Isle Full of Noises

Today's Debate

2010-02-11T16:38:00.000-08:00

Here's an argument I had with a kid (Andrew, who went to college with me), which happened today on Facebook. It began with my saying that missionaries weren't truly charitable, because part of their work was "marauding for souls," which prohibits pure altruism, which, I argued, could better be achieved by secular humanist charitable works. Andrew objected to that, on the grounds that " most missionaries I know approach their work with a genuine concern for human kind, even if that concern is motivated by an interest in God. The ideology and motivation behind missionary work seems to be the object of your criticism more than its actual practice, which I think is a mistake."

The following discussion ensued. I'll leave it to you to determine who won the debate.

Andrew

I am no longer a practicing Catholic, but I still feel obligated to defend certain aspects of Christianity from what I consider to be blatant misinterpretations due to bad press.

I've been reading Mark Twain lately since the 100th anniversary of his death is coming up. He has some harsh criticisms for zealots, which I believe you could relate to, and I think he accurately criticizes missionaries and donors who use God to stoke their own egos. These are only some people, and unfortunately some of these people are in high places. However, most people I come across are nothing like this. Indeed, a person cannot rightly consider himself a Christian if he goes "marauding for souls" (a catch phrase I now love!)

To the contrary. One can ONLY consider himself a Christian if he evangelizes. If a person truly believes that life is just a brief hiccup before an eternity either of the most ecstatic bliss or the most hideous torture imaginable, what kind of a sick monster would he have to be to reserve any energy in converting whomever he could?

This is not just bad press, and I am not just a layman, spouting catchphrases regarding an area where my ignorance is pitiably vast. It is sheer Catholic doctrine that AIDS is not nearly as bad as condoms are; it is therefore the church’s policy to do charitable works in the most ravished of countries, beset by the most horrifying diseases, that is centered around discouraging condom usage. There are literally millions of people whose death is certain and whose lives are destitute because of this type of charity. And I’m certain the missionaries are perfectly nice people.

Charity inspired not by some belief in a celestial autocratic thought-police but instead by a secular, humanistic regard for relieving suffering would never make such a folly. We are vastly worse off as a species and a planet for extending too much reverence to what seem like perfectly nice missionaries carrying out religious missions of the type they do.

Andrew

You clearly do not understand Christianity if that is how you attempt to define it. So please don't continue with this evangelical thread.

To say that millions have died as a result of Catholic charity is a gross misstatement. I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. I agree that Catholic policy was flawed regarding condoms - and it is now being changed, I believe - but with that being said, I have trouble faulting them for pushing abstinence. Those policies are in place for a very significant religous reason after all. And it's not like the church is wrong to suggest that people are gambling with their lives by sleeping around anyway. The catholic church is not the cause of these problems, and, frankly, the church provides a shit load of support when whole nations or even secular arrogance fails to respond.

There are many issues; to say that missionary work is most at fault is to be picking out of the wrong ass. People like you pick on Christianity all the time and you seem to have no real clue what the hell you're discussing. It is true that the church goes too far to push its own agenda sometimes, but the same can be said about many "organizations". A simple fact is that there are countless affluent Christians offering aid - as has always been the case - and they are not doing it simply to evangelize as you claim, but they are doing it because they believe that is what is expected of them by their God.

If you ever expect to be heard by a Christian audience, tame your outrage a bit and try to understand where these people are coming from. Otherwise, you're just blowing a lot of hot air...a whole fucking lot of it.

Furthermore, you're getting worked up over the radical, self-righteous missionaries who make a lot of noise. Do you have any idea just how many people go to foreign countries to provide assistance? Many, many people. And most of them aren't jumping up on soapboxes with bullhorns preaching the good word. They're helping rebuild homes and roads, they're handing out food, they're providing medical assistance. Their help isn't predicated some sort of "conversion quota"...honestly, Jesse? And yet you want to get worked up over this condom bullshit and make wild claims that the church is the cause of millions of deaths. What the fuck, man? You say that secular "humanitarian" aid wouldn't make these mistakes. Well how many of these people do you know who take time out of their priveleged, educated lifes to help others? I don't know too many. And I greatly respect anyone who does make that effort, religous or not.

In Uganda, a country already demolished by a legacy of colonialism and by the brutal Idi Amin dictatorship, a public health drive based around the ABC method of AIDS prevention (Abstinence, Be faithful, and proper use of Condoms) was achieving startlingly successful results, until the Catholics threatened to withdraw their considerable efforts there, unless condoms were eliminated from the scheme. This resulted in an enormous spike in AIDS numbers, bringing the problem to pandemic proportions. And that’s just Uganda.

What God cruel enough to demand such callous abandonment could be worthy of praise and supplication? There is no denying that abstinence and fidelity are good ways to avoid contracting HIV, but condoms are a crucial part as well, and anyone who denies that point or degrades condoms’ importance (I was sorry to see you call them “bullshit”) is either frightfully mistaken or criminally dishonest.

What’s more, your claim that this policy is being changed is supported by nothing at all beyond your own conjecture. Such a wildly unsubstantiated assertion is deeply beneath you. You are exactly right, though, when you say that this policy is in place for specific religious reasons. But that is not an excuse for the results; rather, the results are a stinging indictment of the religion. What a wicked policy, born of a religion with a wicked lack of regard for the suffering its policies cause.

If it provides you comfort, you may by all means feel free to proclaim my ignorance, but I would much rather you deprive yourself temporarily of your emotional attachment to the defense of this religion and engage in the only kind of rigorous analysis that befits someone of your intellectual pedigree.

You are indeed a bright man, and you went to a good school; surely, therefore, the irony is not lost on you when you implore my pity for the poor, picked-on Catholics, who for centuries dominated the globe at the point of a sword, instituting the chattel enslavement of women and the battery and immolation of homosexuals wherever they went. This gigantic empire with virtually unrivaled power and finances ought to be the recipient of my sympathy? To the contrary, you must forgive me if I point out that any reasonably neutral reading of history compels me to look on the Catholic agenda with contempt and fear and ridicule.

You must also surely acknowledge the irony implicit in casting Catholics as humble and secular humanists as arrogant. Which is the group who claims not only to know that God exists, not only to know God’s will (including for our sexual and dietary habits), but indeed to be on a divinely ordained and required mission? This is the farthest conceivable thing from humility, and I reject the notion that you can’t see as much.

Andrew, I’ll assent to no one’s instruction to tame my outrage in the face of the sweltering conditions created by this kind of demagogy, and you would be well advised when you issue such instructions in the future, not to do it in the same sentence as taunts and aspersions unutterable on network television. No, no: I demand the right to get all worked up over this kind of thing, as you clearly demand the right to get all worked up in response, to the point of swearing and hurling insults.

Finally, in response to your question about how many secular humanists take time out of our privileged, educated lives to help others (as though it requires privilege to believe in no God, and as though education were deserving of scorn and mockery), I would first off mention myself. Not only do I teach in the most impoverished public schools in New York city and devote considerable amounts of my time to defending the worst off from the forces that seek to exploit and oppress them, but I have, indeed, paid handsomely to travel to the third world, in order to build health clinics and distribute aid to the suffering. In case your question was actually curious, and not just haughty and derisive, I would also commend to your attention to Doctors without Borders, The Red Cross, Amnesty International and the World Wildlife Fund, to name a very few.

JAM

Andrew

As far as you thinking I called condoms "bullshit," that is inaccurate. I'm all for condoms. As I said, I don't support church policy on the matter. What I am calling bullshit is the claim that many millions of people died as a result of the Church's policy. I am aware of what you are referring to in Uganda. I wish the Church would have allowed condom usage. But when a group offers support, they're sure as hell not going to support something that goes against a very important aspect of their ideology. You can say that the Church caused several millions of deaths, but that same slippery slope argument could be turned right back around and a Christian could claim that those condoms withheld several million lives from springing forth. I think they're both bullshit arguments. So please don't misappropriate my curse words.

As for the claim about policy change, it is not merely conjecture. I wish I could present a source, but a brief search on google did not reveal anything. I did not mean to suggest that there has already been a change in policy; rather, that condom usage is a major point of discussion within the Church at this particular point in time. I suspect the policy will be altered soon. I cannot say for sure, though.

For what it's worth, I am already aware of your own contributions. As I said, I think that's awesome. And I am not asking you to be sympathetic of the Catholic Church. I abandoned Christianity for many of the same reasons you mention above for why you dislike Catholicism. I suppose I am an agnostic. So I am not writing you through some inane love of God and the Catholic Church. I am writing because I don't think you adequately understand Christians. You can point out all the Catholic atrocities you want, it doesn't change the fact that Christian aid plays a major and useful role in third world countries. God inspires compassion (and occasionally hate) like no other thing. Without the Church, many people wouldn't even think to offer support. This is a good thing.

A few more instructions:

1. There is no need for you to continue to remind me of my own intelligence. I've been aware of it since a young age.

2. Not everyone takes Facebook as seriously as you, so please excuse my informal discussion methods.

3. You do need to tame your rage or else you're going to accomplish about as little as our split Congress has done.

4. Understanding Christians and not insulting them as much as you do might actually help them listen to you. Because I sure as hell am not hearing much, and I'm not even a Christian.

5. Missionary work still does a lot more good than bad.

As far as me "hurling insults," I am sorry, that is not my intention. I'm typing these messages on an iphone; curse words help add emphasis.

Equating the validity of the point that removing condoms from the equation yielded the direct consequence of a staggering surge in AIDS contractions (a point for which there is considerable empirical evidence) with the point that condom usage is corrosive to life in any important way (a position you rightly see as ludicrous, and ludicrously unscientific) and then dismissing both as "bullshit" is at best a diversion from the salient point. I was, of course, referring to your contention that I "want to get worked up over this condom bullshit," which certainly looks to me like you're calling condoms bullshit. I appreciate the clarification, even if it doesn't make me less confused about what you initially meant.

Sadly, the inaccessibility of any evidence to support your "suspicion" that major changes are in the works within the upper-echelons of the church hierarchy goes a long way to proving that it is, as I called it, mere conjecture on your part. I'm not sure what you think that word means, but there is no need to concede the point, as I've already, rather snidely, claimed it as mine in favor.

You are fully entitled to believe that I don't understand Christians. In once sense, you are probably right. Never having been a Christian, there are severe limits on the depths of my understanding about what it must feel like to worship Christ. But I wasn't making any claims about that sort of thing. Rather, I characterized Catholic doctrine and beliefs in an unimpeachably accurate way. You have yet to show me how any of the things I've said is inaccurate. It IS Catholic dogma that condoms are an insufferable evil, no matter what sort of disease and misery they prevent. It IS Catholic dogma that life is just a blip at the beginning of an eternity composed either of excruciating torment or delirious bliss. It IS Catholic dogma that the Pope knows God's existence, knows God's will and can transmit holy missions to his followers. So, you might disagree with my analysis that these make Catholicism wicked or arrogant, but you cannot meaningfully claim that they are misunderstandings of Christianity.

It is very unbecoming to receive instructions one hasn't solicited. I'll thank you to concede that argumentation and exposure of hypocrisy do indeed accomplish things and that, where I see evil, I needn't feel compelled to coddle it, in the interest of convincing people. Furthermore, it is not the ferocity of the argumentation that has stalled our congress, so best not to appeal to that offhandedly as illustrative.

You may be right that missionary work does more good than bad, but that's not a dispositive point, in my eyes. In fact, it's completely irrelevant. I am not seeking to compare the good missionary work does with the bad it does. I am seeking to compare the good and bad missionary work does with the good and bad secular charity work does. The bad that missionary work does all derives from its religious provenance, which is gleefully absent from secular charity work.

Lastly, I extend you my sympathy that your iPhone prevents cogent debate from attaining the same levels of emphatic efficacy as curse words. May I recommend switching to a BlackBerry?

Andrew

Good god, man, find a sense of humor. Good work misinterpreting some things I've said. Regarding Congress, I'm merely referring to the lack of compromise between democrats and republicans. So, yes, it is illustrative. Also, I'm not sure where you found that description of the pope, but it is not accurate. The pope is a man like anyone else, and there has been nothing ever said about how he is in some sort of priveleged communication with God. As for the church's policy on condoms, I heard a news story on NPR recently about it, and it has been an ongoing discussion within the church community - this I know from first-hand experience. Excuse me, if I don't care enough about this discussion to provide you adequate references. With regards to your failure to understand Christianity, you've pointed out certain aspects, but what I really mean is that you don't understand how a Christian thinks or why he acts. This is really what matters to this discussion. You claim a Christian must evangelize, but that is not the case. Christians carry with them a genuine compassion for humankind that is inspired by their love for God. This compassion is unparalleled by most unreligous people, primarily because Christians are acting this way since they consider it their duty.

I've always thought you were a condescending asshole with little to offer but a stubborn ear, but this conversation confirms it. I'm done.

Signing out.

Good talk.

The five women on NBC’s Thursday night line-up whom I'm most in love with, (in order of the fervency of my adoration), and how come

2010-01-11T03:18:00.000-08:00

1. Ellie Kemper (The Office)

Because she is unfailingly kind, unless her face is being mutilated by avian beasts, and, even then, you get the feeling she had tried so hard to be kind for so long and it was only at this last straw that she even raised her voice a decible. Her kindness has the unsettling effect of confusing me as to whether she’s incredibly stupid or just ultimately accomodating. She might be a sage, after all, and her ability to maintain the mystery of What Her Deal Is while remaining compelling for as long as she has been on the series only heightens the sex-appeal. Also, that smile.

2. Allison Brie (Community)

Because she is so much prettier than she thinks she is, and because she is the only real source of empathy I have found in the show (despite the writers many attempts at making me care for Chevy Chase’s character, all I can see is the man who got high with my friends at graduation – his reunion year is the same as mine). Let us not pretend that her status isn’t helped by her also being on Mad Men, the greatest running television drama (being on the best drama and one of the few best comedies at the same time is a pretty stunning television feat, if you think about it, and I can’t actually think of another person who’s done it, save for Jon Hamm’s brief plotline on 30 Rock).

3. Rashida Jones (Parks & Recreation) (Also, The Office)

Because, even though I know that she’s Supposed To Be The Hot One, a quality for which she would normally receive a hefty point-reduction, she really is that hot. Also, her voice is terrifically alluring, as is her parentage.

4. Tina Fey (30 Rock)

Because she has that most-sought-after quality of being someone who is otherwise quite pretty and takes pains to make herself less attractive. Also, I am so into the impulse to sit around, eating junk food and vegetating in comfortable clothing.

5. Draw: Aubrey Plaza (Parks & Recreation) and Jenna Fischer (The Office)

Because Plaza seems like she’d be a really mean/sexy girlfriend and Fischer seems like she’d be a really kind/sexy girlfriend.

Honorable mention:

- Alec Baldwin (30 Rock)

Because, despite his apparent failure to adhere to the gender strictures of the list, no document on my television crushes would be complete without at least his mention.

Totally not into:

- Gillian Jacobs (Community)

- Katrina Bowden (30 Rock)

Because too much is made of their being hot, and neither one is interesting, though, at least in Cerie’s case, that’s the whole bit. In Britta’s case, she’s supposed to be interesting, but I fall asleep whenever the plot steers her way. Also, the Will They Or Won’t They factor of her relationship with Joel McHale’s Jeff lost its appeal several weeks before the show

Movie Review: Avatar (SPOILER ALERT!)

2009-12-23T18:15:00.001-08:00

“Wake up,” one character or another time and again implores, during the two hours and forty minutes that constitute Avatar. What is the dream world and what the real is an important question raised by James Cameron’s 3D opus. Like The Matrix before it, it tries to grapple with a vaguely Baudrillardian concept of the fusion of reality with simulations of itself. Not only does our hero, Jake Sulley (played by Sam Worthington in a Southie accent), undergo a Neo-like process by which his actual body sacrifices consciousness in order to inhabit a fictitious body, but armor-warriors in the shape of (and concentrically controlled by) humans and helicopters with complex radar systems come face to face in battle with the flora and fauna (all bioluminescent on Cameron’s planet, Pandora) whose instincts and natural skills they can only hope to re-create passably.

