August 31, 2008

Praying for Rain

Before Obama's speech, some of James Dobson's wingnut followers were praying for the event to be rained out:

"But if God decides -- and it's always up to God to decide -- that rain of Biblical proportions would be a good and proper meteorological condition for that evening, we'll see it, and we'll say that it is good. And if He decides it's not really necessary, I'm OK with that. I'll still trust in His wisdom and I'll rest peacefully knowing that lots of us offered up a humble prayer request. Would it be so wrong if we asked people to pray for rain?"

No word from God (whom we can presume has better things to do), but it does look like Mother Nature has readied a statement on Republican policy and may upstage the convention. (It could be good, bad, or both for them.)

I really shouldn't approach this issue so facetiously, so let's be completely serious for a moment. It's eerie to look back at the post I made here right before Katrina hit. Like everyone else, I dearly hope Gustav ends up being far less destructive. If you're into praying about the weather, this is something you should pray about. By the way, the offer of a free place to stay still stands. And this time I'm in Austin, Texas - where we already have evacuees - so it's actually a reasonable offer: You are welcome to crash in my shoebox apartment for as long as you need.

31 Aug 17:04 | Link | Category: Current Events, Politics

Links 31 - Gonna Be a LOOONG Two Months

1. For anyone who missed the speech in its entirety, here's Barack Obama at the 2008 DNC:

(Someone call Neil Young and let him know we've found the leader he's been looking for. It even turned out to a "black man after all".)

2. Most of the traits I once appreciated in John McCain have disappeared during this election. Read (or better, listen to) a recent interview. I wonder if it occurred on the Straight Talk Express. Heh. I know candidates often feel they must practically sell their souls to win a presidential election, but come on... (And, yes, I've previously noted some of Obama's recent shifts, so please relax your e-mail trigger-finger.)

3. On to Sen. McCain's VP choice. Wow. I know VPs are often chosen to help win an election without any regard to what might happen after winning the election, but this was an incredibly transparent and downright poor choice. My first thoughts echoed this Salon article: McCain's Palin pick is the epitome of tokenism. Or this quote from the less sanctimonious McCain's Baked Alaska: "This year, Hillary Clinton took things to a whole new level. She didn’t run for president as a symbol but as the best-prepared candidate in the Democratic pack. Whether you liked her or not, she convinced the nation that a women could be qualified to both run the country and be commander in chief. That was an enormous breakthrough, and Palin’s nomination feels, in comparison, like a step back." So if the McCain campaign calculated that they simply needed someone who was Sen. Clinton's 'gynecological twin,' as Samantha Bee hilariously put it, why not Condoleezza Rice or Kay Bailey Hutchison or Carly Fiorina or Elizabeth Dole or Olympia Snowe? Over at electoral-vote.com, The Veep: A Short Play in One Act sums up how the process might've led to Palin. Funny. And Sad. Anyway. For a slew of other links, see Ghost In The Machine.

4. There are so many things I'd like to discuss with regard to Palin, but I should use my limited time to explore other topics. So let's just take one of my pet issues, creationism in public schools. Over at Thoughts from Kansas, Josh looks at the candidates' views. Palin, like Bush and McCain and plenty of reasonable but woefully scientifically-illiterate people, spouts "teach both" nonsense. Ugh. (Let's just teach our children a variety of creation myths and label everything 'science', then.) Obama tends to discuss the issue in a very thoughtful, diplomatic way, with wise conclusions like "I think it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry." Joe Biden comes through with the more acerbic remark (one that will certainly cost votes but tickles me nontheless): "This is reversible, man. This is reversible. We don't have to go down this road. I refuse to believe the majority of people believe this malarkey!"
Malarkey, indeed, Joe. But I'm afraid the majority of people do believe it. Not only are Americans scientifically illiterate, but they are historically and politically illiterate (and, increasingly, 'just plain' illiterate). Most do not research issues or examine candidates' records and statements through non-partisan resources (such as FactCheck.org or OnTheIssues.org). I constantly receive anti-Obama e-mails from conservative family & friends that are downright false. And not just the wacky "He's a muslim terrorist" ones. The other day I got one full of tax numbers that looked reasonable enough at first glance but were completely false. If the last two elections (particularly 2004) are any indication, there's no reason to believe the majority of Americans voters won't be easily influenced by propaganda, vote from the gut, and fall for gimmicks like the Palin choice. If they do, they deserve what they get. Too bad the rest of us will be stuck with it, too.

5. Finally (to lighten the mood a bit), here's something to spice up next week's GOP convention: McCain Bingo. I wish it had more "My Friends" spaces but I suppose that would make it too easy. Also, if you think the "Get Out of Gaffe Free" card is unfair, consider the McCain campaign's response to the criticism over McCain's inability to specify how many houses he owned: "'This is a guy who lived in one house for five and a half years -- in prison,' referring to the prisoner of war camp that McCain was in during the Vietnam War." Oh, OK.

31 Aug 12:54 | Link | Category: Link Dump '08, Politics, Science

August 28, 2008

Links 30

Polaroid

1. Jamie Livingston's Polaroid a Day - Jamie Livingston took a polaroid nearly every day for eighteen years. It's not so much that he took a photo every day -- many people these days take multiple photos each day -- but that he took a good photo almost every day. Or maybe it's just that there's something about a polaroid. I don't know. Anyway, take a look at this mental_floss article. The Wikipedia entry provides links to more information, too.

2. Lawrence Lessig on McCain on Technology - I'm a big fan of Larry Lessig. Check out his critique of John McCain's technology policy. (These issues are a big deal, folks.)

3. I drove past a number of wind farms, in a number of states, on my trip from Utah to Texas. The enormous alien-looking machines spinning slowly in the air can be a strange sight. It struck me that even a clean, renewable energy source like wind power has tradeoffs. Don't get me wrong; it beats a coal or nuclear power plant. However, I can understand why some people might take issue with living next to them. It's worse if you're a bird or bat. For example, wind turbines make bat lungs explode. Ech.

4. Fleshmap: Musical Genres - I've seen lots of links to this lately, but I'll share it because a few of you probably missed it. It's a chart of how often a part of the body is sung about, sorted by musical genre (from a sample of 1000 songs). It's interesting how hip hop stands out from the rest. Oh, there are actual photos of body parts, so it's NSFW. If you go to the main site there are a couple of other odd little 'studies'.

5. Radiohead's 'House of Cards' video - 'House of Cards' might be my favorite cut from In Rainbows. The video is worth mention, too. (If you have a fast connection, it's worth downloading the high res version from Radiohead's site.) Instead of using lights and cameras, they used "just data" (from Geometric Informatics for the closeups and Velodyne LIDAR for the landscapes). The effect is pretty cool. Plus, you can get the data from Google Code to do with as you please. The site also has a making-of video, viewer, and more.

28 Aug 19:10 | Link | Category: Art & Entertainment, Link Dump '08, Music, Photography, Politics, Technology & Computing, Video

August 26, 2008

Links 29

1. Walk Score - "Walk Score calculates the walkability of an address by locating nearby stores, restaurants, schools, parks, etc." - This is a clever tool that calculates how walkable your neighborhood is and displays results using a Google Maps mashup. I'm pleased to say my new neighborhood gets a "very walkable" score of 89 / 100. (Of course, that was one of my primary reasons for choosing this spot.) The site does a good job of showing what businesses, parks, and other facilities are within walking distance (for my neighborhood, at least... I'm not sure what their data source is, so your mileage may vary). Two limitations are the wide definition of what constitutes, say, a grocery store or restaurant, and the limited list of eight items per category.

2. Where the Hell is Matt? - This video has been floating around for months, but apparently I've never linked it to it. Hmm. This link is for any of you who somehow missed it. (There's a larger Vimeo vid at APotD.) The guy's site is here.

