[2004.09.30 - 12:29 PM] Talibananas
Would someone please explain to me why this remark from a
recent Bush speech is not getting major play on the cable news
shows:
[A]s a result of the United States military, Taliban no
longer is in existence.
Uh, come again there, Monkey?
Somebody might want to tell our troops in Afghanistan, who are still
being shot at daily by these guys, that the Taliban doesn't exist anymore.
If they knew that, maybe the bullets would cease to exist too.
Personally, I didn't think Bush would ever be able to top his infamous
"Saddam didn't let the inspectors in" line, but this bizarre dispatch from
BushWorld is right up there. Is he deliberately lying? Egregiously
misinformed? Too stupid to know what he's saying? There's just no knowing
for sure.
Please let Kerry throw this in his face tonight. I'm so tired of these
asinine statements being totally ignored by the major media. Can you even
imagine if Al Gore or Bill Clinton had ever said something like this? Can
you imagine the media play we'd see if Kerry popped off with a pronouncement
so completely at odds with reality? Karl Rove would evaporate in a cloud of
orgasmic bliss. But with Bush, all we get is "Ho hum, just a minor
misstatement, let's move along..."
I just love our Liberal Media, don't you?
|
"The Vice President even called me unfit for office last night. I guess I'll leave it up to the voters whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty.
"Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without healthcare makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi Royal Family control our energy costs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit. That's the record of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And it's not going to change. I believe it's time to move America in a new direction; I believe it's time to set a new course for America."
(OK, I'm really going now. Bye.)
[2004.09.03 - 09:45 P.M.] ...And Learn How To Walk, You Idiot
Last night, in his speech, George Bush made the following smart-ass remark:
"Some folks look at me and see a certain swagger, which in Texas is called 'walking.'"
Heh heh. Boy, is that guy a character or what? Walking.
Uh, George, I've been to Texas. Not everyone there walks like that. Most of them, in fact, walk upright with their arms swinging loosely by their sides. It's a Homo Sapiens thing. You wouldn't understand.
Maybe nobody's ever told you this, but you are not a gunslinger. Nor are you a cattle wrangler or a pugilist. You are not any variety of Bad Ass known to man, and walking with your arms held stiffly out an extra three inches from your side with that faux steely glare on your face won't change that.
Josh Marshall recently called you a bully.
I've met my share of bullies, however, and I don't think you're a bully. No, you're that little pissant who always tags along with the bullies and then stands behind them and taunts whatever poor soul they've decided to fuck with that day, safe in the knowlege that you won't have to do any actual fighting. You don't have the stones to be an actual bully, and it's not a role that requires much in the way of stones to begin with, so that's kinda sad.
More than anything, though, you're a loser and failure. A guy who has been given every conceivable advantage in life but still manages to screw up everything he touches. You hide this from yourself with your phony Sheriff's Swagger and all the other trappings of Tough-Guy-dom you like to surround yourself with. Well, here's a newsflash: Playtime's over, and your phony little world is about to come crashing down on your head.
Punk.
|
[2004.09.03 - 09:15 A.M.] Paul Krugman Is Here To Chew Bubblegum And Kick Ass...
...And he's all out of bubblegum:
Why are the Republicans so angry? One reason is that they have nothing positive to run on (during the first three days, Mr. Bush was mentioned far less often than John Kerry).
The promised economic boom hasn't materialized, Iraq is a bloody quagmire, and Osama bin Laden has gone from "dead or alive" to he-who-must-not-be-named.
Another reason, I'm sure, is a guilty conscience. At some level the people at that convention know that their designated hero is a man who never in his life took a risk or made a sacrifice for his country, and that they are impugning the patriotism of men who have.
That's why Band-Aids with Purple Hearts on them, mocking Mr. Kerry's war wounds and medals, have been such a hit with conventioneers, and why senior politicians are attracted to wild conspiracy theories about Mr. Soros.
It's also why Mr. Hastert, who knows how little the Bush administration has done to protect New York and help it rebuild, has accused the city of an "unseemly scramble" for cash after 9/11. Nothing makes you hate people as much as knowing in your heart that you are in the wrong and they are in the right.
But the vitriol also reflects the fact that many of the people at that convention, for all their flag-waving, hate America. They want a controlled, monolithic society; they fear and loathe our nation's freedom, diversity and complexity.
Holy shit, dude. Don't hold back. Tell us how you really feel.
UPDATE: My favorite segment of Krugman's piece today is the part where he says "They want a controlled, monolithic society; they fear and loathe our nation's freedom, diversity and complexity." I think this really goes to the dark heart of conservatism. For an absolutely brilliant dissection of this conservative tendency, read Why Does Zell Miller Hate America? by Rob Salkowitz. It's so perfectly on point that I'm tempted to think Krugman himself cribbed from it.
|
[2004.09.02 - 05:30 P.M.] Saletan on the GOP's Night-O-Hate
I'm not a big fan of William Saletan, but he was uncharacteristically brilliant in this critique of last night's GOP Slime-Fest:
[T]he important thing isn't the falsity of the charges [against Kerry], which Republicans continue to repeat despite press reports debunking them. The important thing is that the GOP is trying to quash criticism of the president simply because it's criticism of the president. The election is becoming a referendum on democracy.
In a democracy, the commander in chief works for you. You hire him when you elect him. You watch him do the job. If he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he doesn't, you fire him by voting for his opponent in the next election.
Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he's making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you're accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign powerthe very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush's critics.