It is difficult to see how this Pandora releases evil into the universe, but easy to see how it retains hope. And in the Obama post-racial, post-imperialist era of hope, when racism and imperialism are so very alive and well, it is important that we investigate the hopes of the characters on screen and their real-life counterparts (here is another simulation: cinematic allegory).

“Wake up,” the movie tells us, calling to mind the opening line of Spike Lee’s Do The Right Thing (the same as the last line Lee used in School Daze, …Right Thing’s immediate predecessor). But where Lee takes an infuriatingly subtle, all-questions-and-no-answers approach to investigating the local, domestic effects of imperialism, Cameron offers a heavy-handed view of the conquest that got us there, as wide as the screen its astonishing technology must be viewed upon.

The exposition is clumsier than Jake is, when first he tries on his new (blue, 9’-tall) body. The voice-overs tell us that we are living in a future (2154, as it turns out), in which American corporations have their own privately hired and maintained armed forces to do their resource-gathering for them. In the era of Blackwater, this may turn out to be one of the more accurate predictions this piece of sci-fi makes. But Cameron couldn’t entrust all the explanation to Jake’s disembodied voice, or even to the vlog he keeps on his interplanetary mission. Some of it he foists on other characters, with all the subtlety of a mega-helicopter, loaded with explosives. Our Erik Prince character is Parker Selfridge, portrayed admirably-enough by Giovanni Ribsi. “We’re here,” he tells whatever character, “because this element (Unobtainium, which must have been so dubbed by Dickens) will make us rich, and we’ve got to remove the impediment posed by the savages who control it” – words, paraphrased; nuance, preserved.

That out of the way, the dialogue launches straight into its M.O.: setting up lines that can be repeated later in the film, to great emotional effect. “I see you,” a favorite, here, works alongside the aforementioned “wake up,” reminding us that Cameron wants us to be aware of awareness. Bizarrely, uses of the word “bitch” accompany most of the films other punch-lines. Why such a crummy screenplay is the vehicle chosen for such a compelling story and such astonishing cinematic techniques is anyone’s guess, but the real source of questions is the allegory and what, specifically, it allegorizes.

There is a case to be made that it is about Iraq (not least because the invading force is after a valuable natural resource hidden in the ground or because assorted characters actually use phrases like “shock and awe,” “using terror against terror” and “pre-emptive strike,” as if we wouldn’t have seen the parallel without those ball-peen hammers to our skulls). There is, however, another case to be made that it is about the American Indians (there is a definite sense of Manifest Destiny in how Selfridge and Col. Miles Quaritch, portrayed by Stephen Lang, talk about the “savage” natives – Na’vi, they’re called – and the Westward-expansionist tactics they use on the Na’vi; additionally, the spiritual ancestor/nature-worship of the Na’vi could have been culled directly from the fine folks at RDNA). Thirdly, some will call it Vietnam (we are in a jungle, the helicopters employ the use of distinctly napalm-like bombs, there is a for-custom-only attempt at diplomacy “to win the hearts and minds” of Pandora’s inhabitants and the protectors of this valuable ore).

Doubtless, there is connective tissue in these three historical episodes: a massive military power dehumanizing the inhabitants of a less technologically-sophisticated society, in order to justify an invasion whose barbarism would otherwise be inescapable. The devil, though, is in the details, and the questions arise when the audience in the theater begins cheering for the Na’vi in the climactic battle-scene. Are they applauding the American Indian Movement? The Viet Cong? Hareth al-Dhari’s wahabist/salafist followers? Do these earthling-invaders aspire to a permanent military occupation? Are they playing galactic power-games? Are they plopping ignorantly into the midst of a civil war whose violence is likely to flare up upon withdrawal?

A further conflation is offered by James Horner’s score. Normally Irish-flavored, as it was in Cameron’s last film, Titanic, Horner imbues Avatar’s score with an Africanness akin to the incidental music in The Lion King (and the Na’vi are given distinctly Massai features and Zulu garb/height). Neytiri, the love interest, voiced by the always-excellent Zoe Saldana, is given a considerably less “African look” than her countrymen, which I won’t attempt to interpret.

From the first moment she appears on the screen, bow arched to kill Jake, (which an omen, in the form of a sacred blossom, prevents), we know there will be love between them. It’s solidified when, in their first encounter, thousands of such blossoms, like the butterflies in One Hundred Years of Soltude, cover Jake’s body, Neytiri slack-jawed as she looks on. The consummation of their love takes the form of a very strange sex scene between two digital nine-footers, neither of whom could way more than 150 pounds (the biologist in me wishes the scene would take a much more X-rated turn, curious as I am about these creatures’ ever-concealed genetalia).

There is something rather lovely said in the film about Marines, when Jake’s survival and combat skills make him worthy in a way unique among the avatars, the rest of whom are all scientists, to earn the trust of Neytiri and her compatriots. Contrasted with Semper Fi’s conduct in Iraq, this proposition is laughable, or infuriating, or, as has so often been the case since 9/11, both. Jake, the (blue) white guy, goes on to lead the Na’vi in battle against the military force whence he comes, which raises other questions –which John is he: Brown or Walker Lindh? Can’t the Na’vi fight under their own leadership, as the Vietnamese did?

The most devastating scene is the one in which the invading troops destroy the “hometree,” the massive arboreal metropolis the Na’vi inhabit, the devastation a sign of one of the film’s major triumphs: in a way only Wall-E has done before, it dramatizes nature as a cinematic character to care for, to empathize with, to wish to protect. Very frequently, invading armies carelessly (or maliciously) destroy areas and relics of enormous spiritual significance to the invaded people. The closest thing we have is the World Trade Center, and look at the fury its destruction conjured.

But ecology, imperialism, racism, militarism and semiotics were not grand enough fields of investigation for Cameron. Finally, he takes on the question of the relationship between science and religion. Unlike the real, evangelizing Erik Prince, our Selfridge character appears to be secularly motivated; same goes for Col. Quaritch, who is similarly divergent from his real-life counterparts. Nor have they any regard for the spiritual beliefs and practices of the Na’vi. It is, perhaps counter-intuitively, the scientists among the Americans who have the greatest reverence for and wish to understand Na’vi spirituality. It is clear that Na’vi religious dogma, including worshop of the Gaia-esque Eywa (Yaweh? Allah? The linguists who compose the Na’vi language were clever), is attempting to explain the same natural phenomena as the science team, led by Cameron-favorite Sigourney Weaver, only in different vocabularies. What Neytiri calls “the energy of life,” Weaver’s character, Dr. Grace Augustine, explains in scientific terms as a sort of natural Internet, a network of synaptic connections between the living beings of Pandora that allows them to upload and download data.

This seems a bit charitable to religion, which has produced nothing like the clear access the Na’vi have to this energy-network (after all, every member of every species on Pandora is equipped what looks like a mix between frayed electrical wire and an anemone, the touching-together of any two of which will provide a sort of Vulcan mind-meld), but at least Cameron does not weigh in on that element of religion that breeds fanatic, militant fundamentalists: miracle.

Until the end. In the films last shot, a dead Jake’s eye opens for just a moment before the credits roll, the savior of the faithful resurrected (unintentional, I’m sure – cough) to settle the question in a way that Spike Lee would never have done, ending Do The Right Thing with conflicting quotations about the film’s central question.

The real question here is whether Jake’s eyes opening will be enough to open the eyes of Avatar’s viewers? Will we, after this much pestering, finally decide to wake up?

62 Pop Songs that Mean the Decade to Me

2009-12-16T11:31:00.000-08:00

(The 7 Most Important, In No Order, Bolded)

99 Problems by Jay-Z

All Falls Down by Kanye West

All the Small Things by Blink 182

Anyone Else But You by The Moldy Peaches

Are You Gonna Be My Girl? by Jet

Bandages by Hot Hot Heat

Beautiful Day by U2

The Blast by Reflection Eternal

Californication by The Red Hot Chilli Peppers

The Call by The Backstreet Boys

Casimir Pulaski Day by Sufjan Stevens

Crazy by Gnarls Barkley

Cicatriz ESP by The Mars Volta

Cry Me A River by Justin Timberlake

D.A.N.C.E. by Justice

Digital Love by Daft Punk

Everything in Its Right Place by Radiohead

Extraordinary Machine by Fiona Apple

Fallin’ by Alicia Keys

Fancy Claps by Wolf Parade

Get It Together by The Go! Team

Grindin’ by The Clipse

The Healer by Erykah Badu

Hey Ya by Outkast

Hide and Seek by Imogen Heap

How It Ends by DeVotchKa

I Luv Your Girl by The Dream

I Try by Macy Gray

I’m Yours by Jason Mraz

Instant Pleasure by Rufus Wainwright

Irreplacable by Beyonce

Jerusalem by Steve Earle

Kids by MGMT

LDN by Lily Allen

Like Glue by Sean Paul

The Luckiest by Ben Folds

Maps by The Yeah Yeah Yeahs

No One Knows by Queens of the Stone Age

Paper Planes by M.I.A.

Peach, Plum, Pear by Joanna Newsom

Red Right Ankle by The Decemberists

Saint Simon by The Shins

The Seed (2.0) by The Roots feat. Cody ChestnuTT

Sleepyhead by Passion Pit

Such Great Heights by The Postal Service

Superstarr Pt. Zero by k-os

Sweetest Girl by Wyclef Jean feat. Lil’ Wayne and Akon

Swing Swing by The All American Rejects

Take Me Out by Franz Ferdinand

Tell Me When To Go By E-40 feat. Keak da Sneak

Toxic by Britney Spears

Travelin’ Soldier by The Dixie Chicks

Tribute by Tenacious D

Underneath It All by No Doubt

Untitled (How Does It Feel?) by D’Angelo

Us by Regina Spektor

We Need a Resolution by Aaliyah

Welcome To Jamrock by Damian Marley

When She Believes by Ben Harper

Wildcat by Ratatat

You Know I’m No Good by Amy Winehouse

Your Body Is A Wonderland by John Mayer

Break with the Democrats: now or never.

2009-12-07T15:36:00.000-08:00

As with many bloggers, I have converted most of what would constitute short blog posts into Tweets. This will mostly be used for longer things that I couldn't hope to do justice on Twitter. Wouldn't you know it; today, just such a thing has arisen.

The impetus for it is this poll from Rassmussen.

In a three-way Generic Ballot test, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds Democrats attracting 36% of the vote. The Tea Party candidate picks up 23%, and Republicans finish third at 18%. Another 22% are undecided.

I want to argue that this is the perfect opportunity to split from the Democratic Party. The majority of my fellow left-wing Americans would likely argue that now, with the right so fractured, is the perfect time to double down on the Democratic Party, marshal all of its energy and conquer what has divided on its own. This is a faulty argument for two reasons.

1) The Democrats suck anyway. Anyone who has had any hope that the Democrats would take the opportunity of a badly bruised and internally pugnacious right wing to shove progressive reform through need only look around to see that's not going to happen (Wall Street shills Geithner and Summers have the reigns of the economy, neo-conservative hawks Stanley McChrystal and David Petraeus are controlling our foreign policy, and corporate PACs have bought and paid for a handful of right-wing Democratic senators who exploit the Senate's arcane and undemocratic rules in order to hold the country hostage). We've given trillions to banks who are still not lending. We're escalating the war in Afghanistan to frightening heights. We're on the verge of passing a health care reform bill that addresses neither health nor care nor reform. Guantanamo's staying open, the drone attacks in Pakistan continue, cap & trade gets kicked down the road, unemployment increases, &c., &c., &c. What good is the right's fracturing doing the left? Very little.

2) It lacks a long view. In essence, as I argued in my health care post, the only way for the left to move the Democratic Party (and the public discourse, and the nation's legislative agenda) is to show the Democratic bigwigs that they cannot count on us for votes, that if they want our support to elect them and do the grassroots activist legwork necessary to advance a policy vision, they will have to cater that policy vision to our wants and needs. As it currently stands, we make demands (a robust public option), they eschew them (an opt-in, opt-out, triggered, non-universal public option), and we fold (what are we going to do, vote against health care reform?). Our options apart from the Democrats, in essence, are the Republicans and Greens. We wouldn't side with the Republicans because we disagree with them on everything, and we wouldn't side with the Greens, because they have no party structure or electoral prowess. So, in the long-term, we've got to figure out a way that we can give ourselves a viable alternative to the Democratic Party (and, in so doing, put pressure on the Democratic Party to adopt a much more progressive stance on everything). Doubling down on the Democrats while the right is split makes this goal much less easily attainable.

Ergo...

So, if the final goal is splitting from the Democratic Party, what better time is there than now? Would it be better when the tables of power are essentially even? No, of course not, that would hand power to the right wing. What about when the right is in power? No, of course not, that consolidates their mandate. Right now!

Let there be four parties: the maniacal far-right Tea Party, the pathetic and bankrupt right-wing Republican Party, the moderate Democratic Party and a strong, energetic, socialistic new party, name irrelevant. I can't believe there are any serious, thinking people who are convinced that a bi-partial system is better than a poly-partial system. Now is the time.

Too bad we're not going to seize it.

Timon of Athens - my initial ideas

2009-11-12T20:30:00.001-08:00

I have just finished my closest reading yet of Timon of Athens, and I am floored firstly by how difficult it will be to direct and secondly by how rich it is in lessons and questions about our modern political power situation.

I am convinced by the scholarship maintaining that this was not a finished script, though I am not convinced that this was a collaboration with Middleton or any other writer – but I’m not sure I care enough to devote overmuch time to an investigation of as much. The storytelling is so uneven (the main character only gets interesting in the fourth act, and that is when the drama becomes protracted and shoddy) and Shakespeare’s relationship to consistency so casual (various lines indicate very clearly features about the timing of the play and motives of the characters that are at direct odds with what other various lines and scenarios indicate) that I cannot believe this to have been a finished product of the same dramatist who composed such tidy stories as The Tempest and Measure for Measure.

In addition to the dramaturgy of the thing, the language is amazingly complex, with more mystifying phrases with no attractive explanations than all but the most esoteric history plays (King John and Richard II come to mind). It will really require the most top-notch Shakespeare-speakers to pull off making clear the ideas – often presented in off-meter lines – the characters mean to express. Also, there are about forty too many characters both for my budget and sense of how this drama has to be expressed – I propose conflating all Timon’s servants into the newly-beefed-up character of Flavius and doing away with the Poet, Painter, Jeweler, Merchant and all the small roles, including the bandits. I think the play can and should be done with Timon, a composite Flavius, Apamantus, Alcibiades and four composite Senators, incorporating all the Lords and other debtors, who consume their servants. It’s a very masculine play (about which, more presently), so I propose also cutting Alcibiades’ two prostitutes and the ladies at the masque.

At its very core, this play is the fullest, most honest look into the drivers of the social order in a society, the true power-holders. Even in plays about kings like Richard III, there seems to be a lot left up to historical processes (without a cataclysmic battle of Tewkesbury, would there have been the type of power-vacuum that would allow for the ascent of a despot like Richard?), where in plays like Macbeth, magic and the cosmos seem the real movers and shakers. In Timon, we are really glimpsing the back-rooms of the halls of power in Athens (the parties where the rich cavort with one another, the senate sessions where military decisions are controlled), and we get to see what would happen if, unlike in America, where whistle-blowers tend to be low-level officials who can write books about their inside knowledge, but cannot dismantle institutions, a truly powerful faction went, as they say, rogue.

I see the part of the play before Timon’s adoption of Apamantus’ churlish philosophy as being really some mixture of Bilderberg conferences, Skull and Bones rituals, C Street Family life and Wall Street cocktail parties. But before we get there, the question of who Timon is looms large. It is unclear how old he is and what he’s done in his life. What are his motives? Whence his wealth? The only real clue we’ve got to Timon’s past is Alcibiades’ reference in IV, iii:

I have heard, and grieved,
How cursed Athens, mindless of thy worth,
Forgetting thy great deeds, when neighbor states,
But for thy sword and fortune, trod upon them,--

Some take this as an indication that Timon once had a glorious history as a soldier. But the paucity of remarks about that makes this explanation unlikely, as does the yet-lingering problem of how he was able to garner such riches. I choose not to read it as a sword Timon himself wielded, but rather take the phrase “thy sword and fortune” as a whole to indicate that Timon is a war-profiteer. It could be that he was a proto-Lockheed-Martin, but the Senators’ 11th hour effort to convince him to take Athens’ side against Alcibiades’ insurrection rests on the faith that soldiers would follow him as they would no one else in a war. I find myself wanting to think of him as a proto-Erik Prince, a financer of a private army who thrived on government contracts with the Athenian Senate.

