Kerry sucks because he went on an on during his campaign about how he would make sure every vote was counted, unlike the 2000 election. Then on Nov. 3 he conceded in the blink of an eye. Despite numerous reports of irregularities and downright misconduct in Ohio (including that of Ohio Sec. of State Kenneth Blackwell), he basically told us to get over it and bridge our differences with the Republicans. Now in the letter below, he basically concedes yet again telling us that despite these irregularities, and this impending investigation prompted by the couragoues Barbara Boxer, the election results will not be affected. Why not? Where is the recount? Why is the public being reassured over and over again that even though things were totally fucked in Ohio - the state that decided the election - don't worry, Bush will still be president. Even Al Franken today on Air America says "this is not about protesting this election." Why not? Why are we so afraid of being called conspiracy theorists? Boxer isn't, and she clearly has the balls that John Kerry lost somewhere along the way.
Regardless, he has some info in his letter and a (tepid) call to action:
"No American citizen should wake up the morning after the election and worry their vote wasn't counted. No citizen should be denied at the polls if they are eligible to vote. And, as the greatest, wealthiest nation on earth, our citizens should never be forced to vote on old, unaccountable and non transparent voting machines from companies controlled by partisan activists.Tomorrow, members of Congress will meet to certify the results of the 2004 presidential election. I will not be taking part in a formal protest of the Ohio Electors.Despite widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote, our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election.But, that does not mean we should abandon our commitment to addressing those problems that happened in Ohio. We must act today to make sure they never happen again.I urge you to join me in using this occasion to highlight our demand that Congress commit itself this year to reforming the electoral system. A Presidential election is a national federal election but we have different standards in different states for casting and counting votes. We need a national federal standard to solve the problems that occurred in the 2004 election. I will propose legislation to help achieve this.Florida 2000 was a wake up call. But the Republicans who control Congress ignored it. Will they now ignore what happened in 2004?There are nearly 3,000,000 of you receiving this email. We accomplished so much together during the campaign. Now let's use our power to make sure that at least one good thing comes from the voting rights problems of the 2004 election. If we want to force real action on election reform, we've got to demand that congressional leaders hold full hearings. Make sure they hear from you and help hold them accountable.Speaker Dennis Hastert: 1-202-225-0600Leader Bill Frist: 1-202-224-3135And please report that you've made your call right here:http://www.johnkerry.com/signup/electoral_reform.phpI want every vote counted because Americans have to know that the votes they stood in line for, fought for, and strived so hard to cast in an election, are counted. We must make sure there are no questions or doubts in future elections. It's critical to our democracy that we investigate and act to prevent voting irregularities and voter intimidation across the country. We can't stand still as Congressional leaders seek to sweep well-founded voter concerns under the rug.Please join with me in calling Speaker Hastert and Leader Frist and telling them that you want action on election reform now.A recent report from Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan) reveals very troubling questions that have not yet been answered by Ohio election officials. I commend the Democratic National Committee for its announcement this week that the DNC will be investing resources and reaching out to non-partisan academics in a long term study of Ohio voting irregularities. I am only sorry that we haven't seen the same from Ohio Secretary of State Blackwell and GOP officials.Congress must play a positive, proactive role on this issue. That's why I will soon introduce legislation to reform our election system, ensuring transparency and accountability in our voting system and that all Americans have an opportunity to vote and have their vote counted.Please remember to let us know that you made your call when you're done. We're hoping to ensure House and Senate leaders' offices hear our demand for action on election reform in meaningful way. Please take a moment to let us know you have made your call here: http://www.johnkerry.com/signup/electoral_reform.php
Thank you,
John Kerry"
A Stronger America???
Updated Links
Took off a few, including--regretfully--The Dark Window, which is on indefinite hiatus; if Pete returns, I'll be sure to reinstate the link.
Also added some new ones, many of which were long overdue: The American Street, Common Dreams, The Daou Report, Eponymous, The Island of Balta, Majikthise, Max Blumenthal, MaxSpeak, The Poor Man, and Yelladog. I read a lot of different blogs, but these are consistently good, as with those to which I was already linking.
Also, Pam's House Blend has just been redesigned, and Pam is doing great work over there on gay and lesbian issues, in particular. If you're not reading it regularly - start!
The Always Aggrieved League
Part of the Right’s perpetual victim complex is, necessarily, the Blame Game, as you can’t be a victim without someone or something having victimized you. Conservatives who succumb to this phenomenon are constantly on the lookout for people and places at which to point an accusatory finger; always moving and circling like sharks, they must stay in perpetual motion for survival, lest their wounds have time to heal.
