the pond and think "If only...", ignoring the many problems with the NHS.

The NHS is not a solution for the US. But neither is allowing health insurers to dictate policy.

One of the main benefits of paying into a system that is free at the point of care is that it encourages people to visit the doctor. You see that chunk of money come out of your paycheck and you feel entitled to have a doctor or nurse look at your mole or listen to your phlegmy throat. This means that illnesses are often dealt with at an earlier stage, saving costs in the long run.

The prenatal care women receive is also important for their mental health and the health of their child. My older brother, a pediatrician in New York, was impressed at the prenatal care I received and despaired that more comprehensive care was not offered to people in the US.

A recent Reuters article called the American system of health care 'costly and inefficient'. This epithet is also often applied to the NHS, despite its attempts to keep costs low by only paying for the cheapest drugs for any particular illness.

I hope there is a middle ground somewhere, between what seems like a lack of accountability of the health insurance companies, which puts consumers on uncertain footing, and the political accountability of the NHS, which means they can't be seen to be 'wasting' money on costly treatments.

In both cases many of the people paying into the system don't seem to be getting what they want or need. However, at least in the UK you can get decent treatment (equal treatment) even if you are not paying into the system at the time of medical need.

What To Wear

2008-11-03T04:19:00.002-05:00

I was looking for style tips today (not my usual internet activity but we've been invited to a wedding) and stumbled on a fashion advice site for transgendered men. I won't link it here - I'm sure anyone that is curious can find it through a search.

I found myself drawn in by the concerns and insecurities of these women, all in various stages of changing. It put into perspective all of my own insecurities.

Also, I'm always heartened whenever I see anyone completely embracing who they are. Less intense examples would be those geeks who dress up in costumes to go to Comic-Con and other conventions; or people who wear their D&D shirts around town; or goths with extreme black eyeliner and white foundation; or even people of various religions who choose to wear marks of their belief.

Of course, you don't have to dress to extremes to BE a certain thing - but I admire anyone who can wear their soul on their sleeve.

Moving to the Granite City

2008-09-15T10:42:00.002-04:00

It is a time of upheaval - though it's not upheaving as fast as I would like.

This is a picture of somewhere in Aberdeen, found on TrekEarth.com. I didn't notice any excessive grayness in Aberdeen when I went up for my (horrible) job interview, but I've been living in Scotland for a while so perhaps I am desensitized to grayness.

At least in this picture the sky is blue.

I looked up information on Aberdeen City Center and found a story on a new type of fungus.

For those of you who don't know, Aberdeen is an oil town. The industry is huge here and, as such, there is a lot of money floating around. It will make quite a change from Dundee, where there are few major industries left.

Wish us luck!

Messing with Our Minds

2008-09-10T05:47:00.004-04:00

Today's post is brought to you by the scientists at CERN, who have just started the most ambitious experiment ever (probably). I recommend visiting their website for a good walk-through of the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) particle accelerator and an explanation of how this will not, I repeat not, cause a black hole (most likely - but, hey, even if it does it'll just be a quantum one so no worries).

One of the interesting aspects of this experiment, as explained on the website, is that the energy involved is concentrated in a very small space: "What makes the LHC so extraordinary is that it squeezes energy into a space about a million million times smaller than a mosquito."

The general purpose of this experiment is 'to recreate the conditions existing a few moments after the Big Bang. This allows us to study how our Universe evolved and how it works today. Particle accelerators allow us to look into the inner constituents of matter where a goldmine of open questions is still hidden."

That last bit makes it sound like they are looking for more questions, rather than for answers. How very Socratic - appropriate for a place that has a Theory Corridor.

Some of the questions they are hoping to find more specific questions about include the origin of mass, unification of fundamental forces, particles or phenomena responsible for dark matter, and the mystery of antimatter. As I said, see the website.

Due to the nature of these big questions it may take a while before major changes in theories about the Universe and Everything trickle down to affect our perceptions of our mundane existence. I'm looking forward to it.

That said, science can only go so far in disturbing our world-view, or even our self-perception.

Darian Leader recently published an article in The Guardian about Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) and how it is representative of a shift in treatment of mental illness and behaviour disorders. One of his main concerns is that CBT offers a more 'scientific' approach for those needing to quantify results (like the NHS).

In some ways this article suffers from the kind of simplistic diagnostic approach for which it criticizes CBT. While I agree that a quick-fix approach to mental distress runs the risk of ignoring deeply set issues in an individual, I do not believe that CBT has no place or that the kind of Freudian psychotherapy that Leader prefers is always relevant.

What I did like in the article was this:

The divided self dear to the 60s has vanished, along with the recognition that grief, despair and frustration strike at the heart of our image of self-possession and fulfillment. The psyche has become like a muscle that needs to be developed and trained. There is no place for complexity and contradiction here: the modern subject is represented as one-dimensional, searching for fulfillment. The possibility that human life is aimed at both success and failure and never simply at wealth, power or happiness no longer makes sense. Suddenly the world of human relatins described by novelists, poets and playwrights for the past few centuries can just be written off. Self-sabotage, masochism and despair are now faults to be corrected, rather than forming the very core of the self.

Leader gets a bit shrill, but I feel I can recognize some of my own anxieties in this. How do we balance correcting faults, so that we can function, with accepting our faults as a feature of our personalities?

Later in the article, Leader sniffs at the story of a bipolar man who uses a simple method, taught to him through CBT, to manage his mood swings and function in his job. While this may not delve deep enough into the man's inner world and unravel his psyche the way Leader would like, it helps him live in this world. Leader believes that "traditional therapies do not aim to give access to a common 'scientific' reality but to take the patient's own reality seriously" but these therapies still define problems with a set of labels.

Change without understanding may have limited value in some cases; in other cases a person may be well aware of their inner life but unable to change what is essentially a physical, neurological or hormonal problem. Leader wants those facing mental challenges to pay psychotherapists hundreds of pounds per hour to be put through the psychological wringer - and if we reject this suggestion we are shallow and unwilling to face our selves, as well as feeding the great capitalist machine.

Oh, and he probably wants us to buy his book too.

Last Week in Liverpool: Spider Attack!

2008-09-08T05:02:00.002-04:00

In case you missed the street theatre last week, here's a little taste. Also check out this link for the spider's last moments.

Political Points System 2008

2008-09-06T06:18:00.002-04:00

This was just too good (from Huffpost):

If you get 18 million people to vote for you in a national presidential primary, you're a "phoney." Get 100,000+ people to vote you governor of the 47th most populous state in the Union, you're "well loved."

SoyAA says: If you are biracial and born in a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs darn near 2 years and 3 major speeches to "get to know you." If you're white and from a state not connected to the lower 48, America needs 36 minutes and 38 seconds worth of an acceptance speech to know you're "one of us."
...

If you spend 18 months building a campaign around the theme of "change," it's just "empty rhetoric." If one week before your party's national convention you SUDDENLY make your candidacy about "change," that's "red meat."

The article also mentions the fact that Obama has been called "uppity" because he got a scholarship and ended up president of the Harvard Law Review.

As per my last post, I'm not sure why being highly educated is problematic. Why does it suggest to some people that you are out of touch with reality. Contrary to that opinion, I have found that people who are educated and civically minded tend to be well-informed, not just about the goings-on in their own backyard but about how their backyard affects other people's backyards in America and across the world.

HuffPost has also helpfully printed excerpts from The Daily Show on the hypocritical nature of the Republican's choice for VP:

While Rove recently praised Palin's experience as the mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Stewart showed video of Rove trashing Virginia Governor - and former Richmond Mayor - Tim Kaine's executive experience, listing all the cities that are bigger than Richmond and calling such a pick "political."

Then, after recent video of O'Reilly describing Bristol Palin's pregnancy as a family issue, Stewart showed a clip of the Fox News host blaming Jamie Lynn Spears' parents for her teenage pregnancy.

Finally, after showing video of Dick Morris complaining about the rampant sexism in the media coverage of Sarah Palin, Stewart unveiled a clip of Morris saying that Hillary hides behind the sexism defense, and that anytime "the big boys" pick on Hillary, "she retreats behind the apron strings."

"In Dick Morris' defense," Stewart said, "he is a lying sack of sh*t."

Bumps in the Nicht

2008-09-04T05:56:00.004-04:00

Another birthday has come and gone and I am no closer to my goals for self-improvement. Everything's on the back-burner at the moment, eclipsed by a major move that's coming up.

Politics goes on as usual, though I feel out of the loop here in the land of Loch Ness and fried Mars bars; though, if you really want to boil Scotland down to two things it would be 'dreich' and fake tans.

I met a famous singer on my birthday - Stephen Malkmus. It was ace, which was good because the rest of the day was dreary and tiring.

In reading some recent comments by Sarah Palin I am struck by the politics of commiseration. That is, the assumption that because someone is from a small town they understand 'small town issues', or because she has a child with Down's Syndrome that automatically makes her a nice, understanding person.

Okay, that latter part may well be true, but does it make her a good politician? Because folks, that is a good part of what people in Washington have to be. Whatever is said about egalitarian politics and the need of our leaders to understand the Concerns of the People, the machine that exists in Washington D.C. does not run on small-town goodwill or brownie points for being a good mum.

The Republicans keep talking about executive experience because Palin was Governor of Alaska (which is, yes, very far removed from Washington). It is true that a lot of Presidents were Governors; but it's not a rule or even a real test of ability (not naming any names here).

Obama may lack notches on his belt but he has direct experience with the Washington monstrosity of Congress/lobbyists/judiciary/cabinet/President etc.
Funnily enough, the fact that he hasn't been there very long is probably a good thing - less time to make enemies on the various committees and less time to get mired in Congressional to-ing and fro-ing.

I don't want a President that is interested in micro-managing the Concerns of the People because they once had a kid on the hockey team, but someone who can broaden their worldview enough to see how America fits in the larger puzzle.

Art Post

2008-05-22T17:08:00.004-04:00

Constantin Brancusi, Romanian, 1876-1957

Virago Tales

2008-05-19T04:56:00.003-04:00

Apropos of what I posted a couple of days ago... I was alerted to this article in the New York Times via BitchPhD. In it, Peggy Orenstein discusses the misogyny evident in reactions to Hilary Clinton's campaign. She eschews abstract debates in favor of a more personal approach, wondering what to think about such misogyny and how to teach her daughter about the real world.

"Will the senator be my example of how far we've come as women or how far we have to go? Is she proof to my daughter that 'you can do anything' or the hell that will rain down on you if you try?"

She goes on to point out the inherent problem in books that are meant to espouse a 'can do' attitude for girls: namely, that there is anything that says they 'can't do' in the first place. Orenstein is hesitant to even mention this aspect of the problem to her daughter and I wonder if she hasn't struck on something quite important.

While we are not yet at a point where women can take opportunities for granted (see Orenstein's statistics on women in powerful positions) the consistent reminder of the barriers seems a double-edged sword.

Because things are still so difficult for women entering traditionally male professions it would be disingenuous to teach our daughters that all those open doors come with no price. At the same time, it does seem to bolster those same misogynistic traditions by suggesting that women can break the rules but not change them, or that any women entering these professions are precious exceptions rather than a new rule.

I'm not saying I dislike these stories where girls or women overcome male obstacles - but do they really show up how stupid these traditions are? Or do they simply put an extra sheen on a woman's achievement - that is, she could do these things all along but now she has been accepted by the men and so can be considered successful?

And how often in these stories do we see what other women think? Do other women come in to support and speak up for the heroine? Is their approval enough?

I guess this all goes towards the fact that women entering this male-dominated and male-created institutions may become engulfed in those male fraternities. When a woman is accepted by the men is she accepted for being herself or does she have to change herself to fit that institution (in which case, is it much of a victory)?

** Quick addendum to this post. I just read this article by Arianna Huffington regarding the Hilary campaign and was touched by a personal approach similar to that in the Orenstein article. It gladdens my heart to see that which is so often lacking in politics and political commentary: respect.

Is It Easier to Hate the Ladies?

2008-05-16T17:43:00.003-04:00

A BBC article looks at the disproportionate number of women on a list of most-hated celebrities (and all of the most-loved seem to be men).

It's a British study and they have a particular kind of relationship with their celebrities here. A lot of this has to do with the type, and volume, of tabloid news-magazines they have here. This, of course, suggests that the reason why more of the hated celebrities are women is because of the way they are portrayed in that press.

Okay, so if most of the readers are generally accepted to be women, why do the tabloid editors see it as good business to dish out dirty gossip on so many women, while lavishing praise on men (at least the handsome ones)? The glib answer would be that of course, "Women hate other women and love men."

Another answer, suggested in the article, is that the readers of these tabloids hold women to a higher standard than men. A double-standard?

I'm a bit too tired to tackle this issue fully tonight - but I'll leave the link here. Feel free to comment.

The Organic Debate

2008-05-08T05:02:00.002-04:00

I just read this article in The Independent regarding organic food. It is a measured response by Peter Melchett of the Soil Association to a previous article written by Rob Johnston.

I have had good experiences with organic food - specifically organic yogurt, which I find tastes better than non-organic yogurt. I feed my daughter as much organic food as possible, given our budgetary constraints (because, yes, Organic food is still a bit of an elitist product).

Both Melchett and Johnston used statistics and studies to their advantage. There does not seem to be a hard and fast reality here that the average consumer can take hold of.

Here is one choice bit from Melchett's pro-organic article:

"Published research shows that, on average, organic food contains higher levels of vitamin C and essential minerals such as calcium, magnesium, iron and chromium, as well as cancer-fighting antioxidants...

Ten per cent of children in the EU now suffer from eczema. Following research in Sweden, a Dutch government-funded study published last November showed a 36 per cent lower incidence of eczema in children fed on organic dairy products compared with children consuming non-organic dairy products."

What parent or guardian wouldn't read that and think twice about non-organic products. The other key statistic regards the pesticides found in children's urine, which disappear if they are fed on organic products. That's all well and good - but if the pesticides are being pissed out then they're not staying in the body, are they? The truth is, besides vague proclamations about an increased cancer rate (an apocryphal story, says Johnston) there are no clear links between the pesticides that are now allowed and illness.

What's interesting is that, despite Johnston's claim that GHG emissions are higher in organic farming, there does appear to be a clear difference in benefit to the environment and the animals and plants within it. Those farms that dedicate themselves to organic farming and wildlife cultivation, as well as good treatment of their animals, are certainly doing the environment a favor.

Why isn't that enough?

Many of us who buy organic food, whether regularly or (like me) sporadically, are attracted to the idea that we are buying a product from people who are at least pausing to think about the effect their farming techniques will have on us and on the environment. That's not to say there isn't a lot of bandwagon-jumping and some organic farming that leaves much to be desired.

All in all, however, organic farming and the larger movement that supports it are part of a trend towards more conscientious living. Many that support organic farming are not just concerned with their own local markets, but want to see sustainable solutions for the rest of the world as well.

It's not just a matter of focusing on one issue or another - such things are rapidly embraced and then forgotten - it is a matter of changing our lifestyles.

Alan Watts - Animated!

2008-05-07T04:37:00.004-04:00

An animated take on some lectures by Alan Watts, by the South Park creators

(found on Chris & Grey's blog).

KtB Says Goodbye

2008-05-06T05:06:00.003-04:00

I mourn the passing of Killing the Buddha. I've linked it on blog after blog before and it should still be a useful site for those interested in exploring ideas about religion - how it's practiced, what it means...