Are you prepared to become one of those countries?
Truly, I'm a little blown away by the ferocity of the media's reaction to Zell's speech. Not because they're wrong, but because they usually let this sort of winger hate-mongering go by without comment. The reaction we're seeing to Miller's speech today is typically reserved for liberals in the act of making legitimate, policy-related criticism. Let's hope they see and understand that this speech was the keynote for a reason: Zell Miller bared the soul of the GOP. He showed what they're really about. Hate, fear, and lies.
|
[2004.09.02 - 10:00 A.M.] What a Week
There have been at least a dozen things I've wanted to post about recently, but I've pretty much had to put blogging on hold this week while I prepare for my wedding on Saturday. Come to think of it, this will probably be my last substantive post until after we return from our honeymoon in Jamaica on 9-11. And then 9-12 is opening day of football season. So, yeah, it's going to be a while before I get back to business around here. I'm hoping that a week in the Carribean will help me recharge for the election stretch run.
Ah, the election.
I can think of at least one way in which Election 2004 is exactly like Election 2000. And, no, I'm not talking about the media's slavish pro-GOP bias. It's this jittery, frustrated sense I get from looking at the polls and thinking "Damn, we should be killing this guy! Why is this thing close?" The reasons differ, but the effect remains the same. In 2000, Bush was a hapless, unqualified moron who, by all rational measures, should have gotten shellacked by the competent, qualified Al Gore. In 2004, Bush is a hapless, unqualified moron with a four-year record of utter failure in every conceivable area of governance who, by all rational measures, should be getting shellacked by the competent, serious, intelligent John Kerry.
It's like Groundhog Day. Only a lot less funny.
How can so many people be so completely and utterly clueless? Well, it helps if you realize that 90% or so of the electorate is made up of monkeys. I mean this not as some sort of generic slur on their intelligence. I mean that these people are functioning primarily as primates in a pack environment, rather than as rational decision makers. They are operating mainly on what Bob Wilson and Timothy Leary referred to as the "emotional/territorial circuit" of the human brain, which, in their model, is primarily concerned with processing pack status, reading and decoding dominance/submission signals from other members of the tribe, and dealing with threats to the local group from within and without. Anyone who "lives" on that circuit most of the time is ripe to be played for suckers by this group of malicious alpha males and their tribal shamans (e.g. Rove, Hughes, etc.).
Louis Menand's article "The Unpolitical Animal" in the New Yorker last week tried to come at this same phenomenon from a slightly different angle. He says that most voters are not engaged in rational evaluation of policies, but instead rely on a reading a considerably simplified set of signals to arrive at decisions about a candidate:
People use shortcutsthe social-scientific term is heuristicsto reach judgments about political candidates, and, on the whole, these shortcuts are as good as the long and winding road of reading party platforms, listening to candidate debates, and all the other elements of civic duty. Voters use what Samuel Popkin, one of the proponents of this third theory, calls low-information rationalityin other words, gut reasoningto reach political decisions; and this intuitive form of judgment proves a good enough substitute for its high-information counterpart in reflecting what people want.
This theory.. gives the mass of voters credit for their decisions by suggesting not only that they can interpret the cues given by the campaigns and the lite opinion-makers but that the other heuristics they usethe candidate seems likable, times are not as good as they wereare actually defensible replacements for informed, logical reasoning.
I think this theory gets it wrong. Menand suggests that voters are using a simplified form of rationality, operating on what is called the "semantic circuit" in the Wilson/Leary model, but doing so in a more expedient fashion. I think what we're really seeing is voters replacing third/semantic circuit reasoning with second/emotional-territorial circuit reasoning. This is a strategy that probably worked perfectly well for most of our evolution, when the tribe's alpha males could be relied on to signal accurately on the second circuit level. Now that we've had a few millennia of practice at manipulating those signals -- call it the practice of second-circuit deception -- relying on that level of reasoning is no longer a viable strategy. As Ezra Klein put it recently on Kevin Drum's site:
The Republican Party has become masterful at rigging these heuristic signposts into pointing in the opposite direction from the party. Bush's affability, apparent values and general normality signals good president despite the incoherence and incompetence defining his policies.
Substitue "manipulating emotional-territorial responses" for "rigging these heuristic signposts" and you get the idea of what I think is going on. Bush is sending second-circuit "good leader" signals to the pack that, when analyzed on the basis of third-circuit rationality, simply don't hold up.
Damn shame that we don't have time to just, you know, evolve out of this second-circuit dominance in our thinking before November 2nd.
Phew. That was fun.
I'm trying to not think too much about the election right now. Partly because I'm overwhelmed with wedding planning, but partly because it's just so damned depressing. Our lovable media is out there reading from the RNC script, wherein a two-point lead for Kerry is a tie but a two-point lead for Bush means that Kerry is on the ropes and might as well just quit the race right now. The Kerry campaign, on the other hand, has shown me little to get excited about.
Case in point was their response to Bush's political misstep earlier this week when he said he didn't think we could "win" the "war on terror". This was, let's be frank, one of the first honest, lucid comments Bush has made in a long time. We can't win this ridiculous "war" against what is, essentially, a tactic. All we can do is create and environment where the impulse to commit terrorist acts is less strong and comes less frequently and where the logistics of carrying it out are more difficult because of our law enforcement and security apparatus.