As they washed ashore, the tsunamis seem to have brought with them new lows for these cretins to stoop to. Rush Limbaugh’s Jan. 3 transcript (link via Digby) contains the following exchange:
CALLER: (Giggle) Well, I was pretty upset and even getting madder the more coverage I watched, and I was thinking, 'Why am I not feeling so charitable, and I'm seeing all these bodies,' and then I see this picture on the Internet that was sent to me, and it was them carrying a body along in Sri Lanka, it said Galle, G-a-l-l-e, Sri Lanka and they had a crowd of people watching and this guy in the middle is standing there looking at the body wearing an Osama bin Laden T-shirt.It is unlikely (to put it mildly) that Sri Lankans were cheerleaders on 9/11, Islam drawing the smallest proportion of the four major religions on the island, 70% of which is Buddhist, 15% is Hindu, 8% is Christian, and 7% is Muslim. Additionally, Sri Lanka suffered, with India, 168 suicide bomber attacks between 1980 and 2000, each exacted by their most prominent terrorist group, LTTE, an effectively secular faction. (This number of attacks is more than 3 times the next highest occurrence—52 Hizbullah and pro-Syrian groups in Lebanon, Kuwait, and Argentina combined). Being no stranger to such tragedy, the Sri Lankan people were unlikely to have celebrated the work of al-Qaida. In fact, at the time of the 9/11 attacks, there was an ongoing investigation into links between LTTE and al-Qaida:
RUSH: I saw that picture.
CALLER: And I thought, it just validated the way I felt and I thought these are the same people that were the cheerleaders on 9/11, and we're going to go rebuild their world for them.
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: Now, I love President Bush. I respect him. I voted for him, but when I saw him come out and I realized they were asking for more money –
RUSH: Yeah.
CALLER: -- I got even madder, and I thought, 'I don't think we should be asked to give any more.’
[T]he LTTE’s relationship with al-Qaida was in focus to understand the latter’s mastery of suicide attacks even though most groups learn by trial and error. Before the September 11 attacks, al-Qaida had executed two successful suicide missions, the August 1998 East African Embassy bombings and the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen. The sources said the links, which were first indicated in the early ’90s, are the first instance of an Islamist group collaborating with an essentially secular outfit.Though I haven’t seen the picture referenced by Rush and his caller, I can imagine that among the entire population of Sri Lanka there are those who support Osama bin Laden. Nonetheless, even the briefest internet search to find out about Sri Lanka could have enlightened both Rush and his ditto-head about the more typical character (and demographics) of the island.
That’s just not the point, though. Rush and his caller had found someone at which to point their fingers. And for what reason? Because they felt guilty about not feeling charitable toward the victims of the tsunamis, and because they are angry at their beloved Bush (at whom they could never direct their anger) for giving their hard-earned tax dollars away to people with brown skin. (Using said monies to kill people with brown skin is a different story altogether.)
Even when victims of nothing but their own depraved selfishness and racism, they seek to blame others. It’s not that they’re isolationist, xenophobic fuckwits – it’s that they just don’t like giving money to terrorists who hate us for our freedom, that’s all. One Sri Lankan in an Osama t-shirt was enough for Rush and his caller to condemn an entire people and, in the process, justify their own indifference.
The prize, however, as always goes to the Religious Right, who are so audacious in their claims of victimhood and self-righteous finger-pointing that it evokes as much awe as disgust.
Appropriately tagged the homo-pocalyptic crowd by Pam of Pam’s House Blend, this group of heartwarming religious activists has determined that we can pin the blame for the tsunamis on gays and lesbians, and they have thoughtfully shared this information with us in some exceedingly creative ways:
Images via Pam’s House Blend. Circulated by Fred Phelps, the craziest son of a bitch I can think of. I won’t go into his résumé here, but if you don’t know who he is – check him out. Truly scary and insane stuff.
AMERICAblog also reports on conservative bastion of hate WorldNetDaily’s promotion of Sheik Fawzan Al-Fawzan’s view that the tsunamis were punishment from God for homosexuality and fornication committed by residents and tourists at Christmastime. The article’s title, Homosexuality, fornication cause of tsunami?, is so anathema to my rational, secular, scientific beliefs about how the world works that it may as well say Lightbulbs, squid cause of peach fuzz?.
How about this: No one is to blame for the tsunami, but we’re all responsible to help pick up the pieces. It’s certainly nothing you’ll ever hear from the Always Aggrieved League. They’re far too content blaming presumed terrorists for their own deficits of empathy and sodomites for bringing God’s wrath upon us. If only they spent less time on God’s will and more on the decidedly earthly pursuit of developing a will to pull themselves out of knuckle-dragging ignorance.