3. An anthropological introduction to YouTube - I'm fascinated by the intersection of technology and culture (beyond just the hype of the 'social web'), so I thought this video was worth sharing. It's a lecture by Michael Wesch, "a cultural anthropologist exploring the impact of new media on human interaction (and the impact of human interaction on new media)." He's currently working on an ethnography of YouTube.

4. Brain Scanners Can See Your Decisions Before You Make Them - If you take some time to study research on human behavior, you will find ample evidence supporting the interesting and unsettling fact that your 'conscious brain' doesn't always make decisions for you. (Libet's experiments are probably a good start.) Instead, you unconsciously make a decision and act, after which you consciously feel like you're making a decision and usually come up with some rationale for the decision you made (post hoc). It's strange, but there are all sorts of weird and fascinating experiments that demonstrate the phenomenon. (They tend to involve simple, quick sorts of decisions, so for now let's avoid deep, thorny philosophical discussions about whether or not free will is an illusion. Still, it should give you pause to realize you're not as 'in control' as you believe.)

5. Presidential Election Already Decided ... In Voters' Minds - Continuing in the same thread, an article in the current issue of Science (you'll need a subscription to read past the abstract) demonstrates how people often have their mind made up at an unconscious level based on mental associations, even when they consciously believe themselves to be undecided. The Wired article explores what this could mean for, say, politics. Creating negative associations in the unconscious minds of voters would, sadly, seem to be the best (or at least easiest) strategy for winning elections. And... when we think we're basing our votes on rational, informed judgement, are we really just going with our gut and coming up with post hoc justifications for supporting one candidate or another? (Our 'gut' having been influenced by negative association, dominance displays, assessment of sexual attractiveness, etc.) As depressing as that thought is, it would explain much about politics. (Once again, the great Stephen T. Colbert was on to something with his notion of truthiness that comes "from the gut".)

26 Aug 17:56 | Link | Category: Human/Primate Evolution & Behavior, Libraries & Digital Information, Link Dump '08, Politics, Science

July 17, 2008

186 Days...

You have to hand it to George W... he is determined to be entertaining to the bitter end:

George Bush surprised world leaders with a joke about his poor record on the environment as he left the G8 summit in Japan. The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock.

Mr Bush, whose second and final term as President ends at the end of the year, then left the meeting at the Windsor Hotel in Hokkaido where the leaders of the world's richest nations had been discussing new targets to cut carbon emissions.

(So is this more, or less, asshole-ish than the time he gave Angela Merkel a massage? -- vid here.)

This much is certain: Neither McCain nor Obama will be nearly as entertaining as either George W. or Bill Clinton. In a way, it's kinda sad...

17 Jul 20:46 | Link | Category: Politics

June 28, 2008

Obama, the FISA compromise, and the True Believers

Barack Obama is clearly the better candidate in this presidential election and I believe he has the potential to be a superb president. I will vote for him and suggest you all do the same. However, I am also a skeptic and an independent who has never agreed with the entire platform of any party and who has refused to ever join a political party. I'm also a student of human behavior. In that respect, especially, the long, flat, seemingly endless Bataan Death March to the White House has been particularly interesting. The Obama phenomenon hasn't been the only interesting aspect of this election season, but it might be one of the most interesting.

It remained interesting this week, as Obama made some moves that were... let's say 'intriguing' because I don't think it's totally fair to say 'unexpected'. His decision about financing his campaign seems pragmatic (and consistent, albeit unconventionally, with the concept of public financing). His statements about capital punishment are acceptably consistent with other statements throughout his career. But his decision with regard to the Cheney/Rockefeller/Hoyer FISA bill is hard to explain except as political maneuvering - perhaps it's simply an example of the 'run to the center' typically made by candidates after the primaries. Maybe he's just trying to play nice with the current Democratic congressional leadership. Who knows...

It's fascinating that people seem so surprised to find that Barack Obama is, indeed, a politician and not some golden being sent from above. (You simply don't get that far without playing the game, even if you play it a bit differently.) What's most interesting is the way some of his most ardent supporters - who would normally be appalled at his statements with regard to the FISA bill - have shied from criticism and even supported him. Clearly, he has that special "it" that could make him an historic leader. However, that's also something to keep a close eye on if he is elected.

Glenn Greenwald wrote an interesting article about it. I wanted to quote several passages, but I suppose this one offers the best summary:

... perhaps it will be that the illusions of "lily-ness" about Barack Obama can finally fade away and be replaced by a more realistic perception of what he is, what his limits are, and the reasons why he merits real scrutiny, criticism and checks -- like everyone else pursuing political power does. Recall that the very first thing that he did upon securing the nomination was run to AIPAC to prostrate himself before them and swear undying fealty to their militant pieties. There will be plenty more of these sorts of ugly rituals to come. Whether you think he is engaging in them out of justifiable political calculation or some barren quest for power doesn't much matter.

Either way, no good comes from lending uncritical support to a political leader, or cheering them on when they do bad and destructive things, or using twisted rationalizations to justify their full-scale assault on your core political values. The overriding lesson of the last seven years is that political figures, more than they need anything else, need checks and limits. That is just as important to keep in mind -- probably more so -- when you love or revere a political leader as it is when you detest one.

Obama will get my vote and I hope he gets yours; but if he is elected, remember that slogan, "Yes We Can." It's not about one man or woman, as much as we are drawn to that idea. Too much executive power is dangerous, even in the best hands. At the end of Greenwald's article, you will notice two quotes:

"There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams

"Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence . . . . Let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitutions." - Thomas Jefferson

28 Jun 0:26 | Link | Category: Politics

June 27, 2008

I just calculated fuel costs for my upcoming move, so here's a rambling post about OIL.

Everyone wants to blame someone for the latest oil crisis. I think it has more to do with geopolitics, the U.S. political establishment, and the oil industry than it does with environmentalists or socialists or whoever else. But it doesn't really matter who you choose for your whipping boy. We've all wasted more than thirty years during which we could've started working our way out of the inevitable end of cheap oil. Things will keep getting uglier; it's just a matter of how quickly that happens.

Lifting the ban on drilling off the coasts (and in places like ANWR) seems like a decent short-term solution, right? 60% of Americans think so. Unfortunately, the impact on gasoline prices would be negligible and it would take quite a while to ramp up drilling anyway.

Even if you feel the (dubious) short-term benefits of drilling in these places outweighs the potentially severe long-term environmental costs, I think it's worth pointing out the fact that the oil industry already has access to millions of leases to existing areas but has not tapped them yet. Instead, they're pushing to open areas in which drilling may be easier. Why? Oil may hit $150 / barrel any day now -- but much of this has to do with speculation, the weak dollar, and other economic factors. (And maybe one or two of those crazy conspiracy theories you've heard.) The oil companies are afraid the price will come down and investments in costlier areas won't pay off. (Wait... I thought they were reinvesting every penny of their record profits?)

President Bush, Senator McCain, and others are suggesting a knee-jerk reaction with questionable short-term benefits and potentially serious long-term costs. Even regardless of environmental damage, the amount of oil produced if we opened all of these areas will not solve our energy problems, especially if world oil consumption continues to rise as predicted (from 85 million barrels a day to 100 million barrels a day by 2025).

We need a focused, long-term strategy for dealing with this mess. But it's a very complicated mess and it seems like none of our policymakers have the slightest idea how to deal with it. As for the presidential candidates, John McCain's proposals amount to basically nothing. Barack Obama's proposals are better for the most part (aside from a few boneheaded ones), but even if all the better ones were implemented, I'm still not sure they would be enough.

I remember hand-wringing about oil on this blog three years ago. The politicians have done nothing in those three years. And while I would love to believe it's all George W. Bush's fault, I know it's not. I don't think policymakers are going to find a way to really grapple with this issue, so get ready for some interesting times and figure out ways to deal with it on your own.