The archive will be around, as site says, 'until the internets fall down'.

Sex in Politics

2008-05-04T05:29:00.006-04:00

I'm not sure where to start with this article from Vanity Fair. It's basically a man arguing for greater understanding for men who cheat on their wives - or, sorry, politicians who cheat on their wives.

His argument is that it is simply a matter of male desire (though he does offer a brief and garbled look at Hillary Clinton) and that, since sex matters anyway in our voting, we should let it out in the open.

This article is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Michael Wolff would have us believe two things to support his argument:

1) "The middle-aged man's middle-aged experience, lacking sympathetic and firsthand interpretation, has become mere reality TV - just about humiliations and buffoonery." That is, since men (according to Wolff) no longer write as many novels detailing their illustrious careers as conquering heroes, or tomes about their miserable and oppressed middle-aged lives, they cannot rush "to defend and explain the exigencies and nuances of the actions and desires of middle-aged politicians."

That is, they can no longer defend themselves against...

2) the "consensus on sexual politics that is driven by women, striking in its asperity and lack of generosity."

If this is true, it certainly smacks of hypocrisy - after years of sexual oppression women should now be fighting for sexual liberation for everyone (especially if it's like the sexual liberation involved in, say, the Open Source Boob Project). But Wolff's only evidence that there is such an active, puritanical female consensus is that men now feel oppressed and unable to properly justify their dalliances - only women would do this to men, of course. Because of these damn women it's no longer just a quirk of a man's personality that he is unable to sexually commit (and let's not forget all the men that manage to achieve this remarkable feat of fidelity), it's an actual fault.

But let's think about who runs the most newspapers? Who has most of the talking-head shows on TV? Who draws most of the political cartoons? Wolff cites one paper, reputed to be aimed at women, which had a (rather unoriginal) cartoon on the front regarding the Elliot Spitzer affair (except it wasn't just an affair, it was consistent use of prostitutes, but I digress). So does Wolff simply think that men are so berated by their wives/partners/mothers/daughters that they adopt this puritanical attitude towards sexual freedom?

Wolff also seems confused. On the one hand he bemoans the current lack of texts and movies that can assuage the guilt of the lecherous middle-aged man - on the other hand he seems disappointed that men can no longer hide their affairs because of too much media scrutiny.

I agree that America needs to learn how to let go of some of its hang-ups about sex, certainly when it comes to politicians, but also with women, homosexuals, transsexuals, etc. Wolff's approach, however, involves shrugging our shoulders at behaviour that is illegal (in the case of prostitution) and incredibly selfish (in the case of banging the secretary).

And lets not even get started on the question of prostitution and the objectification of women (Wolff certainly doesn't).

Short Saturday Post

2008-05-03T04:07:00.005-04:00

Rob Helpy-Chalk writes, 'The more I think about it, the more Chris Rock is right on Reverend Wright: 'A 75-year-old black man who hates white people. Is there another type of 75-year-old black man? Do you realize his whole third grade class was lynched?'"

Good stuff. It does make me despair that we don't seem to be able to dialogue very openly about things that truly concern us or make us angry. We're not supposed to be angry, right? Either you are supposed to get over so-called past ills or current setbacks and look on the bright side (a distraction tactic that Karen Healey calls "Look: a monkey!"), or you are so privileged what right do you have to be upset about anything, or you are lucky you're allowed to exist at all so shut up.

The Goddess and The Boob

2008-05-02T04:53:00.007-04:00

After a slight dressing-down yesterday regarding my ignorance over the Lincoln-Douglas (not Douglass) debates discussed on Fox News, I am licking my wounds and dipping my toes into the comfortable waters of comic books.

Yes, Girls Read Comics.

Whenever I need to get my energy levels up and really get the blood moving I can rely on Karen Healey.

I just read her post from April 24 regarding the Open Source Boob Project at Penguicon. That is where girls wearing a button stating willingness had men approach them asking to touch their breasts.

"Livejournal's the Ferrett, an early adopter of this... oh, let's say 'astonishing' endeavour, wrote a rapturous post about how great it was that he "touched at least fifteen sets of boobs at Penguicon" in the spirit of totally non-tawdry empowerment of women.

For some bizarre reason, not everyone responding embraced the notion that empowering women to mystically heal the wounds of men with their breasts heralded an exciting movement towards a feminist utopia."

The link to The Ferrett's page now comes up with an updated post apologetically stating that "what works in a microcosm does not work in a macrocosm".

His arguments stink of misogyny however and even more so when I scrolled down and read the original post. Here's just a delicious taster:

"This should be a better world," a friend of mine said. "A more honest one, where sex isn't shameful or degrading. I wish this was the kind of world where say, 'Wow, I'd like to touch your breasts,' and people would understand that it's not a way of reducing you to a set of nipples and ignoring the rest of you, but rather a way of saying that I may not yet know your mind, but your body is beautiful."

Ahem - I had trouble typing there because my fingers started shaking in anger. I don't even know if I can comment on this because it seems so damn obvious. But let's just consider briefly the fact that if you meet someone you find attractive perhaps it would be less reductive to try to get to know their mind, rather than focusing on touching their tits.

And why does it have to be touching? Can't it just be "Wow, you have nice tits" - some men already don't mind saying these sorts of things. But then there is that old power move of conquering - touching as having/owning, putting their mark on you. A compliment, however brilliant and eloquent, is just too cerebral. It asks for a response. Whereas if you're touching someone's boobs all they have to do is stand there.

While Ferrett argues that this 'project' was meant to make women feel safer, marking out the physically open from those not interested in letting men paw them, it seems, especially given his 'friend's' comments, that it is meant to make men feel safer.

I am also curious as to what Ferrett really thought was happening when women pushed their chests towards him. Did they all really think he was 'worthy' of touching them? This is part of that whole Goddess myth - that men truly worship women and feel privileged when allowed near or in their bodies.

Let's disabuse anyone of that notion:

"By the end of the evening, women were coming up to us. 'My breasts,' they asked shyly, having heard about the project. 'Are they... are they good enough to be touched?' And lo, we showed them how beautiful their bodies were without turning it into something tawdry."

As Healey puts it, the demarcation (where some women could opt-in with a button, while others did not participate thus opting-out), was simply a "reification of the cultural gender binary where women's bodies are always rendered as either 'available' or 'unavailable', and never as a body actually belonging to the woman in question."

I guess it also comes down to the fact that, even if women participated in the project, how many women who want sexual liberation (vaguely defined, at best) are thinking "Gee, I wish men felt more comfortable asking to feel my boobs"? Let's think back to the sexual revolution and all of those Free Love groups where many women felt pressured to have sex with multiple partners.

While Ferrett admits that the expression of male power makes such an experiment potentially dangerous one feels, if he was a socially minded as he seems to think, he should have thought of all this before. But of course, when a man gets a handful of generously proffered boob he must have more and finding a way to do that with minimal conversation (aha! buttons) becomes a passion if not a grand quest.

"None of them seem to know how this state of affairs came to be."

2008-05-01T17:46:00.002-04:00

I just have to share this from Atrios.

More evidence of the media being unable to see itself for what it is. It's quite funny, really. {sob}

The Flow of Money

2008-05-01T06:43:00.009-04:00

From The Independent, Unholy Water: Delhi's rotting river:

"On Delhi's sacred Yamuna River, beneath a wrought-iron bridge built by the British more than 100 years ago, the remains of the dead were falling on the living."

The article goes on to say how children waiting below the bridge, like the girl in the picture, gather the bags of ashes and flowers after they fall and rip them open to collect the polythene.

Despite the fact that the Yamuna is worshipped by those of the Hindu faith it is pumped full of sewage. "For the vast majority, the toxic black ribbon that slices through the east of the city ... is largely out of sight and out of mind. For those not forced to scrape their survival, there is little reason to visit the Yamuna, except for cremating the dead and scattering their remains according to Hindu tradition." (italics mine)

It is interesting to me that something involved in a holy tradition is not more protected, suffering because of more worldly concerns.

"Manoj Misra, who heads... Yamuna Jiye Abhiyaan, or Save the Yamuna,... said that because the river received no fresh flow of clean water," due to a dam used to extract water for the city, "and yet received a huge daily input of sewage, the toxicity of the water was getting ever more concentrated."

The sewage apparently comes from corroded pipes that do not allow the waste to reach treatment plants, not to mention those parts of the city that are not even connected to the main sewage system.

I wonder about this lack of proper infrastructure, especially in such a populated place, and looked for more information as to the divide between rich and poor in India. According to a 2006 Guardian article, water subsidies in India "skew benefits to the rich....While incomes are going up, public cash is not percolating downwards. A large part of the reason is the government, which cannot seem to funnel wealth generation into human development."

Of course, as in other countries, the problems do not lie solely with governmental mismanagement or corruption. This 2006 article in The Guardian discusses controversy surrounding Coca-Cola's misuse of water in countries like India, where supplies are limited. Such companies give token effort, and sometimes just words, towards investment in improving living conditions.

Setting aside the problems these companies create when they abuse the environment and people directly, how far can we expect companies to go in terms of investment in local issues? I am thinking specifically of infrastructure issues, such as those corroded sewage pipelines in Delhi.

On the positive side, those living in rural communities in India are getting help from NGOs like WaterAid, which is building latrines and initiating education programs to teach people about hygiene. What might be useful is if more huge multi-nationals invested in NGOs already working in the areas near their factories or plants. This may save the money from being misdirected by corrupt or inept governments.

No More Card-Carrying Commies

2008-04-29T12:24:00.005-04:00

I promised myself I would just log in, check things out and then leave to save my eyes from the glare of the computer screen.

Of course, I break promises to myself all the time.

While trolling through the blogs on my links list I ran into this article, (a commentary on some issues raised by this article) on BitchPhD.

In brief, the author of the post, Sybil Vane, discusses the antipathy many students feel towards identifying themselves as 'feminists'. She touches briefly on this point, and the weak arguments people make against Feminists, but then broadens the scope to examine another factor in the equation.

"When these young women (and men) say, 'I don't need to identify as a feminist, I already believe X, Y, and Z,' they are saying that they see no value in collective identification. It does not mobilize them or expand their perceptions or confer strength or bolster confidence. It merely reduces them to a member of an 'ism', one whose tenants can be nominally severed from the ideology itself. In part, this is individualism run amuck, but it is also a real poverty of imagination, one that can only see collective identification as hegemonic."

This made me think about those whom I've known who join groups to take collective action for a cause, but who would not place a label on themselves. Now people say "I believe X" rather than "I am X". I wonder, blindly, whether this could be the result of some trickle-down effect after Communism/Marxism proved such a losing strategy.

People of more recent generations have born the brunt of the repeated failures of collective political and social groups - that is, the radical ones. Many of those groups had clear political ambitions, visible (if ultimately unattainable) goals. Their failures taught us that such group actions, however committed, simply do not work (at least not in a Western political context).

In the case of Feminism, many women simply do not see the point anymore. Young women in the West will have had little or no exposure to blatant sexism - and identity issues are perhaps too subtle (though desperately important) for many young women to understand.

That is not to say collective action does not take place, but those that march outside the White House, World Bank, et al, seem more ad hoc and temporary. I do not agree that radical action is unfashionable (as some commentators on BitchPhD argue), in fact I think it has been reduced to mere fashion. People can join groups at random, perform only those actions they wish to perform. It absolves them of responsibility to others in a group and allows them to commit only as far as is convenient.

As for feminism, it is fair to say that the students are reacting to the fear of how they might be judged, rather than basing decisions on their own judgement of Feminists. Furthermore, I am dismayed at how the same old cliches are being trotted out to put down Feminism, by people who have had no exposure to Feminists such as Julia Kristeva or Luce Irigaray. They do not seem to be reacting to students on their own campus who want to spell 'woman' as 'womyn' but are perpetuating the meme.

One more point, I used to be skeptical about some of the language and image issues that crop up in feminist discussions, though I always identified myself as a feminist. In the end, it is important for people, women especially, to realize that feminism is not always about sexism. To me, the most striking and important aspect of feminism has to do with identity.

I will save that discussion for another time.

The Elitists

2008-04-29T05:39:00.002-04:00

On investigating the Harper's website further I discovered, much to my dismay, that the whole site now requires a subscription. No longer can I feed on the leavings and scraps of previous months for free. This is quite a blow since a subscription from the UK costs over $40, an amount I simply cannot spare at this time. Still, it is a fair price...

At least Salon.com still offers its free pass. Here's something that made me chuckle.

K.I.S.S.

2008-04-28T07:17:00.003-04:00

Back already. The baby has a banana to keep her happy, but my coffee's gotten cold.

I am officially registering my dismay at the new Harper's magazine website. What is this red tab nonsense? They've gone from simple dual columns to links overload. Time will tell if this makes it easier to navigate but the look of it leaves a lot to be desired.

All of that said, I am currently debating adding a 'third column' to my blog. I've seen it done other places and it looks nice - but I don't think I have enough content at the moment to justify it. So I guess I too feel the lure of glitzy YouTube boxes, photos and links lists.

Back with a Vengeance

2008-04-28T05:23:00.003-04:00

I haven't been here for a while - too tired to rant, I guess. I've noticed there are lots of comments on here now. Hooray for spam!

With the election coming up this November I suppose I should get back on my soapbox. But, of course, now I'm living in the UK so my perspective is a bit different. Too much BBC World Service, not enough Fox News.

However, it also means I get my news (such as it is) about five hours before those of you in Stars and Stripes land. This may not mean much as I am now also a full-time mother and am too busy watching soaps and making my man's dinner to keep up with a blog.

I could promise to try. . . nah.

Dear, Sweet Irony

2005-12-13T10:56:00.000-05:00

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld criticized the media in a speech, claiming that news is “reported and spread around the world, often with little context and little scrutiny, let alone correction or accountability after the fact.” from Harper's

And the Meek Shall Inherit?

2005-12-13T09:52:00.000-05:00

For a good overview of the Religious Right and the Right to Die, click the link and read the Harper's article. It's several month's old but still pertinent especially with the recent execution.

Also, I will re-recommend this article, also from Harper's, about the Left-Behind series.

At the core of both of these articles (as well as this article by Jeffrey Sharlet about Ivanwald and the secret Christian society) show the destructive influence of religion when it is taken as a point of pride dressed up as humility.

I Shot a Kid in Reno

2005-12-13T08:41:00.000-05:00

Though I don't agree with all of the commentary for this on Pandagon, I still got a slight chill up my spine at the nostalgic, 'back in the good old days' tone of the post mentioned.
Also, I too pictured a large bazooka-type potato gun - with the writer's little angel laying prone on the floor after mommy whacked her sniper-style with a high-speed spud.
One has to wonder, on reading this, if mommy would be so happy about kids bringing potato guns (or water guns) to school if her daughter was the victim of bullying. Or would she simply send her daughter 'packing', so to speak: "Take this, honey - for protection."

The Wall: Prank Art

2005-08-30T11:20:00.000-04:00

This is another piece by Banksy, who spent several days creating a total of nine murals on the barrier.

Banksy said he condemned the wall, adding that Israel was "the ultimate activity holiday destination for graffiti writers". [BBC]

The Wall

2005-08-30T11:11:00.000-04:00

In Bethlehem, international artists have painted political murals laden with anti-Israeli, anti-American and anti-capitalist symbolism.