God Bless the Congressional Black Caucus
In what is not meant to be, but will be nonetheless, a fitting tribute to one of their recently deceased founding members, the feisty Shirley Chisholm, the Congressional Black Caucus have planned to mount a challenge to the ’04 presidential election results. Consortium News reports:
John Kerry may have one more chance to “report for duty.” On Jan. 6, after the new Congress convenes, he could join with Reps. John Conyers, Maxine Waters and other members of the House of Representatives in supporting their expected motion for a full-scale investigation of Election 2004, particularly the widespread allegations of voting fraud in the pivotal state of Ohio.Anyone who has seen Fahrenheit 9/11 will be able to imagine this scene. Except this time, instead of VP Al Gore presiding over his own fate, it will instead be VP Dick Cheney presiding over the fate of his boss. Chilling.
For the House motion to have any standing, it must be signed by at least one U.S. senator. So far, no U.S. senator has stepped forward despite petition drives from rank-and-file Democrats demanding that Bush’s victory be contested.
In ’00, the members of Congress who made the motion could not find a single senator to support them. I hope with every ounce of my being that it will not happen again. Surely John Kerry will not turn his back on his fellow Democrats – both those brave enough to submit the motion and those in every state of the union who are desperate to see their elected Dems mount a real challenge to the Bush Administration’s unchecked reign. The measure would be little more than a symbolic gesture; there is no real hope that even a motion for a full-scale investigation would deter Bush from assuming the presidency at his Jan. 20th inauguration. But the message would be clear – and let’s face it, the Dems are in desperate need of a clear message these days.
For many in the Democratic base, it may be Kerry’s last chance to show that he meant what he said when he challenged the Bush dirty tricksters to “bring it on.”If Kerry keeps silent as part of an ’08 bid, he’s got it backwards. His only hope for an ’08 bid is to keep his focus on ’04 for the moment. Not supporting the motion because it is merely symbolic, or because he may be accused of sour grapes, would be foolish. Someone in the Democratic party needs to convey to rank-and-file Democrats that they care about clean elections – and more importantly, that there are still those in the Democratic Party with a fighting spirit.
And if there aren’t, well, the Green Party’s got a message for us:
If Senate Democrats allow George W. Bush's victory based on questionable numbers to stand, the Green Party will tell Democratic voters: you have wasted your votes and your campaign contributions on a party that will not defend your right to vote. Regardless of whether the recount effort or a challenge from Senate Democrats overturns Mr. Bush's 2004 election, Americans need to see that corrupt elections will not be tolerated. At the very least, a challenge will advance some sorely needed reforms: auditable paper records of all computer votes; equitable distribution of election equipment; assurance that legitimate votes aren't obstructed; removal of biased partisan officials from supervision of vote counts; clean election laws. This is what the Green Party stands for. Where do the Democrats stand?Them fightin’ words care of Marc Sanson, co-chair of the United States Green Party. It’s like a siren song for disillusioned Democrats.
If our party can’t answer his question, they’d better not expect to remain our party for long.
These Troubled Times We Live In
Has anyone else noticed that troubled has officially become a newsy euphemism for totally fucked up?
Here, for instance, a NY Times editorial describes the plethora of “deeply troubling aspects of the Gonzales nomination.”
Here, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports that conservative Minnesotan Republican Mark Kennedy found proposed Congressional ethics changes “troubling.” And from the same story: “What's troubling about Tuesday's vote is not that it insulates DeLay or demonstrates GOP unity, but that it entrenches a style of politics that has placed the consolidation of party power above conduct of the nation's business.”
Here, Common Cause’s VP for Advocacy, Celia Viggo Wexler, responds to the proposed Congressional ethics changes by saying, “When a party is in power for a certain amount of time, they get more lax about ethics… You also see a kind of culture growing up that is troubling: If there's a rule that's nettlesome or in your way, just get rid of it."
Here, the Lebanon Daily Star describes America’s “pattern of interaction with this region” as “troubling.”
Here, the NY Times reports that the results of Americans training Iraqi police offers and national guard troops have been “troubling.”
I remember countless uses of the word “troubling” in describing former aspirant to Homeland Security Chief Bernard Kerik’s past. However, I think this one is my favorite:
While banishing doubters, Bush has been recruiting sycophants.The use of the word is almost comical in its understatement. Changing Congressional ethics rules to accommodate your loathsome party leaders isn’t troubling – it’s totally fucked up. Alberto Gonzales’ résumé isn’t troubling – it’s totally fucked up. Someone who can seemingly be accurately compared to a member of the Gestapo being slated to run our Department of Homeland Security isn’t troubling – it’s totally fucked up!