What the Kerry campaign should have said was something like "Congratulations, Mr. Bush. We're glad you've come to your senses." Instead, in a classic example of second-grade argumentation, they reflexively contradicted Bush on the one occasion in a million where he said something that made sense, claiming that we can win the war on terror. I think this was a colossal missed opportunity, a chance to differentiate themselves from the Republican party line on terrorism that they squandered.
Of course, I'm a hard-core third-circuit rationalist. So maybe I'm wrong and Kerry did the sensible thing, no?
As for Lie-a-Palooza (aka the Repubican National Convention), I haven't watched a second of it. I know what these people stand for, and I know what they will do if they hold onto the White House. No amount of lying about their record or their intentions is going to change that. Sure, it could be worth watching for the car-wreck aspect of it, but I'm way beyond finding their antics amusing or entertaining. Their stupid charade would only stress me out, and I don't need any stress this week.
So that's it for me. I'll be back in a week and a half. Until then, dear readers, keep fighting the good fight.
|
[2004.08.27 - 10:15 P.M.] Epistemological Relativism
Rob Salkowitz has a great post up titled "Roshomon Nation", wherein he gets at the most frustrating aspect of the Swift Boat Liars campaign: The willingness of politicians (not surprising), journalists (disappointing, but not surprising) and regular citizens (pretty damned surprising) to abandon the normal rules used for determining truth and falsehood:
People can honestly disagree over right and wrong, or whether God exists or not, because those are ideas beyond the physical plane and its hard to find concrete evidence one way or the other. Its another matter entirely to dispute the objective truth of science, mathematics or history. At a certain point, you dont have conflicting versions of a fact or event you have the fact which is true upon observation, and any alternate telling of it, which is false to a greater or lesser degree, depending entirely on the evidence. Our perceptions may vary, but, unless you are a hardcore mystic or talking about sub-atomic particles, the properties of the physical world and the events that transpire in it are not a matter of opinion.
Traditionally, we have applied certain common-sense guides to conflicting accounts of events in order to render a clear verdict on historical truth. Among the basic rules:
Assertions which are demonstrably false (contrary to established facts) must be discounted.
Actions which appear to be illogical or unmotivated require further explanation before being accepted at face value.
Accounts corroborated by documentary evidence are better than claims made with no supporting documents.
The more credible witnesses who provide direct testimony to an event, the more likely it is true.
Eyewitness accounts trump accounts of witnesses farther from the action.
Witnesses who have stuck to a consistent account and interpretation are more trustworthy than those who change their stories.
Witnesses who have no conflicts of interest are more trustworthy than those who have demonstrable ulterior motives.
Witnesses with a record of lying and distorting on other matters must be suspected of lying about the matter in question.
Unaided or unsolicited testimony is more credible than stories that are coaxed, coerced or lead out of a witness.
Simple, plausible explanations are more likely to be true than complicated conspiracy theories.
If we applied those tests to the latest set of conflicting accounts over John Kerrys military service, for example, we would find conflicts of interest on both sides (the Swifties might lie because they hate Kerry, Kerry might lie to make himself look better in the election), and certain small inconsistencies that can be attributed to honest gaps in recollection. But on every other count, Kerrys account is consistent with the standards for historical truth, while that of his accusers is riddled with shortcomings that tend to discredit it. To believe the accusers, you have to explain away an enormous number of discrepancies and contradictions, ignore mounds of unimpeachably credible testimony on Kerrys behalf, and utterly neglect the well-established pattern of deceptive behavior of the sponsors of the SwiftVet group, namely Rove and Bush.
And yet, millions of Americans including some highly-educated people in the media refuse to make the simplest of judgments.
This is exactly right. Simply put, if everyone applied the same rules to this case that they use, day in and day out, to judge truth and falsehood in matters large and small, this fake controversy would have ended five minutes after it started. Because the discussion involves a politician and a presidential race, however, most of the country seems intent on entertaining the idea that Up might actually be Down and Black could be described as White, depending on how you look at it.
When we can no longer come to a mutually agreeable conclusion on simple matters of historical record, what is the point of even having a discussion? In a debate with no rules, there can be no winners and no losers. Of course, if you're a conservative, and bound to be on the losing side in a fair fight, perhaps this sort of epistemological sabotage is your salvation.
|
[2004.08.27 - 06:30 P.M.] Born Once, That's Me
Josh Marshall has two posts up discussing an article by Marvin Olasky that came out yesterday. Prior to this moment, the only thing I really knew about Olasky was that he was the guy who coined the phrase "compassionate conservative". Having read the excerpts from his article that Josh provided, however, I now know something else about him: He's a fucking stark-raving religious looney of the first order.
My point, having lived through the 1960s-1970s confusion, is that the era was not one of uncommon resolution, at least not of the patriotic variety. I relished my high draft lottery number. George W. Bush played it smart like John Kerry and found a soft gig. He and I took different rotten paths -- he drank heavily, I became a communist -- but both of us could say the same thing: "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible."
The other thing both of us can and do say is that we did not save ourselves: God alone saves sinners (and I can surely add, of whom I was the worst). Being born again, we don't have to justify ourselves. Being saved, we don't have to be saviors.
John Kerry, once-born, has no such spiritual support, nor do most of his top admirers in the heavily secularized Democratic Party. It would be great if he could say: "I was young and vainglorious and often self-absorbed. I exaggerated and lied at times, and since then have thought it necessary not to disavow the fantasies I wove. But I do deserve credit for being there and serving my country in a mixed-up era in which I at times was also mixed-up."
Kerry can't say that because he evidently does not believe that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.