These parties at Timon’s house are not just extravagant galas, in this context, but something rather more insidious: boisterous, drink-sodden gatherings of the highest powers in the nation: politicians, military brass, corporate interests and bankers. The ostensible democracy in Athens (to be clear, we are obviously talking about America here) is revealed actually to be an oligarchy, where a small number of very powerful men make all the choices (and men they are, indeed). I picture Timon’s house as a very expensive, all-white penthouse apartment with neon-lit pole dancers and thousands of candles. I picture the men drinking until they have some kind of fight-club. I picture secret rituals and conspiratorial horse-trading.

No one ever leaves congregations like these in America (and I’m clear that, yes, there really are such congregations), so we don’t know what it would look like if anyone ever did, though I’m given to suspect that things like assassination are not at all out of the realm of possibility. Much less have we a precedent for what would happen in America when an American equivalent to Alcibiades abandons and opposes the army. We see military coups much more in Latin America (less now than in the 1970’s, but Honduras had one very recently). Imagine a General Powell or Petraus (or better yet, both simultaneously, if we are to simulate the amount of military sway I imagine Alcibiades to wield) revealing the US government to be deeply corrupt and imploring the military to join them in overthrowing the government. That is the chaos that befalls Athens by the end of the play.

I am not sure how I see the second half looking, but I know I have some pretty radical ideas for certain moments, which I’ll keep to myself, and for some script re-ordering. I am very excited and terrified by this play.

I take it back.

2009-10-29T12:16:00.000-07:00

The house did not release a robust public option, either. Specifically, the rates are not fixed, as I predicted last night they would be, at Medicare plus 5%, but now have to be negotiated with the corporate for-profit insurance cartel. Almost no hope now for very good health care reform. Lesson: give up.

On the Health Care Question

2009-10-28T16:53:00.000-07:00

A lot of people have asked me recently what I think of the health care bill. Here are my thoughts. Sorry there are no pictures or videos; just text. -JAM

I - On understanding the urgency of getting it right this time, and on what getting it right would mean

I am hardly the first to lay out the history of health reform in the United States, or, more properly put, the history of how the insurance cartels, drug manufacturers, hospitals and all other people and groups who profit from keeping people sick have thwarted that reform every time it is proposed. Truman first put it on the mythical and elusive “national agenda” and since his time in the White House, universal health care has constituted a plank in every national Democratic platform. If there is a cause that came to epitomize liberalism in the second half of the twentieth century, it was thirst for a national health plan.

Truman, of course, presided over the American years that immediately followed World War II, in which virtually every country in Europe was brought to the brink of extinction. Germany, France, England and all the rest had their national infrastructures decimated, their major metropolitan centers bombed all to nothing and their populations wiped out for a solid generation. Yet somehow, in the interim years, all of those countries have come to develop systems, not all identical, which ensure that every citizen in those countries is entitled to medical attention when they need it, with no further risk to their financial and social health beyond what the sickness or injury itself represents.

The United States has had its priorities elsewhere, as the many millions of uninsured Americans can attest. We have a number of things in this country that almost constitute health care systems. We have Medicare, a system whereby the government reimburses the private doctors and hospitals and pharmaceutical companies for the needs of the American elderly; Canada provides this for all citizens, not just those 65 and up. We have the Veteran’s Administration, which employs doctors and nurses and staffs hospitals and provides direct medical assistance to former enlisted men and women; England provides this for all citizens, not just those who’ve fought in the armed services. Apart from those two things, the rest is essentially an unregulated anarchy of corporate interests, whose primary goal is maximizing profits, colluding with one another to set prices and scheming new ways not to have to provide health care, which would cut into their windfall profits.

“Getting it right” would mean taking those disparate elements and forming them into a coherent national health care system which, even if it did not provide universal health care, would obviate the need for further large-scale overhauls. Imagine that the health care bill that President Obama signed into law extended Medicare to everyone 50 and up and 25 and down, for instance. While leaving people 25-50 to find private insurance, either through their employers or unions or on their own dimes, the organizational stage would be set for a massive broadening of Medicare’s scope, with an eye toward filling in that gap at a later date (a far smaller project, for which the organizational infrastructure would already exist).

I will spare you the arguments that a national health plan like England’s or a single-payer system like Canada’s would be the ideal, preferring to assume that what readership this blog gets is already convinced of those points. Without a relentless,15-year long, party-unified campaign for one of those systems, such a thing would be impossible in the United States, which is a far more conservative, corporate-controlled and larger country than those others. I am working from a stand-point of what is achievable in the current situation, without the alternative history O’Donnell outlines. Instead of such a campaign, we have heard again and again that once Democrats got filibuster-proof control of the Senate, we’d have our day. Well, we’ve now got those 60 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, an enormous majority in the House, a new, popular president and a considerable majority of the citizenry on the side of a “public option.” The political circumstances have never been nor are likely soon to be preferable to these. If we do not enact the major overhaul now, it will not happen. And, of course, a great many more people will go bankrupt or die needlessly. That is the urgency of getting it done now. This is that swelteringly rare alignment of the planets, and the stakes are life and death, higher than which no stakes exist.

II – On where we stand right now

The first presidential candidate I can remember proposing what we now call a “public option” as central to his health care policy was John Edwards, and it was a major reason I supported him. His version was a lot like the one Ron Wyden of Oregon proposed in the Senate Finance Committee, viz. the government establishes a massive health insurance plan of its own that anyone can buy into or switch to, creating marketplace competition with the insurance cartel and thereby driving down costs and driving up standards. The insurance companies would have to lower rates and stop rejecting people based on pre-existing conditions and the like, or risk losing their customers to this government-backed plan. This would not be a for-profit plan and it would not have to lobby or advertise or do any of the other non-health-care-administering functions that cost private insurers so much money. Its attention would not be divided between its customers and its shareholders.

At the risk of undercutting a central Democratic claim about the public option, I have to say that I think such a thing would indeed lead to a government take-over of health care. The private insurers, having all those other needs that would disable them from competing with the government plan would necessarily topple, leaving a singly-payer system, like England’s, in its wake. That would be good.

Edwards, during his 2004 campaign, was very clear about how he intended to get a plan like that passed: if the congress did not create it within 100 days, a President Edwards would strip members of congress of the lavish health care they enjoy. If it’s good enough for the American people to have to sweat and strain to find health care, it’s good enough for Congress. Likewise, if it’s good enough for Congress to have its health care paid for by the government, it’s good enough for the American people. President Obama is not nearly so combative. As a result, we have had the health care debate that we have had, with endless numbers of types of public option floated and unsuccessfully explained, with angry town halls in August and a ludicrous and undemocratic Gang of Six in the Senate Finance Committee holding the country hostage. Finally, we now know what the Senate and House bills will look like.

The House bill will look a lot like Edwards and Wyden’s proposals. Anyone can buy in, and the rates would be fixed at Medicare’s rates plus 5%. This is what is meant by “robust,” when politicians and pundits refer to a “robust public option.” Chris Dodd, sending out a mailer to supporters, called what Harry Reid, Rahm Emanuel, Max Baucus and he created in conference out of the two Senate health care bills a “robust public option.” He was lying. It is not a robust public option.

For example, it is only available to those who are uninsured. It is, of course, good to ensure the uninsured, but it is too small a percentage of the population to give the government plan the clout and market share it would need to compete meaningfully against the insurance giants. To take on wolves, you need a wolf, not a really pesky bobcat. To take on wolves this evil, you need a fucking rhinoceros. People would not be able to switch from the private health care they already have to the public option, which is how the whole competition thing works. If the government plan is not competing for the customers the insurance industry already exploits, the industry can continue to exploit those people (It’s like how, without a big and powerful socialist or green party, the Democrats can be just as corporate and conservative as they want, without risking a single defection from the left – no one else is competing for us, so we are stuck with our dissatisfaction, and they can keep raising the rates, to switch the analogy back).

And for another example, the Senate is proposing an opt-out option for individual states. This is such bad governance that it’s difficult to figure out how to begin arguing against it. First of all, the “public option” is already optional, for its potential customers (that’s how come the word “option” is in the name). So the opt-out proposal gives the states the option on whether their citizens should have the option? How much more convoluted could it get? Federalism is not meant to work this way. The 10^th Amendment outlines the whole thing really beautifully. Those powers the federal government doesn’t mention go to the states. To create federal bureaucracy, laws and systems that states can ignore on a whim breaks down the union and undermines the philosophical underpinnings of the American government system.

The Senate bill, if it were to become law un-amended, would definitely provide more people with health insurance, which would be a good thing, but it would essentially be more Medicaid and not the type of overhaul whose need I argued for earlier. It does not foundationally change the institution of health care in the United States and would ensure the need for later overhaul. Not only does it not achieve universal health care, it does not even put us on track to achieve it later. It merely mollifies a bit of the rage, enables politicians to congratulate themselves on a job well done and kicks the can down the road, presumably for even larger Democratic majorities to deal with. Majorities that will never come.

III – On the way forward, given the current political circumstances

So that’s where we stand. A good bill in the house, a lousy bill in the Senate. There are 8 important steps now. 1) The House has to pass its bill. 2) The Senate has to overcome a Republican filibuster and end debate. 3) The Senate has to pass its bill. 4) The House and Senate bills have to enter into conference to create a single bill. 5) The House has to pass the bill finally. 6) The Senate has to overcome a Republican filibuster and end debate on the bill up for final passage. 7) The Senate has to pass the bill finally. 8) The President has to sign the bill into law. And all of these steps have to happen by Thanksgiving. So let’s go through them.

1) This is taken care of. The House bill will pass overwhelmingly. There is no argument about this point. And thank goodness!

2) This is really the whole game, right here, I think. The Republicans simply do not have enough members to sustain a filibuster. They need at least one member of the Democratic caucus to switch over and help them. Joe Lieberman has signaled that he will do this and be (read this part:) the first Senator ever to assist the other caucus in filibustering his own caucus’ bill. He will not be the first to vote with the other side on a single issue. Obviously, that happens all the time; members are free to have any views they want on any topic. But on procedural issues, like whether or not a bill gets to be voted on at all, members never switch. Joe Lieberman, that putrid fuckhead, intends to change it up on us. What he’s doing, as he’s done time and again, is holding the Democrats hostage. By letting us know we cannot count on his vote, he makes us court him by tailoring bills to his liking, thereby claiming vastly more legislative power for himself than a Senator from a state with slightly more than 1% of the national population should hold. In order to counteract this, a Democrat from the left, perhaps Russ Feingold, Sherrod Brown or Bernie Sanders, should also say he’ll vote with the filibuster, unless his needs are met. If the right can yank the Democratic Party, the left can too. More importantly, the Democratic Caucus should deliver this ultimatum to Lieberman (and Lincoln, Landrieu, Nelson and any other potential turncoat): if you support the other party’s filibuster of your party’s bill, we will strip you of your seniority (Lieberman chairs the Homeland Security Committee) and actively support a primary challenger in your next race. Too many people’s lives are at stake to approach this with the usual amount of Senatorial civility and compromise. Step two is surmountable by arm twisting, and that’s all there is to it. Twist away! (Side note: by using a procedural tactic called “budget reconciliation,” Harry Reid can ram the bill through, sidestepping a filibuster; I gather there is some substantive disadvantage to this approach, but no one has satisfactorily explained it to me yet.)

3) This one, too, is taken care of. For the up-or-down, the health care bill, no matter what it is, will not get 60 votes. But it won’t need them. A simple 50 plus Joe Biden will do just fine, and it will get those handily.

4) This is the other crucial point. I’m not entirely sure who all would be in the conference committee, but certainly Pelosi, Reid and some representative of the White House (hopefully not Rahm Emanuel, who is one of the more conservative members of the Obama Administration). Additionally, it would make sense to have the chairmen of each of the five concerned committees involved (three in the House, two in the Senate) – this can only be good since, as we know, four of the five produced bills with strong “public options,” and 80% is a good size. This would be the other step (along with breaking the filibuster) that would require a lot of citizen activism – writing and calling congressmen, doing citizen lobbying, &c. The demand should be to combine the bills in a way that showed greatly more deference to the House conference bill than to the Senate one. The worst thing that could happen would be the conference bill for final passage coming out of committee and back to the houses looking a lot like the Senate bill. That, again, would be a nice boost to the uninsured, but not provide the kind of overhaul that the health care sector so desperately needs.

5) This step, again, is taken care of. Even if the final passage bill is more conservative than the composite House bill, Pelosi will get it through.

6) If Reid can muscle his caucus into procedural unanimity on the Senate bill, he can do it on the final passage bill.

7) Taken care of.

8) So totally taken care of.

I’ve written this whole thing in one go, done no editing and doubtless left a lot of things out. Expect addenda. But, basically, this is what I think. You?

Old white men: the new face of power in post-racial America

2009-10-20T08:38:00.001-07:00

These are the people crafting health-care policy for everyone in the United States.

Clockwise from top left:

Harry Reid
Race: white.
Gender: male.
Elected to represent: Nevada, less than 1% of US population.

Max Baucus
Race: white.
Gender: male.
Elected to represent: Montana, less than 3/10 of 1% of US population.

Rahm Emanuel
Race: white.
Gender: male.
Elected to represent: Nobody.

Chris Dodd
Race: white.
Gender: male.
Elected to represent: Connecticut, slightly over 1% of US population.

No one mentions that this is racist or sexist, but you can bet that if the four participants were all black women, the right would be having a field day, bloviating about "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism."

Talk about diverse: one of them is under 65 years old!

Excuses, Excuses

2009-09-23T20:36:00.001-07:00

I've already broken my promise to keep this blog up. I've just been consumed with Andromache, which, incidentally, come see.

Here's some press about it and the page where you can reserve tickets.

Tomorrow, I'll try and write my extended thoughts about the health care mark-up process.

In the meantime, some dope music:

Beggers Can't Be Questioners

2009-09-09T08:41:00.001-07:00

As many of you know, while I am radical about a great number of issues, I am very conservative regarding others (like: children learning to sing should not learn to belt, soar, back-beat, flourish and vibrato; they should sing in choirs, learn the nexus of breath and resonance, develop an ear for pitch and clarity of tone -- I heard some KidzBop stuff last night that made me cringe).

One way I'm conservative is as regards grammar and the meaning of words. I'd like to announce two ways in which I'm adapting to contemporary standards before I gripe and groan about one I'm unwilling to compromise over.

The first way is demonstrated at the end of that paragraph. I am no longer puritanical about ending a sentence with a preposition. I could have said, "about one over which I'm unwilling to compromise," but I've come to value getting the point across over adhering to grammatical stricture. The thing is, many grammatical strictures have been established in the interest of getting a point across with clarity and accuracy. That's why I adhere to most grammatical strictures.

The second way is in allowing myself use of "they" as the gender-neutral singular pronoun. This is a much tougher one, but I feel on solid intellectual ground because of this July article from the NYTimes magazine. As a friend points out, though, I do use the plural verb form, despite using "they" as a singular. As in "If anyone wishes to speak to a clerk, they take a number and wait in line," as opposed to "they takes a number and waits in line." Again, though I can see intellectual justification in the second, I'm much more interested in getting the point across and the level of jarring the second would do to our ears would inhibit the point more than it transmitted it.

So: see? I am adaptable. I am not a puritan. I understand that language changes (in this digital era more rapidly than ever before), and I don't hang onto things of the past unless I find them really useful. But: here's one I find really useful, though I'm probably being nerdy and obnoxious in so doing.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

That's Keith Olbermann, who's normally meticulous about his grammar. Apart from this being one of those slightly obnoxious ego pieces, which, although it's entertaining, is not nearly as interesting or useful as his attacks on Beck, the thing that irks me happens at about 1:49. "But Mr. Carr's point," Olbermann supposes, "begs a great question: do I really want to be like Glenn Beck?"