Bush’s ill-fated choice of Bernard Kerik to run the Department of Homeland Security collapsed after disclosures of Kerik’s questionable judgment in other jobs and his possible hiring of an illegal alien as a nanny. But the more troubling story may have been that Bush wanted a yes man like Kerik to oversee a department with broad powers over the civil liberties of American citizens.
Though Bush judged the former New York police commissioner to be a “good man,” others who knew Kerik had different opinions. For instance, while working for a Saudi hospital 20 years ago, Kerik ran the investigative arm of a security force that allegedly harassed and spied on American employees because they weren’t complying with strict Saudi rules governing alcohol and dating, according to former hospital employees interviewed by the Washington Post.
“Kerik was a goon,” said John Jones, a former hospital manager who also called Kerik and his security team “Gestapo.”
I say to hell with the FCC. From here on out, anyone who’s been carefully selecting the use of the word troubling to substitute for what we all know they really mean ought to just let fly with it. After all, VP Dark Lord Dick Cheney didn’t tell Patrick Leahy he was “troubled” by his criticisms of Halliburton, now did he?
Bush Bollocks It Up Again
The Bush Administration response to the tsunami disaster exemplifies everything I dislike about this president, his cohorts, and their leadership. Since the onset of America’s response to the tragedy, I have felt at turns mortified, livid, and awed, and I am reminded once again of why I so desperately wanted this man replaced, both as our President and as our foremost diplomat, our envoy to the rest of the world.
Incompetence. Though our official pledge now stands at $350 million and counting, the original sum offered was $400,000:
The United States' initial offer of aid for the tsunami victims drifted from a miserly $400,000 to a ridiculous $15 million to a paltry $35 million in a 24-hour news cycle.Having—or, more aptly, not having—a handle on something seems to be a recurring theme with this president. While his infamous 7-minute delay before reacting to the events of 9/11 tend to be viewed along partisan lines, with liberals seeing paralyzing ineptitude and conservatives seeing calm under fire, I cannot imagine the defense for so vastly underestimating the need generated by this disaster. With many Americans questioning the $400,000 pledge when it was first offered, it seems the populace had a stronger grasp on the situation than the administration.
[…]
The figure is now $350 million with a promise of more to come, raising the question of what idiot came up with the $400,000 figure in the first place and what kind of handle the president had on the disaster […]
If this wasn’t blatant incompetence, then it was willful disregard of the magnitude of events—in either case, a pretty paltry display from the White House.
Questionable Priorities. In everything from the funding of sex education programs to the appropriation of resources in Iraq, the Bush Administration never fails to use politics and ideology to govern their choices. The only side they’re ever on is their own.
Their original pledge to the tsunami victims was one-tenth the cost of the nine official balls and associated festivities planned for Bush’s Jan. 20th inauguration. Even still, with countries such as Australia doubling our aid contribution, Bush is taking his usual wait-and-see attitude about upping our pledge, and has promised that the inauguration will go on as planned. Aside from what many consider a general inappropriateness of such a lavish celebration in close proximity to such a heart-rending tragedy, expending an inarguably egregious sum on the fête while delivering one of the lowest pledges of assistance from the Western world can only be described as questionable priorities, as best.
(In a tangentially-related aside, when the NY Times Magazine’s Deborah Solomon recently asked Jeanne L. Phillips, the chairwoman of the 55th Presidential Inaugural Committee, whether she or the president had ever discussed canceling the nine balls and using the $40 million inaugural budget to purchase better equipment for the troops, Phillips replied:
I think we felt like we would have a traditional set of events and we would focus on honoring the people who are serving our country right now -- not just the people in the armed forces, but also the community volunteers, the firemen, the policemen, the teachers, the people who serve at, you know, the -- well, it's called the StewPot in Dallas, people who work with the homeless.Because, you know, a theme of honoring service is a priority, even though actually honoring those who serve is clearly not.)
[Solomon:] How do any of them benefit from the inaugural balls?
I'm not sure that they do benefit from them.
[Solomon:] Then how, exactly, are you honoring them?
Honoring service is what our theme is about.