As you can see, the main point of Olasky's column is to contribute to the slime campaign against Kerry over his Viet Nam service. I mean, you almost have to admire someone who can write the sentence "George W. Bush played it smart like John Kerry and found a soft gig." That's just... I mean... Yeah. Uh huh. Bush and Kerry are soulmates, dude. They so clearly chose the same path. I don't know how I missed the parallels before.
Anyhow, that's not the scary part of his article. The scary part is that Olasky really pulls back the covers on the Born Again Christian Freak Show that has one hand on the levers of power in this country.
Pretty much all religious rhetoric is inane and clueless. But this stuff? "Being born again, we don't have to justify ourselves"? Are you fucking kidding me? So, what, I can go commit all sorts of atrocities, but if I accept the Lurd Jeezus Christ as mah Sayvur all is forgiven? And, more importantly, is this a one time deal, or an ongoing thing? I mean, if you're "twice born", does that mean you're perpetually being washed clean of any sins you commit as you commit them? That would certainly explain Bush's seeming belief that he never has to explain himself no matter how bad he fucks up.
"Ooops! Invaded a country that didn't pose any threat to us! Hah, I'm twice-born. Whatever."
"Whoa, I just gave away the surplus to my rich buddies, throwing the nation into at least a decade of debt! But I'm Born Again. I'm forgiven already! Bite Me!"
"Did I just say 'Bite Me'? That wasn't very nice of me. I'm a bad pers... Wait! The Lord just forgave me for that! I'm soooo in the clear."
All you people out there who think liberals should be more tolerant of religion, please, go read what this fruit loop has to say, then come talk to me. Religion is a mental disorder. Nothing more, nothing less. And the kind of diseased thinking it leads to can bring nothing but grief to the world.
|
[2004.08.25 - 05:30 P.M.] The McCain Test
David Brooks' incessant hand-wringing to the contrary, liberals and conservatives do not, in fact, live in ideologically-sealed communities where they never come into contact with each other. In fact, most liberals I know have more than a few conservative friends, acquaintances, or, at the very least, co-workers.
The past four years have no doubt strained many of those relationships. From Election Theft 2000 onward, we lefties have been trying to make these people see the light. It's been a thankless and largely pointless job. The worse the Bush Administration seemed to get, the deeper our 'Winger brethren would dig in. Every time an atrocity came along where we said "Surely this will open their eyes" we were shocked and disgusted to see our Bush Backing Buddies pop up with some convoluted reason to keep saying "Yay, Team! Go GOP!!!"
Many of you have probably wondered if there's a point where you draw the line.
When do you just stop talking and walk away?
I think the Swift Boat Liars for Bush episode has finally provided us with that line.
I'm calling it "The McCain Test".
John McCain is as right-wing as they come. Ideologically, he is a hard-core conservative. His occasional acts of bipartisanship aside, he's a solid GOP guy all the way. His choice to stump for Bush -- there is no love lost between the two -- demonstrates that beyond a doubt. Despite all that, and despite the fact that their tactics are clearly working to aid his party, John McCain has enough integrity to denounce the Swift Boat Liars for their obscene smear campaign.
I think that's the bare minimum we should be able to expect from our conservative friends, family members, and neighbors: Pass the McCain test.
Any citizen of this country who will not denounce the Swift Boat Liars' ads -- and I mean dismiss them without hesitation, without caveats, and without excuses -- really has no place at the debate table. I recommend if you know a 'Winger who can't pass this test, you shun them politically. Talk sports, talk work, talk family, but forever disregard their opinions on all matters political.
We do have to draw the line somewhere. This is the clearest place I've seen yet.
|
[2004.08.22 - 10:00 A.M.] Shit
Josh Marshall has a fantastic post up today about the Kerry campaign's response to the Swift Boat Fuckheads for Falsehood:
Today at a rally, John Edwards said, among other things, "This is a moment of truth for George W. Bush. We're going to see what kind of man he is and what kind of leader he is. ... We want to hear three words: Stop these ads."
Okay for today. But no more of this.
We already know what kind of a man he is. He's got a track record.
Go on and read the rest, but that's the nugget: We know what George Bush is. He's a piece of shit.
I made a similar point in my post about the Times' editorial on the administration's terror warnings. They still thought the Bushies could be credible on terror. Um, no, they can't. We're past that point.
Everything that needs to be known about Bush is already known. No more chances. No more pretending. He's a piece of shit, and every sentient human being should know that by now. End of story.
|
[2004.08.21 - 11:00 A.M.] Let's Talk About IRAQ VIET NAM
Man, have I had a bad case of Blogger's Block the last couple of weeks. What started out as a simple hangover quickly mutated into a longer-term malaise. And, as I sit here struggling to write this post, I think I know why: I don't really want to write about Kerry's Viet Nam service. I don't want to sit here for the next hour and a half defending that which shouldn't have to be defended. I don't want to waste keystrokes pointing out what vile cretins the Swift Boat Liars for Bush are. No, I'd rather we were discussing how horribly fucked up Iraq is, and how it's Bush's fault. I'd rather talk about how vulnerable to attack our nation remains three years after 9-11, and how it's Bush's fault. I'd rather we were discussing how fucked up the economy and the federal budget are, and how those are Bush's fault. I'd rather discuss damn near anything besides Viet fucking Nam.
And yet, here we are.