Many Palestinians resent the graffiti and artwork being painted on the wall, which is seen as an acceptance of its presence. [BBC]

Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien

2005-08-29T09:18:00.000-04:00

The recent fire in a Paris apartment complex has inspired a storm of protest from Africans in Paris. The fire killed 17 people, including 13 children. This incident highlights the plight of many immigrants from Africa who enter France illegally. France does have the paperwork and the regulations to deal with this influx, but many Africans say they are marginalised due to racism.

"From the outside, France is the country of human rights, but the inside is less pretty," said Korotoum, 31, who did not want her full name published for fear her work colleagues would learn where she lives. "The rights are not for everyone."
[. . .]
Unemployment among Algerians and Moroccans, the largest immigrant groups, hovered at more than 30 percent, about three times the national average, a study by the Paris-based Montaigne Institute showed two years ago. About a third of them live in suburban ghettos filled with rows of crime-ridden housing complexes and have little hope of employment, let alone proper job training.

The most vulnerable are those who are caught in the administrative limbo that is provisional housing, as Friday's fire illustrated. Many of the 130 people living in the burned-out building had housing applications pending for 14 years. Meanwhile, they were crammed in a rundown building with aging plumbing and electrical wiring.

When they moved in, city authorities had assured them that they would not be staying longer than three years. That was in 1991. (from the International Herald Tribune.)

The story of immigration from African countries into Europe is fascinating to me, not only because it parallels the border situation in the US. When I was in Fes I had the experience of being taken for a ride in the back of a police van. I was reporting a stolen camera and this was the way they chose to transport me to the main police station. Also riding in the back were two illegal immigrants from the Ivory Coast. They were both around my age and seemed in good spirits. One of them spoke clear English and he talked to me about his experience crossing the border. He said that, back in his country, the choice was between a life of crime or crossing the border illegally. He had an education and knew of relatives living in Europe, people that could take him in.
A police translator was also there and listened good-naturedly to the discussion. He did not want to talk much about it, but it was clear he felt some sympathy, and perhaps some admiration, for the immigrants. He said that the two border crossers would be dumped in a no-man's land between Morocco and Algeria. The young immigrant shrugged and said that he would just come back into Morocco and keep trying until he could get across to Spain. Everyone smiled.

Too Bad, So Sad

2005-08-28T19:17:00.000-04:00

Can I point out that just because the talking points from the President do not seem to give justification for staying in Iraq does not mean that justification does not exist. I agree that using lives lost as reason to go on is ridiculous illogic, but amidst all of the moaning and groaning from the left I have not heard any concrete arguments against staying.
Even though mistakes were made in and after going to war does not mean that good reason does not now need to be given for leaving. If we do leave I hope the rest of the world puts us to shame and gives the US a good flogging, whether the next President is Republican or Democrat. I also hope that strict attention is paid to what does happen after we leave (a vain hope, I am certain).

I do not accept "there is no plan" and "things are getting worse" as reasons. I am as angry as anyone about the lies that were told, and I'm angry that so many in this country believed those lies. But to see respected liberal journalists so eager to wash their hands of the whole dirty business turns my stomach. - "Oh well those poor Iraqis, not our war, just Bush's business. Good thing he'll be disgraced." And those same people accuse the Right-wing of taking war lightly!
Both sides are becoming anathema to me now. How about this? How about those liberal leaders and pundits who want so badly to withdraw come up with a good plan (since it is what they accuse the administration of not having) to withdraw and leave in place some semblance of a country.

This rant comes courtesy of Wolcott and his quote from Tom Watson:

"And folks, it's time to fold 'em. When the argument for continuing war is to merely to honor the dead that have gone before with more dead, with more wounded, with more destruction, you know the jig is up, that the military maneuver is merely in the form of a forlorn hope, destined to die for nothing. The Iraqi civil war will rage until there is no Iraq. There never was an Iraq, except as the construct of an empire and a dictator; we had no business in the squabbles of religious tribes. And we have no business in helping to write a consitution that places the lives of women at the mercy of a medieval code of sexist, moralist, symbolist system of humiliation and punishment. Conspiring with the mullahs against women may be George W. Bush's greatest act of treason against the world's people - and it will live in infamy.

"There is nothing to this but to admit failure, and save American lives. Perhaps that is not honorable. Perhaps it leaves a vaccuum in the east, into which the hard-core religionists can step. Too bad: it is done. And we need to be done."

Don't mistake me - I will be glad for many reasons if we pull out of Iraq. I am a military brat and have strong feelings about the military and how much soldiers and their families sacrifice. But I want some decorum, I want some more recognition that it will be a tragic decision - something more than "Perhaps that is not honorable... Too bad."

The Pull-Out Method

2005-08-28T17:12:00.000-04:00

I was just reading this Op-Ed piece by Frank Rich and I was struck by something that's been in front of my face all along.
Of course, everyone has heard and talked about Pat Robertson's recent quote regarding assassination of Hugo Chavez. He advocates it, in part, because "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. [. . .] We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Well, besides the obvious problems with this statement and the arrogance it shows, it also points to a complete lack of understanding (perhaps deliberate?) about why this war cost $200 billion and many lives.
The truth is, when a big, powerful country swaggers into another country and tries to change what is wrong, or, I'm sorry, evil about it, then they better damn well stick around to clean up the ensuing mess.
We could have left after Hussein's regime was toppled and the result would likely have been the same as if some assassin had come in the night and slit his throat. No, this way was worse because it destroyed much of the infrastructure of Iraq.

Guess what those of you who are changing your minds now about the war - WAKE UP! Especially if you voted for this President, or didn't vote at all, you have some complicity in this. We, as a country, own this now. Many who knew better tried to warn you about what happens when we take a hand in another country's affairs (Gee, has this happened before?) - the cost in money and lives. This is especially dangerous when done unilaterally (though we can't forget Poland).
Yes, mistakes were made along the way and there should be accountability. I would like to see more transparency. But do those of you who are liberals really believe leaving Iraq to stew in the boiling pot we created will bring any real shame down on this administration? Or bring any more questions about why we were there in the first place? I doubt it - at least not in this administration's lifetime.

Most everyone is marginalizing Robertson, even hawk Republicans. And some of those people are the same people who are now backing away from Iraq. Assassination is 'crazy talk' but pulling out of a country with problems that we caused or exacerbated is 'good politics.'

I guess, in the end, what I object to most is Republicans and voters changing their minds now that they know things they should have known before. I also object to liberals acting as if the situation over in Iraq will get better if we leave (there is no evidence of this, from what I have seen) and that it would be a success in some way if we pull the troops out. I think no matter what side people are on, such a withdrawal is a defeat and an embarrassment at best - at worst it is irresponsible and inhumane.

Niger: He Said, They Said

2005-08-28T13:20:00.000-04:00

The news has been covering starvation in Niger for the past several months. Now this coverage includes much finger-pointing and analysis of "what went wrong." This coverage is sometimes conflicting, sometimes confusing.
Note the article that appeared in The Economist last week, 'The Worst Is Over', in which it is stated that

"Indeed, Niger's government has been accused of trying to cover up the extent of food shortages in order to save face. It was mounting pressure from opposition parties and local NGOs that finally forced the prime minister, Hama Amadou, as late as the end of May, to acknowledge the "severe food insufficiency" in the country and ask for international help. It only recently started distributing free food..."

The article goes on to say that Niger's government needs to address their handling of crops and distribution of food.
But, according to a Knight Ridder article, published in the Times Union, Niger's government was acting under advice given by organizations that, generally, are supposed to know what they are doing.

Nor was Niger's government the obstacle. Leaders there did not resent the U.N. or IMF. They were following IMF advice -- agreed to by U.N. agencies -- to put the free market economy first, and the starving people second. Even as thousands were dying of starvation in June, the Nigerien government was reducing its grain supplies and imposing a value added tax on such staples as meat and produce. All this at a time when the government should have been giving food away to starving citizens.

Both articles do agree that the media arrived late to this issue, but say that is no excuse for the lack of action by organizations that are supposed to monitor such problems.

Broadening the Scope

2005-08-28T12:58:00.000-04:00

Since my fervor for writing about news has waned a bit since the election I think I will do what I intended all along, which is to make this site more about international news than American politics.
I'll be heading off to Scotland soon and though I will be busy with my Master's Degree program I intend to keep up with events and to keep writing as much as I can.
I am right now Googling to find some good country and continent specific news sites. I have already linked Africa Daily in my sidebar. It looks like a good place to find headlines as well as news source links from the various countries.

Pants on Fire

2005-08-28T11:19:00.000-04:00

I really wish more people, especially those in the middle of the political spectrum, would take a look at Media Matters. Despite the fact that it suffers from a certain amount of bias, at least it cites its sources and quotes directly from them. It even provides links to those sources! So any lie told by Limbaugh, or fudge perpetrated by Sean Hannity can be exposed.

On a slightly more pleasant note, visit James Wolcott's blog for a good discussion on Chickenhawks.

Ick

2005-08-27T09:20:00.000-04:00

Great, if depressing, story in Salon about the White House Press Corps and how it's balls have been hacked off by this administration. It's not so much analysis as it is anecdote, from a reporter inside the press room. It's fascinating, like a car wreck.

Tides

2005-08-26T12:35:00.000-04:00

I am right now reading an article by Phillip Robertson (a great correspondent) on Salon.com. I love Robertson's articles because they always give a complex and interesting picture of culture in Iraq. This particular article is about a certain literary street where men used to gather to discuss literature and dissident ideas. Now the whole makeup of the area has changed and ideas are not discussed, foreigners are not welcome. This is due to the threat of terrorism and attacks by religious fundamentalists. It is interesting to note that people no longer feel as safe as they did even under Saddam.
And before anyone yells at me, I am not saying that Hussein was somehow not so bad - but the country of Iraq is complex just as this country is - just as any society is. I also want more people to realize that even with some 'steps in the right direction', this is a culture and a people that are being forced to change and their lives are profoundly affected in ways that will likely not be repaired in one lifetime, if ever. I think some Americans do not understand this. The positives that some look to for justification are certain numbers and small anecdotes of something being built or someone being captured. But the picture is much wider than that and I recommend Robertson's articles, even older ones that he wrote earlier in the war, to get a better idea of Iraqi culture and life and the ways it is changing.

True Face of the Enemy

2004-12-22T23:05:00.000-05:00

I have to leave this blog alone occasionally because I find that it's just the same things that keep happening.

Here's one example. I found, on Pandagon, a reference to some conservative site discussing main-stream media's treatment of insurgents/terrorists.
Here's a small piece of that, referring to the recent attack in Mosul.

"However, it is safe to say that the attack demonstrates assymetrical warfare in action. The enemy chose the weakest point he could find to attack; exploited the known limitations of the American response; and understood that he was to all intents and purposes exempted from the condemnation attendant to attacking the wounded and medical personnel."

Um, well, yeah. It's not as if we don't do the same thing when we deem it "necessary." But that's not the same, is it?

"The chaplain and the medical personnel knew this and did not mill around expecting the Geneva Convention to protect them from those who have never heard of it, except as it applies to their own convenience."

And again... maybe rethink that a little.

"They knew the true face of the enemy; a face which bore no resemblance to the heroic countenance often presented by the media to the world."

Where? When? Show me some proof of this goddamned tripe I keep hearing. There are columnists who are fuzzy in their thinking, but in general news coverage there is no sympathy for the insurgents. There is barely sympathy for the Iraqis ("Wait, but aren't the Iraqis and the insurgents the same thing?").
Granted, I watch mostly local news, and the numbers for cable are higher. But there is a severe trickle down effect in media (works better there than it does in economics) and tone is fairly uniform. There is a constant outpouring of care and concern for the soldiers and brief mentions of the Iraqis - and no mention of the grievances Iraqis may have that would make them fight.

Only CNN occassionally interviews experts who talk about what created, and is creating, the situation over there. But that is very rare. Attacks are attacks and they are horrible

Here's some more...

"It is necessary to link the war criminal behavior of the enemy with the studied blindness of 'sophisticates' towards their most heinous crimes."

Wow. Well, yes, we wouldn't want anyone rationalizing or making excuses for war crimes. But we can get around that by not acknowledging our war crimes to begin with.

I don't mean to go on some tirade about US war crimes. I just want some rational thinking, and an end to this hypocrisy and sense of entitlement - as if the only things we've ever done wrong as a country were slavery and destruction of Native Americans (oh, and maybe those WWII Japanese internment camps). And any time such things are mentioned there is a reaction as if I were saying the US were responsible for all the world's ills.

And don't even talk to me about Bush's little speech yesterday, saying that the war is important for peace. We have no way out now, but I wish he wouldn't use such feeble language to make people feel better. Those families that lost loved ones. . . I just think it's such weak comfort to give them - almost seems to make it worse.

Powell Drops the Ball

2004-12-22T22:59:00.000-05:00

Yes, it is true. Colin Powell will drop the ball.
The Times Square New Year's Eve ball to be exact. Powell will push the button for the famous ball drop.
It would be more appropriate, perhaps, if it was Rumsfeld.

One or Two Out of Three

2004-12-10T06:54:00.000-05:00

Tony Blair, The Duke of Edinburgh,
George Bush:
The Wise Men in Madame
Tussaud's.

Secrets & Lies & Videotape

2004-12-10T06:28:00.000-05:00

I watched Lou Dobbs tonight. He covered the Jim Taricani case - the reporter sentenced for not revealing his source who provided him with an FBI videotape showing a city official being bribed.

Meanwhile, in that little matter known as the Valerie Plame case, I have seen only brief mention of Robert Novak's name in connection with it. He wrote the article, didn't he? And isn't leaking the name of a CIA operative a higher offense than leaking a local FBI investigation tape?
I think Novak is a bit of a scumbag, but I don't think he should be punished. Honestly, it probably shouldn't be taking them so long to find out who leaked the name (hmmm....). Still, Novak didn't take any heat for publishing the information or for witholding the name of his source.

"Novak refused to say whether he has also received a subpoena; he is referring all questions on the matter to his attorney.
In a statement, NBC News President Neal Shapiro said the network would fight the subpoena, although Russert was not the recipient of a leak.

"The American public will be deprived of important information if the government can freely question journalists about their efforts to gather news," Shapiro said. "Sources will simply stop speaking to the press if they fear those conversations will become public."

Time Magazine general counsel Robin Bierstedt told CNN that the publication would also fight the subpoena, saying that Time's policy is to protect confidential sources. Time Magazine and CNN are related companies, both part of the Time-Warner Co.
Former federal prosecutors told CNN that investigators are required to exhaust other possible leads before resorting to questioning journalists, so that issuing subpoenas is a signal that the investigation is in its final stages."

I think Novak should take some heat from media colleagues and from viewers for being a Republican stooge, and for disclosing Plame's name to no end. Alas, it will not happen. And meanwhile, it seems that others are being pulled into this vortex.

"In perhaps the highest profile case of its kind, reporters from the New York Times, NBC and Time Magazine were held in contempt this year as part of the investigation into whether the Bush administration leaked the identity of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame to the news media."

All of this love of disclosure is ironic given that it is done in pursuit of more secrecy.

Relatively Racist

2004-12-10T06:03:00.000-05:00

Pandagon has an interesting post regarding some of what was discussed in the last post. It's a hard subject to pin down, but I do find this conservative spin on slavery disturbing.