In this way, Olbermann uses "begs the question" to mean "raises the question," as he frequently does (and as everyone frequently does; virtually 99% of the time "begs the question" is used around me, it's used to mean "raises the question." The problem is, it means something completely different. From the Wikipedia article about it:

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof." More specifically, petitio principii refers to arguing for a conclusion that has already been assumed in the premise.

So, for instance, Dan Wilbur and I were recently talking about Andromache, when we got into a discussion about Greek and then American logic for imperial hegemony in the world. The argument goes:

The reason America must stay militarily strong enough to police the world, as it's done since the Second World War, is because it's ethically superior to undemocratic nations; America is able to make that claim to ethical superiority and the accompanying right to police the world since it was strong enough to defeat fascism in the Second World War. Or, more simply put: we must be strong because we are superior. What makes us superior? How strong we are.

That and nothing else is what "begging the question" means. I'm fighting a losing battle with this one, I know, and Olbermann is on the other side of the issue. But I really think it's a useful and specific phrase and ought to be retained on that basis.

It's been a long time; I shouldn't have left you.

2009-09-06T08:12:00.000-07:00

Labor Day resolution: revive the blog!

In honor of laborers across the country, my instructional guide to President Obama regarding heath-care reform strategy in the coming days and weeks:

Mr. President:

1) Make the case for the public option in the joint session.

2) DEMAND the public option in separate closed-door sessions with the Democratic Caususes of each house of congress.

3) Meet with specific reluctant Democratic senators and twist their arms. You are the President, the party leader, and a lot more popular than any of these guys.

4) Get the Senate leadership in shape. They got a majority on your coattails. They need to be with you.

5) Send the Senate leadership to those same reluctant Democratic senators and have THEM twist their arms by threatening to revoke their committee chairs, &c.

6) Go on a relentless campaign at the grassroots level to explain why people WANT the public option, because they DO. Deploy Oprah and Will.I.Am and everyone else that was in on the campaign.

7) Go it alone in the Senate. The Republicans are bought and paid for. They will not vote for the thing. And when everyone has health insurance, no one will remember what the roll call was like.

8) Watch the popularity rise.

9) Wash, rinse, repeat on gay rights, labor rights, greenhouse gas emissions…

Sorry again about the neglect. I'm going to make a real effort once again.

Cognitive Dissonance = Lousy Framing

2009-02-19T07:04:00.001-08:00

Mark my words: Michael Steele will be the greatest boon for Democrats since Sarah Palin.

There was underlying concerns we had become too regionalized and the party needed to reach beyond our comfort" zones, he said, citing defeats in such states as Virginia and North Carolina. "We need messengers to really capture that region - young, Hispanic, black, a cross section ... We want to convey that the modern-day GOP looks like the conservative party that stands on principles. But we want to apply them to urban-surburban hip-hop settings.

I don't remember the comedian I saw on TV when I was a kid who, in a fantastically original formulation, said something like, "White folks say 'I hope he doesn't,' but black folks say, 'I wish he would!.'"

Well: I wish he would!

Oh, fine: I had to.

2009-01-17T10:16:00.000-08:00

Because the world needs one more left-wing blogger who posts Olbermann clips. It's just too good to miss out on.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Catharsis

2009-01-17T08:28:00.000-08:00

I cannot believe the Bush Administration is over. I've been close to weeping all day. This must be what liberation from incarceration or divorce from an abusive spouse feels like.

Getting Started On A Topic You Don't Want To Get Me Started On

2008-12-21T11:49:00.000-08:00

When will this country grow to realize the extent to which its level of discourse and degree of perfection as a union suffer for the overmuch respect it pays to religious charlatans like Rick Warren? These people have made entire careers, indeed lives, upon the principle that confounding the gullible and exploiting the credulous for immense amounts of money are worthwhile goals and, in fact, do not require adherence to the same standards to which one holds those people.

Warren's church does not admit homosexuals-- whom he compares to child molesters-- for membership, and, in fact, has a program meant to cure them of that affliction (no, not H.I.V. but G.A.Y.). Of course, we remember Ted Haggard-- who was discovered to have solicited sex and methamphetamine from a male prostitute-- undergoing three weeks of counseling after which he was pronounced "completely heterosexual" by one of the four pastors administering this treatment. And people bought it. Because: if you believe that a snake can speak and that a woman can conceive a child without insemination by a man, you can be made to believe anything at all, so long as the right people are saying it to you.

I think it is useful (always) to recall Christopher Hitchens' eulogy of Jerry Falwell on Anderson Cooper's show, the day after the fat crook's death:

It's good to see religious figures coming under fire for something other than doing apparently irreligious things like engaging in drug usage and prostitution. What so nice about this case is that the pastor is not drawing vitriol for having done something that goes against what he preaches, but by preaching the thing at all.

Proposition 8, which it was a hideous assault on the movement toward progress for equality rights in the United States, at least had the inspiring consequence (along with the just-off-of-serendipitously timed release of Milk) of bringing new energy to the gay community and its advocates across the country. John Stewart here grills former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee (who has already visited Iowa in anticipation of a 2012 Presidential run, which he'll gear up for by hosting his own show on Fox News) on gay marriage.

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Mike Huckabee Pt. 2

Barack Obama Interview
John McCain Interview

Sarah Palin Video
Funny Election Video

I cannot stand Stewart's argument that because homosexuality is not a choice, it is therefore protected by the Constitution. The reality is that even if it were a choice, it would be protected by the Constitution. Our country's legal basis for equal protection under the law isn't reliant upon a maxim of "protecting only the things that nature bestows upon people, rather than lifestyles in which they freely choose to engage." Just the opposite: the basis is maximizing equality, freedom and justice, so that people can make any choice they want, as long as no one is harmed. Every word in the lexicon bears redefining if the result is a legal system where, absent harm done to others, everyone is free to do whatever s/he wants, where everyone is entitled to equal protection under the law and unhindered access to equal rights, where justice is administered to all people without lapses in standard.

Can we please leave behind the lifestyle/nature argument, if not because the science is conclusively in on the matter (and Stewart is exactly right about the findings) then because it is completely irrelevant to the legal matter at hand.

Don't get me started.

On the Torture Question

2008-12-06T20:34:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama appears, at face value, to be one of the few politicians who have real moral integrity. I wish to assert that face value is the deepest value at which he appears that way. I am speaking of the basic function of administering justice that is prosecuting criminals, particularly criminals who have committed the most heinous crimes. Such crimes include torture.

"If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated.” Obama said on the campaign trail, quickly adding, “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we've got too many problems to solve."

Is Barack Obama’s concern for the now twice-defeated Republicans’ perceptions of his actions greater than his commitment to justice? Is appears so. Here is Keith Olbermann interviewing retired Gen. Paul Eaton the other day. Eaton was one of the group of retired generals who called on the Bush Administration to stop its practices of torture (The relevant section begins at about the 5:40 mark).

Here, Eaton uses the common line that we, as a nation, must look forward, not backward, that we must move on from the traumas of the past, that this is about preventing such future crimes rather than assigning culpability for recent ones.

“We are a very forward looking organization, but we believe that an examination of the past would be helpful. How did we get here? We had one of the retired generals liken it to a Class A or a Serious Accident investigation where you’re not looking for culpability; you’re looking for, ‘How did the accident happen? How did it unfold?’ And when we know that path, we will be better prepared to deal with future wars and future challenges.”

The problem is that the first step toward moving on from the traumas of the past is: by ensuring that justice is done.

If my father is beaten to within an inch of his life and has all he owns stolen, I do not want a legal standard that tells me to look forward, not backward. If my lover is raped on the streets at night, I don’t want a legal standard that tells me I must move on from the traumas of the past. If, when I have any, my children are kidnapped an murdered, I don’t want a legal standard that tells me it is unimportant to prosecute those criminals, since we are working to prevent further kidnappings and murders.

I don’t want a country whose guiding legal principles are moving on and looking ahead; I want a country whose guiding legal principles are doing justice and upholding laws.

Barack Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review. I cannot think of a more egregious abdication of the principles of that education, a more egregious betrayal of the oath he will take on 20 January ("I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.") than bypassing the opportunity to enact justice upon perpetrators of the most heinous of crimes.

Everyone is fond of bringing up South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, but the analogy is completely wrong. In that case, the majority people had finally achieved power and, seeing that the crime was too systemic, too societal reasonably to prosecute, decided instead to forgive, pending admission from the culprits. This would be something completely different: members of a government asking other members of a government to say what happened, probably in vain, with no consequences, for a crime whose culprits are clear and identifiable. To make the analogy work, we would have to turn over the country to the victims of torture and they would need voluntarily to offer Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush, Yoo and Gonzales indemnity. Of course, we know they are not choosing to offer indemnity, but rather revenge, per this article, to which Olbermann refers in the above interview.

Those who do not bring up the TRC, bring up the 9/11 Commission, saying that the American people deserve the truth and the facts. The problem here is that the truth and the facts are pretty well known. For more on them, see the Academy Award-winning documentary Taxi to the Darkside.

I understand that the Supreme Court would never find the culprits guilty of their crimes. Let that be on their hands, though. Obama and Holder need only prosecute, even in a losing case, to absolve themselves before history, law and the creator they each believe in.

The RZA, the GZA, the Rachel MaDZA

2008-12-03T15:38:00.001-08:00

Rachel Maddow is dope.

Peep game in the last 7 seconds.

Change We Voted To Change Away From

2008-11-25T19:41:00.000-08:00

I wonder how many managers of and cheerleaders for Bush's foreign policy Obama will appoint before people stop believing that any change is happening.

Change We Can Remember

2008-11-18T17:18:00.000-08:00

Not that I don't like Eric Holder (though I might not, since I don't know much about the guy), but I wish that the Change promised us by Obama didn't mean bringing back the whole Clinton team.

Fascism

2008-11-17T21:22:00.000-08:00

It's really a shame that the word "fascim," which has a very specific and useful meaning, is thrown about to mean something like "reign" or "authoritarianism" or something, like by Newt Gingrich, who, in response to the protests against the passage of Prop 8, said:

I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment.

Quite aside from the ludicrousness of the statement (he is obviously not paranoid enough to believe that people want to take over the government, force him violently to renounce all religion and get married to a man) and the history of religious forces as controlling the most violent, repressive and imposing governments in history, the man doesn't even use "fascism" correctly.

Fascism, of course, means the institutional alliance between corporate and state-military power. Of course, the most famous fascist regimes (Mussolini's, Hitler's, Franco's) were also big fans of totalitarianism, thought police and violent repression of dissent, but that is because they were "dictatorships" or "authoritarian regimes," not because they were "fascists."

Learn this distinction, please.

Why not now?

2008-11-17T06:47:00.000-08:00

The democrats are letting themselves be held hostage by Joe Lieberman, who was rejected by Connecticut Democrats, elected by Connecticut Republicans on a non-Democratic ticket, who campaigned not only for Sen. McCain for president but also for down-ticket Republicans, who attacked Sen. Obama on, among other things, homeland security matters (politicizing the issue he demands to be kept in charge of in the Senate). Now, he's threatening to bolt the caucus or-- gasp-- be a little upset because his feelings have been hurt if they kick him out of the caucus he himself has alienated.

Evan Bayh's argument that the Democrats COULD at some FUTURE date, IF Joe Lieberman continues his reckless behavior, THEN, remove his chair is patently ridiculous on all counts. Mainly: what reason have we to believe that all the reasons Bayh gives for keeping Lieberman in won't be fully in tact at that elusive later date? If, three months in, Lieberman keeps his reactionary trip strong, will Lieberman THEN not want to resign the senate, letting the Republican governor choose a new Senator? Would he THEN not be embittered and be a turncoat on key votes (which he already will be)? When does the argument that we should look to the future and not the past ever become moot? After all, isn't anything wrong always done in the past?

Joe Lieberman has bullied the Democrats. He went against them and everything they believe this year and is now using a nasty circumstance to squeeze power out of them. You don't give bullies what they want. You stand up to them. Here are other ways they could get 60 votes on important matters:

1. Treat Joe Lieberman as the moderate Republican he is and court him along with Sens. Collings, Snowe, and Specter.

2. Exert pressure on Republicans serving in rapidly bluifying states, like Sens. Bond and Grassley, who have increasing progressive demographics to which to respond, upon threat of losing re-election.

3. Don't worry so much about it. The Republicans have advanced the most revolutionary, radical, reactionary agenda in the history of the United States over the last eight years and at NO TIME did they have a filibuster-proof super-majority.

My thoughts on Clinton as Secretary of State

2008-11-14T09:07:00.000-08:00

HuffPo is reporting that there is confirmation that Sen. Clinton met with Pres.-Elect Obama to discuss a role in the latter's upcoming administration. The big question on all the blogs and news networks has been whether the leaks that she is under consideration for Secretary of State has been a trial balloon or an actual leak from the normally ship-shape Obama camp. I'm hoping it's a trial balloon and that the Obama camp will read this post and derive from it the best possible judgment in that trial, shortly then to pop that balloon.

It's not secret I don't like that lady, right? Right. So, setting that aside, I think there are a number of good reasons why this would be a terrible appointment.

1. The simple fact is that Obama campaigned on Change We Can Believe In. In large part, the reason his political organization was as successful as it was -- and the pundits are absolutely right to call it the greatest political campaign in modern history -- was because he didn't hire the old Clinton people. There was no Carville on his team, no Begala. He saw that the old way politics was conducted was neither popular nor successful any longer. These times are very different from the nineties and demand not only a different set of responses, but, more importantly, a different set of responders. Fresh blood, new ideas, a clean break from the way things used to get done.

The hiring of Rahm Emmanuel as Chief of Staff is already a big middle finger to those people who voted for Obama because of that message and philosophy, but I think there's a good case to be made that the Chief of Staff has to be an insider, and there are few people more inside (or more able to get more done from the inside) than Rep. Emmanuel. But, the Secretary of State is not that way at all. If everybody is right (and I think everybody is) when saying that the international challenges we face are enormous and require the most skillful diplomatic team possible, then we should be looking for responders whose responses have proven to be so keen, so foreward thinking, so adaptable, that they can make manifest the peace, prosperity and cooperation we seek even in this new era. Bill Richardson strikes me as exactly that type of person. Sen. Clinton is just another rung kicked out on the change ladder.

2. Obama is surrounded by a wealth of people more experienced in diplomacy than Sen. Clinton. Not only is she not a change, she hasn't even proven her mettle. Bill Richardson has negotiated deals (including the release of prisoners) with Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro and Kim Jong Il, not the leaders most receptive to negotiating with American diplomatic forces. The foreign policy achievement for which Sen. Clinton is best known is pretending to have fled Bosnian sniper fire. She is simply not the best for the job. The other thing good about Axelrod, Plouffe, &c. (aside from their being new and different -- the campaign of change) is that they were unbelievably good at what they did. They were the best for the job.

3. If the reason for picking her is to heal the divide caused by the prolongued and viciously divisive primary (in which she was the main engine for the viciousness, the division, and the prolongation), it means that the Obama people have simply not read the exit polls: there is no longer any division. There hasn't been since very shortly after Sen. Clinton accepted defeat, and certainly after her and former President Clinton's endorsements of Sen. Obama at the Democratic National Convention. Hillary voters overwhelmingly support President Obama. In the most recent polling, even a considerable number of McCain voters feel priarily a sense of hope when thinking about the direction the Obama Presidency would move this country. No one needs an apology. And if anyone should, it would be the Obama camp from the Clintons, who -- lest we forget -- said apalling and racist things against Obama during the primary campaign. Meanwhile, Bill Richardson endorsed Obama early on and lent his significant support to Obama when Sen. Clinton was still attacking and smearing the now-President-Elect.

4. Finally, there are those smears. Hillary Clinton was very haughty and smug in calling Obama naive for wanting high level diplomatic meetings with Iran without preconditions, a talking point Sen. McCain (whose campaign is almost as indebted to Hillary's smears for its talking points as Obama's is for its preparaion) used on the capaign trail. To reward someone who derided Obama's diplomatic strategy and philosophy with the chief position to enact that diplomatic strategy and philosophy would be a disgrace and a slap in the face of everyone who was offended by those attacks.

So: there's my response to the balloon. May it pop and pop and pop.