The Shifting of Responsibility. Not wanting to sacrifice his balls (ahem) and under pressure about use of taxpayer dollars with no end to spending in Iraq in sight, Bush has opted to try to elicit direct contributions from corporations and the American people to augment the government’s contribution. Let it be noted that, as ever, many Americans are eager to help and would do so with or without the President’s urging, but when he tells us “The greatest source of America's generosity is not our government…It's the good heart of the American people,” he fails to recognize that the American people pay taxes to their government to provide funding for situations just such as this, not because we are unwilling to donate personally, but because our national policy expresses something separate and unique from the actions of individual Americans. Indeed, traveling abroad will teach you very quickly that views of the American people and views of the American government are vastly different things.
Hypocrisy. Quite simply, it’s yet another case of what’s good for the goose….
To help in what he called ''this urgent cause,'' Bush urged Americans to send money […]Of course he hasn’t.
Bush himself plans to make a personal donation but has not done so yet.
Cronyism/Political Opportunism. All wrapped up in one. Jeb Bush, currently leading the delegation dispatched by his brother-in-chief, was allegedly sent for his experience with natural disasters. I’m not about to try to quantify the likenesses or differences between the hurricanes in Florida and the tsunamis, but something tells me that a potential ’08 presidential run has significantly more to do with Jeb’s selection than some kind of unique meteorological experience.
Selective Bipartisanism. Despite his promises to be a uniter, not a divider, Bush has, of course, been anything but. The country is truly polarized, Bush’s ideologically-driven policies are rammed through Congress running roughshod over any opposition (meager though it may be), and he clearly has no use for anyone who disagrees with him; those who do are quickly braded traitors. Yet suddenly, Bush—who couldn’t even contain himself from acting like an ass at Clinton’s Library opening—suddenly needed the Big Dog’s master fundraising skills, and sent him, along with his own father, to circulate and drum up cash to contribute to tsunami aid efforts. As Robert Kuttner suggested in The Boston Globe, “[Bush’s] version of bipartisanship is that good old Bill Clinton gets to shill for private money that a decent government would be providing.”
I guess that’s the problem, though, isn’t it? We don’t seem to have a decent government right now. Instead we have a leader who prefers to spend $40 million on a party for himself while others suffer. And if you think I just mean the tsunami victims, take a look around your own community. There are people there who could use a little help, too.
The Forgotten Dead
First do a Yahoo Search for “Tsunami toll.” The BBC, CNN, ABC, the NY Times, and the Washington Post all turn up on the first page of results, tracking the ever-rising number of dead. The AP even helpfully offers a breakdown by nationality.
Now do one for “Iraq civilian toll.” Notice a difference? The only major news organization that seems to care about the cost of human life to Iraqis in the ongoing Iraq conflict is al-Jazeera.
IraqBodyCount.net estimates the number of civilian casualties in Iraq since the start of the war to be around 16,000, although a study released in October placed the number much higher. The truth may very well lie somewhere in the middle, but it’s curious that no major news organization has applied their evident interest in tracking the number of dead from natural disasters to pursue an accurate assessment of the same in Iraq. No doubt, it is more difficult information to ascertain, due in part to our military’s refusal to release such numbers and our administration’s unwillingness to publicly address the issue, but surely that should make it all the more worthy of the media’s attention.
We are (rightfully) pouring out dollars and goodwill to those suffering from this natural disaster, and yet we are unwilling to even acknowledge those suffering from a disaster we perpetuated upon them. Where are the links to generously donate to the Iraqi people? Images of the tsunamis wreaking havoc upon the beaches of faraway places are running like a ghoulish loop on CNN and the other cable news channels, and yet we are forbidden even to see pictures of the coffins containing our own soldiers who died in Iraq, no less the brutal images of the war itself. We tut-tut about how many deaths could have been avoided with proper warnings about the deadly waves, but ignore that Iraq was a war of choice, with all the deaths incurred so far completely preventable—including the lives of the 1,500 soldiers who have died.
By the time the war is done, the civilian toll will be as high or higher than that caused by the tsunamis. I wonder, will we ever care as much about the death we cause as that for which we feel no guilt or blame?
Please, somebody, get this man a dictionary…
…because he clearly doesn’t understand the meaning of the word ultimate:
I want to welcome you all here; Laura and I are so thrilled you're here. We want to welcome your spouses. I particularly want to say a thanks to your spouse for having supported your run for the Congress or the Senate. Laura and I know how hard it is on a family to be in the political arena. It's the ultimate sacrifice, really: sacrifice your privacy; it's a sacrifice of time with your kids. But you're going to find it's worthwhile -- serving this great country is an unbelievable honor, and both the elected official and the spouse are serving our great country. (Via AMERICAblog.)Or perhaps he does, and finds that sacrificing his privacy and time with his kids is more important than the troops sacrificing their lives. That would certainly explain a lot, wouldn’t it?