"In case you don't want to wade through the barely-coded crapfest, suffice to say that they define "Southern" as "the genesis of the white race", and the Civil War as that giant loss they're never going to get over. And, apparently, it's a part of a well-rounded education." - Pandagon post

As I mentioned before, I think the conservative angst about liberal education and PC teaching is that it is too relativist. Sometimes, and for some students, it can cross the line into "we must appreciate all other cultures in their own right and avoid any belief system." That's a broad brush portrayal of it, but I think you get what I mean.
So now we get these mental backflips and spins involving understanding slavery through southern white culture? Don't get me wrong, I'm no relativist. This isn't a black and white world, but not every answer can be right (despite what some Literature professors might say). But this situation seems to seek "understanding" at the expense of facts.

On top of that, I must add that most elementary and high school students do not get a factually well-rounded education. How much do we really hear about American Indians? How much do we really hear about our founding fathers (their religions and so forth)? African Americans? Joe McCarthy (not the cute and cuddly Joe McCarthy that Ann Coulter so loves)?
I don't want to create a bunch of America-haters, but don't we always hear about how it is important to learn from our mistakes? Looking at the recent election, that is clearly one lesson a lot of people missed in school.

Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy

2004-12-08T07:28:00.000-05:00

In my recent Economist there is an article about the rampant liberalism in American Universities. It is a vague article and I will only get frustrated as I delve into it; but I am interested in what you guys think about the issue of liberal teachers and a liberal curriculum taught in universities.
Here is an interesting quote from the article:

Bias in universities is hard to correct because it is usually not overt: it has to do with prejudice about which topics are worth studying and what values are worth holding. Stephen Balch, the president of the conservative National Assoc. of Scholars, arggues that university faculties suffer from the same political problems as the "small republics described in Federalist 10: a motivated majority within the faculty finds it easy to monopolise decision-making and squeeze out minorities.

I find that one problem with some of this thought is that liberalism, and a liberal education, does strive to embrace several points of view - but all at once, which is what I think really bothers some conservatives, among others. Anyone seen as having a conviction that could be exclusionary (or perceived as such) is ostracized. This is part of that PC mythology (also mentioned in The Economist article).
I went to American University in D.C., which my father calls the bastion of liberalism (possibly heard on O'Reilly), and which I feel had a diverse population with diverse views. Many students at the university came from other countries, which means that they tended to have very different points of view on liberalism and conservatism at the core. Those are the views that I feel are lacking in American education; but trying to understand those perspectives is an act often dismissed by conservatives. The main fault of a liberal education, I feel, is that it leans too much away from pragmatism and too much towards relativism. But I much prefer to err on the side of open-mindedness. Cultivate an open mind and many will still become conservatives. Clearly, this country is not lacking in conservatives. After all, Bush did have a mandate.

On a related note, isn't it interesting that it Republicans and conservatives talk so much about the liberal intelligentsia - if so many intellectuals are liberal, maybe they're on to something.

I would appreciate any comments you may have on this.

The Hyman

2004-12-08T06:46:00.000-05:00

Mark Hyman is covered in a nice little article on Media Matters for America. It includes links to various other items discussed on MMA involving Hyman. It's a nice little look at his use of "facts".
Clearly Hyman's hero is Rush Limbaugh. Or maybe Bill O'Reilly, because he adopts that "I'm just a reasonable man" tone.

Swinging the Big Stick

2004-12-08T06:03:00.000-05:00

"Today, I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent: to make this nation stronger and better I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. A new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation." - President Bush

In the month since George Bush's acceptance speech, the following things have happened. The president has replaced a third of his cabinet, tightening White House control over government departments still further. In the House of Representatives, the Republican Speaker, Dennis Hastert, has pulled a bill on intelligence reform that would have passed with Democratic votes because it did not have majority support in his own party. In the Senate, Republicans have increased the power of their party leader to dole out plum jobs, and threatened to change the procedural rules that allow Democrats to filibuster judicial nominations. If this is bipartisanship, heaven help America when the Republicans play rough. - The Economist

Yeah, I'm looking forward to it.
Later in the article, The Economist seems to hold on to some hope that Bush will reach out or at least not try to exert so much control. I often think that The Economist doesn't quite understand some political realities. They are pragmatic, which I like, but people aren't always pragmatic, and leaders especially are often driven by interests outside of pragmatism.

The more worrying changes have come in the Senate, traditionally more resistant to party discipline.
To start with, conservatives mounted a ferocious campaign to stop Arlen Specter, a moderate Republican from Pennsylvania, from becoming chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee . . . Mr. Specter had infuriated his colleagues by saying anti-abortion judges were unlikely to be confirmed. On this occasion, Senate traditions prevailed: Mr. Specter got the job based on seniority - but now before having to eat his words and kow-tow to all and sundry.
[. . .]
The Republican senators then gave their leader, Bill Frist, and instrument for enforcing party discipline: he may now fill some vacancies on committees himself, overriding traditions of seniority. More controversially, Republicans are talking about challenging what is arguably the most important rule in the Senate - the filibuster, a delaying tactic which means that to get anything done you need 60 votes, not a simple majority of 51. - The Economist

Bring Back Indulgences

2004-12-04T20:38:00.000-05:00

Yeah, so I haven't been keeping up the blog lately. Sorry.
Well, not really sorry at all. I've been busy.

Well, not so much busy as tired.

The only thing that's gotten me remotely interested lately (besides the old news of the war) was the ad that the Unitarian church wanted to run, featuring minorities and gays being kept out of a church. All the shiny happy white people were let in, of course.
The message being that other churches are exclusionary and the Unitarians aren't.

ABC rejecting the ad was understandable, as they have a policy against running religious ads in general. But CBS and NBC rejected the ad for being too controversial.

From CNN: "Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples...and the fact that the executive branch has recently proposed a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast," the church quoted CBS as saying.

A minister was interviewed on one of my news programs and he found that statement very disturbing. I've said it before, we need to get government out of religion.
Another minister said that the ad was a "misrepresentation of scripture." I'm sorry, but how many translations of scripture are there? And how many different sects of Christianity are there? Besides, the whole history of The Church tells of constant convenient misrepresentation.

I'm not sure how I feel about the recent approval of money for maintenance of missions in CA. Granted, we do not want federal money going into churches, but many of those sites have an historical significance. If the money would only go toward the physical rebuilding of the church and not towards services . . . ? It's a loophole.

By the way, I watched Jack Van Impe the other night and you all will be relieved to know that Armageddon is still on it's way.

Can I Get A Witness

2004-11-22T18:34:00.000-05:00

This post is somewhat in response to comments made by Brogonzo on his blog Smokin' News.

It strikes me that there can be a balance and a judgement on the war itself based on things that have happened, without attacking soldiers or lauding the terrorists and the insurgents (yes, they are different). I agree that the "outrage" over the shooting of the Iraqi man needs to be moderated. I think it needs to go through the normal process of investigation (as it is), but that's all. The incident bothers me, but more as a function of war itself. I think that is how many people feel but they lack the language or the outlet to express that.

In fact, as soon as the tape came out I heard more talk about the supposed outrage than I heard actual outrage. This often happens in the media. They create the stories instead of presenting facts and letting people deal with it as they will. Then, when someone expresses sympathy or criticizes one side or another, these things become polarizing issues.

As much as some on the right have complained that Democrats are elitists that belittle those who support the war, have strong religious convictions, etc. I find it much more common that those of us on the left of that spectrum are maligned and marginalised (certainly in mainstream TV news media). We are called "Michael Moore" leftists and certain arguments against the war and the President become catch words, signalling the conservatives to ignore or brush aside anything we might say.

Part of John Kerry's testimony to the Senate Committee, way back when, was about the issue of what war does to men. He wasn't pionting out that atrocities were committed just to say it. Those things can happen in a war, especially a war in which the military was not prepared. In that instance, the military was much less prepared than our military is now (though, the plan for this war could arguably have been better).

That distinction, between criticizing the war and criticizing the soldiers themselves, is perhaps the biggest bone of contention in any dialogue touching those subjects. We at home are in a war of language. Words have been twisted and loaded with connotations to the point that the original argument (a visceral argument for most) is lost.
When I say there is a difference between insurgents and terrorists, others have reacted by puffing up the rhetoric. People throw around words like "freedom fighters" and act as if I had suggested that what the terrorists have done is just. That is not what I believe. But neither do I believe that we, as a country, are somehow heroes - that we are somehow better and more just than people in a country most know little about.

I have the utmost respect for the soldiers. It is horrible to me that a man would have to be in a position where he must shoot any suspicious target. That is why I am upset by the war. I see it bringing destruction in all lives lost, infrastructure and homes destroyed, minds destroyed by the horrors of war. I see it creating more "terrorists" as those homes are destroyed and clansmen, Iraqi families, are killed. Where is the good? Where was the good in the motives of our leaders who waltzed us into war, leaders who had never been to a battle? Where is the good in the lies that were told that cause people to associate the war in Iraq with Sept. 11?
This is the anger and the frustration felt by many. The video of the soldier shooting the man in the mosque is upsetting because people are not familiar with the ugliness of war. But it is the war itself that is at fault. And when those who disagree with the war see "us and them" rhetoric pervading the media and the language of our leaders, it creates even more frustration. Not to mention the tone of moral superiority that is becoming more prevalent.

As a last note, I must say that I do not expect soldiers to sit around contemplating who their enemy is and the differences between terrorists and insurgents (though I am sure many of them do). I do expect the American people to attempt some understanding. I expect our leaders to lead us in this.

Innocent Until Proven Republican

2004-11-17T17:08:00.000-05:00

More of the same. Nancy Pelosi says the Republicans are "lowering their ethical standards."
Is that possible?

"After a debate lasting two and a half hours, the Republicans voted for a new procedure under which the House party leaders would have 30 days to deliberate if one of their colleagues were indicted on a felony charge. At the end of the 30 days, the leaders would decide whether to ask the person under indictment to step aside at least temporarily.

The new rule supplants one that required a leadership member facing a felony indictment to step aside immediately." - NY Times

Huzzah for Tom DeLay.

But, due to this, some Republicans may be finally jumping ship or, at least, edging out further on the gangplank. Rep. Christopher Shays of Connecticut (R), called the change "a mistake."

"If Republicans believe that an indicted member should be allowed to hold a top leadership position in the House of Representatives, their arrogance is astonishing," the House minority leader, Nancy Pelosi of California, said in a statement.

But it isn't really astonishing, is it?

Where Are The Beans?

2004-11-16T15:36:00.000-05:00

Brilliant (as usual) Wolcott piece on Condi Rice's rise in the ranks.

"[. . .]Rice's face is the game face of the Bushies, bony with Unwavering Resolve, eyes fanatical, mouth tensed. She has shown herself to be not a listener but a dictation machine on playback. "The President believes..." "The President has always said..." "The President has very consistent in arguing that..." "The President has said all along..." And now the dictation machine is in a position to dictate to other nations how they can fight terror and help make America a bigger, better empire. It'll be the President wants this, the President wants that, the President is firm in his belief that...

But her incompetence precedes her, as does her presumptuous statement that for their failure to support the U.S. in Iraq, France should be punished, Germany ignored, and Russia forgiven. Punished, ignored, and forgiven for being right in the first place and refusing to take part in this debacle?--such nerve. [. . .]"

And Atrios has provided a handy link to Daily Howler archives on Rice's watch-making testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

No Liberal NY Times Elitists On Our Soil

2004-11-15T19:09:00.000-05:00

Last night I watched a post-election focus group of voters in Ohio. I was struck by how often Bush supporters repeated Fox talking points and phrases common to the media. One man noted that Bush stayed the course and wasn't the type to change his mind after reading the New York Times.
Sound familiar?

Some people even said things that made no sense. One woman noted that she felt Bush had more real-world experience. She did not like Theresa Heinz Kerry because she felt that Laura Bush had more life experience and had gone through hardships.
This woman also noted that the economy was an important issue and implied that Bush understands the needs of families in the changing economy.

One thing I kept hearing was that Kerry had no plan or that he only used rehearsed talking points and never addressed his plan.
Of course, I agree. Bush had a comprehensive plan to put before the people. He's going to turn the corner and fight the terrorists over in Iraq so we don't have to fight them on our soil. Who cares if he can't pay for any of it? Kerry's a flip-flopper. He can't pay for his plan either. The plan that he doesn't have, I mean.
Oh, and that hunting stunt was just too ridiculous. "Come on," one man said, "that's just insulting." Yeah. How dare Kerry go hunting during the campaign. I don't care if he enjoys hunting. He's only doing it for the votes.
And Bush on that fishing show? Ever since he was a little boy growing up in Texas he wanted to be on a fishing show. How folksy and adorable.

It's marketing people. Marketing and media. So what the hell can we do about it? It can't just be about selling our candidates. It has to be about debunking these ridiculous myths they've set up about the warm and cuddly Republicans.

Reform Intelligence

2004-11-14T14:49:00.000-05:00

Next week I am visiting my family. I need to come up with some coping mechanisms, to deal with their conservative views. My father is especially fond of Fox News (and Rush Limbaugh).
I plan to avoid discussions alltogether, but I am afraid my father may feel the need to prove something to me (that, if I were smart, I'd be a Republican). At the very least, he may gloat a little.

I was going to write something here about the Sept. 11 Commission's recommendations, but it is such a beautiful day.

I have my doubts about enacting all of the recommendations - doubts that are mostly fueled by a Harper's article titled "Counter Intelligence: The recommendations of the 9/11 Commission are a dangerous muddle."

I would link it, but it is not available online. So, more on that later. Meanwhile, you can read about Bush trying to save intelligence reform. And comment here about what you think about the various recommendations.

Fuck You, Mr. Smith

2004-11-12T11:39:00.000-05:00

Looks like there may be some strong-arming going on soon.

"Frist said, "One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end."

"The American people have reelected a president and significantly expanded the Senate majority," Frist said. "It would be wrong to allow a minority to defy the will of a clear and decisive majority ....""
[. . .]
"Having gained four seats in the Nov. 2 elections, which will increase their Senate majority next year to 55, Republicans have a number of options, a top aide said.

They hope enough Democrats, mindful of the election results, will now break ranks and vote to end filibusters against judicial nominees, the aide said.

If that does not work, the Senate could try to force through a proposed rule change, offered by Frist in May 2003, that could stop a filibuster with a simple-majority vote.

A two-thirds vote could be needed to change the rules, however, and Republicans have conceded in the past that they do not have that kind of support.

Another possible option would have the Senate chair declare a filibuster against a judicial nominee unconstitutional. Only a simple-majority vote would be needed to uphold the ruling.

Yet some Senate Republicans have voiced reservations. They warn such a move would further strain relations and come back to hurt them in a future Democratic-led Senate." - from Thomas Ferraro, Reuters

So, going on the idea that they have a mandate ("the will of the people"), they want to make it impossible for that will to be challenged? I wish more people would get upset about this. Aren't checks and balances the whole freaking point?

Cue Violin Music

2004-11-11T17:51:00.000-05:00

I got this link from l.a.veggie.
You can speed it up if you get impatient. I think you can add your own photo, too, with Flickr.

Be Merry

2004-11-11T16:12:00.000-05:00

In the sad stale world of today's post-election internet, I have been looking for something fun to alleviate the pain and get away from feeling earnestly defensive.

I found this article in Salon with some great ideas on how to celebrate blue-stateness (even though some of us are only there in spirit).

Here's number three on the list:
"Read a book. And when you're done with it, donate it to your local public school. Start with "The Origin of Species" and move on through some other tomes sure to expand the minds -- if not the church-sanctioned morality -- of the young."