More on Ideal Cabinets

2008-11-07T05:37:00.001-08:00

My dreams for heads of:

Department of Labor – Anna Berger

Department of Homeland Sec – Richard Clarke

Department of Education – Jonathan Kozol

Department of Veterans Affairs – John Soltz

Department of Transport – Michael Marks

Department of Housing, Urban Development – Thomas Menino

Department of Health and Human Services – Howard Dean

Department of Commerce – James K. Galbraith

Department of the Interior – I don’t know anything about Parks

And an amendment:

Attorney General – Patrick Fitzgerald

Post-Election Thoughts

2008-11-05T18:48:00.000-08:00

So obviously, I’m extremely glad he won. There’s not a single facet in governance in which he won’t be at least a dozen times a better president than McCain would have been. Also, he’s black, which is the worst reason not to support him, but, in my estimation, an extremely important reason to support him. It was a great night. The country earned back some of the dignity it’s lost over the last eight years. All that.

That said, there were a number of ways in which I was unhappy with the election results.

1) As far as the Presidential component of the election, I think that this victory (considerable though it was and however impressive the states that were competitive) was the type of spread the Republicans were bracing for. I’d love to have won Arizona, Montana, North Dakota and Georgia. That would have been a blow-out beyond the darkest Republican fears and would have sent that party into utter chaos (the type from which parties don’t recover for several decades). I wanted utterly to shatter the conservative coalition, break apart the GOP’s entire apparatus and erode its very foundation.

2) In the Senate elections, I really wanted to defeat Mitch McConnell. This would really have gotten them back for Daschle in 2002. Musgrove beating Wicker would have been really nice, too. And I’m distressed that Minnesota, Oregon and Alaska are as close as they are. It makes me fear that we’ll be dependent on Joe Lieberman for another congress, which is completely sickening.

3) The House tally, too, is not up to where I wanted it. 20 is nice, but I really badly wanted 25-30. The Diaz-Balart brothers both still have their seats in Florida, and I will never sleep perfectly well until they are out of their governmental jobs.

4) Finally (and most importantly), that bigots won on ballot measures all across the country, imperiling the foundation of our democracy (access to equal rights and protections under the law for all citizens) and, of course, the health and sovereignty of women. This shows just how retrograde enormous swaths of political life in America still are, black president or none.

Those of you who regularly keep up with my thoughts, either through this outfit or in person, should be unsurprised firstly that I’m happy with the results and secondly that I’m unhappy with the results. After all, a brief scan through the history of Isle Full of Noises will reveal: I’ve never much liked Barack Obama. He strikes me as slightly right of center (his selection of Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff does little to calm my fears of more centrist triangulation, where social revolution is in order). So, I hope I am not alienating anyone when I report that the part of Obama’s victory speech I most agree with is this one:

This victory alone is not the change we seek; it is only the chance for us to make that change.

This election does not automatically end the illegal, unjust, immoral, destabilizing wars on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. It does not automatically solve the climate crisis. This election does not automatically achieve justice for working people and an end to poverty. It does not automatically evolve our society where the healing promise of stem-cell research is valued higher than blastocysts. This election does not automatically end racism.

Barack Obama is just a man. Let us not repeat the mistake the left made with Clinton and give him a pass to do what he will free of our scrutiny and pressure, just because we like him so much and are so relieved finally to be rid of Bush-style government. We must make him work for us; we must make him affect the change he promised. Yes: his biography is compelling, his oratory inspirational, his smile shining. But: this election has to have been about things other than him. It has to have been about change. You can bet the other side (corporatists, bigots, hawks) will be pulling him hard to their side. And he will fall if we don’t pull him even harder right back.

A lot of discussion now is centered around his cabinet. Here are my ideal picks (I’d say only 1-3 have any real shot, but a fellow can dream):

Environmental Protection Agency Chief: Bobby Kennedy, Jr.
Secretary of State: Gov. Bill Richardson
Secretary of the Treasury: Nobel laureate Paul Krugman
Secretary of Agriculture: Whomever the hell Gov. Brian Schweitzer recommends first
Attorney General: Sen. Russ Feingold
Secretary of Defense: Gen. Wes Clark
Secretary of Energy: Nobel laureate Al Gore

Having typed that, I've just realized I neglected to include any women, which is disgusting of me. Some of my favorite women in public life include Sen. Barbara Boxer, Anna Berger, Rep. Barbara Lee and Gov. Janet Napolitano

Paying close attention to Obama’s cabinet appointments will give us enormous insight into the ways he intends to govern. Let us fight hard to have those ways be the type that make peace real, justice ubiquitous, equality permanent and freedom true.

Presidential Names

2008-11-03T10:26:00.001-08:00

These are the first, middle and last names of all the Presidents, arranged such that font size is relative to frequency of occurrence. John is definitely on there (and prominently, at that). While McCain isn't, McKinley is, and that's fairly close. Do you know what three names are not even close to any on here? Barack, Hussein and Obama. Let's add them, shall we?

Words I Enjoy v2.0

2008-11-03T05:54:00.000-08:00

Bobbysoxer.

Adolescent girls in the 1940's wore bobby socks and for it were so called. Check out 1947's "The Bachelor and The Bobby Soxer" with Cary Grant and Shirley Temple for a cinematic illustration.

Get that baster ready

2008-10-31T08:38:00.000-07:00

This bird is about to be cooked.

The Interwebs and Tea Parties

2008-10-29T08:43:00.000-07:00

I've often said that the internet is the finest democratic institution since New England town halls in the mid 1700's. This video, posted by HuffPo, might show exactly why.

Redistribution of Wealth

2008-10-28T08:43:00.000-07:00

So, it looks like the final note the McCain campaign will sound in this election cycle is... red-baiting, as if racially tinged code words were not enough a symbol of the old style of politics.

The irony, of course, is that the Bush/McCain economic philosophy (a philosophy they share), a philosophy they inherited from their common ideological breast-milk provider, Ronald Reagan, is responsible for the greatest redistribution of wealth in the better part of the last century.

The Obama campaign, as Joe Biden obviously knows, needs to make it clear that their plan is to undo the massive redistribution of wealth that has happened under the Bush Administration.

On Planetaria and Coded Language

2008-10-25T09:39:00.000-07:00

Sen. McCain's favorite earmark-related meme is to do with Sen. Obama's request for "$3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Ill." His imploration to his friends, Romans, countrymen and fellow prisoners concluded, "My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?"

Aside from my sense that equipping a planetarium with state-of-the-art technology seems a rather good way to spend federal funds to the relative inconsequential tune of $3 million, and aside from Sen. McCain's characterization of the thing as an "overhead projector," which we all remember less-than-fondly from ninth grade trigonometry lessons (when really, the project was a complete overhaul of a broken theater for educational purposes), there is something rather fishy about this talking point.

Where he used to like talking about, as an ad of his put it, "Three million to study the DNA of bears in Montana," which the ad pronounces "Unbelievable" (this lasted until it became widely known that Gov. Palin asked for an earmark for studying crab sex), he now chooses this ridiculous thing as his poster-child for wasteful spending.

The subtext is clear: That one is smart and wants to spend your money making others smart. Don't you want someone dumb? The extent to which official anti-intellectualism is a recipe for fascism is meat for a future post.

I Told You So, Cont'd.

2008-10-22T04:53:00.000-07:00

I told everyone when they didn't believe me. Sarah Palin is the greatest liability in modern political history.

Side note: I was wrong about Biden's albatross effect. BUT, I contend I would have been right about it, had McCain picked someone like Romney or Huckabee (i.e. someone with a modicum of studied and lasting appeal).

Breaking: Rush Limbaugh Revealed to Be Dick

2008-10-19T20:51:00.001-07:00

Rush Limbaugh, radio host, writer, drug addict and big, fat idiot, had this to say today about Colin Powell's endorsement of Obama.

Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race... OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I'll let you know what I come up with.

Well: how many inexperienced, very liberal white candidates has Chrisopher Buckley endorsed? What about the Chicago Tribune (and don't tell me that's about geography-- the paper didn't endorse Adlai Stevenson, it's governor, against Eisenhower)? Michael Smerconish? Andrew Bacevich? Linc Chafee? Andrew Sullivan and Christopher Hitchens? David Friedman, Jeffrey Hart and Wick Allison? Frances Fukuyama and Susan Eisenhower? Bruce Bartlett? Dare I say Chuck Hagel? They, too, must be the type only to endorse black people. I guess this explains Powell's glowing endorsements of Jesse Jackson, Shirley Chisholm, Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley-Braun.

Two points this bring up for me:

1) Such positions as these and Bill Clinton's South Carolina nonsense are almost as offensive to Obama, diminishing his considerable political skill, likability and thoughtfulness, as they are to black people. The position basically says that black people vote in a neo-tribal fashion, undiscerning and willing to vote for any old black person that comes along. Of course, black people, along with labor, have consistently been the most thoughtful voting block, pursuing the interests of peace, justice, equality and freedom for as long as this sick country has allowed them any efficacy.

2) The Bush Administration, ironically, is the first truly integrated cabinet in American history. Rice, Powell, Gonzales. The message with these guys has always been: if you are down with us ideologically, you're in, no matter what your heritage is. And I'm not just talking about the customary Secretary of the Interior roles; I mean these people are Really In There, Really Trusted, and Really Making Decisions. Folks like Rush Limbaugh apparently stomach this affront to their long-held Republican racism, but relish the opportunity to let it fly when such people apparently become turncoats.

Daily Show/Colbert Report Clip

2008-10-12T13:13:00.000-07:00

This was overlooked.

Words I Enjoy

2008-10-12T09:05:00.001-07:00

My new series on this blog (the first being musical reccomendations) will be great word. The first entry here is: "popinjay."

Definition: a person given to vain, pretentious displays and empty chatter.

Also worth noting is popinjay's abundance of delightful synonyms, including "fop," "dandy," and "coxcomb."

For my part, I have tried to foster a style I call "academia chic," (e.g. patches on the elbows of a corduroy-- literally, "fabric of kings"-- jacket, Versace tie underneath. Benjamin Bixby, Andre's new clothing line features a slightly exploded version of this to delightful effect.

On Palin's Paling and Obama's Nediness

2008-10-11T20:42:00.000-07:00

Hi. So. Now that Palin's numbers are 36 (Favorable), 56 (Unfavorable) and 8 (no opinion), now that Palin has been deemed a law-breaker by a bi-partisan panel and now that she's getting eruptive calls of "boo" from her supposed base (video below), can we stop calling her a "skilled politician?"

How much more proof do we need that I was right (this is my "I told you so" moment to all my fearful friends) that no matter what bump she gave the Repugnant-cans at their Weimar rally of a convention, she was and remains the biggest political liability of modern times.

Additionally, something that hasn't often been brought up as a boon to an Obama presidency is the societal value of celebrating the black nerd. Normally discounted as black because they're nerds and discounted as nerds because they're black, there is so seldom a true national role model out there any longer who can demonstrably be identified as such (Bob Moses was a great one, but how long as it been since a sizable number of people felt a passionate admiration for Bob Moses?). I feel happier knowing that my black nerd friends will soon be able to count the President among their ranks.

Biden was astonishingly good

2008-10-02T19:59:00.000-07:00

If the criterion for victory was the greatest degree by which the candidates exceeded their expectations, Palin won, because she didn't call Ahmadinejad the president of, like, Canada or something.

But if it was who was fit to be president tomorrow, Biden beat her like Jordan playing the sixth man on your middle school basketball team. Period.

I have a lot more thoughts, but that's what needs to be published.

The No BAILOUTS Act: Should be the Greatest Triumph for Pelosi

2008-10-02T08:07:00.000-07:00

How many times can the Senate get James Inhofe, Sam Brownback, Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders to agree on an issue? What about Barbara Lee, Dennis Kucinich, Darrell Issa, John Shadegg in the House? And: on largely the same grounds!

There is such a slender series of issues upon which conservative and progressive philosophies can be counted on to deliver the same position. And this bailout is one of them. This is the coalition that defeated the first bailout bill in the House. WHY NOT FOSTER IT?!

Everyone is always talking about bipartisan credentials. This is the perfect time to come together in earnest and really put some legislation forth that would not only appeal both to conservative and progressive voters, would not only allow Republicans the political opportunity to split from President Bush, would not only amplify the bipartisan record of all involved, but would actually go far to FIX matters!

And Nancy Pelosi, like a schmuck, has deicded instead to cultivate the unpopular bailout bill, the bill that everyone's got to vote for while holding their noses, the bill that taxpayers find offensive, the bill that is anathema to both progressive and conservative philosophies, the bill that George Bush and his corporate cronies are pushing. Forget about do-gooder-ship; that's not even good politics.

Conservatives are against enormous spending, progressives are against making the middle class shoulder the burden of the mistakes of the wealthy. Peter DeFazio's No BAILOUTS Act accomplishes avoids both of these unattractive actions and does considerably more to actually fix the crisis than the basically ridiculous legislation put forth by the Democratic and Republican leadership in both houses, the legislation whose stipulations regarding CEO Pay, "golden parachutes" (second most overused phrase in this debate, behind "Wall St./Main St.") and oversight are a farce.

What a missed opportunity to put our money where our mouths are.

I'm so sick of this type of thing.

Sarah Palin: Dangerous Psychopath

2008-09-28T11:14:00.000-07:00

Those of you who know me well know that I can pretty much keep my cool on matters of enormous significance (war, poverty, injustice), but that I absolutely and inexplicably lose it on matters of religion and reason. Of course, Thomas Muthee, the witch hunter to whom Goody Palin looks for advice on matters spiritual, which, of course, to her, constitute matters all, is far more radical in his worldview than the relatively reposeful Jeremiah Wright. So it was without shock, of course, but instead with utter, terrifying shock, that I read today that She-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named claimed in 1997, that dinosaurs and humans had simultaneously coexisted.

Palin told [Wasilla resident Phillip Munger] that "dinosaurs and humans walked the Earth at the same time," Munger said. When he asked her about prehistoric fossils and tracks dating back millions of years, Palin said "she had seen pictures of human footprints inside the tracks"...

This constitutes a severe danger to society. Sarah Palin clearly has no need for evidence, facts and reason. Could there be a more insane approach to living? And imagine what governance would look like.

This is the Sword of Damocles over society's head.

What a Disaster

2008-09-26T19:33:00.000-07:00

My worst fears realized.

McCain was terse, showed wit and spoke in declarative statements, successfully framing Obama as a young kid in over his head ("What Sen. Obama doesn't understand is...").

Obama was long-winded, unmemorable and focused on obscure policy rather than calling McCain on his B.S. and disasterous record, suceeding only in framing McCain as absolutely right about a number of things ("Sen. McCain is absolutely right that...").

I had hoped that Obama's days of preparation versus McCain's hours would have mitigated this. They did not. Terrible.

Update: Why isn't Lakoff there to help the Democratic candidate prepare for every single debate? He gets it exactly right, every single time. Here's his debate prep article, h/t HuffPo.

Letting my mind wander

2008-09-26T14:34:00.000-07:00

This clip from Countdown is great because it's right on, but also for another reason.

The other reason is that it incrementally increases my confidence in a conspiracy theory I've been developing recently.

What if the McCain campaign only means to stanch the Troopergate legal bloodletting long enough to get elected? It certainly would be convenient to have Palin around only long enough that she could bring what political energy she does to the campaign, only to allow, after inauguration, the floodgates to open, essentially forcing her to resign. Then, she could be replaced with someone McCain actually wants, someone who, by and large, shares McCain's worldview, someone like Sen. Lieberman, who, by that time, will have nary a friend on either side of the aisle nor in the entire state of Connecticut.

Great line-- get it while it's hot

2008-09-24T15:49:00.000-07:00

While I today read a new synonym for wingnut ("Palindrone") that I wish I'd come up with, I have to say, I have a great line for any Democratic congressperson. Remember where you read it first:

"Thanks but no thanks on that bailout plan."

I'm Totally Gay for Rachel Maddow

2008-09-23T13:04:00.000-07:00

A thing I tend to say is that the only person who can put complex financial issues into terms I understand is a man I can't abide: Bill Clinton. Thank goodness I now have an addition to that list (now two people long), and it's not only someone I can abide, but someone I would marry yesterday. Here's Mlle. Maddow interviewing Robert Reich, former Labor Secretary for the aforementioned disbarred, perjured, impeached president, on her fantastic show on MSNBC, the cleverly titled "The Rachel Maddow Show.