Stingy
I keep wishing it will just go away – this preposterous story about UN Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan Egeland allegedly calling the US’ pledge of $15 million in aid to tsunami victims “stingy.” And not just because it’s a stupid, energy-sucking timewaster like any other so-called news story that debates the veracity of a quote as if the quote isn’t on record for all to see. (See Bill Sammon’s original article that started it all and Media Matters’ subsequent analysis of the false report and its infiltration of the mainstream media. The original quote in its entirety can be found here, too.) No, it’s not just the insult to our collective intellect that makes me hate this story. It’s also the sheer embarrassment I feel as an American that we’re whining about being picked-on…again. The biggest bully on the block is crying foul at a UN Humanitarian Aid Chief’s comments that suggest the richest countries in the world tend to be the least generous – without singling out America from any other first-world nations, or even mentioning America by name. Hmm. Perhaps thou dost protest too much, no?
The victim mentality that has become pervasive in American society has undermined all notions that we are the country with a can-do spirit, with a belief that the weakest among us can rise to greatness. It started within our own borders; our ambition and determination, that good ol’ American work ethic, somehow started to mutate, until it had become a disfigured, funhouse mirror image of its former self – now an arrogant sense of entitlement.
Should one get less out of life than one expected, well, that’s simply unacceptable. I am entitled to more than this. Anything less cannot be attributed to the sometime unfairness of life or, heaven forbid, personal responsibility. No, clearly the unfortunate American who has a lower-paying job, a smaller house, fewer cars, or an old stereo has been somehow victimized. Except, of course, any true victims of our society – those who live in poverty and squalor, children who risk their lives walking to their massively underfunded schools, the ill without means to afford healthcare, the indigent elderly who choose between food and medication – all of those among us who have fallen through the safety net that social programs have sought, and oft failed, to provide.
And just as we turn our backs on the victimized in our own country, so, too, do we show contempt for tsunami-ravaged victims by spending a moment examining our indignation over the misconstrued comment of a humanitarian aid worker. It is truly shameful behavior; the grand vision Americans once shared has been reduced to tunnel vision, seeking only to identify and expose the supposed injustices levied against us. We have become so blind as to ignore the very real hardships of the world in order to better magnify the adversities of our own creation.
This seems to be a particular, peculiar attribute of the American Right, not necessarily unique to them, but by them indisputably perfected. The Right is always being victimized, so they claim – why, the Left even tried to steal Christmas from them! Every argument is framed so as to perpetuate their perceived victimhood; their battle against gay marriage is not about their own rancid bigotry (of course), but instead about the threat to the sanctity of their own marriages; banning compulsory prayer in a public school is simply about restricting their religion, with never even the most cursory examination of how their religion might have been imposed on someone else. They are perpetually, irrepressibly injured, never without a new grievance or outrage.
For anyone with devoutly religious and/or politically conservative family members, this phenomenon is nothing new. And although it has always been irritating to me, I also found it quite pitiable – what an unfortunate way to spend one’s life, looking for slights and discriminations that weren’t really there, convincing oneself of it until life was little else than miserable expressions of cynical ire.
It’s not just the odd grumpy uncle or the self-martyring mother anymore, though. It is everywhere, and it is fast becoming the new American dream – to find oneself as the perfect, unsavable victim in perpetuity…with all the things money can buy. The American Right isn’t happy without their bogeymen to taunt and aggrieve them, but having hold of the presidency, both houses of Congress, and a large swath of the judiciary is making it difficult to continue to claim victimhood. Some make the mistake of asking what more they could possibly want, but it misses the point. They want everything – all the power and the continued right to claim they have none.
So now they take international offense. Criticisms of America are construed as dire insults, and we, this nation of victims with the most powerful military in the world, react in a manner that befits a spoiled child. I was annoyed but resigned when this behavior was contained, but as it becomes the predominant indicator of our global relations, I can stand it no longer.
The Left must expose this repellent, infantile conduct for what it is, loudly and repeatedly, and call it out as the irrational and patently unacceptable stance that it is. If we don’t, we really will all be victims…of our own gluttonous self-indulgence and, yes, stinginess. We are not meant to have everything, and those who have power are not entitled to act as if they have none.
Sister, I'm a Poet
Despite That Colored Fellas' call for therapy for all of us who suffer from Compulsive Pun Disorder, I've done it again in the title of this post. What can I say? - I'm hopeless. My only excuse is that I hardly think most people will recognize the song....