Stepford Spook or Media Watchdog?

2004-11-11T14:02:00.000-05:00

A few days ago I watched Mark Hyman say that, according to a study done by George Mason Univ., John Kerry got more favorable TV coverage than any Presidential candidate in the past 25 years. He went on to say that Kerry had 58% positive coverage over Bush's 36% positive coverage. According to Hyman the Media definitely took sides in this election.

The study is worth a cursory look [PDF file] - especially the samples of negative and positive coverage at the end. This includes quotes from segments that clearly involved interviews with voters (which, from my experience, usually include very balanced coverage of positives for both candidates). It also includes the CBS story about Bush's lack of National Guard. Interestingly, there is no choice quote from all of the coverage about the SBVFT ads. Hmmmm.

So what does this all mean? Well, the liberal media must really exist. We must counter it with propaganda movies and hail Sinclair Broadcasting as our savior.

(Then again... from Bob Fitrakis, "The first time I saw Mark Hyman on Columbus' Sinclair Television ABC affiliate, I told the listeners of my WVKO radio show that he looked like a Stepford CIA clone with a microchip buried in his ass.")

Rules for Radicals

2004-11-10T18:30:00.000-05:00

Take a look at Atrios' posting of Rules for Radicals from a book by Saul Alinsky. It's a pretty good breakdown of what was done right and wrong by both campaigns.

No More Head In the Sand

2004-11-10T15:23:00.000-05:00

Update on my last post - There is an article today in Salon about the voting system issue.

"Given my current state of knowledge, it seems unlikely there will be enough bogus votes found to reverse the election," says David Dill, the Stanford computer scientist who's been leading the charge against paperless electronic voting machines for the past two years... "[I]t's extremely important that we seize this opportunity to review everything we can about this election," Dill says. "Having people comb through these results will give us more confidence in the legitimacy of this election. We shouldn't gain that confidence by resorting to the head-in-the-sand method we usually employ in the United States."

Marginalizing Ourselves

2004-11-09T16:44:00.000-05:00

I feel like crap today, but I just had to write quickly about the whole vote-counting thing.
I'm not going to shout fraud. Such a thing would be hard to prove, and almost impossible to connect to the Republican Party.
I do want all of the votes counted, and extreme scrutiny placed on the voting systems in this country. The media silence on this issue is deafening. I was actually shocked when I did hear about it on one news program last night.
The Democratic Party is also avoiding a stance on this issue.

I understand the need to calm down those who are using the "f" word and throwing around accusations. But the Democratic Party has fallen into this trap before. In order to avoid looking foolish or rabid, they think, we must ignore this faction of the party.
But that only helps the Right characterize Democrats as rabid left-wingers. The media can flippantly mention those fringe groups with their crazy ideas, because there is no moderate voice addressing the issues they raise. The Democrats are helping the Republicans marginalize this contingent. Meanwhile, as we have seen, the Dems do not escape any damage from criticism of those groups.

As I've said before, the Democratic Party needs to embrace those with seemingly radical ideas, especially when they are based in fact. The voting problems are real and must be dealt with. I want the Democratic Party to be the party of having every vote be counted.
Even the media would find it hard to marginalize half of the country. Let's present a united front, a strong and moderate voice.

Chomsky's Pimpmobiles

2004-11-08T20:01:00.000-05:00

Hehehehe - Wolcott on Andrew Sullivan's recent appearance on Real Time with Bill Maher.
I recommend regular reading of Wolcott. He's got just the right level of snarkiness.

"Like an infant banging his spoon on the high-chair tray, Sullivan threw quite a tantrum last night after Maher had the GALL to interview Noam Chomsky. Sullivan sputtered that Chomsky made "millions" going around the world telling audiences America was "evil." Now I don't pretend to have read or heard all of the millions of words Chomsky has written and spoken, but "evil" doesn't seem to be a prominent word in his vocabulary, being so theological; he tends to talk in terms of brutal realpolitick and self-interest. And it's highly unlikely he's raking in "millions"--if he is, he isn't splurging on wardrobe and pimpmobiles."

Sullivan gets on my nerves. I happen to get Time magazine, in which he occasionally has an article. (I swear, I only get the magazine for the pictures). He is one of two reasons the magazine is relegated to my bathroom (the second being Joe Klein).

Here's a gem from a recent Time article: "The polarization, aided and abetted by Michael Moore, Mel Gibson, MoveOn.org, and the Swift Boat Vets, among many others, has deepened into a variety of embitterments." As if these things were somehow equal in sewing dissent and anger.

Sullivan's point is that we must come together to fight the terrorists, to win the war. But he, and so many others, have missed the point. The left, the "other half" of the country, are not rabid haters. They are not "free love" hippies, communists or socialists.
The reasons we were against George Bush were both ideological and concrete. One of those reasons involved the fact that Bush has made us less safe. Many of us believe that Bush is hurting this country. We believe it passionately and many of us can provide statistics, numbers, facts to prove our point. How can we come together with people who, we feel, have made us less safe? How can we support a course of action that at best ignores the true problem, and at worst exacerbates it?

"[Bush] surely understands now how divided the country has become under his presidency and how deeply flawed his war management has been." If he does know, Sullivan, I don't think he cares.

Ammunition for the Propaganda War

2004-11-08T18:48:00.000-05:00

Yglesias - "[The Democrats] need to make the Republicans own the IRS, the tax code, and everything else about the government that's hateful or inefficient. . .
The Republicans have all the power, so the Democrats must make them the party of government, and make themselves the party of reform."

Atrios - "If they can get out in front of the issue they also stand a better (though not foolproof) chance of setting the terms and language of the debate."

Atrios - "Play offense, not defense. It's a propaganda war, not a legislative one, and we need to recognize that."

There is a view of the Democratic Party that persists - the party of left-wing wackos (sometimes referred to as "the Michael Moore contingent"), big government, welfare, etc. It persists for two reasons that must be addressed. First, the Democratic Party has splintered and has offered no cohesive alternative to that image. Second, the Republicans do a damn good job of leaving seeds of doubt and mistrust about the Democrats. Until this image problem is overcome, the Democrats will find it difficult to win elections and to fight more specific attacks from Republicans.
It should not have to be a choice between galvanizing the base or appealing to "middle America." The Democratic base is not that different from the great grey middle of the country. Everyone is hugely influenced by the media and most vote based on vague feelings. If the Dems want to get rid of that vague negative feeling towards the party, then they need to have a message to replace it with.

Get the government out of our churches. Get the government out of our libraries. Government is for the people, so down with government secrecy. Keep government responsible, accountable. Take of our soldiers. Let people have the opportunity to take care of their families. Make sure our children get a good education and that their education means something. Take care of the environment so that our families have a future. Promote ingenuity, science, progress.

None of these messages necessitates ignoring the Democratic base or watering down the party. In fact, if the party can include their base (that Michael Moore contingent) in their language, then they will be more successful.
I have a friend, a recovering Republican, who said that she voted for Kerry because she is concerned about the environment. There are those people who already have their issues and priorities set and will vote those issues. The Democrats should never forget their roots in the environment, in helping the poor, etc. It's part of what keeps them a separate party.
So, if we can bring these issues together in a more populist message, we can begin to set the dialogue and the priorities of the great American middle. And, let's not believe the propaganda against the Democrats - many people in middle America did vote for John Kerry.

(Incidentally, that same voter friend of mine said months ago that she would vote for Bush because someone got violent at a protest (it was mis-reported, of course) and injured a cop. She insisted that "that's who John Kerry's supporters are.")

Cultural Snobbery

2004-11-07T19:01:00.000-05:00

I have been dumbfounded with this Administration for a while, but mostly since the war started in Iraq. I even remember finding out that it had started, feeling so confused.

I just found this article by Michael Hirsh, in the Washington Monthly, that addresses the fundamental reasons behind the Administration's war mindset. It doesn't completely clarify things for me, because I don't have strong historical background in the Middle East; but it does help sketch a better outline.

Here is an interesting excerpt about why the Administration's view, based on ideas by Bernard Lewis, is wrong:

"Modern Arab anger and frustration is, in fact, less than a hundred years old. As bin Laden knows very well, this anger is a function not of Islam's humiliation at the Treaty of Carlowitz of 1699—the sort of long-ago defeat that Lewis highlights in his bestselling What Went Wrong—but of much more recent developments. These include the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement by which the British and French agreed to divvy up the Arabic-speaking countries after World War I; the subsequent creation, by the Europeans, of corrupt, kleptocratic tyrannies in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, and Jordan; the endemic poverty and underdevelopment that resulted for most of the 20th century; the U.N.-imposed creation of Israel in 1948; and finally, in recent decades, American support for the bleak status quo.
[. . .]
The administration's invasion of Iraq seems to have given bin Laden a historic gift. It has vindicated his rhetoric describing the Americans as latter-day Crusaders and Mongols, thus luring more adherents and inviting more rage and terror acts.
[. . .]
In our talk last spring, Lewis was still arguing that Iraq would follow the secular path he had laid out for it. He voiced the line that has become a favorite of Wolfowitz's, that the neocons are the most forthright champions of Arab progress, and that the Arabists of the State Department who identified with the idea of “Arab exceptionalism” are merely exhibitng veiled racism. This is the straight neocon party line, of course: If you deny that secular democracy is the destiny of every people, you are guilty of cultural snobbery."

But it is not snobbery. I would not presume to know what it is like to live in Iraq, to live in the Middle East, to live with such a strong and pervasive religious and clan system. A huge problem of the West in dealing with the world has been and is cultural snobbery - assuming that every country should have or want the same kind of government.
This mindset does not make sense to me. I have always thought that if you assume that democracy is the destiny of every people, you are guilty of cultural snobbery. I guess it is a fine line. I have that view based on the idea that cultures are equal (we are all people, after all) but not the same. I cannot assume that my way of life is best for everyone.
I guess some others, scholars and such, have had the same view based on the idea that Arab culture could not deal with a democratic system.

But, then, here is a critique of Lewis:

“This is a person who does not like the people he is purporting to have expertise about,” says [Richard] Bulliet. “He doesn't respect them, he considers them to be good and worthy only to the degree they follow a Western path.”

Also:

"The neoconservative transformationalists of the Bush administration, though informed by far less scholarship than Lewis, seemed to adopt his dismissive attitude toward the peculiar demands of Arab and Islamic culture. And now they are paying for it. The downward spiral of the U.S. occupation into bloodshed and incompetence wasn't just a matter of too few troops or other breakdowns in planning, though those were clearly part of it. In fact, the great American transformation machine never really understood much about Arab culture, and it didn't bother to try."

Hard Work

2004-11-07T15:24:00.000-05:00

Blogger is acting up again. I’m considering switching to Typepad but it costs $$ and I just don’t want to add more costs to my already burdened pocketbook.

In other news in the world…

Iraq

is in a state of emergency, as declared by Iyad Allawi. But this is no surprise.

Israel

is planning to have Yassir Arafat buried in Gaza, which will prompt violence and protests from the Palestinians (but then, what doesn’t?).

I’m curious to see how Bush deals with the Palestinian issue, with Arafat’s imminent death. He has his hands full with Iraq, I know. And it’s all such hard work.

I think it is hard work, but not so much for Bush:

“American and Iraqi forces are continuing preparations for the attack, amid reports that more than 100 insurgents have volunteered to drive suicide car bombs into the advancing troops."

The BBC article notes that Allawi wants to prevent an all-out attack on Fallujah if possible. That statement makes it seem as if Allawi has a modicum of power. Certainly, he can negotiate with insurgent leaders on the ground, but the big military decisions are still made by the US.

“It is reported from inside Falluja that insurgents, tribal chiefs and Sunni Muslim clerics have invited the media to enter the city under their protection to witness any assault, which they described as a crusade against Islam.”

I am still not clear about the difference between insurgents and terrorists. Who are we fighting? Bush avoids making any distinction.

"The broadcasts [of confessions of foreign terrorists] were seen as a means of preparing the population for the coming attack on Fallujah, where the government says it's after foreigners and "terrorists" not city residents who are not involved in the insurgency.” – AP/Salon

But how can you tell? This is urban warfare, the most difficult kind of fighting. Plus, if someone was invading your country, destroying homes, wouldn’t you become an insurgent?
This kind of statement makes the action seem more precise (like “surgical strikes”) than is possible. And, need I add, that article suggests that the war created more terrorists, more violence, than was in Iraq before?

I hope the soldiers in Iraq are successful, I hope the economy does get better. At the same time, I want Bush and the Republicans to pay for the mess that they created.

More on possible GOP problems in another post.

Do Not Go Quietly

2004-11-06T23:06:00.000-05:00

Sounds Familiar. . .

2004-11-06T20:52:00.000-05:00

I love it when I read respectable journalists who agree with what I've been saying the past few days.
This is from an article on the American Prospect Online:

"So why can’t Democrats consistently come up with inspiring leaders, with candidates who make you want to do the right thing, the way Republicans can? Well, maybe that’s because we’re leaving it up to the politicians themselves. A cynical approach (not that there’s anything wrong with that) would be to mimic the Republicans and to start cultivating a good performer to run as the front man for progressive ideals."

Of course, I don't think that "performer" has to be as intellectually incurious or as manipulated at Bush. I think any candidate would be given a huge boost if the Democratic Party had a strong, consistent message. Again, we cannot wait for another Clinton, or for any charismatic candidate to carry the burden during an election year.

"[H]ere’s another proposal: Progressives should figure out a better way to speak about our moral values. We can discuss policies and practices with one another all we want. We can look for some ruthless strategist who can parse counties and peel off voting blocs as brilliantly as Karl Rove. We can expect academics and activists to identify the spots of suffering that will shock our collective conscience. All that is necessary.
But none of that is enough. To win the next election, we also have to invent persuasive ways to talk about our vision of truth, justice, and the American way. We have to explain that, like any other game, capitalism needs impartial umpires who are willing and able to enforce its rules -- no cheating, no lying, no stealing -- lest it disintegrate into Russian crime."

That last statement reminds me of Eliot Spitzer, a powerful and effective figure who is on his way up. He holds the key to part of what the Democratic Party should be about - the accountability of big business. Those issues grabbed the public's eye with recent scandals, such as Enron. The Democratic Party needs to utilize these voices to get out the message about the kinds of people that support and are supported by the current administration and the Republicans in general.

Fun With Voting

2004-11-06T20:29:00.000-05:00

I'm heavy on the blogging tonight. It's like therapy.
Here are some must-see fun voting facts:

O'Reilly lies (gasp) about the voters:

"In a discussion about what went wrong for Democrats in the November 2 election, FOX News Channel host Bill O'Reilly claimed that Democrats "lost votes from four years ago"; that "18- to 24[-year-old]s didn't go" to the polls; and that "[c]ommitted Republicans didn't carry the day for the president; independents did." All three claims are false." - Media Matters for America

Something smells rotten in the voting booth. Here are numbers that Randi Rhodes cited, which show the exit polling as near-correct in paper-ballot states and way off in electronic-voting states.

Then again. . .

Finally, if you want to satisfy all of your righteous indignation needs, go to blackboxvoting.org and read about what's going on with investigations into all the fraud. That site is affiliated with Bev Harris, while blackboxvoting.com is not.