For those of us who thought this whole Swift Boat Douchebags thing would be a tempest in a teapot, a "controversy" so absurd and so obviously stage-managed by the Republican Slime Machine that it would quickly flop... well, it appears we're in for a rude awakening. Despite copious testimony from vets backing Kerry's story, and despite the fact that the military's own records show that Kerry's chief accuser, Larry Thurlow, is lying about what happened on the river that day, the bastards are coming back with a new ad going after Kerry for his comments before Congress in the early seventies mentioning war crimes in Viet Nam.
It's enough to make you pull your hair out. In any sane world, these guys would be on the mat, out cold. But instead, people keep listening to them, the pundits keep discussing them, and as a result, the Bushies have us all focused on the events of thirty five years ago instead of the mess they've created for us today.
We know the administration is behind these guys, after all. The organizers and financial backers all hail from Bush's back yard and several have had direct ties to him in the past. Clearly, the Swift Boat Traitors are the linchpin in Bush's main strategy: Make the election about Viet Nam, not Iraq.
Kerry is partly responsible for this in two ways. First, he's the one who decided to put his Viet Nam experience front and center in the campaign. Second, he has largely taken Iraq off the table by stupidly asserting that he stands by his vote to authorize the war. That latter point will be the subject of a post somewhere down the line. As to the former, who can really blame Kerry for campaigning so hard on his Viet Nam credentials? After all, it was a great chapter in his life, and it really did show the character of the man. Besides, he had to believe it was safe. He had to believe that it was the one place he could stand where the Bush campaign - working on behalf of a lazy, cowardly, AWOL punk - could not touch him.
Instead, he walked right into the GOP's "Are You Fucking Kidding Me?" gambit. It's a move where you do the one thing no one expects, the thing no one even believes possible, and thereby overturn the whole chess board. In this case, the Bushies attack the military service of a man whose military record is completely unassailable, while promoting a candidate who is utterly vulnerable on the same subject. Because the first reaction to the AYFKM gambit is stunned disbelief, the opponent is left hopelessly behind, belatedly throwing up defenses where they thought none were needed.
So that's where we are. The worst president in history has spent the last three and a half years doing more to screw up the world than his worst critics ever thought possible, but, unbelievably, we're all here talking about John Kerry's Viet Nam service in 1969. How do these guys keep getting away with this?
|
[2004.08.16 - 08:00 A.M.] Religious Nuttery
Kevin Drum links to this Sam Harris editorial on religion. He seems to disapprove of it, if I'm reading him correctly. Personally, I think it's brilliant:
Consider the subject of stem-cell research. Many religious people, drawing from what they've heard from the pulpit, believe that 3-day-old embryos which are microscopic collections of 150 cells the size of a pinhead are fully endowed with human souls and, therefore, must be protected as people. But if we know anything at all about the neurology of sensory perception, we know that there is no reason to believe that embryos at this stage of development have the capacity to sense pain, to suffer or to experience death in any way at all. (There are, for comparison's sake, 100,000 cells in the brain of a fly.)
These facts notwithstanding, our president and our leaders in Congress, many of them citing religious teachings, have decided to put the rights of undifferentiated cells before those of men and women suffering from spinal cord injuries, full-body burns, diabetes and Parkinson's disease.
..
The phrase "the war on terrorism" is a dangerous euphemism that obscures the true cause of our troubles, because we are currently at war with precisely a vision of life presented to Muslims in the Koran. Anyone who reads this text will find non-Muslims vilified on nearly every page. How can we possibly expect devout Muslims to happily share power with "the friends of Satan"? Why did 19 well-educated, middle-class men trade their lives for the privilege of killing thousands of our neighbors? Because they believed, on the authority of the Koran, that they would go straight to paradise for doing so. It is rare to find the behavior of human beings so easily explained. And yet, many of us are reluctant to accept this explanation.
Religious faith is always, and everywhere, exonerated. It is now taboo in every corner of our culture to criticize a person's religious beliefs. Consequently, we are unable to even name, much less oppose, one of the most pervasive causes of human conflict. And the fact that there are very real and consequential differences between the major religious traditions is simply never discussed.
..
It is time we recognize that religious beliefs have consequences. As a man believes, so he will act. Believe that you are a member of a chosen people, awash in the salacious exports of an evil culture that is turning your children away from God, believe that you will be rewarded with an eternity of unimaginable delights by dealing death to these infidels and flying a plane into a building is only a matter of being asked to do it. Believe that "life starts at the moment of conception" and you will happily stand in the way of medical research that could alleviate the suffering of millions of your fellow human beings. Believe that there is a God who sees and knows all things, and yet remains so provincial a creature as to be scandalized by certain sexual acts between consenting adults, and you will think it ethical to punish people for engaging in private behavior that harms no one.
What's not to like about this piece? It offends "believers"? You know what? I don't give a shit. Religious belief is a bunch of childish, ignorant crap. It's high time to start offending people who believe in this nonsense. Maybe it's the first step to curing them. Certainly, the current taboo on questioning this institutionalized insanity we call "religion" isn't getting us anywhere as a species.
|
[2004.08.07 - 12:15 P.M.] George Bush: World's Biggest Hypocrite
George Bush, who would've been lucky to make C's in the Texas Public School system, got into Andover Phillips on his dad's connections. Based on his achievements there, he should've languished at a state university, but he got into Yale, again because of his dad's connections.
So what does Bush think of "legacy" admissions programs? He's against them, of course:
In a question-and-answer session with minority journalists, Bush said he favored programs that increased diversity in the student body, but was against quotas for minority groups, as well as so-called legacy admissions.