27 Jun 23:32 | Link | Category: Current Events, Politics

June 2, 2008

Links 19 (The Cost of War)

I'm starting to go crazy (and the shit hasn't even hit the fan yet -- that'll probably happen later this week). I won't be doing any online whining or venting here like I used to do, but posts may continue to be sporadic. (I have thought about starting an anonymous blogspot or livejournal blog as an outlet, though. If I do, I'll post notice here and I'll give the address to a select few of you.)

Anyway, let's soldier on with the link dump... Today's topic is the Cost of War. Specifically, the cost of U.S. misadventures in Iraq. "Cost" here is in the economic sense -- this is, needless to say, a fairly narrow view of the costs of war, but it has the virtue of being easy to quantify ...relatively easy, at least. There are plenty of estimates, but the general consensus is something like, um, a lot.

1. Last year, when the Bush Administration was requesting more funding for the war, the total official cost - just up to that point - came to $611.5 billion. This led many people to ask What can $611 billion buy? The answers were sobering.

2. Later, the Joint Economic Committee concluded that the Iraq war would cost $1.3 trillion - that's $1,300,000,000,000 - by 2009, and the combined cost of Iraq & Afghanistan could reach $3.5 trillion by 2017. They factored in the cost of borrowing money to pay for the war, lost productivity, higher oil prices, cost of healthcare for veterans, etc. At that price, the cost to a family of four would be more than $20,000 between 2002 and 2008.

3. But the cost is actually higher than that, pointed out economics professor Tyler Cowen in the Washington Post. One needs to factor in opportunity cost (more about opportunity cost). His article points out wasted opportunities, hidden costs, and the 'fruitless investment' Iraq has been. (Not to mention the human cost, which is of course incalculable.)

4. Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz arrived at a conservative figure of $3 trillion to the U.S. and another $3 trillion to the rest of the world. Can you even imagine what else we could have done with that money? Some could have been applied to actually protecting the U.S., and the rest could have been spent on energy independence, environmental and social issues, etc. The list is huge. Even those who argue that manned space exploration is a boondoggle would probably agree it would've been a better use of the money - and for that much money, we could have embarked not just on an exploration program of Mars, but we could've practically colonized the place.

5. So. An enormous economic cost for a war that, according to the National Intelligence Estimate, has fueled the terror threat.

None of this is terribly new or surprising, though. In many ways, the current terror threat stems directly from the Cold War, another simply incredible waste of resources. I recall a speech delivered by Carl Sagan twenty years ago for the rededication of the Gettysburg memorial. (A copy can be found on the History Channel site or in the book Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History; a copy updated by co-author Ann Druyan is in Sagan's posthumous publication Billions & Billions.)

In the speech, Sagan pointed out the $10 trillion spent by the U.S. waging the Cold War, more than a third of which was spent during the Reagan years. (And it never really stopped... Druyan notes in the update in "Billions & Billions" that the Clinton defense budget in post-Cold War 1995 was $30 billion higher than Nixon's defense budget in the height of the Cold War.) Sagan wondered what else we could have done with, say, half of that $10 trillion:

What else could the United States have done with that money (not all of it, because prudent defense is, of course, necessary — but, say, half of it)? For a little over $5 trillion, skillfully applied, we could have made major progress toward eliminating hunger, homelessness, infectious disease, illiteracy, ignorance, poverty, and safeguarding the environment—not just in the United States but worldwide. We could have helped make the planet agriculturally self-sufficient and removed many of the causes of violence and war. And this could have been done with enormous benefit to the American economy. We could have made deep inroads into the national debt. For less than a percent of that money, we could have mustered a long-term international program of manned exploration to Mars. Prodigies of human inventiveness in art, architecture, medicine, and science could be supported for decades with a tiny fraction of that money. The technological and entrepreneurial opportunities would have been prodigious.

02 Jun 8:01 | Link | Category: Current Events, Link Dump '08, Politics, Site/Life News

March 19, 2008

"A More Perfect Union"

If you missed yesterday's speech by Barack Obama on race, politics, and history, it's worth the time it takes to watch (or read):

Candor and substance have been missing from political speeches and dialogue for such a long time that speeches like this are always worth remark. Though it may be lost on a polarized nation that follows the lead of talk show hosts and pundits who speak in binary, I was impressed by Obama's ability to elucidate the anger and frustration (racial and otherwise) of multiple groups (and to deftly weave both Jeremiah Wright and Geraldine Ferraro into his remarks). Unlike other politicians responding to a chink in their armor (think of Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech or the way John Kerry tackled his views on Vietnam), Obama faced the issue boldly and did not posture or pander to specific groups.

Reportedly, Obama wrote the speech by himself in two days, showing it only to several top advisers. Again, remarkable because it is so atypical these days. But those familiar with Obama's life story and political writing will not be surprised that he could tackle these particular issues with both nuance and bravery.

Reaction from a few major newspapers can be found on the Obama blog. As always, thoughtful commentary and lots of fine links at Ghost in the Machine.

(Update: The Daily Show chimes in: "And so, on 11 a.m. on a Tuesday, a prominent politcian spoke to Americans about race as though they were adults."   Although, as evident in their "open discussion", dialogue is tricky, regardless of how great the speeches may be.)

19 Mar 11:36 | Link | Category: Politics, Video

March 12, 2008

Payday Lenders

Payday Loans - Window

In the last five or ten years, I've noticed check cashing and payday loan centers popping up everywhere. Their astronomical fees and interest rates amount to usury, and it's quite outrageous that they exist -- and seem to be flourishing. (Their annual interest rates are often in the hundreds of percents. In a finance class I took, we calculated one rate at more than 700% annually.)

A recent WSJ article reports that "lenders are increasingly targeting recipients of Social Security and other government benefits, including disability and veteran's benefits." According to the article, data show that "many payday lenders are clustered around government-subsidized housing for seniors and the disabled." Check out the graphics in the article to see the clustering.

Oddly, payday loan centers also seem to be more prevalent in conservative Christian states. A geographer at Cal State Northridge (the one mentioned in the WSJ article) and a law professor at the University of Utah recently published a paper showing a correlation between payday lenders and the Bible Belt and Mormon Mountain West:

"Our research showed that the correlation between payday lenders and the political power of conservative Christians was stronger than the correlation between payday lenders and the proportion of a population living below the poverty line," Peterson explained.

Why so little concern about regulating payday lenders on the part of these politicians, given the admonition against usury in the Bible? Here is the authors' explanation:

"When the Christian Right allied itself with conservative Wall Street business interests in the 1980s and early ‘90s, consumer protection law was placed to the side as an inconvenient sticking point. The laws allowing an astonishing number of triple-digit-interest-rate lenders throughout most of the Christian South and Mormon West are a legacy of that political alliance."

They're probably right. But I wonder if part of the explanation is deeper than an "inconvenient sticking point" in an alliance stretching back only twenty-five or thirty years. While the hot button issues (abortion, gay rights, etc.) for evangelicals and fundamentalists are part of the so-called Fourth Great Awakening, the doctrinal outlook of many groups -- like Baptists, Methodists, and especially Adventists and Mormons -- is largely rooted in the Second Great Awakening. In an article for the latest edition of Reason, Ronald Bailey writes the following about the Second Great Awakening:

These revivalists completely rejected Calvinist predestination in favor of free moral agency, arguing that anyone could be saved by God's grace if he struggled fiercely against sin. Evil arose from an individual's conscious choice, not, as Calvin had claimed, from his innate depravity. Since everyone was free to choose good or evil, the revivalists located the source of social problems in individuals. "Lurking in this view," Fogel writes, "was the belief that poverty was the wages of sin."

From this viewpoint, then, the source of the problem is not money changers but rather the weak, sinning individuals who patronize them. I suspect that's part of the explanation for the disinterest of at least some conservative Christian lawmakers in addressing the problem of payday lenders.

As to whether they're right or wrong to have such a lack of concern for desperate, ignorant (or 'just plain stupid') folks who turn to payday loan centers... it's something that could framed in modern political ideology and argued at great length. I'm simply pointing out that it's a reflection of a fairly long history of American religious and political thought concerning individualism and the source of social ills.