Embrace Obama

2004-11-06T19:49:00.000-05:00

I've been talking a lot about the Democrats needing a stronger party platform. Others have been talking too, and doing a more thorough job. I'm not very wonkish so I can't get too specific about issues; but I think I understand the general direction in which the party should move. Most of America isn't made up of policy wonks, so the platform has to feel good in a general way. It has to be sellable.
The Washington Monthly has an interesting article about Barack Obama. In reading some of the things Obama has said, I was struck by how clear and appealing his ideas and language are. The DNC shouldn't just tout him as a rising star, or try grooming him for the Presidency (a brilliant idea) - they should also listen to him. Here is someone who can be a powerful voice for the party; but unless the party adopts his ideas, and even his language, he will be a disembodied voice.
Again, all the Dems have to be speaking from the same basic platform.

"“Parents have to teach, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and turn off the television sets and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.” Obama argued that his party could see beyond big government. “The people I meet in small towns and big cities and diners and office parks, they don't expect government to solve all of their problems. They know they have to work hard to get ahead,” he said. “Go to the collar counties around Chicago, and people will tell you they don't want their tax money wasted by a welfare agency or the Pentagon.” The import was hard to miss: Obama was casting himself as an unorthodox intellectual independent."

Obama - “The pundits like to slice and dice our country into red states and blue states… But I've got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don't like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states.”

This language makes so much sense. It is appealing and should be embraced by the Dems, not just given lip service. Obama's message reflects that note of personal responsibility felt by many that voted for Bush on values despite their economic circumstances (check out this post on Pandagon for more).

Let's focus on values - not on gay marriage or abortion - but on those values of responsibility. In this way, we are given a boon in the Bush Administration because even many Republicans see Bush as irresponsible.
On top of that, the Administration is one of the most secretive ever. That means it is hard to get information, but it should also be used to show that the Administration is avoiding true responsibility. That may be a stretch, but I have no doubt the Dems will be given plenty of fodder in the next two and four years. Let's use it.

So Befogged

2004-11-06T19:01:00.000-05:00

From an article by Eric Alterman at Center for American Progress:

As Todd Gitlin recently wrote in Mother Jones, "If ever there were a time for unbridled journalism, this would be it: terrorist mayhem, war, corporate scandal, ecological crisis, economic upheaval. Public passion and curiosity have been stoked. But the potential investigators have been, to a considerable degree, otherwise occupied. Historians will someday burrow among the musty artifacts of America's supercharged 24/7 news organizations—TV with its glammed-up sets, its convention skyboxes and satellite feeds; the well-fed correspondents on a first name basis with second-rate sources; the newsmagazines with their gloss, gossip, and fluff—and they will rub their eyes and marvel that a nation possessed of such an enormous industry ostensibly specializing in the gathering and distribution of facts could yet remain so befogged."

As Edward Wasserman recently wrote in the Miami Herald, over the past several months "The established news media were nowhere on public-policy matters. Issues that should have been their meat and potatoes – such as the adequacy of homeland security or remedies to stanch job losses – were largely untouched...Instead, the agenda was set by partisans, via political advertising and committed freelance efforts. Time and again, established media essentially reacted to issues rammed through by outside groups."

Alterman: "More and more, the media invite manipulation by those who understand how to earn coverage but care nothing for evidence or even accuracy. During the past election, entire weeks of news broadcasts and countless pages in newspapers and magazines were wasted on a litany of baseless and irrelevant issues while Iraq burned, the economy remained stagnant, and more and more Americans lost their health care coverage."

More on this in another Alterman article that brilliantly gives facts about what I've been talking about lately - the Republican Media Machine (or Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, if you must):

"Over the past three decades, conservatives have painstakingly cultivated the public persona of an aggrieved outsider class, bereft of the money and media influence they claim liberals enjoy. Their well-rehearsed routine consists of the repetition of a series of catchphrases designed to snare votes by using wedge social issues to create class divisions, while their own campaigns are funded by a class of wealthy, corporate donors who keep their think tanks flush with lucre."

Mythology of Morality

2004-11-06T18:38:00.000-05:00

So, maintaining this religion theme, here is something good I saw on Daily Howler:

From an email to Eric Alterman - ". . . So why did I vote for Bush? I am a born-again Christian, my faith is critically important to me. As long as the Democratic Party, and/or those people who purport to speak for it, belittle my beliefs, dismissing them out of hand, and address me publicly as intellectually challenged for holding to the faith of my fathers, you will never get my vote. How can I trust your party to lead me when you so obviously (and vociferously) denigrate those values I hold most dear?"

How indeed. Even when this writer disagreed with the war, and pretty much everything Bush wants to do. But let's look at this writer's charge more closely:

"The reader says the Democratic Party and/or those people who purport to speak for it has engaged in this behavior.
Let’s ignore that expansive escape clause and think of the Dem Party proper. We think it’s time for readers like this to name the names of actual Dems who have actually belittled them in this manner. Who exactly “addressed him publicly as intellectually challenged for holding to the faith of his fathers?” Was it Southern Baptist Bill Clinton, from Hot Springs, Arkansas? Was it Southern Baptist Al Gore, from Carthage, Tennessee? Was it Jimmy Carter? Was it Joe Lieberman? Was it John Edwards, from the reader’s own state? Or was it French-speaking John Kerry himself, the haughty man who dares to wind-surf? If so, when did this insult occur? When exactly has any Dem leader ever behaved in the manner described? When exactly did the Dem Party belittle the reader’s religious beliefs and “address him publicly as intellectually challenged?” When exactly did this occur? Or did it really occur in a dream? Or perhaps in a rant on talk radio?"

Sorry to belabor this point, but there is a lie being perpetrated continuously by the right and because the Democratic Party is weak (its own fault and hardly deniable) it has not had a good way to combat this.
I will say that the DNC needs to move out of D.C. and it needs to get better leadership. Once the Dems get their platform and their language down, those criticisms lobbed by the right can be combated.
The idea of the liberal elite is an old one, and is tied in to the idea of a liberal media. Well, the media is not liberal and the half of the country that voted for Kerry would probably not be described as "elite."
We can't just flail our arms and say, "No, no, no - what they say. . . it's not true!" As I've said, it's time to stop being reactionary and time to start putting forth a positive agenda that is inclusive. The Dems can do this without sacrificing values, without moving further to the middle. Quite the opposite, actually. Embracing faith, morality, spirituality, should never have meant moving toward the Republican side. That trap was laid by the right and the Dems fell pray to it, watering themselves down.

Moral Values

2004-11-06T16:20:00.000-05:00

"More to the point, the morality gap didn't decide the election. Voters who cited moral issues as most important did give their votes overwhelmingly to Bush (80 percent to 18 percent), and states where voters saw moral issues as important were more likely to be red ones. But these differences were no greater in 2004 than in 2000. If you're trying to explain why the president's vote share in 2004 is bigger than his vote share in 2000, values don't help." - Slate

On top of that, many of what people are talking about, in terms of questions asked in exit polling, is a question that merely asked people if they were influenced by "moral values." Well, that's more than misleading. The idea of a great moral divide in this country seems erroneous. I actually think, with all of their talk about reaching out (to people that support their agenda) this idea of a divide serves their purposes. It served their purposes in the election as well.
If there is a divide and Bush is moral, then the other side must be immoral. That is an oversimplification, but it gets to my point.

"The fact that this election - the first post-9/11 election, with a war in Iraq abroad and a changing economic situation at home - will be remembered by the we-need-it-simplified media as the "values" election, is [Ralph] Reed's great gift to us." - DailyKos, from Hullabaloo

The Democratic product has been branded, and branded negatively. With such an important event as the election, the Republicans have strengthened their language of values, and strengthened their own brand in the public's eye.

The Good Old Lie Machine

2004-11-06T13:08:00.000-05:00

"Yet amazingly, the [Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times] piece never once mentions the extensive and nefarious tactics the Bush campaign used to create those doubts -- and those tactics are central to the story of this race. The role of the Bush campaign in winning is invariably described in approving terms: Bumiller’s piece describes Bush as charismatic and full of clarity and conviction, and she takes note of the tactical effectiveness of the ground game and the anti-gay ballot initiatives. There is no mention anywhere of the Bush campaign’s relentless efforts to paint Kerry as weak and vacillating by lying about his record and mischaracterizing his remarks on the stump -- distortions that, inarguably, did far more violence to the truth than any similar ones coming from Kerry’s side. This take asks us to believe that doubts about Kerry are the fault of nobody but himself; the Bush campaign was merely a passive beneficiary. Worse, it refuses to see campaigns in moral terms: It allows for no moral comparison between boosting evangelical turnout with crude anti-gay appeals and boosting turnout among African Americans by telling them that the right to vote is precious and mustn’t be squandered."

I think this article by Greg Sargent, in the American Prospect online, is on point. I haven't heard too much blaming of John Kerry and I am glad of it. But what I have heard seems to stress his faults too much. I think the failings of the Democratic Party were far greater and that the Party consistently underestimates the control Republicans have in getting their message out. The Republicans have complete control of the spin machine, to the extent that they can often escape the charge of having spun at all. While people shrug off Kerry's hunting trip as a play for votes, they smile at Bush on a fishing show.
The tendency is to say, "Well, Kerry cannot pull it off because he is too wooden." But that is a fallacy built up by the Republicans and swallowed whole by the media.
It's interesting that these things appear in the New York Times, often hailed as the backbone of that (elusive) liberal media. In fact, Fox News often gets fodder from the NY Times. The Bumiller article was on the front page, not given the label of an opinion piece.

"To be fair to Bumiller, the conventions of political reporting today largely dictate that coverage remain resolutely amoral. And she buttresses her version of events by anonymously quoting Democrats who also found fault with Kerry in various ways, though their motives for Monday-morning sniping are somewhat less than pure."

Why is this approved as un-biased coverage? I heard on Air America radio that many in the media have said that they feel a pressure from the right that makes them avoid fuller reporting. They avoid reporting things on the other side that might not be proven yet for fear of being roasted alive on Fox.
I am tired of this. We end up having Bumiller's "reporting" on Kerry's faults and Bush's glories instead of a hard look at the structures of the campaigns. This is fluff. This is tripe. And it is everywhere.
I am not suggesting that Kerry did nothing wrong, or that the American Prospect piece is a fairer article (at least it does not pretend to be fair and balanced). But let's not forget what was actually done to the American mind by the Republicans during this campaign.

"Before the postmortems enshrine the Kerry-is-at-fault story line, it’s also worth remembering that there’s a simple reason winners invariably push the notion that the loser has no one to blame but himself for defeat: It absolves the winning side from blame for its own reliance on unsavory tactics to win. As obvious as this is, however, political reporters can always be counted on to play along, because there’s one unassailable rule of post-campaign stories: To the victor goes the spin."

He Looks Like A Monkey

2004-11-06T02:00:00.000-05:00

I was speaking with someone tonight who pointed out that belittling, or seeming to belittle, the views and beliefs of half of the population is part of what got the Dems in trouble to begin with. Randi Rhodes said that it was time to stop belittling George Bush, because that makes us look bad. At this point, it is a very serious issue and we need to focus on the important facts, not the fact that Bush is intellectually incurious.

About half of this country put some faith in Bush, so we have to learn to listen to that part of the population and learn how we can change their minds. When we belittle Bush, we appear to be belittling those people that want to support him.

It's a thin line to walk, but we will do best if we change the issue entirely. Develop a positive platform, use facts against the Republicans, develop our own language. I know I've said some of this already, and I will continue to say it and refine it as things go on.

I am trying to maintain a level of hope.
More about the Republican mentality on Pandagon.
Also, I think we all should pick up Thomas Frank's book, What's the Matter with Kansas.

Support Our Troops

2004-11-06T01:47:00.000-05:00

Lest we forget that there are other people who feel afraid:

"Much of America has been naive enough to think that politics was not playing a part on the battlefields of Iraq. Well America, good friggin' morning. Here is your wake up call. This is as clear as it gets. The White House was waiting until after the election to crank up the intensity in Iraq. The gloves are off now, and three days after our Presidential Election, the Battle for Falluja begins." - from Operation Truth which I recommend everyone visit and support, because these are our troops speaking out.

"Democracy" - A Poem

2004-11-06T01:23:00.000-05:00

"The flag goes with the foul landscape, and our jargon muffles the drum.
In the great centers we'll nurture the most cynical prostitution. We'll massacre the logical revolt.
In spicy and drenched lands! - at the service of the most monstrous exploitations, industrial or military.
Farewell here, no matter where. Conscripts of good will, ours will be a ferocious philosophy; ignorant as to science, rabid for comfort; and let the rest of the world croak. This is the real advance. Marching orders, let's go!" - Rimbaud

Shrink the Government

2004-11-05T15:26:00.000-05:00

I liked this piece I saw on DailyKos:

"The Baptist southern presidential candidate should start a campaign to get the goddamn Federal government out of the marriage business. It has to be framed that way. Marriage should be a faith-based institution and we should turn it over to the churches. If someone doesn't want to be married in a church, then the Federal government can offer them a legal civil contract (this is a better name for it than civil union). That's not a marriage and the candidate could solemnly observe that they are taking their salvation in their own hands if they go that route, but that is their business. But marriage is sacred and the churches should be in charge of it."

I heard a Baptist Minister on the Al Franken show say pretty much the same thing. It makes sense to make marriage and civil contracts seperate things. Some European countries have civil contracts separate from church marriages (though we may want to keep that quiet, given how much this country values Europe). First you get the contract, and then if you want, you go to the church to get married. This way, even the language is separate. I think it is an elegant solution, and if it is sold as getting the government out of marriage then it might just work.
It may work better once we actually have Democrats in power though. Right now, those religious conservatives have very little to fear from the spectre of government. It's the rest of us that are scared. -- Democrats, the party of small government??

UPDATE: Just found this relevant article on Salon. The Dems definitely need to get back to civil rights roots, and take back the language of empowering the people.

Darkest Before Dawn

2004-11-04T18:34:00.000-05:00

I saw this on Atrios, who got it from the transcript of the press conference.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start enforcing the one-question rule. That was three questions.
[. . .]
PRESIDENT BUSH: Again, he violated the one-question rule right off the bat. Obviously you didn't listen to the will of the people.

I wonder how often this line will be used in the next four years. For a visual representation of Bush’s mandate, visit Pandagon.

Someone asked me what they could do, in the next four years, besides staying informed. I don’t know what to do, but I think there are a few things that need to happen.
One, Democrats need to build a stronger party platform, taking back the language stolen from them by the Republicans. The platform should be built from the inside out, not as a reaction to the Republicans. The Dems go on the defensive too often to be appealing.
Also, a strong focus should be placed on local elections. I don’t want to see the kind of heavy-handed party control that the Republicans have, but there should be a stronger network of those officials that share Democratic values. Putting a good progressive face on local officials will make hearts and minds more receptive to Democrats in larger elections.
On top of all of that, we need to hold the media accountable. Forget Fox and Limbaugh. I’m more concerned with the regular lazy media that follows Fox’s talking points – the media that does not seem to do any research on its own. If a story is only half-reported, there must be a backlash. I think the general population would like more information, but news media does not want to take the risk. They follow conventional formula and this means less substantial information. By holding media accountable, we will be holding Republicans accountable.

We have a strong tool in the Internet (or Internets). It is a good way to network, raise money, get people involved in letter-writing campaigns, petitions. We need to make sure that the US knows what it bought in this election.