Between Maddow and Olbermann, the political punditry class is getting outwitted but good.

Record Review: Gabriel Kahane (Self-Titled)

2008-09-22T13:10:00.000-07:00

I would have posted this after the album release concert last Wednesday, but I bought a copy for Mac and wanted to surprise her with it, so this if this is a bit late, chalk it up to romanticism.

The artist, I think, would sympathize; as much as this album is an opportunity for Mr. Kahane to flex his arranging and composing muscles and put his wit to work crafting a song whose left-hand is playing a twelve-tone cycle (an exercise normally reserved-- to the extent that anything about it is normal-- for Schoenberg disciples) and which turns out Positively Catchy, I swear ("Side Streets"), there is also a deep romanticism running through the veins of Kahane's work.

Kahane (who is accompanied, it must be noted, by a band venerable in its own right-- made up chiefly of bassist Casey Foubert [formerly of Pedro the Lion]; Sufjan Stevens alumni string player Rob Moose [co-producer of the album, also of Antony and the Johnsons], percussionist James McAlister and trumpeteer CJ Camerieri [also of A and the Js and Rufus Wainwright] ; and jazz reedist Sam Sadigurski) starts the album with "Durrants," a 5-on-3 meter elegy ("And we're holding a love that's passed/ In a drawer under last year's stale cigarettes/ One that burned up the photograph/ We lived in").

This is followed by an interlude which weaves the tonic structure of the first song into the third (one might see musical theater in Kahane's future, even if one didn't know it for a fact), a song called "North Adams" (one of several named for places, a few of which can be found in New England), whose refrain's employment of a female voice an octave above Kahane's own (did I mention that his voice is at once operatic and poppy? Figures.) smacks of the funnest moments off Mr. Stevens' ...Illinoise. In fact, a theme of this album seems to be overcoming Stevens by taking certain tricks who reside up the geographic rocker's sleeves and putting them to work playing more sophistocated rhythmic and tonic structures. Maybe that's too Freudian, but the artist, again, just might sympathize.

Then comes "Rochester," the first of three pop songs on the album which can't claim to have much to do with Mozart or Alban Berg or someone else Austrian. Also, the first of three tear-jerkers. Also, the first of two that deals with death. Sam Amidon, banjo genius, puts in an appearance here. Stripped down, Kahane (should I say it? Yes. No. Yes: not unlike Stevens) is Just As Good or Even Better than in his fully orchestrated glory...

...a lesson which he could have stood to retain on the next track, "Slow Down," whose earlier versions featured much a much more minimal use of instrumentation. Here, it receives the Sufjan treatment (literally, as Stevens plays acoustic guitar and "some of the piano" and provides background vocals here), complete with piano-tinkles and choral ambiance that can best be described by the untranslatable Yiddish term "ungepotchket." The artist would understand.*

A fughetta here follows, making liberal use of Kahane's favorite contrapunctal stylings. Its theme is an echo of the chorus melody of the next track, the aformentioned "Side Streets," perhaps the album's greatest triumph, for the reasons discussed earlier.

Next, the bare, heartbreaking, simple ballad "Underberg," a staple of Kahane's sets for years now, brings another dose of unsentimental romanticism, telling the story of a kitchen-supplies store which serves as not only the meeting spot but also the hideout-of-choice for a high-school couple and whose demolition by the city, naturally, mirrors the fate of that relationship. Where Kahane can sometimes be verbose (not like the downright congressional Decemberists, or anything, but still, there are things like North Adams' "Oh Great Parkway/ Truth is on your shoulder/ If it's mossy if it's bare/ You'll find the beauty there."), this song is easily his most plebian poem, and nothing is lost, not an iota of complexity sacrificed.

Next is "7 Middagh," the other great artistic achievement the album has to offer. Inspired by (and sharing a subject with) Sherril Tippins' "February House," the song, with its elusive meter and discord-resolution interplay, comments on the house whose address is the title, where, for a while during the Second World War, W.H. Auden, Carson McCullers, Benjamin Britten and other such intellectual and artistic giants lived as an experiment (failed). This topic (rather tellingly, if I may once again delve into psychological analysis) is of such importance to Kahane that he intends to compose a musical about it (see earlier allusion), even inviting Ms. Tippin's to the release. "Modern's a still-birth that was born/ After it died in 1939/ or was it '45?/ And we've been attending/ the longest saddest funeral/ in history/ Without even knowing," Mr. Kahane sings, seeming to defy anyone to claim that philosophical declamation cannot get stuck in ones head as easily as any Perry Como novelty song.

"Wie Soll Ich Dich Empfangen (after Bach)" follows, on solo piano, instead of a full choir, to lead into the most radio-ready tune on the album (and even it has a discordant contrapunctal string section), called "The Faithful." Think Glenn Miller meets Queens of the Stone Age meets Gabriel Faure meets Billy Joel meets Dr. John meets Antonio Vivaldi. Got it? Tight.

"Arnold Corrects the Papers While My Grandmother Washes His Children" is another interlude (Kahane is very fond of these, it seems) in which a horn section plays a theme that echoes the one appearing at the start and close of the last track, perhaps serving most of all to blunt the fall from it into "Twice in the Night," a somber ballad whose melody's all-over-the-place-ness doesn't live up to the sheer beauty and accessibility of its instrumental refrain, which is a shame, because Kahane has every bit of skill necessary to make it so (see: everything before this tune on the album). Luckily, with the music telling you "stay out," you find it easier to accept the lyrics' invitation to "come on in." The song opens thus: "I spent the night in the Bronx/ Starin at the spines/ of leather bound books./ One was called Infectious Diseases/ The other one was the Kama Sutra" and ends "When I got home/ I took off all my clothes/ and tried to cry in front of the mirror/ But nothing came/ So I stepped into the shower/ And let the water beat down the drain."

Never to worry, though, "Villanelles," the bluegrass (sort of) tune that follows, increasingly a staple of indie rock albums, serves to lift the listener right back up, not least owing to Nickel Creek's masterful mandolinist Chris Thile's solo. Fine, so Gabriel is as tuned to the beauty in the Ozarks as in the Black Forest mountain range. What do you want, us to be impressed? Okay, we are. You win. Very, very impressed. And stunned, almost to weeping sometimes.

"Keene," the final track on the album, the final tear-jerker, the final ballad, the final tune named for a New England town, occupies only the forty-second to forty-forth minutes of the album. So short, yet so expert. As short, probably, as it should be, to comment sufficiently on how ferociously Kahane's skill exceeds his age. How dare he be so good so young?

For my money, and there isn't much of it, this is the best music being made. Certainly in New York. Maybe anywhere. I'm given to hyperbole. And I also really believe that.*From Leo Rosten's The Joys of Yiddish:

Mr. Fleishman, a new art collector, bought a painting which was much admired by his friend Meyerson [no relation], a self-proclaimed expert: The painting was on large square of black, with a dot of white in the center.
A year later, Mr. Fleishman bought another painting by the same modernist genius: A large square with two white dots.

Proudly, Fleishman hung the picture over his fireplace and telephoned his mavin friend Meyerson to come right over. Meyerson took one look at the picture and wrinkled his nose: "I don't like it. Too ongepotchket."

On Infidelity, Human Rights and Human Nature

2008-09-01T19:39:00.000-07:00

There are several books I have in mind to write at some point. One of them is to do with neo-Darwinian views on "human nature" and their implications for "human rights" thought. Essentially, the contention is that it seems silly to base our idea of human rights (life, liberty, property) on notions of "human nature" (like Locke's) that predate Darwin. Now that we have been studying evolution for a century and a half, we have a more refined, if still vastly incomplete, idea of what is naturally "human." The book would explore what neo-Darwinian evolutionary biologists who study the development of the hominid hold as natural human behavior, impulse, need, &c. and then construct a human rights doctrine based on these ideas.

I tend to salivate over scientific discoveries that explain bits of human behavior, particularly the human behavior our society finds repugnant and tries to squash, without any deference to its natural origins. Infidelity is a big one of these, and the WaPo just published an article about a study that shows a genetic proclivity towards infidelity in roughly 40% of the male population of humans. I submit it for your review.

Thoughts on Day 3 of the DNC

2008-08-28T15:24:00.001-07:00

I was away for several days and accordingly missed the first couple of days of the convention (I'm all caught up on YouTube, though). Highlights include:

Dennis Kucinich

Montana Governor and My Favorite Politician in America Brian Schweitzer (Pt. 1)

(Pt. 2)

And Hillary performing one of the great bits of political theater in memory.

Here are some observations about the 3rd day.

The music is unbearable. Every celebrity musician and singer and songwriter in the country supports Obama. Why did they get such a lousy house band? The introductory music has been priceless, though (See: The Ohio Players' "Love Rollercoaster" introducing Dennis Kucinich above, perhaps in deference to his immensely hot wife, or perhaps to the cover version done by the Red Hot Chilli Peppers on the seminal patriotic film "Bevis and Butthead Do America.")-- you'll find that most of my remarks revolve around this point.

Luckily, things were moving along at a good enough pace that most of the music I watched was introductory and not sustained for entire songs (Someone labotamize Melissa Etheredge. Please.) but the one full song was Aretha Franklin's "Chain of Fools," playing as CNN announced that the upcoming speakers were to be Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Joe Biden. Ummmmm... wrong message. And labling three major politicians fools wasn't the worst of it. The entire thrust of the song is that it's from the perspective of someone who has been abused and cheated again and again and still cannot find the strength to stand up to the abusive cheater, which is the opposite of what the Democrats want to show (It's time to stand up and refuse to continue taking it on the chin, Harry Reid, who apparently thinks its 1847 and snake-oil salesmanship is still the most clever available metaphor for charlitanry).

Bill Clinton's introductary music, of course, was "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" by Fleetwood Mac, a song which might have been better served as an introduction to... oh, I don't know... say, a candidate of tomorrow, rather than a politician of yesterday. Luckily, Clinton did what he had to do and showed himself a rather big man by humbling himself fullthroatedly before the much-maligned Obama. The crowd knew exactly what was up, too, because they issued the former president a standing ovation of relief every time he said something nice about the candidate. The message was clear: thanks for seeing the light, finally.

Kerry's Lurch-like countenance was offset by the most remarkable speech of his political career, a glee of mine demolished by hearing Maroon 5's "This Love" being used to introduce Chet Edwards, the lyrics promising to maintain a relationship which has brought nothing but heartache. Chet Edwards and every DLC member should get the idea from the nomination of an Obama/Biden ticket, by way of Gloria Gaynor:

Go on now go walk out the door
just turn around now
'cause you're not welcome anymore
weren't you the one who tried to hurt me with goodbye
you think I'd crumble
you think I'd lay down and die
Oh no, not I
I will survive

The moving graphic behind the speakers had the unfortunate quality of occasionally flashing a sharp splash of light directly behind the speaker's head, leading me to worry that each was an assassination attempt. However, that visual was not nearly so disquieting as the usage (common, now, among Democratic politicians) of Bruce Springsteen's "The Rising," which makes it feel like we are exploiting September 11 as much as the Republicans do. And, for the biggest inappropriate moment of, like, my life:

BARACK OBAMA KISSED BIDEN'S WIFE ON THE MOUTH! Play on, playa.

McCain's Attack Ad

2008-08-23T09:21:00.000-07:00

It features everyone's new favorite guy in town: Joe Biden.

Sample Debate Excerpts

2008-08-23T06:32:00.000-07:00

EXCERPT 1 - IRAQ

Moderator: Sen. Obama, a question for you. Your detractors, including, during the primaries, Sen. Clinton, have cited your lack of foreign policy experience as a potential reason not to vote for you. What's your answer to their charges?

Obama: Well, I would first say that my opponent's experience, which he touts as being varied and longstanding, nevertheless led him to vote for this war, perhaps the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history. I, on the other hand, had the judgment necessary to oppose this war from the beginning. Experience is meaningless, if it doesn't improve your judgment.

Moderator: Mr. McCain, a 30 second rebuttal.

McCain: May I point out that Mr. Obama's running mate, whose foreign policy experience Mr. Obama touts as being varied and longstanding, nevertheless voted for the war?

Obama: Now, may I just respond, quickly?

Moderator: Go ahead.

Obama: Joe Biden was a staunch critic of how the Iraq War was handled, and came up with a bold new plan for our course there.

Moderator: Mr. McCain, brief follow-up?

McCain: I criticized how the Iraq War was handled and came up with The Surge, which polls show most Americans view as the most successful part of our entire policy in Iraq.

Here, Obama's line has to go from "I had the judgment to oppose the war from the beginning" to "Joe Biden's criticisms of the war's handling were more meaningful and thoughtful than McCain's extremely popular plan." Not very strong.

EXCERPT 2 - CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN

Moderator: Sen. Obama, your campaign slogan is Change We Can Believe In. Care to elaborate on the kind of change we can believe in?

Obama: It would be my pleasure. Change We Can Believe In means making a clean break from the past, proposing bold new ideas to take us into the future. It means taking a big step away from politics-as-usual in Washington and towards a new politics, founded on the principles of hope, unity and bipartisanship.

McCain: May I?

Moderator: Mr. McCain, a rebuttal.

McCain: Thank you. Obama talks a good one about change, but his running-mate, Joe Biden, has been in the senate for thirty five years! That's a decade longer than I've been there, and you know how they like to make fun of my age. Biden ran for president not just in 2008, but also in 1988, for crying out loud, a year after I started work in the Senate. He blew his first campaign by plagiarizing a British politician's speeches and blew his second one by making racially insensitive remarks about who else but Barack Obama, who at the time called the remarks "historically inaccurate." How can a guy represent a changing of the guard, while holding hands with a symbol of the old guard?

Moderator: Sen. Obama, quick response.

Obama: Thank you. Once again, John McCain is playing character assassination, instead of talking about the real change we can believe in: better health care for more Americans, a sound foreign policy that relies first on diplomacy and alliances, and a strong economy that helps working families as much as the wealthiest members of society.

Here, Obama has to stop using "change" as the all-encompassing narrative people love, and instead define it as "the same reforms Democrats have been proposing since Franklyn Delano Roosevelt, who was president when McCain was born. Not very strong.

EXCERPT 3 - THE ECONOMY

Moderator: Sen. Obama, your opponents primary-season admission that "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should" has given you a lot of leverage in criticizing his economic plan. But, how would you describe yours?

Obama: Well, firstly, I believe all people should get a fair shake. We are not red Americans and blue Americans, we are all citizens of one United States of America, so we've all got to look out for each other, help the neediest and ask more from those who have the most.

Moderator: Mr. McCain?

McCain: That doesn't sound like straight talk, coming from a guy whose running-mate has been in the pockets of Delaware-based credit card companies (American Express, Chase, Discover, &c.) for more than thirty years.

Obama: See? This is what I'm talking about. The politics of character assassination. Why can't we get to the issues?

Moderator: Mr. McCain?

McCain: Okay, fine. Joe Biden voted for and championed the 2005 Bankruptcy Bill, which made it harder for average citizens to file for bankruptcy. Obama called this bill a "bad idea" because is was "pushed by the credit card companies... by the mortgage companies" and because it "put the interests of those banks and financial institutions ahead of the interests of the American people."

Moderator: Sen. Obama, a brief follow-up.

Obama: That's just laughable: My opponent voted for the measure too!

McCain: My views have been consistent. The government should not have to reward people who have invested irresponsibly. I'm afraid, Mr. Obama, that it's you who have to explain the iconsistency.

Here, Obama's line goes from, "help the neediest instead of the wealthy" to "McCain did it, too." Not to strong.

Mark my words: Joe Biden might look like another old, white guy, but really, he's an albatross. A big, weighty albatross. With foreign policy experience!

Bert, Ernie, Billy and Fame

2008-08-15T08:47:00.000-07:00

h/t Akie for this unbelievable video.

Racism and The McCain Campaign

2008-08-15T08:03:00.001-07:00

Well, I was wrong about Obama's announcing this week. It'll likely be Monday, which is exactly a week before the convention starts-- cutting it close, that Barry O. I severely doubt he'd announce over the weekend and completely dispense with all the good news days, but hey-- we're Democrats. We're terrific at being stupid about political campaigns.