Anyway, as per that subject header, it appears that yours truly has garnered second place in the American Street's "You Go to War with What You Have" poetry contest. The rules, and comments about the judging, are here. The top three poems can be seen here.
In short, the rules were that you had to use Rumsfeld's unfortunate aforementioned line. My entry was as follows:
You go to war with what you have,
And I had dreams of glory,
Now long replaced with nightmares
And an all too familiar story.
An army of one, I’m a father and son,
And a brother—one of three.
The army with which you’ve gone to war
Is replete with men just like me.
You go to war with what you have;
We were told we had the best.
I strode into the combat zone
With Kevlar on my chest.
Some vehicles were armored well
The rest good armor lacked.
We scavenged for scrap metal, and
Hoped we would not be attacked.
You go to war with what you have,
And we fought for proper protection.
The enemy seemed a distant threat
As we fought fatigue and infection.
We fought the hunger gripping our guts,
We fought against thirst, stress, and pain.
We waited for rebels and roadside bombs
And fought against going insane.
You go to war with what you have,
Your fears, your flaws, your charms.
But in a moment, what you have can be lost;
I gave up one leg and both arms.
I gave up my innocence and any thought
That war was no more than a game.
You go to war with what you have
And hope you come back the same.
Grim stuff. And I dedicate it to you, Mr. Rumsfeld.
Thanks to those who saw fit to include me among the winners.
MovieTime
Last year sucked. Everyone I know seemed to have a crappy year. There were an unusually high number of natural disasters and extended periods of weird weather; every time I turned around, someone I knew was going to another funeral, visiting someone in the hospital, or going into the hospital themselves; and the economy was such that I didn’t speak to anyone who wasn’t complaining about their finances or jobs (or the lack thereof). And, of course, for progressives, 2004 sucked big time. It was just the Year of Suck.
But nothing was more representative of how sucky the Year of Suck really sucked than the ghastly selection of films we were served up this year. It’s one thing when your reality sucks, but when your escapism sucks, too, you know it’s a genuine and inescapable Suckfest.
In addition to being Lefty Political Pundit Extraordinaire, I am a film nut; my head is crammed with so much film trivia, names of obscure actors, and snippets of dialogue that I serve as a sort of breathing IMDB for my friends and family. One look at the ever-expanding collection of films taking up space in the den undoubtedly leaves one with the impression that I clearly intend to spend my unfunded retirement watching films in my cardboard box.
It is, then, with some measure of self-designated expertise that I deem 2004 a truly dismal year for films. Attempting to put together a Top 10 list garnered me a collection about which I was decidedly unenthusiastic; most of them wouldn’t even have warranted an honorable mention in other years. So I scrapped the typical format, and will plow onward accordingly.
I found myself skipping films by some of my favorite directors this year – M. Night Shyamalan’s The Village, Michael Mann’s Collateral, The Coen Brothers’ The Ladykillers, Wes Anderson’s The Life Aquatic, Stephen Soderbergh’s Ocean’s Twelve, and James L. Brooks’ Spanglish, all of which looked like renters at best. P.T. Anderson, Sam Mendes, Anthony Minghella – I hope you all had a nice year off, but we’re going to need you back in ’05, boys.
Most of the films that were supposed to be hits weren’t (ref: The Alamo, Troy, King Arthur, I, Robot, Alexander, et al), and some which were successful were probably only so by virtue of appalling competition (I’m talking to you Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azerbaijan…er, Azkaban). Falling short of expectations were Hero, The Terminal, Alfie, and The Aviator – disappointments all. (Please give it up, Scorsese; you’re a hack and a half.)
So, like I said – a shitty year all told. There are still a few films I want to see and haven’t yet (Shaun of the Dead, Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself, The Hunting of the President, Maria Full of Grace, I Heart Huckabees, The Machinist, Kinsey, A Very Long Engagement, and Hotel Rwanda all come to mind), worth a mention since I can’t give them the accolades they might very well be due.
As for films I’d recommend, well, they’re pretty slim this year. Good popcorn movies were Hidalgo, Hellboy, Mean Girls, and Man on Fire. Great popcorn movies were The Incredibles, Bridget Jones’ Edge of Reason, National Treasure, and The Bourne Supremacy. General recommendations are A Home at the End of the World, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (which warrants a mention for its fantastic title alone), Kill Bill Vol. 2, Closer, and the very sharp and funny Saved! and Napoleon Dynamite.
Which leaves my rather measly Top 5, which are true diamonds in a very rough year.