(For related fun, see Check into Cash into Tequila, where someone counted the steps between check cashing locations and liquor stores.)

12 Mar 0:09 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Politics

February 29, 2008

3 a.m. ("Now then, Dmitri...")

You've probably heard about Hillary Clinton's latest ad, 3 a.m.. (I wish they had picked a different time for Hillary to be fully dressed and working at her desk in the middle of the night, because every time I hear "it's 3 a.m." I have flashbacks to that obnoxious Matchbox 20 song from the '90s.)

The pundits and blogs are all atwitter ("it's the new Daisy" etc. etc.). It's certainly not the most original ad, considering that Mondale ran a very similar one against Gary Hart back in '84 and LBJ ran one twenty years before that.

The Obama campaign has already put together a response, but Coudal Partners took Clinton's ad and did something simply brilliant with it (click for video):

Merkin Muffley for President

Merkin Muffley for president!

(I love Dr. Strangelove, as I've mentioned once or twice before, so this was right up my alley.)

29 Feb 23:37 | Link | Category: Art & Entertainment, Humor, Politics, Video

February 10, 2008

Mitt's Concession Suspension speech

As you might've guessed, Mitt Romney's departure from the GOP race has been a big story around these parts. Since I have an inexplicable habit of watching the local news, I've seen his concession speech a number of times. Every time, I get very irritated and have to resist the urge to curse at the television set. (Thanks to Jon Stewart, I know I'm not alone. See below...)

The speech, like so many Romney appearances and speeches, was peppered with trite GOP slogans and buzzwords (so much so that it makes me wonder if the "suspension" of his campaign was not Romney's idea as much as it was a stern request by party officials). I think this might be a reflection of his greatest failure as a presidential candidate, and one of the principal reasons his campaign never garnered majority support. As one of the columnists in the conservative, church-owned (i.e., usually pro-Romney) local newspaper opined, the "real" Mitt never showed up in the campaign. Regardless of whether or not this is completely true, there is no doubt Romney painted himself as "the conservative candidate" when his record clearly indicates he is (or was) not. From the same column:

In the end, in his never-ending quest to get votes and be all things to all people, he allowed Rush and Sean, those fading virulent talk-show superstars, to paint him as an arch-conservative when anyone who watched him win the governorship of Massachusetts — not to mention who watched him get along famously with Salt Lake's liberal mayor Rocky Anderson in the Olympic years — knows he's no conservative. He's the absolute king of the moderates. He proved that during our Olympics, building bridges, bringing people together, working within the system, considering all positions, creating solutions.

I'm not sure why Romney chose the campaign path he did. I suspect he and his staff simply calculated that it was the most viable path to the presidency. (It might have been, if not for Mike Huckabee.) But it's problematic when a candidate's stump speech rhetoric clashes so starkly with his record.

Like Romney's so-called JFK-speech (which I complained about in December), the 'campaign suspension' speech hit upon all the same tired themes we've been hearing from social conservatives and talk radio goons for years now. (The Democrats want to surrender to terrorists; pornography, welfare, and gay marriage are ruining the country - not disastrous wars, political corruption, woefully inadequate education, or dependence on foreign oil; etc.) Come on, Romney... you must be smarter than that. If you're not, you certainly do not deserve to be the Republican nominee, now or ever.

Watch Jon Stewart's brilliant analysis of the speech:

(Update: Fixed YouTube link. When they take it down again, try the official one. The followup story about what gay marriage has done to Massachusetts is pretty funny, too.)

10 Feb 21:05 | Link | Category: Humor, Opinion & Thoughts, Politics, Video

February 4, 2008

Election Fatigue

In each issue of The Week, editor William Falk writes a short message. I particularly enjoyed the most recent one (subscrip. req.), in which Falk amalgamates all the candidates (and most of the buzzwords and phrases they've been using). I reproduce the message here, in its entirety (shhh, don't tell anyone):

My good friends, I'm running for president. Let me enumerate just a few of the many reasons why I deserve your vote. I am, above all, the candidate of change, much more so than my opponents; indeed, if elected, I will change everything that you, the American people, want changed, including any of my positions that I have already changed. Due to my wealth of experience, which is both unique and yet somehow universal, I will be ready to serve on Day One, and to protect the nation from the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad people who want to destroy our way of life because they are jealous of our freedoms, our 50-inch plasma TVs, and our very large food portions. You should know that my desperate yet selfless quest to be your president is very, very personal for me, and that I am, of course, a Christian who reads my Bible every night—not a Muslim, or a Mormon, or, God forbid, a Unitarian.

I promise to bring your job back from overseas, even if it hasn't gone there yet, to build walls and dig moats at the border, to cut taxes, to provide universal health care, to preserve all of our government entitlements, and to balance the budget. I am firmly opposed to storing the nation’s nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, or in any state that holds its primaries before, say, March. I promise to model my presidency on Ronald Reagan's, because, like me, he had good hair and was an agent of change, or, if you prefer, on John F. Kennedy's. Whichever. And please remember that by voting for me, you are also voting for yourself, your children, your gender, your race, your religion, and for unifying our great nation. Thank you.

04 Feb 20:57 | Link | Category: Humor, Politics

January 23, 2008

Panic! At the Trading Floor

Robert Reich in a Salon.com article titled The politics of an economic nightmare:

In reality, the crisis is both a credit crunch and the bursting of the housing bubble. Wall Street is in terrible shape and Main Street is about to be in terrible shape. And there's not a whole lot that can be done about either of these problems -- because they are the results of years of lax credit standards, get-rich-quick schemes, wild speculation on Wall Street and in the housing market, and gross irresponsibility by the Fed, the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Currency.

23 Jan 21:24 | Link | Category: Current Events, Politics

January 22, 2008

Well, at least we know who ISN'T the "black candidate"

"Who let the dogs out"?!?   WTF?!   (If you're patient, wait for "bling bling" and "Michael Jordan" near the end of the clip.)

This is incredibly awkward (even by the standards of extremely wealthy old white guys). Combined with other issues (such as his religion's discriminatory doctrine pre-1978 and his lying prevarication regarding seeing his father march with MLK), it's downright unsettling.

22 Jan 16:09 | Link | Category: Politics, Video

Bill Clinton Has a Dream

Update: Fixed the video for IE7 users. Sorry.

I've done this, especially during boring speeches. (But luckily not on camera.) I'd love to know who switched Bill's cup of Joe with decaf. (Insert "vast right-wing conspiracy" - or "vast left-wing conspiracy" - joke here, if desired.)

22 Jan 15:51 | Link | Category: Humor, Politics, Video

January 20, 2008

Ch-ch-changes

This is some parade, yesiree Bob. *

20 Jan 13:55 | Link | Category: Humor, Politics, Video

January 5, 2008

The Most Important Issue for Voters in 2008

05 Jan 17:43 | Link | Category: Humor, Politics, Video

December 21, 2007

Why it's nice to have someone like Ron Paul in the race

From Fox's vapid morning show:

Watch the anchors wriggle and look around nervously. ("This isn't in the script! And who's this 'Sinclair Lewis' he speaks of?")

21 Dec 11:34 | Link | Category: Politics, Video

December 20, 2007

Pushing buttons in Texas

Being a legislator in Texas looks like fun:

20 Dec 21:52 | Link | Category: Politics, Video

Is our press secretaries learning?

I caught this tidbit from the Washington Post via Ghost in the Machine:

During a White House briefing, a reporter referred to the Cuban Missile Crisis -- and [White House press secretary Dana Perino] didn't know what it was.

"I was panicked a bit because I really don't know about . . . the Cuban Missile Crisis," said Perino, who at 35 was born about a decade after the 1962 U.S.-Soviet nuclear showdown. "It had to do with Cuba and missiles, I'm pretty sure."

So she consulted her best source. "I came home and I asked my husband," she recalled. "I said, 'Wasn't that like the Bay of Pigs thing?' And he said, 'Oh, Dana.'"