With that on hold, I'd like to turn my eye towards the McCain campaign and put my two cents in about the ways in which it is trying to define Obama.

Much has been made of the racist undertones of the "celebrity" ad, which, for those who haven't seen it, appears here:

Setting aside the oft-noted fact that McCain is himself a celebrity, having appeared in Wedding Crashers and The Tony Danza Show and whatnot (kos even points out that his website featured his celebrity, until the ad started garnering scrutiny)...

...and even the juxtaposition of a black man with two young white women whose entire celebrity is predicated on being over-sexualized (a play on one of the major fears bigots have of black men)...

...and even the charge that calling Obama "presumptuous" is code for calling him "uppity," a view being espoused not by Cornel West, but by David Gergen...

...and even the falsehood of the attack that Obama is somehow an empty suit without accomplishments (as though going from a childhood having nothing-at-all to becoming editor of the Harvard Law review were something your average Joe opts not to do)-- meanwhile, I might add, McCain's expertise on foreign policy is unquestionable because he finished 894th of 899 in his class at Annapolis, which he got into because his father was a military higher-up in one of the wealthiest families in Arizona, and then got shot down flying over Vietnam...

...there appears to be even two MORE racist undertones that I haven't heard anyone talk about.

The ad seems to make Obama out to be lazy. The argument goes: McCain has put in an enormous amount of work to get to this position, toiling away his whole life, and now he has earned it. Obama, welfare queen of the political community, has shirked his responsibilities, and taken a ride on his charm to get his success. Laziness, for those who don't know, is another major racist stereotype of black folks.

The last one is a play on the idea that all black people can be to attain success are celebrities. The most famous and important black people in society have, as long as white folks have let them, been athletes and entertainers. This puts Obama not in the company of Dr. King and Frederick Douglass (not that I think he is-- because I don't) but rather in the company of Sammy Davis, Jr. and Ice Cube.

Pretty gross.

Shame, too...

2008-08-13T10:34:00.000-07:00

... because I was hoping for Franken. Can you imagine what a speech that would be? Frankly, I think he could also probably use the electoral help more than Warner, though each is up in his race. Warner is straight DLC, and I view this convention as the one that hammers the final nail into the coffin of that wretched organization. Change, remember? Change!

Besides, Mark Warner can't do this:

Obama's Veep and the McDonald's Principle

2008-08-12T10:30:00.000-07:00

I think Obama will announce his running mate by Thursday. He'll want to announce at least a week before the convention, and he doesn't want a slow news day like Friday (the day on which John Edwards chose to dump his admission of infidelity). It's been an intense few days in the press, with the Edwards revelations, the Georgian crisis and the Olympics in high gear, all of which will be utterly eclipsed by Obama's announcement, whenever he makes it.

It was the occasion of the latter that I was actually-- gasp!-- watching some... wait for it... television. I have the glee of reporting that there was some startling athleticism taking place between commercials. Aside from noticing that every car commercial now has as its selling point is fuel efficiency, which is a step forward (necessity is the mother of activism), I noticed McDonald's new Olympic-style commercials advertising assorted chicken sandwich items. One of those commercials appears here:

The thing worth noticing is the claim (around the :23 mark) that it comes "on a steamy buttery-tasting bun." The other commercial in the series, which I could not find on YouTube, advertises something as "homemade-tasting." The effect of these claims, as should be screamingly obvious to anyone watching, is to call attention to the fact of the artificiality of the buttery taste and the homemade taste. There is no true butter, and this was not made in anyone's home.

Now: for those people who find appeal in McDonald's products, these claims are unnecessary. They like McDonald's and will continue to eat food produced at its restaurants for their own reasons, and pointing out the synthetic nature of the product will not rope in any new eaters. This is the principle I wish Obama would consider when making his selection of running mate.

Conventional wisdom says that Obama, with his relative lack of foreign policy experience, needs some sort of foreign policy expert to compliment him on the ticket. But conventional wisdom, as almost always, is totally wrong. Such a move would serve to call attention to his relative lack of foreign policy experience, rather than make up for it.

Hillary Clinton charged lack of experience, and it didn't stick. And people were actually enthusiastic about her. There is no reason to suspect that John McCain, a man with all the political skill of a retarded goat (h/t Mac, for the insult), should have any more success (meanwhile, of course, no one pauses to ask why, if these people have so much experience, they have such lousy judgment about minor matters like-- oh, war). People like Obama, and, like so many McDonald's patrons, will continue to, as long as what they like about him continues to be so and be emphasized.

What people like about Obama is that he is NOT from the old guard of triangulating Democratic politics, and that he opposes the war in Iraq. Choosing an "expert" who undermines both of these attractive qualities will go lengths to nullify the entire appeal of his campaign heretofore. Evan Bayh, the chief Democratic architect of the war in Iraq, Joe Biden, who couldn't be more firmly entrenched in the old style of politics if his last name were Clinton, and Tim Kaine with his credo of "triangulate at all costs" will never do. And yet, these are the names most frequently mentioned by the Insiders And Experts who bloviate about such matters.

What the running mate needs are to be representative of a break from the old style and to have antiwar credentials. We are seeing in Russia what happens when a supposedly new administration holds on to all the formulas of the old one. We are also seeing there what a mindset of imperial dominance is bringing the region. Obama would do well to look to this last week in news, while planning to dominate the next one.

My Candidate

2008-08-10T06:04:00.000-07:00

Hi, all. I know it's been a while since I've posted, but these Edwards revelations have really made me rethink the idea of endorsing a candidate for president that I just don't believe in 100%. I'd say the FISA and off-shore drilling things qualify Obama as just that. So, I've switched to a grassroots candidate. Here's the news report about her.

It was all a dream.

2008-01-21T11:53:00.000-08:00

Of all the spin stories America has executed to cast the good in a bad light, the job they did on Dr. King has got to be among the most egregious. Here was a man who, at the time of his assassination, was the nation's leading critic of the war in Vietnam, a man who called for the radical redistribution of wealth from the few to the many (indeed, when he was slain, he was not there for a civil rights march, but a union march) and J. Edgar Hoover's Public Enemy No. 1. He was every bit a social revolutionary on the scale of Joe Hill.

And the corporations, government and media, through a sustained and concerted effort over the last few decades, successfully limited the scope of discussion about this man to one speech, and a speech about dreaming, at that. No longer is he a radical, beloved of hundreds of thousands of like-minded Americans, who was a tremendous threat to the power structure in the United States because of his stunning intellectual powers and uncanny ability to motivate enormous numbers of people. No longer is he the victim of some of the most brutal and cruel surveillance and harassment any government has inflicted upon any private individual in history. No, now he is a dreamer.

And his "dream," as though it were the sole thing he wanted, was the civil rights bill, as though he found that sufficient. They have marginalized and broken down this man so far that McDonald's can use his likeness in their ads and President Bush can quote him in his speeches. What a disgrace.

This MLK day, I recommit to Dr. King's true purpose, far more than that speech or even that dream: the aggressive and rigorous confrontation, on behalf of the miserable, with those who benefit from their misery.

Gaza in Darkness

2008-01-20T13:44:00.000-08:00

There is no realistic way to talk about there being violence coming from both sides of the Israel-Palestine crisis so long as things like this can occur. Power relations are always the genesis of violence, no matter what the liberals would have you think.

Ramblings on Primary Season

2008-01-17T09:38:00.000-08:00

Though I tend to think he's right in this instance, Bill Clinton calling anyone the "establishment" candidate is a bit like John Gotti accusing someone of having no regard for the law.

I'm not getting my hopes up, but wouldn't it be terrific if JRE won Nevada and had the Mo going into his home state of South Carolina, which he won last time around?

A Few Words on BillOrallyPushesGate

2008-01-08T13:17:00.000-08:00

Said Billo about his hollering at and shoving an Obama staffer who was blocking his cameraman's view of the candidate: "Well, that's a total violation of press freedom. So I had no choice, ladies and gentlemen, but to uphold the Constitution." (h/t C&L for the video)

Allow me the joy of parsing this idiot's words. Not only had he indeed a choice (i.e. he could very well not have "[upheld] the Constitution"), he also appears to have no idea what press freedom means from a constitutional standpoint.

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom... of the press." Those are the only words in the first amendment pertinent to press freedom. It is NOT the affirmative right of the press to capture any image they want to publish; it is a check on the government, saying that the government will not interfere with the content of the publication. If Bill Orally believes that any private citizen or member of any organization standing in front of his cameraman is a constitutional issue, then he must too believe that, in defense of the constitution, he has the right to break down my front door, if there's an image he wants to capture on the other side of it. After all, if it's prohibiting him from following his dreams, it must be in constitutional violation of the First Amendment.

A Few Words on HillaryCriesGate

2008-01-07T20:29:00.000-08:00

From a conversation I was having with Kyla:

It would be a big shame if people cited this as evidence that it's a man's job and women aren't stable enough to do it. I could picture Sens. Edwards and Obama getting emotional on the campaign trail, only it would be about war or poverty. The crucial part of this event is that she, true to form, is crying over a floundering campaign. She believes in power, not service, and that's why I haven't got the least bit of sympathy for her tears. The war she continues to fund zealously has caused more tears than ever she will imagine.

MyDD Delegate Counter

2008-01-07T07:46:00.001-08:00

I'll repost this after each primary.

The upshot

2008-01-03T21:08:00.000-08:00

Obviously, I'll post with a more considered reaction to tonight's events tomorrow, but for now, let the news that Biden and Dodd have dropped their campaigns suffice for the news. Exhausting night. And cold. I can't imagine what it's like to be in Iowa.

Iowa Caucus Day Thread 3: Evening Edition

2008-01-03T17:30:00.000-08:00

Results, as they come, are here.

Richardson denies a deal with Obama.

Here are videos from the Edwards/Mellancamp rally:

UPDATE 1: Huck takes it, it looks like. Say something, homies!

UPDATE 2: Mitt concedes.

UPDATE 3: Not looking good for Edwards. So far with 1078 of 1781 reporting:

Senator Barack Obama : 34.62%
Senator John Edwards : 31.48%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 31.13%

Iowa Caucus Day Thread 2: Afternoon Edition

2008-01-03T11:31:00.000-08:00

New section of the day, new post. Obviously, the final edition will be once the actual caucusing starts.

Well, reports still say that Richardson is "set" to second-vote endorse Obama, but the day presses on with no official word. Rumors that Biden will follow suit are still rumors.

Clinton (the taller) predicts a Huckabee win for the GOP, which is one of the few things that put us in league with one another. If I didn't suspect him of being tactical and dishonest with every word he utters, I might feel kind of proud to have someone in the know agreeing with me.

Zogby, who I don't always trust, puts Clinton (the shorter) well in third. This is in direct contradiction to the ARG Iowa poll.

UPDATE 1: Dodd apparently out after Iowa.

Iowa Caucus Day Thread 1

2008-01-03T03:44:00.000-08:00

Let the day begin. First, on the democratic side, where the 36-hour day the Edwards campaign just pulled, going all over Iowa has just ended. Evidently, the Mellencamp show was terrific-- I'll have video up when someone posts it. I hope it puts him over the top, as he seems terrific at this kind of retail electioneering, which, surprise-surprise, drunken right-wing blowhard Christopher Hitchens finds unworthy of American democracy. Things do change fast, in Iowa, and let's hope for the worse for Sen. Clinton, who is stealing Obama's phrases, late to bear on yet another thing.

No less a source than the Wall Street Journal, though, notices the impressive factor populism is playing in this cycle, even on the Republican side, with Mike Huckabee, whom I long ago predicted would take the thing. Other news from the GOP includes that Fred Thomson will likely drop his disastrous Messiah-campaign-cum-pathetic-mess-- one of the most interesting political phenomena in recent years-- and endorse McCain, a man so old, he doesn't necessarily consider himself likely to run for re-election, should he win. It should also be noted that Rudy 9iu11iani, skipping the caucuses, is engaged in a total tailspin. Of course, none of these men has an Iowa operation, and so all GOP eyes today will be upon Huckabee and Romney, in their silly little spat.

More later. Much more.

UPDATE 1 (8:25 AM):

Peep Rudy 9iu11iani's new ad. Desperate campaigns call for humorously overstated measures, I guess.

I particularly like "A Religion: Betrayed."

UPDATE 2 (10:27 AM):

Richardson looks all ready to join Kucinich in sending his 2nd vote support to Obama. I find this practice contemptible. These are two campaigns ostensibly based on urging people to vote their hearts and not to engage in civilian relations tactically. The voters ought to make up their own minds and not be prompted toward one candidate or another by the person for whom they intend to vote. How dare these candidates, after people in Iowa work for them, talk them up to friends, wear their buttons and argue for them on caucus day, auction their support off in back room deals with other candidates? I'm glad Dodd has decided to stay out of that practice. C&L has the video.

Ludicrous Music for the New Year

2008-01-02T16:46:00.000-08:00

Before we get into the potentially cut-throat and humorless tenor of the Iowa Caucuses, I'd like to present you with one of the most embarrassing things of all time. This could make the guy with the highest cringe-threshold tear his hear out. Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys, rapping a ditty called "Smart Girls."

Caucus Day Tomorrow

2008-01-02T15:57:00.000-08:00

Aside from live-blogging in the evening as results come in, I will be doing a thorough-going blog survey all day and posting developments I find interesting as I discover them. I hope to keep it mainly in the form of updates on a single thread, rather than an enormous number of postings. So, if you want a digest of what's going on in Iowa tomorrow, IFN might just be a decent bet.

P.S. I think "The Iowa Caucuses" would be a fabulous sports team name.

P.P.S. Come, on Johnny Reid! Here's his last minute ad. In perfect contrast to a shiny, expensive ad from Hilary, Edwards shows what matters most: working people.

On a Jet Plane v2.0

2008-01-01T02:55:00.000-08:00

I'm flying home today. I have fallen in love with this song. "Fucking Boyfriend" by The Bird and the Bee.

Had no Internet for Several Days...

2007-12-29T09:05:00.001-08:00

... since, among other things, finding out, while stuck in La Guardia airport for many hours of flight delays, that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. I think she was totally rad, not only for being a female leader in the Muslim world, but also for fighting religious extremism in the name of freedom and democracy for decades, risking her life and frequently being exiled from her home country. Horrendously sad, that. Biden claims that he warned Musharraf to provide more security for her, leaving behind the possibility, very real, that it was not government incompetence but government compliance that allowed Bhutto's murder. He gets to put off elections and maintain marshal law over Pakistan. These American politicians are so timid. Maybe we'll be able to read more timid bullshit in the New York Times, which is apparently tapping Bill "Never-gets-anything-right-and-somehow-is-still-taken-seriously" Kristol as a weekly columnist this year upcoming. Yet another Op-Ed. writer whose columns I intend to skip.

Here are some people I like who died in 2007.

Molly Ivins
Kurt Vonnegut
Michelangelo Antonioni
Max Roach
Luciano Pavarotti
Bobby Byrd
Norman Mailer
Oscar Peterson
Benazir Bhutto

So as not to be totally depressing, here's a song I really love. "Oh Girl" by the Chi-Lites.

On A Jet Plane

2007-12-27T04:40:00.000-08:00

I'm about to take off for Bill Richardson's city, Santa Fe. Anything crazy happens there-- it's the last week before the Iowa Caucuses, so you can expect care taken on the political front-- I'll let you know. For the time being, though, check out Mos Def and DJ Honda's "Travellin Man," and picture me soaring through the sky.

Merry War on Christmas

2007-12-25T19:01:00.000-08:00

Happy Jesus, y'all. Good presents?

The sad before the jolly

2007-12-24T11:39:00.000-08:00

The New York Times reports that Oscar Peterson died yesterday. Maybe my favorite musician in history. Unbelievable virtuosity. He was 82. I've included a bit of video, just so you can see what I'm talking about. Max Roach and now this, in one year. Good grief.

I know I said I wouldn't post, probably, but...

2007-12-20T19:33:00.000-08:00

This would be a dream come true. Not only would it diversify the debate on a host of issues, but it would, more importantly, split the GOP vote between moderates and radicals and, even more deliciously than that, destroy the Republican apparatus. Let the Democrat walk into the white house. Fab.