I have heard a few voices say that they doubt the election results. I have no problem with this idea and am anxious to see all of the votes counted, and all of the doubtful election results investigated. This will in no way mean that Bush will not be President and I do not believe in any legal action. In the last election people just rolled over to have it done with. Now, the occasional election fraud should be added to the litany of wrongdoing by Bush & Co.
These questions and other controversies must continue to be placed in the public eye. Bush is not getting a fresh start. His mistakes in the first four years will have a long, rippling effect and we cannot let the country turn a blind eye as it is so often wont to do.

BUSH: I have some political capital and now I’m going to use it.

And we on the left are going to play off of it and make sure that the next election brings a strong Democrat to the White House and Congress. More than that (because I generally do not think of myself as a Democrat), the nation and voters must continue to be spurred out to the polls. We just have to make sure they know the facts first.

I just heard that Elizabeth Edwards has been diagnosed with breast cancer. She was impressive on the campaign trail and is a beautiful and well-spoken woman. I wish her good health.

If I Don't Laugh...

2004-11-03T16:51:00.000-05:00

From The Onion article "U.S. Inspires World with Attempt at Democratic Election":

"Despite the specter of corruption in 2000, and even though the procedural problems which surfaced during the previous election were never remedied, the American people chose to put their faith in the system once again this year," said Joseph Mtume, a Kenyan diplomat who traveled to Ohio to view America's democratic proceedings. "You can't help but feel touched by the determination of these citizens who put their doubts aside to collectively participate in the democratic process. All this in a nation divided by war, where dissent is widespread and the rift between citizens has rarely been higher. It was truly stirring."

I hope everyone's free January 20, 2005.

I Am No Patriot

2004-11-03T16:08:00.000-05:00

"You can fool too many of the people too much of the time." - James Thurber

""I will need your support and I will work to earn it," [Bush] said.
"We have one country, one conscience and one future that binds us. When we come together and work together there is no limit to the greatness of America."
[. . .]
Projections put turnout in the presidential election at more than 115 million voters - 10 million more than in 2000.
The projected vote showed Mr Bush leading Mr Kerry nationwide by three-and-a-half million votes." - BBC

Rolling Up the Sleeves

2004-11-03T15:17:00.000-05:00

It's the day after and I woke up hoping for a coup.

We lost. I'm trying not to let it get to me.
Now we have a lot of work to do. The DNC has a lot of work to do. Forget the talk about being less divided. They thought this country was divided last time, but it's just begun.

All of those groups that were formed or rose to prominence in this election need to increase activity. In the media, they need to challenge the conservative and blind talking points with their own set of facts. Pressure needs to be placed on the media and all members of Congress.
We need to make sure that what the Republican voters bought this year is four years of holding the President's feet to the fire and a resounding Democrati victory in the next election.

"Our new effort begins today. A new effort to find frames for tolerance, language for inclusion, and arguments that will persuade and unite. We lost because we not only conceded the South, but those who think like the South." - Pandagon

"And the battle begins anew." - Atrios

"But best of all, we'll continue to see this great resurgence in progressive activism - the kind not seen in American politics in over a generation. None of these new activists heeded the call to arms only to abandon the fight today. We are energised, and will continue to fight for a better future for our country." - Kos

"Bush and friends are going to do a lot of damage over the next four years, and the only way to reverse those losses is to build a viable long-term movement. Progressives have done it before; they can do it again. 2006 is only a few years away." - Plumer

"All of this is not to mean that the donkey can relax and watch the elephant implode. Far from it. As the Moose has mentioned, Democrats need a major overhaul. They cannot concede the south and expect to lay claim to the White House and Congress any time soon. Organization is fine - ideas and message are far superior." - Bull Moose

"The Democrats surprised themselves at their ability to raise tens of millions of dollars, inspire hundreds of thousands of activists, spawn extensive new organizations, attract icons of popular culture and present themselves as unified around a centrist position. Expectations were not dashed. Turnout vastly increased among African-Americans and Hispanics. More than 60 percent of the newly registered voters went for John Kerry. Those concerned about the economy voted overwhelmingly for him; so did those citing the war in Iraq as an issue." - Salon

"The sharp division revealed by the election, then, could persist well beyond voting day." - BBC

"As progressives we're not content to simply live through American history; we intend to make it. We hope you’ll continue to join us, and to contribute to the dialogue that will help us build toward a better future." - Center for American Progress

And Then What

2004-11-01T16:06:00.000-05:00

On this, the last day before the election, we are all biting our nails, reading the polls, and generally suffering last-minute anxiety. But there is no reason to squeeze all that energy into these two days. We can stretch it out through weeks of legal challenges - yay.

Actually, I'm going to suggest here that John Kerry will win - not in a landslide, but handily. Legal challenges notwithstanding, I think Kerry will be elected President.
Zogby thinks so.

If Bush comes out ahead, I anticipate there will be more legal challenges than if Kerry is elected. There should certainly be more legal challenges with basis in fact.

While I would love Kerry to be some sort of panacea (certainly, he will make many of us feel better), he will have many bitter battles.
Any bets on the next election?
Kerry has a lot of work to do, at home and abroad. I am more confident that he will be successful in mending some international fences (or breaking down walls, whatever metaphor you like), than that he will have any strong impact within the US.
I will be impressed if Kerry manages to win a second term.

I will be happy if all the work done by the DNC and other organizations pays off. I will be impressed if the voter groups maintain their power and if this passion on the side of the Democrat party persists.

I hope that more light has been shed on the weaknesses of the media, and that a shift will begin towards more accountability.

Looking at these things with a wide lens, we must remember that there will always be Republicans, and that Democrats aren't always going to do what is best for the country. These things will go back and forth repeatedly. It is important to realize that we must change the game itself. A third party isn't a bad idea, neither is more media accountability. And voter education is perhaps the most important thing.

I just received my issue of The Economist. They have, haltingly, endorsed John Kerry.

From Across the Ocean

2004-10-30T19:36:00.000-04:00

I'm watching the Oxford Union debate - "Should Pres. Bush be Re-elected."
Will Hutton, the former editor of The Observer, gave a fiery speech. It was not just aimed against George Bush, but was for John Kerry. One good question Hutton touched on was "Why was this a war on terror, not terrorists or terrorism? It was a deliberate ploy" to create fear in America.

Grover Norquist is speaking in favor of Bush and his view on economics. He just said Bush is up in the polls. I wonder which ones??

I recently read an article in Harper's on the Left Behind series. In that article, the author mentions the sense of victimization that pervades, not just the novels, but certain social groups in America. They are those middle or upper-middle class (white, Christian) people who drive SUVs, etc. etc. It seems as if these people want to find an excuse to feel victimized. Feeling as if they, poor Christians, have been pushed aside by society.
When we look at those people supporting Bush, and speaking with glassy stares about not "fighting them on our soil" and who almost revel in their fearfulness, those are the people that seek victimization. They act as if Bush is struggling against great powers (including, perhaps, the liberal media?). What better way to feel victimized than to assume that the world is against you. There cannot be diplomatic solutions, only absolute solutions. This makes them right and, by extension, makes them righteous.

Richard Dreyfuss is now making jokes that fall horribly flat. He looks drunk, and has mentioned Revelations and the establishment of Israel marking the end of the world (that being the motive for Bush's support of Israel). "Mr. Bush, you are no Ronald Reagan. . . and neither was Ronald Reagan."
Dreyfuss is making some sense, but it would be better if he wasn't clearly soused. Then again, I can't really blame him.
"This election marks something particularly dangerous. . ."

I try to avoid thinking that way, but it seems unavoidable. Even to the most realistic mind, the world appears changing. There will likely be no great destruction or paradigm shift in the next four years. But it is coming, slowly. I can only hope that it will be a gentle shift.

Flailing Against the Facts

2004-10-29T21:40:00.000-04:00

From Media Matters - "In an October 28 article, Washington Times defense and national security reporter Bill Gertz cited John A. "Jack" Shaw, the Pentagon's deputy undersecretary for international technology and security, to assert as fact that "Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, 'almost certainly' removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility." Although senior Pentagon officials have distanced themselves from Shaw's claims, The Washington Times article was featured on The Drudge Report; cited by radio host Rush Limbaugh; and cited on FOX News Channel by Newt Gingrich and radio host Monica Crowley. Radio host G. Gordon Liddy and FOX News Channel political analyst Dick Morris also proffered the same claim made in the Times article."

Not to mention ABC Phoenix and Dick Morris on recent talk shows (clips of which were shown on two of my Fox affiliates).

"The claims made in the Washington Times article have been further discredited. As CNN noted on October 29, "Asked about Shaw's comments during an interview on WABC radio in New York, [Secretary of Defense Donald] Rumsfeld said, 'No, I have no information on that at all and cannot validate that even slightly.'" CNN also reported, "Di Rita said Shaw was not speaking for the Pentagon and that his views were not those of senior defense officials." Di Rita also noted that "Shaw's superiors were talking to him about his comments.""

Aha!

2004-10-28T16:58:00.000-04:00

_40467125_russiadolls
Originally uploaded by ccmoira.

Maybe the explosives were hidden in these.

Missing: Arms and a Brain

2004-10-28T05:55:00.000-04:00

The issue of the missing explosives should be a negative for Bush, no matter what. The fact that there were ever questions about something so important is damning.
It won't be enough to sway many people but, there you have it. Many people are stupid.
This includes the people at The Washington Times (as if we didn't all know that already).

"John A. Shaw, the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, said in an interview that he believes the Russian troops, working with Iraqi intelligence, "almost certainly" removed the high-explosive material that went missing from the Al-Qaqaa facility, south of Baghdad."

Urm, ok?

"Mr. Shaw, who was in charge of cataloging the tons of conventional arms provided to Iraq by foreign suppliers, said he recently obtained reliable information on the arms-dispersal program from two European intelligence services that have detailed knowledge of the Russian-Iraqi weapons collaboration"."

Oh, well as long as the Washington Times says that this guy says his information is reliable . . .
I'm not even denying that this maybe, could be true. But this type of reporting is pathetic. It is especially pathetic that my AZ ABC show from last night mentioned this story (due to come out today) - and mentioned it as if it dispelled any lingering questions.

"Al-Qaqaa, a known Iraqi weapons site, was monitored closely, Mr. Shaw said.
"That was such a pivotal location, Number 1, that the mere fact of [special explosives] disappearing was impossible," Mr. Shaw said. "And Number 2, if the stuff disappeared, it had to have gone before we got there.""

It was impossible! It could not possibly have happened. Ok then as long as we all agree to shut our eyes and forget everything. . .
According to the article, the UN had sealed the facility in January of 2003. The Pentagon says there was no "evidence of movement of explosives from the facility after April 6." The Army's 75th Exploitation Task Force (what kind of name is that?) inspected the area in early May.
The article has no mention of the 2nd Brigade of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, which apparently did not inspect the site when they arrived April 3rd. Trusted Iraqis have also claimed that "it is impossible that these materials could have been taken from this site before the regime's fall." (See Daily Kos for more on this).

The Washington Times believes that the Russians were supplying arms to Saddam Hussein, but began an arms-removal program when "Yevgeny Primakov, the former Russian intelligence chief, could not persuade Saddam to give in to U.S. and Western demands, this official said."

". Shaw said he believes that the withdrawal of Russian-made weapons and explosives from Iraq was part of plan by Saddam to set up a "redoubt" in Syria that could be used as a base for launching pro-Saddam insurgency operations in Iraq.
[. . .]
Documents reviewed by the official included itineraries of military units involved in the truck shipments to Syria. The materials outlined in the documents included missile components, MiG jet parts, tank parts and chemicals used to make chemical weapons, the official said.
[. . .]
Defense officials said the Russians can provide information on what happened to the Iraqi weapons and explosives that were transported out of the country. Officials believe the Russians also can explain what happened to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs."

How does that first point even seem like a reasonable hypothesis? And isn't it difficult to move chemical weapons without leaving some kind of trace? And, again, if we were so sure that Saddam Hussein had these weapons, why weren't we monitoring these kinds of movements more closely? Wasn't the whole point to avoid the explosives falling into the wrong hands?
Someone help me before my head explodes.

UPDATE: From the New York Times.

Looters stormed the weapons site at Al Qaqaa in the days after American troops swept through the area in early April 2003 on their way to Baghdad, gutting office buildings, carrying off munitions and even dismantling heavy machinery, three Iraqi witnesses and a regional security chief said Wednesday.
The Iraqis described an orgy of theft so extensive that enterprising residents rented their trucks to looters. But some looting was clearly indiscriminate, with people grabbing anything they could find and later heaving unwanted items off the trucks.

Bullshit's Deep In Here

2004-10-27T19:06:00.000-04:00

bullshit
Originally uploaded by ccmoira.

From James Wolcott:

"[Diane] West claimed that a Newsweek editor had opined that the pro-Kerry bias in the media could swing the election five points in his favor.
[. . .]
Any newsmagazine that employs the Bush-licking Howard Fineman shouldn't talk squat about bias.
[. . .]
There are no coincidences at Fox News. Three times today, and the day is still relatively young, Fox hit the note of liberal bias to sound the theme that the press is "in the tank" for Kerry, and that any victory he gets will be a tainted gift from the media elite."

Meanwhile, consumer confidence has fallen and there are still nearly 380 missing tons of explosives.

Wear This Donkey Outfit

2004-10-27T17:38:00.000-04:00

"A poll by Primetime Live revealed that 56% of Republicans are very satisfied with their sex lives, but only 47% of Democrats are. More Republicans have worn something sexy to enhance their sex life, but more Democrats have faked and orgasm." - ABC News/The Economist.

Maybe this might explain it.

". . . Another sex professional, 25-year-old Eve, says, “I don’t want to single out the Republicans, but they are majority male and a fairly wealthy group of people.”"

Painful Withdrawal

2004-10-27T16:45:00.000-04:00

"A man does not often change his deepest convictions. But it is not unusual for a man to change his calculation of risk." - The Economist

Bush might want to consider that; but this is actually in reference to Ariel Sharon, who recently got the approval of the Knesset (barely) for the withdrawal of Jewish settlers in Gaza.
Many that supported Sharon's plan want a referendum on the issue, but Sharon is fighting it.

"A person can change their mind from time to time but not give in to pressures and ultimatums," [Sharon] told Haaretz newspaper.
"My position on the referendum is unchanged - I am opposed because it will lead to terrible tensions and a rupture in the public."

People are already divided within Gaza, with some even being targeted by vandals for their views about leaving. This situation will only get worse, as members of the Likud Party and other government officials have threatened to leave the government if a referendum is not called.

It seems like such an odd move for Sharon to push this withdrawal plan. I have no doubt that it is an appeasement effort. Many Palestinians suspect that this withdrawal is just a distraction as Israel takes tighter control of the West Bank.
I remember that after I first heard of the proposal (and doubted its motives) there followed several assassinations of Palestinian leaders. - Pay no attention to the gun I am holding in my other hand.

Still, Sharon seems intent on this plan and I will not pretend to understand the machinations in this situation.

"In the end, the dark and inner thoughts of these geriatric war-horses are unknowable and scarcely matter (not least because neither is likely to be around for the end). What does matter is what they do or can be forced to do while they have power, and whether their actioins look likely to make things better or not. Measured by that yardstick, Mr. Sharon's plan to quit Gaza is a good thing, no matter what his true motives." - The Economist

I am frustrated by the US treatment of the situation. Both Bush and Kerry seem intent on ignoring Yassir Arafat, a fact which has more to do with national politics than any sense that it will help things over there.