"I think colleges ought to use merit in order for people to get in," Bush told the UNITY convention, a joint national conference of four professional organizations of black, Latino, Asian and Native American journalists.
Ralph Neas, president of People for the American Way, a civil rights advocacy group, said Bush's comments showed that he was "trying to have it both ways on affirmative action again." As for the issue of ending college legacies, Neas quipped: "That's like a Powerball winner coming out against lotteries."
You could call it chutzpah, but that would imply that the Dipshit in Chief is aware of the contradiction between the benefits he's taken advantage of and what he'd prescribe for the rest of us.
What a sad little man.
|
[2004.08.05 - 06:45 P.M.] Swift Boat Veterans Sell Their Souls
If you missed the Democratic Convention (or have just been living under a rock), here's something you ought to know: John Kerry volunteered to serve in Viet Nam, and was captain on a "swift boat" -- basically, a boat that patrolled the rivers and river deltas of Viet Nam, making a deliberate target of themselves so as to draw the enemy out.
What a pussy, huh?
Sure, he won enough medals to fill a department store display case. Sure, the guys who actually served with him say he was first class all the way. A guy who had your back every second you were with him. Sure, guys have stood on stage and vouched for him, claiming he saved their lives.
What. Ever.
That hasn't stopped the Bush campaign from dredging up a bunch of other guys who served on swift boats in Viet Nam who claim Kerry's a liar, and that his medals were undeserved, and that he's unfit to be Commander in Chief. These proud warriors would rather have as their president a guy who ducked Viet Nam by using his Daddy's connections to get into the Texas Air National Guard, and then was so lazy that he blew that off. Oh, and lest I forget to mention it, these punks never actually served with Kerry. So what they have to say is basically heresay.
These men sold their souls for partisan politics.
It's so disgusting that Kevin Drum has decided to avoid the topic altogether:
SWIFT BOATS....I hope nobody minds if I ignore the whole Swift Boat veterans thing. These people are certifiable lunatics, and I just can't stand the thought of wasting neurons over them. I'm sure you can find plenty of coverage elsewhere from hardier souls if you're really in the mood to torture yourself.
Salkowitz, however, wasn't able to restrain himself:
At the risk of giving a truly foul story far more attention than it deserves, the group in question is comprised of bitter old partisan vets dragged up (and funded by Texas GOP bagman Bob Perry) to spit bile at John Kerry for his combat service. Recognizing the appeal of Kerrys background as a decorated veteran, his political opponents have no shame about going on record (and on camera) accusing a man who volunteered for combat duty of lying, cowardice and treason. And why? So that a genuine liar, coward and traitor can remain in the White House to pass more tax cuts and sweetheart legislation for fat-cats like Perry. Kinda makes you proud to be an American, eh?
Um... No. It makes me want to puke.
Understand, I don't think serving in 'Nam should be a requirement for being president. But there are shades of courage in what one chose to do in those years. I applaud those who were conscientious objectors, the people who stood their ground and said they would not serve in a war they felt to be morally wrong. I'd like to think that's what I would have done. Like the Iraq war, Viet Nam was pointless, uncalled for, and immoral, and I think if I were given that same choice, I'd give the U.S. Government the finger.
On the other hand, there are those who truly believe that such decisions are best left to their leaders, and that when they're called upon to serve, they must go. Kerry was one of those people. So was John McCain, who, by the way, is pissed off as hell about these ads:
Republican Sen. John McCain, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam, called an ad criticizing John Kerry's military service "dishonest and dishonorable" and urged the White House on Thursday to condemn it as well.
The White House declined.
"It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me," McCain said in an interview with The Associated Press, comparing the anti-Kerry ad to tactics in his bitter Republican primary fight with President Bush.
What's disgusting is this: George Bush didn't take a stand, one way or the other. He just let Poppy's friends make the problem go away for him, and he is a lesser man because of it. Now, his bootlicking minions and their bought-and-paid-for, filthly, dishonorable veterans are attacking a man who had the courage that he lacked. Fucking disgraceful.
|
[2004.08.05 - 08:00 A.M.] Terror Warnings
The New York Times has a very good editorial today in response to the latest terror warnings and the controversy surrounding them. Among several critical points they make is the suggestion that the color-coded alert system has been proven absolutely useless and must go:
Mr. Bush should junk the color bars, which are now of use mostly to late-night comedians. Ordinary people have no way of calibrating their lives to the color ladder. It does them no good to be told to be scared, more scared or really scared, especially when they are also being told to act as if nothing's wrong. Unless the government is prepared to tell people to stay home from work, there's no reason to keep lighting the terror lamps. What we need is information that we can use, not another shot of adrenaline.
Following this, the editors take the administration to task for failing to back up these sporadic calls for heightened security by allocating funds to the targeted areas -- e.g. New York City, which has to fight for counter-terrorism funds with that prime terrorist target, Cheyenne, Wyoming. And, throughout the piece, they take several well-aimed shots at the hapless Tom Ridge.
It's not until the last few paragraphs, however, that they take on the 800-pound elephant gorilla of the homeland security discussion:
Finally, there is the matter of politics. The Bush administration expressed outrage at the suggestion that there could be any politics behind any of its warnings, but the president has some history to overcome on this issue. There is nothing more important for Mr. Bush to do every day until Nov. 2 than to make it clear that he would never hype a terror alert to help his re-election chances. It is a challenge complicated by the fact that he is running on his record against terrorism and is using images of 9/11 and the threat of more attacks to promote his candidacy. The president's credibility on national security issues was gravely wounded by the way he misled Americans, intentionally or not, about the reasons for invading Iraq - including the suggestion that the war was part of the campaign against Al Qaeda.