More comment from the Lede blog at the New York Times.

20 Dec 21:14 | Link | Category: Humor, Politics

December 11, 2007

Only One Explanation...

Sorry, but here's another clip of crazy ol' Huckabee, that total nutter. I just couldn't resist sharing it. In this clip, Mike says that the only explanation for his rising numbers in the polls is supernatural. Yep, God's doing it. Arrogance and delusion is a powerful combination.

(Maybe he really thought he was on the phone with God in that last clip I posted...)

Update: Maybe he's just being paid back for publicly supporting this statement "A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ."

11 Dec 11:09 | Link | Category: Politics, Video

December 7, 2007

Governor, you're no Jack Kennedy

Anyone notice how different Romney's "JFK speech" was from JFK's?

Kennedy:

So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again not what kind of church I believe in — for that should be important only to me — but what kind of America I believe in.
...
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute

Romney:

Freedom requires religion
...
Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It's as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America - the religion of secularism. They are wrong.
...
We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season
...
Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests.

It seems pretty obvious that the speech was simply an attempt to pander appeal to conservative Christians who are flocking to crazy ol' Huckabee.

(See also: Video of JFK's speech, John Nichols op-ed and that classic moment from the '88 debates.)

07 Dec 15:39 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Politics

November 30, 2007

Huckabee's phone call from God

"You want me to deliver a message... and that would be... Yes sir, we wanna do what's right. And our president does. And we're behind him, yes sir, we sure are."

"We know you don't take sides in the election, but if you did, we kinda think you'd hang in there with us, Lord, we really do... Yes sir... We'll pass those good words on... I see. You talk to the president, and he talks to you, anyway. And we know that. Yes sir. Take care of the family, and marriage. And the people of America. And all the people. And the children... I can tell you every one of us are committed to doing that, and a whole army of people out here..."

See also: my rant about Huckabee's comment on primates. Oh, and you can still get "When The President Talks to God" for free on iTunes.

(via Cynical-C)

30 Nov 18:12 | Link | Category: Politics, Video

Obama is 'hip to Margaret Mead'

From Salon.com:

No presidential candidate in history -- not the polymath Thomas Jefferson, not the orator William Jennings Bryan, not the egghead Adlai Stevenson -- has ever uttered a sentence like this: "My mother was an anthropologist [and] the Margaret Mead reference I'm always hip to."

Somehow I was unaware that Barack Obama's mother was a cultural anthropologist. I'm always griping about how policy should be informed by an anthropological perspective, so this pleases me in a roundabout sort of way.

[ I tend to be critical of Mead's work -- but with that aside, I'm just glad he's heard of anthropology. Do you think the current president has any idea who Mead was or what anthropology (cultural or otherwise) is? Sadly, when people ask me what I majored in as an undergrad, most react like "what is this word 'anthropology' you speak of?" ]

30 Nov 17:32 | Link | Category: Human/Primate Evolution & Behavior, Politics

November 8, 2007

'Waterboarding'

Waterboarding is back in the headlines (and you've gotta love that term - 'waterboarding' almost sounds fun, like wakeboarding or something). Since Mukasey's lame dodging of the question, the issue is back on peoples' minds and a couple of videos are floating around the web with renewed momentum. One is a segment from FOX News that reminds me of a clip from The Daily Show (but nevertheless does demonstrate waterboarding). The other is a clip from Current (with annoying dramatic music but minus the stupid FOX talking heads), embedded below.

The issue is, of course, larger than waterboarding. There are plenty of other 'coercive interrogation techniques' that are just as - or more - questionable (e.g., sensory deprivation).

08 Nov 16:30 | Link | Category: Current Events, Politics, Video

October 1, 2007

"I'm trippin' too"

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (Or as I call him, The Iranian W.) Plenty of his statements indicate that he, like so many other world leaders, is blinded by ideology - or just batshit insane. The Holocaust denials, the claim of being "surrounded by light" during a speech, and so much more. Like this:

The most remarkable aspect of Mr Ahmadinejad's piety is his devotion to the Hidden Imam, the Messiah-like figure of Shia Islam, and the president's belief that his government must prepare the country for his return.

But I'll admit that he occasionally makes a good point (rhetorically, at least). And sometimes he can even be funny (albeit inadvertently). Like last week at Columbia University when he claimed there are no gays in Iran. Which prompted Andy Samberg's Mahmoud love song, "Iran So Far" (which was the whole reason I posted anything about Ahmadinejad's visit since it's been hashed and rehashed by everyone). The official clip at nbc.com doesn't work for some reason (typical), so enjoy it on YouTube. (If the clip below doesn't work, try searching for other copies.)

01 Oct 19:33 | Link | Category: Art & Entertainment, Current Events, Humor, Politics, Video

September 30, 2007

Replaced with a look-alike

We all know that Paul McCartney died and was replaced with a look-alike. (Here's undeniable proof! Heh.)

Less well-known, however, is the fact that Richard B. Cheney died and was replaced with a look-alike. This video from 15 years ago, in which the real Dick Cheney explains why the George H.W. Bush administration stopped military action in Iraq in 1991, is undeniable proof:

30 Sep 15:12 | Link | Category: Current Events, Politics, Video

June 5, 2007

"I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book"

No playlist for May.

Don't panic.

(There'll be one for June. Maybe even a week or two early.)

Silence will now resume.

But first, a lovely quote I just saw as I was perusing news stories...

"If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it." - Mike Huckabee, candidate for President of the United States. (Video clip here or below.)

I guess I should be glad that I'm "welcome to do it." Listen, Mike... I hate to break it to you, but not only are you a descendant of primates (pl.), you are a primate. Your children, your wife, your constituents... they're all primates, as dirty and scary as that might sound to you. And if your god made you in his image, he must be a primate too. I mean, seriously. Have you looked in a mirror lately??? (We all know "even the president of the United States sometimes must have to stand naked.") Maybe he's never been to a zoo.

And the quote in the title of this post is also absurd. (As if the essence of what we are matters only in some inconsequential eighth-grade science book, but not to arguably the most powerful man primate on the planet.)

Fools.

05 Jun 21:32 | Link | Category: Human/Primate Evolution & Behavior, Opinion & Thoughts, Politics, Science, Video

July 14, 2005

Your tax dollars, hard at work...

Another depressing case of a politician being hoodwinked by mystical/pseudoscientific con men.

Four years ago, Florida was hard at work trying to eradicate citrus canker from destroying trees. Officials rejected unproven methods, saying they would "waste precious time and resources."

However, at the behest of Secretary of State Katherine Harris (remember her?), they did pursue one alternative method - "Celestial Drops," virtually the same thing as mystically blessed Kabbalah Water. (Ask the celebrities if you're unfamiliar...)

Anyway, Ms. Harris (now a US Congresswoman... ugh) was introduced to one of the product's promoters, New York Rabbi Abe Hardoon, in 2000. She believed his claim that he was working closely with Israeli "scientists" and "stepped back and allowed Hardoon and the state to work out the details."

Surprisingly, Celestial Drops proved useless against citrus canker.

14 Jul 0:03 | Link | Category: Politics, Science

January 27, 2005

More inauguration comment

Not to beat a dead horse, but I found two other thoughtful commentaries on Bush's inaugural address.

27 Jan 12:10 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Politics

January 24, 2005

Let Freedom Ring - 42 times

Those of you who watched/listened to/read George W. Bush's second inaugural address surely noticed that he used the words freedom and liberty a few times... well, forty-two times (as illustrated by this excellent Daily Show clip, courtesy of Lisa Rein).

The funny thing is that only a week or two before the address, the topic of a class I'm taking at school was the basics of political ideology. We covered the fact that all ideologies (you name it - liberalism, communism, conservatism, even fascism) claim to defend and extend "freedom" & "liberty", condemning societies that don't promote freedom and promising to take steps to promote it themselves. The problem, of course, is that different ideologies define "freedom" (along with "democracy") in different ways.