IFN: Holiday Edition

2007-12-20T11:02:00.000-08:00

I'll be at my parents' house with my sister for a few days and then in Santa Fe for a few more, so there's no telling what my blogging schedule will be like. I'll certainly be back with it in the New Year, but allow me to take this opportunity to wish everyone a safe and happy holiday season. Here are two videos worth watching. One is Christmas in Hollis by Run-DMC (1987), the other John Edwards' Holiday ad (2007). Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth! Peace on Earth!

Can't Sleep Because I Have To Study, On Which I'm Having Trouble Focusing. Musica, Musica.

2007-12-19T21:33:00.000-08:00

My favorite rap love song ever. The holidays are for lovers. Most prominent sample is from "Peg" by former Bardians Steely Dan.

50th Post. Bravo, Sen. Dodd (D-CT)

2007-12-17T17:45:00.001-08:00

Hi everyone. I have some fabulous news for my 50th post on this blog: Sen. Dodd's filibuster defeated the Telecom Immunizing FISA bill, which Harry Reid tabled today. Sens. Clinton and Obama, needless to say, did not show. Backbone, Democrats, backbone!

Thank you, Sen. Dodd.

A Poem I Wrote

2007-12-17T14:02:00.000-08:00

Parakeet

Paragon

Estragon

Estrogen

Bombay Gin

Bombs Away

Haddaway

Had A Ball

Baseball

Bass And Treble

Angry Rebel

Angus Beef

You Want Beef?

U.S.A.

What'd I Say?

What A Trip!

Follow-Up on Edwards Endorsement

2007-12-16T22:31:00.000-08:00

Crooks and Liars posted this video of Stephanopoulos' interview with Edwards in which J.R.E. gives a succinct and vivid illustration of exactly the principles I was talking about in my post endorsing him. Worth a watch.

I wish he were polling better, obviously, but, to tell you the truth, I kind of like his chances in Iowa. Very strong organization, decent strategy (activating smaller counties with equal voting power to the larger ones), fearless supporters, &c. Could be interesting come 3 January.

Also, thank goodness for Chris Dodd, preparing to filibuster this criminal FISA bill Harry Reid is putting forward. He's quite a good senator and would be a decent running mate, except that he brings nothing to any conceivable ticket. I remember when there was talk of his being Senate Minority Leader instead of Reid, and this is a terrific example of just why that would have been a good move.

Lieberman to Endorse McCain

2007-12-16T17:51:00.000-08:00

Even Hillary isn't keen enough on going to war with Iran for ol' Jomentum. He had to go and endorse a guy who sings about it.

A series of things.

2007-12-16T12:10:00.000-08:00

1. Sam told me that, during the Depression in Germany, wall paper per-size-of-currency was unfavorable in such a way that people would sometimes paper their walls with marks. That sounds like a fabulous detail in a scenic design, but a bit illogical: how important is wallpaper during a depression?

2. There is no adequate substitute for hot cocoa on a snowy day.

3. Did you know that Randy Newman wrote a musical of Faust, set in the dorm rooms at Notre Dame University?

3. Ich tanze um die Welt mit dir by Marcellus Schiffer and Friedrich Hollaender is fabulous.

4. So is the Trio for Flute, Cello an Piano by Bohuslav Martinu

5. I actually listen to nothing these days but Debussy's String Quartet in G Minor. Here's the first movement, Anime et tres decide:

Bill O'Pera

2007-12-15T11:08:00.001-08:00

Igor Keller composed an opera about Bill-O's harassment trial. Here's the aria of the reported transcript of the infamous "felafel" phone message he drunkenly left on Mackris' phone. I find it way brilliant.

Can't Focus on Studying; Stuck on Music v2.0

2007-12-15T10:05:00.000-08:00

I think I like M.I.A. in theory more than in practice. Radical, dance-able, international music sounds great. Too bad she almost never does it for me. This song is really infectious, though. I like the sample of "Straight to Hell" by the Clash.

Gasp! Right and wrong exist?! What have I been doing in this desert for so many decades?

2007-12-15T09:43:00.000-08:00

The argument that, without religion, morals are impossible seems to rest on this assumption:

Moses and his followers were walking through the desert, believing murder and theft to be perfectly acceptable and were presumably shocked when God decreed that, contrary to the the beliefs they and everyone else on earth held, this was not so.

Somehow, they knew that the repression of the Israelites in Egypt was wrong without God having to send down a list of rules including as much.

Glow in the Dark Cats

2007-12-14T14:21:00.000-08:00

Glow.
In.
The.
Dark.
Cats.

Cats. Who glow. When in darkness.

My word.

The Way to Stop the War: Stop the War.

2007-12-13T14:48:00.000-08:00

These people are unbelievable. IMMEDIATELY after once again squandering the ability to shut down the war by refusing to fund it, Nancy Pelosi, shameful non-leader that she's proven to be, decided to pump up her anti-war credibility with a bunch of hollow rhetoric.

"They like this war. They want this war to continue," Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters. She expressed frustration over Republicans' ability to force majority Democrats to yield ground on taxes, spending, energy, war spending and other matters.

"We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference in the Capitol. "But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush's war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress."

If you want to end the war, it's very simple. Send the president a budget that does not include money for the war. If he vetoes that, send him another budget, this time one that does not include money for the war. If he vetoes that, send him another budget, this time one that does not include money for the war. Eventually, he will pass one. Why? Because he needs a budget. The money for the war will run out. That is it. That is the way to end the war. Anything else is cowardly and enables the war. Anything else makes Nancy Pelosi and everyone else in her camp co-conspirators in the slaughter and co-murderers of the hundreds of people who routinely die as a result of this heinous crime against humanity.

Probably Can Sleep; Still Stuck on Music

2007-12-12T21:57:00.000-08:00

Adam directed Max and Claire in Joe Orton's "Ruffian on the Stair," which I saw tonight and opens tomorrow. I'd never heard this song until he included it in the show. Fab.

It is currently...

2007-12-11T20:58:00.001-08:00

12:12 on 12/12.

In five years and twelve seconds, it will be 12:12:12 on 12/12/12.

Mind.
Blow.
Wing.

Why I'm for Edwards

2007-12-11T08:31:00.000-08:00

"White college kid in the northeast with an abiding interest in racial justice? But, Jesse, you fit the bill exactly for an Obama man!"

Yeah, well, you fit the bill for a non-voter, Mr. Generic Pigeon-Holing Assumer, because that's a very cursory view, and if you knew anything about me, you'd know that I'm a wonk to obnoxious degrees who does not so much care for the image of a candidate, &c. as the substance and subtext of a candidacy.

Let's get these things out of the way to begin with: Obama would be a perfectly fine president, and, were he to capture the Democratic nomination, I would gladly work like hell to get him elected. Additionally, I know Edwards' senate record as well as you, including his vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq. That's shitty and I said so at the time and criticized him ruthlessly for it in 2004.

But I've got permanent interests, instead of permanent friendships, and John Edwards-- much like Al Gore, Jimmy Carter and a bunch before him-- once liberated from the stifling muck of politics in Washington, found that his permanent interests were worth indulging, thus making him my current friend.

The fact of the matter is that, at core, Obama's campaign is about making nice and Edwards' campaign is about making right. Obama's contentions that he will offer broad change and tell broad truths are hopeful, but they are empty insofar as he is not doing them. Where is the change? Where are the truths? Neither require first being elected. Both can be offered now.

Obama's emphasis on bi-partisanship is cute but stupid. The sides are these: support the reigning system which seeks wealth and power at the expense of the well-being of the people or support the people which seeks humanity and justice at the expense of the well-being of the reigning system. If he sincerely thinks that moneyed interests will make concessions if a well-intentioned president asks nicely, it means that he doesn't understand that capital in America is more powerful and lasting than any president. I would also encourage Obama to read Frederick Douglass, who, in 1857, wrote

Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle... If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters.

This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.

If you want to ensure health care for all people, you must absolutely remove from the equation the people who benefit from withholding health care from people. If you want to bring an end to war, you must absolutely remove from the equation the people who benefit from continuing war. If you want to ensure environmental conservation, you must absolutely remove from the equation the people who benefit from destroying the environment. These concepts are very simple. And Obama, if he gets them, does not let on.

Edwards gets them. And he lets on. He is talking, in very specific and, to my mind, courageous terms, about a fundamental change of power in Washington: from the conventional forces of wealth to the heretofore repressed forces of the working class.

Specific quotations and policy positions are available to anyone willing to spend a bit of time of Wikipedia or YouTube, but this is essentially the substance of my decision to endorse Johnny Reid Edwards for president (did you know it wasn't Jonathan? Me neither, until this morning).

My fish has died and I have written him a eulogy

2007-12-10T09:33:00.000-08:00

Ode to Tyner, a Fish Who Swam

I bought you from a man

In the campus center

Who sold mainly blue fish

And you were red

I wondered if I was buying you

Instead of all the others

Just to be contrary

And maybe I was

You came in a tiny bowl

With a tiny bag of food

And you were a tiny fish

Whose name I had trouble formulating

You were red

So you had to be named for a communist

But you didn’t look like a Karl

Or a Vladimir or a Fidel

You looked American

And needed an American name

I thought of Jarvis Tyner

Whom I’ve only met once

At the precise moment

“Blue Bossa” by Jarvis’ brother, McCoy

Came on my computer’s play list

And you began to dance

Your fins were Chinese fans

The water became air

And rhythm to a fish

Is delight to a boy

Tyner it was

Tynie for short

Which is pronounced like “tiny”

And you were a tiny fish

The blue sparkles which coated you

And could only be seen at certain angles

Will miss reflecting light

Now that you have stopped swimming

The people who fish-sat you

When I had to go away

Became attached to you

Claire even dreamed she’d keep you

You’d hide in your plant

And do little else

Often getting more excited about my depositing fish food

Than about devouring the food itself

I found you had a lot of personality

Though other people thought

That you were kind of a stupid pet

And maybe they were right

But you were my first pet

And I loved you very much

And I’m very sad you died

And I feel silly about that

You never asked for much

Just clean water and spherical food

But in return you gave delight

As much as a tiny little fish can

It says a lot about you

That you didn’t go belly-up

Or rise to the top of the bowl

Maybe you were just being contrary

I love you, Tyner

Betta splendor

May you rest well

In fishy heaven

I found out some things and I want to find out others.

2007-12-10T08:05:00.000-08:00

Things I've found out:

"Jot" comes from "iota."
A "jiffy" is actually the smallest, indivisible portion of time, in quantum theory.

Thing I'd like to find out:

Why Philippines and Filipino begin with different letters.
Why this song is as catchy as it is:

The countries

2007-12-09T16:39:00.000-08:00

Why do we put "The" before Sudan

and Ukraine,

when the people from those countries don't? The British do it with Lebanon and Belarus and probably others. Is it a bit of colonial legacy, even though we did not colonize Sudan or Ukraine?

A Poem I Like

2007-12-07T20:40:00.000-08:00

Song of Alive
By Wavy Gravy (my good friend)

I have ten fingers
each of which contains an angel.
This is a moment of birth.
Hark my singing fingers!

Wake up the turrets of sky!
My god! My god!
The sun on my belly.
the proof of skin on my bones.
Hosanna my eyes! can see my eyes!
My lungs can possess the sky.
I can shout!
I can sing. O god I can sing!
And smell the color of day.
I can sing of my legs
about to run:
To rn to run to runrunrun.
the wind
and sweet on my eyes
That see! that see!
Good morning legs alive in legs.
Knowing the song of legs and alive
Im alive my god I'm alive!
And my head is as high as high is high
I am a song of god.
I am a smell of god.
A song of alive of love and alive.

* * *

All spelling in context.

Can't Focus on Studying; Stuck on Music

2007-12-07T11:11:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I feel like this a lot.

A Poem I Wrote

2007-12-05T16:32:00.000-08:00

Sweet and sour

cauliflower

Eiffel Tower

Matthew Lauer

grim and dour

speak or cower

Schopenhauer

Super-Power!

I picture it as the climactic chant in a rock opera.

Urban Warfare in a Cellular Age

2007-12-05T12:11:00.000-08:00

Mark Danner told me something that make my cresh fleep, to say the least. Regarding the new macabre role cell phones have come to play within the Iraqi citizenry:

It is now so that, long enough after one of these profound explosions in the streets that the city has gotten its hearing back, amongst the charred-black car-frames and piles of bodies, cell phones begin to ring, receiving calls from concerned loved ones who want to make sure everything is all right. It isn't, and those will be missed calls.

I'm so sick of this fucking war.

Buffalo

2007-12-04T20:52:00.000-08:00

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo.

It's a grammatically sound sentence.

Here's the Wikipedia article for an extended explanation.

The gist is that the word can be either a city in New York, a species of animal (plural even) and a transitive verb. For a demonstration, let us substitute the words for "Newark," "children" and "bully." It would read:

Newark children (whom) Newark children bully (then) bully (other) Newark children.

Rockin' Around the Hanukkah Bush

2007-12-04T20:00:00.000-08:00

Happy Consolation Holiday!

My favorite words on the subject come from our president. Here's Stewart's take on it, when it happened.

Apology

2007-12-04T16:26:00.000-08:00

I'm currently writing long pieces on Utopia, Bertolt Brecht and Restoration theater. All are due by the 10th, so expect to see them published here by the same time.

In the meantime, probably not to much publication, for obvious reasons.

Can't Sleep; Stuck on Music v6.0

2007-12-03T22:02:00.001-08:00

Prepare to cry, if you're anything like me.

The Brits Are Smarter

2007-12-03T20:09:00.001-08:00

Would that any American politician could speak like this [potential exception, though it's a bit apples-and-oranges: Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA)]. It's MP George Galloway (Respect Party, representing Bethnel Green and Bow).

Theater of the Weekend

2007-12-02T20:59:00.000-08:00

It's been a quick minute since I updated, but it's only because I've been on the go all weekend. Theatrically.

First was the 24 Hour Theater Festival at Bard. It works thusly:

Friday at 8:00 PM, 35 actors, 7 playwrights and 7 directors meet to vote on a theme for the festival (this semester, it was "Blood 'N Boots"). Then, all but the playwrights leave and they draw five slips out of the hat into which all the actors have deposited their names. This is not the cast they're writing for, but just a model for how many male and female characters should be in their plays. They write over night.

The next day at 7:00 AM, writers and directors gather and, by draw of slips from hats, each director chooses the playwright whose play s/he will direct. The directors also randomly select the order in which their plays will present. After a little discussion time between the playwrights and corresponding directors, the directors randomly choose casts out of men's and women's hats, as each play demands. At 8:00 AM, the actors come. Then, the rehearsal. At 10:00, the directors gather to list the costume, lighting, sound, set and props needs each has. People work all day constructing the things. Rehearsal. Rehearsal. Rehearsal. Throughout the day, each play techs and, at 8:00 PM on Saturday, the show begins.

I directed "Badge 'N Sneaks and the Case of the Bloody Boots," by Adriane Raff Corwin and Maxwell Cramer, both of whom are previous collaborators of mine. I also designed sound for the event. Awake from 6:30 AM until 11:30 PM, I slept like a baby, if babies ever sleep well, which, as far as I've seen, they do not.

Sunday brought me to The Culture Project at its new home at 55 Mercer, which, despite having a much narrower and shallower stage, is a very nice place, conducive to a very different kind of theater than its previous place at 45 Bleeker. I wonder if Buchman will select plays accordingly. There, I saw Rebel Voices, Will Pomerantz and Rob Urbinati's presentation of selections from Howard Zinn's Voices of a People's History of the United States. Despite the good acting (done that night by Opal Alladin, Tim Cain, Morgan Hallett, Lenelle Moise and Thom Rivera) and even better singing (Allison Moorer), I was left with a feeling of "Good show. And now what?" which is exactly what I don't want out of political theater. I want, "I couldn't even pay attention to the quality of the show, because I now have so many questions and thoughts about myself and society."

Can't Sleep; Stuck on Music v5.0

2007-11-30T20:35:00.000-08:00

Sister Nancy. Bam Bam. Recognize. Roots.