Some of the past terror alerts have seemed aimless and happened when the Bush administration would have benefited from a change in the political conversation. On Sunday, when the administration had grim and specific information to convey, Mr. Ridge did a real disservice to himself, his president and the public by giving what amounted to a campaign pitch for "the president's leadership in the war against terror.''
It's hard to write that off as an offhand comment. If Mr. Ridge is to continue in this role, he must stay out of the election; using him as a campaign surrogate would be disastrous for public confidence. The administration should also stop dropping dark hints about Al Qaeda's having election-related motives to attack, as if a vote against the current president were appeasement.
The Times cannot say this, so I will: It's too late for the Bush administration to try to play the security issue straight up.
There comes a point where credibility lost can never be regained. I think the administration passed that point some time towards the end of 2003, around the third or fourth time they jacked up the terror alert without providing any substantive information, only to lower it a few weeks later to little fanfare. The timing of the warnings, not surprisingly, is almost always to their advantage. This last example, trotting out their most specific, fear-inducing warning to date right after the Democratic convention, is only the most recent in a string of such transparently political moves. Remember the terror warning that came out right as the Justice Department memos surfaced which seemed to advocate torture as an acceptable practice? What about the vague yammering about terror from Tom Ridge right as the 9-11 Commission was about to unveil their long-awaited report?
This last warning adds a new twist: Specifics. Of course, if one were cynical, one might think this was a deliberate tactical move to respond to the repeated criticism that the admin's terror warnings lack specific data on the targets and the nature of the impending attack. It doesn't help dissuade these thoughts that the "detailed information" turns out to be mostly four-year-old data from some guy's laptop in Afghanistan.
Kudos to the Times for an accurate rendering of all the problems in the system. I will, however, have to part ways with them on the hope that anything can change -- that anything good at all can come from these guys. Trust and credibility will come in November, not before.
|
[2004.08.02 - 08:00 A.M.] Winning the Bigger Battle
Turning America around is going to be a two-step process. The first step is winning the White House and winning as many congressional seats as possible this year. This is of paramount importance. I've seen the idea floated once or twice that we can afford to lose this race, and that we should focus on the long term, on building networks and liberal institutions to shape the debate for decades to come. This, quite frankly, is madness. At the risk of sounding like a wild-eyed paranoid, four more years of Bush might not leave us with a country to save. Political power must be taken away from these arrogant, foolish ideologues right now, before they do damage that cannot be repaired.
Assuming that can be accomplished - and I'd say our chances are looking pretty good - the second step is to win the battle of ideas in the long term, convincing a majority of Americans that progressive policies will lead to a better life for them and for their children. We have to put liberal ideals back at the center of the debate, and this mainly involves emphasizing cultural tolerance in the social sphere and communitarian policies and programs in the economic sphere.
If the rhetoric we heard last week is any indication, the Democratic Party finally gets this. They finally understand that making the case for giving them political power has to involve more than just a laundry list of programs and budget line items, it has to be about Big Ideas. Just how many times did we hear variations on "We're all in the same boat" from the podium last week? That's the heart of liberalism right there. It's the polar opposite of the conservative tendency to grab the nearest boat, start rowing away from your drowning neighbors, and smack anyone who tries to climb on with an oar.
E.J. Dionne picks up on this theme in a recent op-ed piece:
Thus emerged a major theme of this fall's campaign: that Republicans are a party of dividers who can win only by setting one group of Americans against another.
Clinton established the theme in his speech on the convention's first night. "They need a divided America," Clinton said of Republicans. "We don't." Clinton saw the country as favoring Democratic solutions on the practical issues of education, child care, job creation and tax fairness. Republicans thus need to bury such issues beneath controversies over gay rights, abortion and race.
A stout rejection of that sort of politics lay at the heart of Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama's remarkable keynote address. "There's not a liberal America and a conservative America, there is the United States of America," Obama declared and then riffed on the division of the country between red, Republican states and blue, Democratic states. "We coach Little League in the blue states and yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states."
..
It's commonly said that this convention was designed to "move the Democrats to the center." Actually, it was a convention designed to move the center toward the Democrats. Throughout the convention, the large screen above the podium showcased stories of Republicans who are now for Kerry and former Republicans who are now Democrats.
"Moving the center towards the Democrats" -- After twenty years of chasing the center as the Republicans dragged it further to the right, that is music to my ears. Rob Salkowitz at Emphasis Added also noticed the new Dem message:
One of the great emerging themes from the Democratic convention is the idea of community and common good, as an explicit refutation of the libertarian-Republican notion of rugged individualism that has rode roughshod, and practically unchallenged, over the national discourse since the Reagan era.
..
For 20 years, Democrats were unable or unwilling to reclaim the language of liberalism as a framework for a coherent public policy, in part because of effective opposition, and in part because of their own doubts about the continued relevance of social governance in an era of unbounded market growth, globalization, and the disintegration of the American national culture into a politics of identity and exclusion. Now, however, it seems that the uncompromising ideological extremism of Bush has caused Democrats to rally to the old standard and find strength in the enduring appeal of community values and commitment to collective progress (rather than simply individual profit and achievement). Win or lose, its a triumph for America to have someone speaking proudly for these values as the basis for public policy once again.