The point I'm trying to make is that politicians and pundits throw these words around as ideological tools and little else. In the last fifteen or twenty years, they've gotten even better at it - while the public has seemingly become even more gullible. (Think of the "Contract with America" or the Orwellian Frank Luntz and his "Global Warming" vs. "Climate Change", "Healthy Forests," "Clear Skies", etc.)

So - back to the State of the Union address - was it all just ideological clichés and sloganeering, or was there any substance to be found in and among Bush's endless use of "freedom" and "liberty"? If there was some depth beneath the rhetoric, what are the implications?

Instead of offering you my own 'opinion in a nutshell' (since I can't really claim to have an opinion in a nutshell), I'll just throw some interesting links and quotes at you. (They might elucidate my line of thought anyway.)

In Give Me Liberty or Give Me... What?, Fred Kaplan of Slate muses:

In any case, what is this thing called "freedom"? The speech did note, "America will not impose our own system of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way." But what if the freely expressed view of some downtrodden people happens to collide with our views or interests? Does "freedom" always mean a Western-style, or pro-American, democracy?

Whatever freedom is, how do we go about spreading it? The president said in his speech that the mission "is not primarily the task of arms," though he added that sometimes it must be. If not with arms, then how do we spread freedom? With rhetorical encouragement? Bush's answer was intriguing: "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."
...
This sort of talk raises three questions. First, does the president really know what he's saying here? ... If the leaders of a democratic underground in some dictatorship hear this speech and rise up tomorrow against their own tyrants, will George W. Bush "stand with" them? Really?

Second, the United States does have good relations with several repressive governments--China, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, to name a few--and chooses to do little or nothing about the way they treat their own people. ... We can argue about whether the trade-off is correct, but the existence of a trade-off is indisputable.
...
Third, can we undertake this mission to spread freedom all by ourselves?
...
One could say that an inaugural address is an opportunity to express grand themes with broad brushstrokes, and shouldn't be read closely as a blueprint for the future. But it is well known that many presidents--including this one--dwell on this speech with great care. Certainly the theme of President Bush's address is consistent with the theme of his first term's foreign policy. It therefore offers little hope that his second term's will be formulated with any greater care.

A couple of basic articles from the BBC look at the speech from an international perspective. From Bush plays variations on freedom theme:

One thing seems clear: this is not a president who intends to turn back from his doctrine of taking pre-emptive action, in the interests of American security (or, as he would put it, American freedom).
...
And there was a stark message to regimes which have already found themselves players in the president's rhetoric.
...
The warning bells will be ringing in foreign capitals such as Tehran and Damascus.

From Bush speaks - now what?:

The Bush second inaugural has implications for America's friends and foes.

For friends, it should make uncomfortable reading.

"We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people," Mr Bush declared.

Does this mean that the Saudi royal family, the Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, the Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf and President Vladimir Putin of Russia, let alone a raft of obscure governments in Central America and Africa, not to mention China, have to radically change their ways?

It would be nice if they did, but not absolutely necessary, if comment by the White House is to be believed.
...
And what of America's foes? They of course have been on notice for some time under the doctrine of the pre-emptive strike.

The speech was not a manual of specific foreign policy goals. One has to look elsewhere for detailed policy objectives.
...
The strength of the speech was in what it said about freedom, its weakness was what it did not say about Iraq, which can be seen as an effort to impose that freedom.

Since the project in Iraq is likely to help define this presidency, it cannot be ignored.

Its absence suggests uneasiness in the White House, a sense that the reality in Iraq does not match the rhetoric of the speech.

Scott Rosenberg of Salon offers some of the harshest commentary in a blog post entitled The fire this time (forgive me for quoting so much of it):

This speech wasn't just soaring rhetoric. It was a lighter-than-air burst of helium verbiage -- lofty language untethered from the perplexing world we occupy and from the messy events of the last four years, sentences floating off into an empyrean of millennial vagaries.

The world is a simple place to Bush. For him, "the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right" is one that involves no hard calls. And since America represents freedom and freedom is eternally right, it must still be right even when it locks hundreds of people away for life without trial or it tortures prisoners in a war launched on a lie. We are the forces of freedom; we can admit no wrong because we can do no wrong.

Sounding like a bizarre cross between Hegel, Woodrow Wilson and the nihilists of "The Possessed," Bush spoke of a "fire in the minds of men" (Dostoyevsky's phrase, adopted by James Billington as the title of a famous book about "revolutionary faith") that would spread freedom around the world. Freedom! Who would oppose it? But it is a word so universally embraced, even by those who flout its essence most crudely, that it means nothing when simply uttered; it has meaning only when our actions make something of it, when our deeds fill in its outline.

While Bush's text spoke of freedom, his imagery told a different story, a tale of retribution and flame. America's enemies set "a day of fire" on 9/11. We must respond with the "untamed fire" of freedom that America will bring to the benighted world. Fire with fire.
...
He's talking Biblical conflagration. His fire is the cathartic inferno dreamed of by people who are confounded by a world they know is out of their control -- one that, incomprehensibly, is not moving in a visible direction.
...
There must be people out there who find Bush's fiery talk uplifting. I found it alternatingly depressing and horrifying. Idealism fueled by ignorance and unanchored by reality can be the savagest fire of all.

My favorite short summation of the speech comes from Kevin Murphy of Ghost in the Machine, who writes:

All in all, the inaugural wasn't an embarrassing speech as delivered -- Gerson's too good at his job for that. But, like too much in this administration, it was all style and no substance, offering false simplicity and sanctimony in the place of good ideas or hard-won truths. In short, it was just like Dubya.

24 Jan 12:00 | Link | Category: Current Events, Opinion & Thoughts, Politics

November 6, 2004

Profile of a non-voter

This probably would have made a more interesting link last week, but it's still worth telling you about.

Most Americans who are eligible to vote, don't. NONE OF THE ABOVE, an excellent piece in The Washington Post, explores the reasons why. It's not a short article, but it's worth reading in its entirety. It first explores the question of whether it makes sense to vote or not. Then it profiles a random non-voter. Very interesting stuff.

06 Nov 1:20 | Link | Category: Current Events, Politics

Election Day results

Purple-USA.jpg - each state is colored along a spectrum between blue and red, illustrating its Democratic / Republican ratio. Interesting. Also very, um, charming that I live in the reddest state of all.

2004vs1850.gif - The 2004 presidential election as compared to the Compromise of 1850. Somewhat disturbing.

06 Nov 1:08 | Link | Category: Current Events, Politics

November 1, 2004

Final pre-Election Day Roundup

This might be that last collection election-related links I post before Wednesday (but hold your applause because it might not).

From The New Yorker: The Choice, an intelligent, well-reasoned piece. It runs through the history and failures of the Bush administration, and offers reasons why Kerry - despite his weaknesses - is a better choice than Bush.

From the LA Times: A Failed Presidency:

[Bush] has been a reckless steward of the nation's finances and its environment, a divisive figure at home and abroad. It's fair to say that Bush has devalued the American brand in the global marketplace.

What keeps this a close race is voter discomfort with Sen. John F. Kerry and the success of Republicans in stoking concerns about Kerry's fitness for office. But the thrust of the Bush campaign message — essentially, you are stuck with me in this frightful time because the other guy is too unreliable — is a tacit acknowledgment that he can't allow the election to be a referendum on his record.

From AlterNet: Lie and You Thrive.

From The Boston Phoenix: The Cheney Myth. Dan Kennedy argues (in a very lengthy article) that far from being an "evil genius," Cheney is just corrupt and incompetent.

And - finally - from GNN: Bush Wanted To Invade Iraq If Elected in 2000. This has already been revealed by the likes of former Treasury secretary Paul O'Neill and former White House Terrorism aide Richard Clarke. This time it comes from George W. Bush's former ghost writer, Mickey Herskowitz. Below are excerpts I thought were particularly revealing, but you'd be better off reaing the whole article.