I Wish They Hadn't Missed

2004-10-26T18:08:00.000-04:00

Ann Coulter, bastion of class...

COULTER: A couple alleged males attempted to sucker punch a 100-pound woman and missed. And they ended up with their faces smashed in and spending the night in the Pima County Jail, where I'm sure -- being good liberals -- their views on gay marriage will serve them well.

Rehnquist and Rod Stewart

2004-10-25T16:31:00.000-04:00

Chief Justice William Rehnquist is right now being treated for thyroid cancer. I wonder if this will spur any of those undecideds or get more people out to the polls. People who can't get their heads around the importance of voting Kerry into office for four years might understand better the need to get a reasonable court justice appointed to the court for life.

"Several of the serving justices are over 70, so whoever wins the poll on 2 November could appoint up to four new Supreme Court judges during his time in office, our correspondent adds."

This is all even more important when you think about the fact that we will probably still have a Republican Congress after Nov. 2.

What Weighs More?

2004-10-25T07:18:00.000-04:00

There were a couple gems on the news tonight.
First, I saw a meaningful discussion of why the media is covering trivial news in these last few days before the election. This was on CNN's Reliable Sources and involved a rehashing of all of the trivial news stories (including Kerry's mention of Cheney's lesbian daughter and Teresa Heinz Kerry's misstatement about Laura Bush never having a job).
I don't think they see the irony.

I was prevented from lashing out in anger at my coworkers by the calming influence of Jon Stewart on C-Span. Stewart was speaking at the New Yorker book festival and basically expanded on what he said on Crossfire, about the laziness of the media. (I will avoid mooning over Stewart here; but I must say, he is a very charming man.)

In my last program of the evening, I heard Dick Cheney say, "If Kerry had been President the likelihood is that Saddam Hussein would still be in power, and might even have acquired nuclear weapons." Cheney is too good at delivering lines like this. On the lips of Bush, it would sound like a cartoonish rallying cry read from a teleprompter. When Cheney says it, the words "likelihood" and "might" wither under a tone of dread certainty.

Well, we may have reason to be afraid as 380 tons of explosives have gone missing in Iraq, according to a New York Times article.

"United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year."

Last year??

"The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed."

Last month??
Bush was probably not informed. And, if this story goes any further as a scandal, it could be the death blow for Rice.

""This is a high explosives risk, but not necessarily a proliferation risk," one senior Bush administration official said."

Whew. I was worried there for a minute.

"After the invasion, when widespread looting began in Iraq, the international weapons experts grew concerned that the Qaqaa stockpile could fall into unfriendly hands. In May, an internal I.A.E.A. memorandum warned that terrorists might be helping "themselves to the greatest explosives bonanza in history.""

"Stay the course. Stay the course. Stay the course..."

"I just don't feel safe any more," said Judy [to BBC]. "The terrorists could strike any time." - Judy is inclined to vote for Bush.

I would like to react to the WSJ article (Did the U.S. Err by Halting Strike on Zarqawi Camp?), because I've heard mention of it already this morning. Unfortunately, it requires a subscription. So I will wait until it is blogged.
*Sigh* - Always a step behind.

So, what weighs more? Phantom nuclear weapons under a hypothetical Kerry presidency or 380 tons of explosives?

"Cloud-Cuckoo-Land" Proudly Run By Americans

2004-10-24T03:47:00.000-04:00

Management and Training Corp. (MTC) is bidding to run prisons in Britain. MTC, and its Director Lane McCotter, were in charge of Iraq's prison system, including Abu Ghraib.

"There is no suggestion that McCotter was personally involved in the abuses at Abu Ghraib, but questions have been raised about whether the culture of the US private penal system influenced the environment that allowed the atrocities to occur.

McCotter, a Vietnam veteran, has a chequered record of running US jails. In 1997 he was forced to resign as a senior prison official in Utah after a scandal surrounding the death of a mentally ill inmate strapped naked to a chair for 16 hours. This year, Schumer wrote to Ashcroft, asking why someone with McCotter's controversial history was sent to Iraq."

Good question. In general, I would like to know more about the set-up of the prisons in Iraq. It is still not clear to me what role civilian contractors played and what their interaction with Army officers entailed.
Meanwhile...

"Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesman Mark Oaten expressed concerns that Britain's prison culture could be undermined by the arrival of American firms.

'The government is in cloud-cuckoo-land if it thinks privatising prisons will solve the mess. The problems of suicides, overcrowding and reoffending will not be solved by bringing in a private company from the US.'"

For more information on the US prison system check out Human Rights Watch.

Watch This

2004-10-23T22:46:00.000-04:00

Fun with iFilm...

Poop Valhalla
"If you're going to be against gay rights then you better take out that pole up your ass" - from Triumph to Ralph Reed.

Anne Coulter Pelted With Pies
Coulter runs in high heels.

The O'Sexxy Factor
He sees a lesbian cruise as "a challenge."
"I know men real well, being a manly man."
"Was there sex in the foxhole?"

The GOP in Two Minutes
Put together like that, it's almost like creepy music.

Jimmy Swaggart and Gays
"I'm going to kill him and tell God he died." - Wha?

Alan Keyes Sings
"He didn't even wait for an ethnic holiday."
I think Keyes may be a self-hating homosexual. I mean, seriously.

A Little Django
Completely unrelated to politics - so what?

Hitchens Revisited

2004-10-23T22:37:00.000-04:00

I see that James Wolcott agrees with my earlier assessment of Hitchens' flaccid article in The Nation.

"He seems more peeved about the left than he is passionate for Bush."

And it is a left that doesn't really exist, except, perhaps, on a distant fringe. Why does Hitchens, a once respectable if slightly drunk writer, insist on brandishing arguments akin to "Democrats support Saddam!"
He is of the type that decries the popularity of Michael Moore as an example of the unhinged mentality of the left. And this, presumably, is a reason to support Bush (he gives little other reason, so I have to extrapolate).
Those that espouse this view should know that the support for Moore, in many cases, is a desperate one. Democrats are frustrated and so have embraced someone who can speak for them in a loud voice, because they are so often silenced. This should hardly negate the many reasoned and moderated voices on the left.

I think, if we look at the last paragraph of Hitchens' article in conjunction with the PIPA poll, we can see what is really going on in Hitchens' mind.

From Hitchens, "The President, notwithstanding his shortcomings of intellect, has been able to say, repeatedly and even repetitively, the essential thing: that we are involved in this war without apology and without remorse. He should go further, and admit the evident possibility of defeat--which might concentrate a few minds--while abjuring any notion of capitulation. Senator Kerry is also capable of saying this, but not without cheapening it or qualifying it, so that, in the Nation prisoners' dilemma, he is offering you the worst of both worlds. Myself, I have made my own escape from your self-imposed quandary. Believe me when I say that once you have done it, there's no going back."

From the PIPA press release, "Kull continues, 'To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq.'"

Perhaps Hitchens has switched from alcohol to Kool-Aid.

Truly Fertile Land

2004-10-23T19:35:00.000-04:00

In an article on BBC online, reporter Hugh Sykes focuses on the differences between the American and British approach to the war. There is a clear bias in the article, one which I would be more frustrated with if it did not follow my own line of thinking.

"But I believe this is a vicious circle of their own making, that much of the hatred of the Americans that is now violently expressed was provoked by their ignorant disrespect of decent people.
. . .
Many of us reported at the time that there seemed to be no plan for the peace, that the occupying forces appeared to be out of control.

Retired American General Jay Garner, the first civilian administrator in post-war Iraq, says this was true.

He told the New York Times this month that the Bush administration did not 'have their heads in the post-war game.'
. . .
An Iraqi engineer told me this week: 'The Americans have made this land truly fertile for terrorism.'"

I have no doubt that this is all true; but it does seem disingenuous to compare these facts with the British approach to the Iraqis. The Americans are steering this war and the British are not in quite the same position. I am not arguing with the criticism of the American approach, just the comparison Sykes attempts.

"[British] Brigadier Andrew Kennet believes that "softly, softly" pays off.

He told me 'I did not raze Basra to the ground, but I could have done.'

And he says he received a delegation of local people thanking him for targeting the insurgents and not punishing the whole population."

All in all, the article is a bit weak (originally broadcast on radio) and ends on a sentimental note (with mention of Sept. 11). Still, it supports the basic premise that American mistakes in the war did, in fact, create more problems. Whether it created more problems than it is solving.... well, you all know where I stand on that issue.

'Nuff Said

2004-10-23T18:32:00.000-04:00

_40445375_new_pres_345
Originally uploaded by ccmoira.

Irrational Activities

2004-10-23T07:31:00.000-04:00

So the PIPA poll just confirms what we in the reality-based community knew all along.

Don't hate the Bush-people. They know not what they do.

"Steven Kull, director of PIPA, comments, 'One of the reasons that Bush supporters have these beliefs is that they perceive the Bush administration confirming them. Interestingly, this is one point on which Bush and Kerry supporters agree.' Eighty-two percent of Bush supporters perceive the Bush administration as saying that Iraq had WMD (63%) or that Iraq had a major WMD program (19%). Likewise, 75% say that the Bush administration is saying Iraq was providing substantial support to al Qaeda. Equally large majorities of Kerry supporters hear the Bush administration expressing these views--73% say the Bush administration is saying Iraq had WMD (11% a major program) and 74% that Iraq was substantially supporting al Qaeda.

Steven Kull adds, 'Another reason that Bush supporters may hold to these beliefs is that they have not accepted the idea that it does not matter whether Iraq had WMD or supported al Qaeda. Here too they are in agreement with Kerry supporters.' Asked whether the US should have gone to war with Iraq if US intelligence had concluded that Iraq was not making WMD or providing support to al Qaeda, 58% of Bush supporters said the US should not have, and 61% assume that in this case the President would not have. Kull continues, 'To support the president and to accept that he took the US to war based on mistaken assumptions likely creates substantial cognitive dissonance, and leads Bush supporters to suppress awareness of unsettling information about prewar Iraq.'"

Toadies of the People

2004-10-23T06:37:00.000-04:00

Nice little parody using that wolf ad.
I want to see the media pick up this blog chatter and say, "The Republican's new ad, using wolves to represent terrorists, is being derided as laughable by many on the left." This would be in the vein of creating a story out of nothing. But, of course, that kind of thing never seems to go to the Democrats.

Meanwhile, I was happy to see Marion Barry on the news tonight. He was almost unintelligible in an interview on D.C. News 8.
I found a recent article about Barry that discusses why he was elected to City Council for ward 8, even with his tumultuous past.

"These [scandals] don't come up because Barry's appeal is emotional and specifically designed to override logic.In this regard, Barry is one in a longstanding tradition of American politicians who used images to auger - and even supplant - ideas. . .
'That's why most leaders 'have no personal values,' says psychohistorian Lloyd deMause. 'They just follow whatever irrational wishes we want to pour in them. So you'll get a wide range of personalities who will become these delegates or toadies of the people when the country is in the mood for irrational activities.'"

"Psychohistorian"-? I didn't realize there was such a thing. So, our country is just suffering from some kind of mood swing lately? (Bush and freedom do go together like pickles and ice cream).

Here's some wisdom from Barry:

"I am a great mayor; I am an upstanding Christian man; I am an intelligent man; I am a deeply educated man; I am a humble man." ("I'm good enough, I'm smart enough . . .")

"If you take out the killings, Washington actually has a very very low crime rate." (potential Bush version- "If you take out the killings, Iraq is a success")

Fairness Doctrine: Equal Time to Truth and Lies

2004-10-22T23:12:00.000-04:00

As usual The Daily Howler has done a good job of picking apart the media's inanity.

"Is it normal journalistic practice to do what [Jodi] Wilgoren does—to repeat a factually false bit of mockery by a candidate (Cheney) before mentioning, in passing, that the statement is false? Wilgoren devotes a full paragraph to Cheney’s mocking statement, then spends only half a sentence noting that his statement was bogus—invented, false, made up. Meanwhile, what turns Dana Reeve’s appearance into just “another photo-op?” Surely, everyone understands what that phrase connotes. But Reeve endorsed Kerry for a perfectly valid reason—so what led Wilgoren to pre-trash her appearance? And do we ever see such groaning work anywhere else but the Times?"

This is one reason why it amuses and frustrates me when The New York Times is attacked by people (like Mark Hyman) as an example of liberal media. If this is the best liberals can do, then the Republicans should keep their mouths shut and let liberals shoot themselves in the foot.

I wouldn't be as bothered by this if it was also prevalent in television news. The standard for balance - the standard for what is News - is so low on both cable and network news shows that labels of "conservative" or "liberal" should simply be replaced with "lazy" or "irresponsible."

This type of dubious news is dealt with in the recent Harper's piece Our Friend the Smear: Notes on the origin of specious.
I believe that the conservatives can manipulate the media so well, not because it has some kind of corporate control - though this is certainly a reasonable idea - but because The Media is lazy and Republicans produce better talking points (black-and-white, no nuance, etc.).

"Once a smear has been accepted into the ecosystem, journalists can simply report on the dispute; e.g., the ad was a 'hot potato,' 'very controversial.' This approach allows the smear to grow quickly: if the story is the controversy, then reporters must adopt a mechanical evenhandedness, by which lies and truth are granted equal time.
. . .
Once a smear has survived a few weeks, it can begin to subsist as the basis for itself. The classic indication that a smear has reached this stage is when a candidate is 'dogged by a story that will not go away.'"

The example used in this article is the SBVFT ad campaign. But the same formula can be applied to smaller "news" stories, which are given credence simply because someone (Fox news anchors? NY Times reporters?) reported them somewhere (Fox News Channel? NY Times?).

I am trying not to believe that "victory on Nov. 2 will almost certainly belong to the side that propagates the most effective smear."

I Pity the Fool

2004-10-22T22:23:00.000-04:00

Russia has joined the Kyoto treaty train. Too bad the US is still staunchly against it.

"'We do not believe that the Kyoto Protocol is something that is realistic for the United States and we have no intention of signing or ratifying it,' State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said."
. . .
BBC science analyst Tracey Logan notes that many experts believe that Kyoto will be largely ineffective as the world's two biggest emitters, the US and China, will not cut their outputs."

But even if the US did join, they could buy pollution credits from Russia (carbon-trading).

"Others claim that Europeans will choose to buy Russian 'hot air' rather than tackle the tough job of making emissions cuts. But EU countries have agreed to meet more than half of their emissions targets at home. Moreover, it is not in Russia's interest to dump its carbon credits and risk a price collapse. Since credits are 'bankable', Russia will do better to hold on and hope that America will enter the market in future, greatly lifting their value." - The Economist, Oct. 9th-15th

The treaty is not going to be greatly effective, regardless. Still, I agree with The Economist's assessment that "a less aggressive treaty that actually works is surely better than a failed one."

Of course, the main reason the US cannot sign such a treaty is because it could be used to hold the country accountable to set standards.

In an unrelated note - in that BBC page on the What the World Thinks of America - I found the results of a poll on The Greatest American:

Homer Simpson - 47.17%
Abraham Lincoln - 9.67%
Martin Luther King Jr. - 8.54%
Mr. T - 7.83%
Thomas Jefferson - 5.68%
George Washington - 5.12%
Bob Dylan - 4.71%
Benjamin Franklin - 4.10%
Franklin D. Roosevelt - 3.65%
Bill Clinton - 3.53%
37,102 Votes Cast. Results are indicative and
may not reflect public opinion.

Who knew Mr. T was so popular?