Imagine an America where "liberal" is not a dirty word. Where saying "Look, we've got to take care of each other, and government has to play a role" doesn't leave you open to accusations of being a communist. That's a country I want to live in, and making that country a reality is our best hope for the long-term prospects of the American Dream.
|
[2004.08.01 - 07:25 P.M.] Convention Wrap Up
Yeah, yeah, yeah, a little late, I know. I was pretty burnt out by Friday morning. Needed a couple of days to recharge. Anyhow, on with the wrap up...
Outstanding convention, don't you think? Put your hands together for the DNC. Great lineup of speakers, charged atmosphere, the works. Who knew Democrats could actually inspire passion? And our guy gave a hell of a speech Thursday night. I've seen a couple of negative shots taken at it -- although the vast majority of reviews were positive -- noting that some of the items Kerry called for were contradictory, or that he straddled this or that issue. Well, it was a speech people: You can't deliver a comprehensive set of policy position papers in 45 minutes of prime time. Nor would you want to. Kerry's main job was to connect with the voters, and I think on that score he exceeded all expectations. By the time the debates roll around, the campaign's positions on all matters of importance will be thoroughly refined and fleshed out. And let's not forget, even the initiatives they have on the table now on healthcare, on tax policy, on jobs -- admittedly all works in progress --are a one-thousand-percent improvement over those of the Angry Chimp and his crew.
I want to finish up the convention blogging with a few choice grafs from a great editorial that appeared in the Hartford Courant today. As you know, the major networks devoted a piddling three hours of coverage to the convention. Their argument is that the event is just a canned, scripted infomercial for the party, and that it's therefore not newsworthy. They're not alone in that opinion. I know people who tuned out citing just those reasons. Well, here's the Courant to tell them why they're wrong (emphasis mine):
Do Americans have civic-engagement phobia? Would they rather be entertained by television sitcoms and tawdry reality shows than be informed about the workings of their government?
The answer is yes, if you listen to the mainline broadcast networks, whose moguls chose to air only three hours of each major political party's national convention. That's three hours for the whole four-day convention, not each day.
The networks' decision-makers decided that the conventions weren't worth airing because they are canned affairs, scripted and orchestrated well in advance. In the mortal words of CBS anchorman Dan Rather, the conventions have become infomercials unworthy of free airtime.
..
State primaries and caucuses are vehicles for a far more participatory system of choosing nominees, but there should still be room in the nation's civic life for great political gatherings every four years. These pageants offer an opportunity for all Americans to engage in, even if only by watching, a fascinating national discourse.
..
Only a cynic would argue that the conventions deserve no more than brief commentaries on the public's airwaves. Some of the proceedings may be tedious, but some are also entertaining. And much of it is instructive, if only in acquainting Americans with their past, present and future leaders.
Thirty-second commercials, 45-second news clips, talk-radio babylonia and Internet blog mania are various ways to pay attention to political campaigns. For the more serious-minded, extensive newspaper coverage certainly is crucial. But there is no substitute for listening to the speeches, watching the body language and assessing the roar of the crowds. Technology offers us the next best thing to being there, if we take full advantage of modern communications.
..
There are many reasons why only about half the eligible electorate shows up on Election Day. The common thread is the lack of civic engagement, the feeling that it doesn't matter.
Four years ago, Robert Putnam of Harvard University wrote a book ("Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community") based on research he had done showing how we have become increasingly disconnected from family, friends, neighbors and our democratic structures - and how we may reconnect.
Paying more than passing attention to the national conventions is one good way to reconnect.
Well said, gentlemen.
|
[2004.08.01 - 01:30 P.M.] Militants?
Man, when Avedon gets her back up about something, the results can be pretty impressive. This smackdown is aimed at the International Herald Tribune, which stupidly referred to Democratic convention organizers as "militants":
Explain this to me: The Republicans have literally said they are at war with us, that this is a "culture war"; they use extreme language in which they overtly talk about "crushing" Democrats, even use rape metaphors mixed into their eliminationist rhetoric, and in all this time - and we are talking a good decade or more, now - I've never seen the RNC described as "militant".
Look, we're talking about ordinary Democratic activists here, not the Weather Underground and the Black Panthers - who, by the way, are the sort of people the word "militant" was once reserved for, before we started to see "militant feminists" applied to the likes of Susan Brownmiller. It made sense when referring to people who where literally walking around showily-armed, like the Panthers, or actually building bombs, like the Weathermen, but it was already getting pretty over-the-top when applied to feminists who merely used words. But since when is it "militant" to be going to conventions, nominating party candidates, and trying to win elections? Isn't that what both parties routinely do?
"Militant" seems to be a term that is reserved for the leftward side of the spectrum, even though most of the people with guns and bombs - especially those who actually use them - are on the right. The people declaring war are on the right. The people who are shamelessly and publicly trying to overturn the Constitution are on the right. The people who actually have armies in training camps, overtly aimed at attacks on what they regard as a liberal disease, are on the right. The people who shoot doctors and other clinic workers are on the right. Whoever sent anthrax to Congress in an attempt to assassinate members of the Democratic leadership obviously comes from the right.
Damn straight. The Right's attack dogs refer to Democrats as being treasonous, or "objectively pro-terrorist", or a domestic "fifth column", but we're "militants" for backing a party of our choosing and supporting a platform we believe in. Last time I checked, these were activities associated with that whole "Democracy" thing.
"Militants". Get bent.
|