"He said to me: 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He said, 'If I have a chance to invade...if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."

...

Herskowitz said that Bush expressed frustration at a lifetime as an underachiever in the shadow of an accomplished father. In aggressive military action, he saw the opportunity to emerge from his father's shadow.

...

Herskowitz also revealed the following:

  • In 2003, Bush's father indicated to him that he disagreed with his son's invasion of Iraq.
  • Bush described his own business ventures as "floundering" before campaign officials insisted on recasting them in a positive light.

...

According to Herskowitz, George W. Bush's beliefs on Iraq were based in part on a notion dating back to the Reagan White House - ascribed in part to now-vice president Dick Cheney, Chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee under Reagan. "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade."

...

"He told me that as a leader, you can never admit to a mistake," Herskowitz said. "That was one of the keys to being a leader."

01 Nov 22:57 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Politics

October 31, 2004

This is America... right?

Read about people reciting a "Bush Pledge" and then read the commentary at billmon.org. If that doesn't upset you sufficiently, continue...

Read about the scene outside a Bush-Arnold rally in Ohio and once again read the commentary at billmon.org.

Loyalty oaths, group pledges during rallies, public mob denunciation of Democrats as "communists"... sometimes it's hard to believe I'm living in the United States of America in the year 2004. Maybe I'm just momentarily trapped in a dream I can later turn into a cautionary sci-fi novel.

31 Oct 1:12 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Politics

October 29, 2004

Lynne Cheney's steamy romance novel

Some of the better excerpts from Lynne Cheney's book Sisters can be read at whitehouse.org. Enjoy.

For those of you unfamiliar with Sisters, it's a racy historical novel written by Lynne Cheney in 1981. It includes "vivid tales of whorehouses, attempted rapes, a suspicious murder and several lesbian love affairs." (It makes Lynne's angry denunciation of Kerry's remark about Mary Cheney in the third presidential debate all the more humorous, and further exposes it as the phony political move it was.)

Considering the embarrassing details in the past (and present) of so many in the Bush gang, it's amazing they can still pull off their image of righteous protectors of 'American values' and 'Christian morality' so well. Behind that image is a group of people who will do anything for power -- some will even abandon and bury their old "radical, pro-feminist agenda." (The titles of two books written by Dick and Lynne Cheney are perhaps revealing: "Kings of the Hill: How 9 Powerful Men Changed the Course of American History" and "Kings of the Hill: Power and Personality in the House of Representatives".)

It also begs a question. How do these people avoid Clintonesque scrutiny and witch-hunting? You know if Hillary had written a book like Sisters she would have been burned at the stake. (Think of all the crap she took for "It Takes a Village" - and it didn't even have any girl-on-girl sex scenes!)

29 Oct 0:06 | Link | Category: Humor, Politics

October 28, 2004

A few interesting Bush-related links

28 Oct 0:13 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Politics

October 26, 2004

The Young Karl Rove

Among the latest clippings from my grandma was a very interesting recollection of the young Karl Rove. (He went to high school and college in my city.)

For Karl, winning is the only goal and the tactics used have no ethical, moral, factual or even legal restraint.
...
I can't say that in 1968 I saw all the seeds of what Karl Rove would become. I am surprised more people haven't been willing to stand in his way. But a person that relentless, that single-minded, that focused loses peripheral vision, and that's where someone more introspective might see the collateral damage of their obsession.
If Karl the Terminator would pause long enough to turn his head a little to either side he would notice that in the movie of real life the victims scattered all over the highway are not just the Democrats but democracy itself. An electorate distracted by dirty tricks is less able to vote to protect the public interest, which is the whole purpose of democracy. A distracted, deceived and fearful electorate is the precursor of fascism.
Far better than any of his old friends, Karl truly has achieved his dream job. Unfortunately for the rest of us it's become our nightmare.

26 Oct 20:07 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Politics

The White House Wasn't Always God's House

In a piece for the LA Times, historian (and top Kennedy aide) Arthur Schlesinger Jr. explains that George W. Bush's presidency is the first faith-based administration in U.S history. "The founding fathers did not mention God in the Constitution, and the faithful often regarded our early presidents as insufficiently pious." Moreover, previous presidents of ardent faith did not apply "religious tests to secular issues" or "exploit their religion for their political benefit." But "these are the standards that Bush has systematically violated."

But, as author Bob Woodward said in "Bush at War": "The president was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God's master plan." There is a messianic certitude about our president's pronouncements.

A fanatic, as Finley Peter Dunne's fictitious Mr. Dooley said, does what he thinks the Lord would do if he only knew the facts in the case. The most dangerous people in the world today are those who persuade themselves that they are executing the will of the Almighty.

Lincoln summed it all up in his second inaugural address. Both warring halves of the nation, he said, had read the same Bible and prayed to the same God. Each invoked God's aid against the other.

As Lincoln said, " ...let us judge not, that we be not judged... The Almighty has his own purposes."

26 Oct 19:45 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Politics

"Give us back the America we loved"

In short letters in The Guardian, John Le Carré, Antonia Fraser, and Richard Dawkins beseech Americans not to vote for George W. Bush. Dawkins says:

Don't be so ashamed of your president: the majority of you didn't vote for him. If Bush is finally elected properly, that will be the time for Americans travelling abroad to simulate a Canadian accent. Please don't let it come to that. Vote against Bin Laden's dream candidate. Vote to send Bush packing.
...
Decent Americans - there are absolutely more intelligent, educated, civilised, cultivated, compassionate people in America than in any other country in the western world - please show your electoral muscle this time around. We in the rest of the world, who sadly cannot vote in the one election that really affects our future, are depending on you. Please don't let us down.

26 Oct 19:40 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Politics

October 6, 2004

More politics...

A couple of interesting reads:

  • Bush Like Me, in which Matt Taibbi spends ten weeks undercover in the grassroots of the Republican Party.
  • The God Squad, Andrew O'Hagan's thoughtful - and scathing - report from the RNC.

06 Oct 22:21 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Politics

Kerry's debate prep

Very funny: Kerry's debate prep (RealAudio), from Le Show from Harry Shearer (from Cynical-C).

Did that make sense?

06 Oct 0:45 | Link | Category: Humor, Politics

October 3, 2004

Debate 1 Analysis

Just kidding... I'm tired of the endless "analysis" just like everyone else. Just a couple of good links:

03 Oct 20:44 | Link | Category: Politics

September 30, 2004

Debate Survival Guide

If you've decided, like I have, to watch the debates tonight, I suggest you have a plan for keeping your sanity intact during the process. Scott Paulsen's Debate Survival Guide is a good starting point. He suggests:

Every time your guy says the phrase "my opponent", take a drink. Each time your man utters the phrase "this is where we differ", take a drink. Each time the other guy touches his nose, take a drink.

If Senator Kerry mentions his service in Vietnam, his supporters must take two drinks. If President Bush mentions toppling Saddam Hussein, his team takes two drinks.

The first time Senator Kerry mentions his wife's name, which the rest of the world pronounces Tur-REE-suh, but he and only he pronounces Tur-RAY-suh, Kerry supporters take three drinks. The first time President Bush pronounces atomic weaponry as being new-cue-luhr, rather than new-klee-uhr, Bush people take three drinks.

Dave Hill offers his version, which includes:

Every time Bush mangles a word that he, as President of the United States, should know. [1 shot]
Every time Kerry utters a sentence that, transcribed, would require more than ten commas, two semi-colons, and/or a paragraph break. [1 shot]
Every time Bush gets a folksy grin on his face. [1 shot]
Every time Kerry sounds like he's trying to channel FDR or (the original) JFK. [1 shot]
Every time Bush mentions "The War on Terror." [1 shot]
Every time either of them mentions a previous president. [1 shot]
Every time either of them mentions a previous president of the other party. [2 shots]
Every time either of them mentions a previous president who would have crossed the street to avoid being associated with them. [3 shots]

I would add some ideas, but I need to get some work done. Anyway, I hope these suggestions help you have some fun watching the debates tonight.

30 Sep 14:22 | Link | Category: Humor, Politics

September 29, 2004

Bush Campaign: "Liberals" want to ban the Bible

The Republican Party acknowledged yesterday sending mass mailings to residents of two states (Arkansas and West Virginia, by the way) warning that "liberals" seek to ban the Bible. It said the mailings were part of its effort to "mobilize religious voters for President Bush."

In my younger days, I would've gotten worked up about it, but now I just accept this sort of bullshit... I'm just not surprised by such tactics anymore. I also know that Bush will conveniently shy away from making any statement (written or otherwise) to condemn it. (I learned that quite a while ago, too -- watching the ugly 2000 Republican primaries in South Carolina and Michigan.)

29 Sep 0:50 | Link | Category: Politics

September 26, 2004

America the Conservative

In a well-reasoned piece for the LA Times, Edward L. Glaeser examines the exceptional conservatism of the United States.

26 Sep 23:44 | Link | Category: Opinion & Thoughts, Politics

Are two (or eight) demagogues really better than one?

Another example of why it's so fun (interpret that word however you wish) to live in Utah:

Members of the student government at the community college in Provo-Orem decided to invite rabble-rouser Michael Moore to speak. Poor saps. Other students - along with citizens all over the conservative community - didn't take kindly to the notion of having someone like that tell them what to think. No, much better to have their own rabble-rousers tell them what to think.

The Trib says:

"Michael Moore will break away from the swing-state Bush-bashing circuit to speak at Utah Valley State College - one of the most conservative campuses in one of the most conservative counties of one of the most conservative states in the country.

Some segue.

Political invective aside, it may be the first time that a sitting American president gets lashed, lambasted and lampooned from the podium of Orem's David O. McKay Events Center.

"He went to the Republican convention," UVSC spokesman Derek Hall said. "This has got to be a friendly place compared to that."

Don't count on it.

According to the Provo Daily Herald (proudly located at harktheherald.com):

"The college has received a steady stream of complaints from across the nation, from a grandfather vowing he won't come to his grandson's graduation to an employer swearing to never again hire a UVSC graduate. Many parents and alumni have expressed disgust that the college is using student fees to pay Moore $40,000 to speak at the college and one e-mail administrators received said that if they didn't cancel the speech a UVSC diploma 'might as well be printed on twin-ply, perforated tissue paper and dispensed on rolls in bathroom stalls.'"

(This begs the question - why twin-ply and perforated?)

No worry, though. The college has invited about eight other speakers, including such luminaries as talk show hosts Sean Hannity and Michael Reagan.

The great shame is that instead of a well-attended lecture from a celebrity-of-the-moment and perhaps a minor controversy played out on the editorial pages of the school paper, the poor kids get an enormous community-wide scandal... and now they have to endure propaganda from lots of demagogues! (Between the outraged students / community and all the fervor that'll be hurled by Moore, Hannity, and the rest, I think UVSC will temporarily rank among the most vitriolic spots in the world. Such a sad fate for Happy Valley!)

The funny/sad/ironic thing is that noted individuals (as in, people other than propagandists and talk show hosts) speak at my university (scroll to bottom) and around town all the time... and nobody really pays attention. Gorbachev spoke and earned a small mention on the back page (no letters to the editor, I'm afraid). Lech Walesa stopped by in... I think it was probably '98, and when I later complained to people about the (relatively) low attendance and lack of interest by local news media, most people just looked at me blankly and asked me who the hell Lech Walesa was.

But I can guarantee they all know who the eminent Sean Hannity is, dammit!

Ugh.

26 Sep 22:27 | Link | Category: Current Events, Politics

Presidential costume masks predict outcome of elections?

According to this site, sales of presidential masks have accurately predicted the outcome of elections since 1980.

And according to this story from CNN/Money, Bush masks have been outselling Kerry masks so far this year.

It's completely unscientific hogwash, but it would have been less stressful to pay attention to sales figures for costume masks than pay attention to the networks on that Tuesday night in 2000, when they studied their scientific exit polls and confidently proclaimed Al Gore the winner.

26 Sep 21:39 | Link | Category: Politics

September 23, 2004

History can offer Bush hope... unless it's all Greek to him

The LA Times published a pair of interesting articles. The first is entitled History Can Offer Bush Hope and points out that other presidents - from Madison and Truman to the celebrated Lincoln and Roosevelt - all had moments when they botched a war or its aftermath.

Barbara Garson counters with lessons in history from Athens.

Garson's makes more of an impact and resounds better, but both articles offer interesting points.

23 Sep 22:13 | Link | Category: Politics

September 21, 2004

Larry David addresses the Undecideds

Fans of Larry David of Curb Your Enthusiasm will enjoy an Op-Ed he wrote for the New York Times: Are You Undecided? Or Not?

21 Sep 20:56 | Link | Category: Politics

Amazon's Election 2004 Interviews

Amazon has posted "interviews" (more like interview snippets) with... what shall I call them... celebrity pundits. They offer brief comments on the election and suggest books for reading. Most of them are pretty inane and demagogic (yes, that's a word - I looked it up!), particularly Ann Coulter's, in which she states a Kerry administration would mean "the destruction of the republic" and chooses the Bible and four of her own books for her list of suggested reading). Of the nine interviews, only Gore Vidal's, Jon Stewart's, and Bob Woodward's are worth reading.

Stewart's is particularly witty and entertaining... actually, it's the reason I wasted time posting this entry in the first place.

21 Sep 20:51 | Link | Category: Politics

September 20, 2004

"Who's the flip-flopper?"

Occasionally, my grandmother saves clippings from the newspaper for me. (No one else in the family appreciates her wise point of view!) I particularly liked one she saved from the Salt Lake Tribune:

Why is Sen. John Kerry painted as a flip-flop candidate, when our current president has changed his stand on the following: the Iraq WMD investigation, the deficit, the creation of the 9-11 commission, the Saddam/al-Qaida link, North Korea, the U.N. vote on Iraq, "Mission accomplished," Ahmed Chalabi, steel tariffs, the Department of Homeland Security, campaign-finance reform, energy policy, assault weapons, abortion, science, global warming, the environment.
Please can somebody explain why it is OK for W. to alter his opinion on these issues, but when Kerry changes his opinion on issues he is a flip-flopper.

20 Sep 20:55 | Link | Category: Politics

September 12, 2004

Time interviews Kerry

Time Magazine published a brief interview with John Kerry. It wasn't very interesting, but I did like the way Kerry encapsulated the Bush strategy (at the end of the interview):

I think they are trying to do everything possible to divert attention from the real issues in front of the country, and their entire strategy for six months has been distorting my record and attacking me because they don't have a record to run on.

I have to say... Mad props to the Republicans for being able to campaign so successfully when George W. Bush has such a relatively poor record. (One would think the Democrats could do a better job with their somewhat confused candidate, but so far they haven't figured it out.)

12 Sep 23:17 | Link | Category: Politics

September 7, 2004

The election...

Unbelievable: Today, Cheney told voters in Iowa that "it's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

I don't even know how to comment on that, so let's move on.

BBC correspondent Tom Carver notes how well Bush and Co. play the political game:

The Republican convention was a virtuoso display of disciplined message. Every image and every speaker was carefully choreographed to reinforce in the voters' minds the idea of George Bush as a steadfast, principled, say-what-you-mean-and-mean-what-you-say kind of leader. Not a moment of doubt or hesitation. No mention of the missing weapons of mass destruction. Or the ongoing bloodshed in Iraq, a year after major hostilities were supposed to have ended.

...

In 2000, he fooled Al Gore into underestimating his talent as a politician, causing Mr Gore to overreach. This time, he has forced John Kerry to have the wrong conversation with the voters.

...

And in the absence of any detailed picture from Mr Ker