5. Finding Neverland. I’m usually not a fan of pictures that play around with history. I don’t tend to care for historical fiction (Shakespeare in Love) or especially revisionist biographies (A Beautiful Mind). But Finding Neverland didn’t stray far enough from the facts that it bothered me, and I thought Johnny Depp’s performance was superb (not to mention his flawless Edinburgh accent). And Kate Winslett was, as always, inimitably lovely.
4. Sideways. Alexander Payne is shaping up to be someone for whose movies I anxiously await. I loved Election and About Schmidt, and Sideways was a great third time out. He has a way of making movies that look and feel very real – not the movie version of real, but really real, in a sad and wonderful way. Paul Giamatti is also becoming one of those underrated actors who choose projects that tend to almost unfailingly appeal to my taste (Big Fat Liar notwithstanding).
3. Before Sunset. Nine years after the amazing Before Sunrise, we fans finally got our chance to visit again with Celine and Jesse. Before Sunrise managed to perfectly capture what it feels like to be young and abroad and falling in love – the compulsion to share one’s big thoughts, the bizarre experiences which leave one with untellable anecdotes. A slight film in duration, but one that has stayed with me like my own memory.
2. Spider-Man 2. The best superhero movie ever, bar none. Sam Raimi, the choice of whom for director of this series was nothing short of brilliant, was wise in eliciting the assistance of Pulizer Prize-winner Michael Chabon to help with the scripting. The first Spider-Man was great; this one was even better. The leads, Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst, James Franco, and Alfred Molina, can act, and the story of a man who reluctantly faces a destiny he did not choose renders the specifics of the destiny (superherodom) irrelevant. One is left with the notion that the world needs more Peter Parkers, rather than more Spider-Mans, and that is the film’s greatness.
1. Garden State. A simply amazing piece of filmmaking; what an accomplishment by writer/director/star Zach Braff. A look at Braff’s blog reveals the effect this film has had on countless people – thousands of comments, effusing appreciation, adulation, and gratefulness. The film is, simply, beautiful. (As is the accompanying soundtrack.) In a year with so much that was anything but, this graceful and thoughtful film is a reminder of all that is still right with the world.
Thus ends MovieTime. Back to our regularly scheduled political musings.
Shirley Chisholm Had Guts
Recently, while playing Trivial Pursuit with my parents, Mr. Shakes and I got a question about which member of Bill Clinton’s cabinet was the only person eligible to run for the Czech presidency. Without hesitation, I answered, “Madeleine Albright,” reached for the die and rolled again. After a moment, I realized everyone else was looking at me a bit incredulously. “What?”
“How the heck did you know that?” my dad asked.
“I’m a political junkie,” I reminded him, and for the first time, it seemed like he actually began to grasp the breadth of my knowledge. It wasn’t showing myself for years to be well-versed on issues, policy, candidates, history…it was answering an esoteric Trivial Pursuit question. “I know my stuff,” I said.
“You know your stuff,” he acquiesced.
I’ve known my stuff for a long time now, feeling since a very young age that understanding and being involved in politics was the right and responsibility of everyone. It has been a passion for as long as I can remember, as close to religion as I get. Today, one of the women who most inspired me, who stirred in me my ardor and excitement for politics, for change, has died.
I can remember learning about Shirley Chisholm for the first time. I was 11. I thought she was brave, brainy, ballsy, and totally cool. She was the first black woman elected to Congress and a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus, and although being a trailblazer was certainly part of her appeal, it was the fire in her belly and her desire to do the right thing that appealed to me most, which I most wanted to emulate—a passion so strong that it conveyed itself to me from the pages of books. Ms. Chisholm had retired two years before I ever heard her name.
Shirley Chisholm was the kind of politician that we long for – someone Unbought and Unbossed, who spoke her mind and challenged the status quo, even when it wasn’t politically expedient. She was tough, but not uncompromising, and ambitious, without ever losing her empathy. She was a legend, and a rare one at that, actually having duly earned her extraordinary reputation.
Once discussing what her legacy might be, Shirley Chisholm commented, "I'd like them to say that Shirley Chisholm had guts. That's how I'd like to be remembered."
I can’t imagine remembering her any other way.
Back to Life, Back to Reality
I’m back. Had a week off, and I feel like I’m returning with renewed energy.
I tried to stay away from the news as much as possible, but I have been following the news about the tsunamis. We had a few days of worry about Mr. Shakes’ uncle, who was traveling abroad and was finally able to make a call to assure everyone he was still alive.
I am still waiting to hear from a friend who is teaching English in that part of the world. My hope is that limited internet access has hindered communication. While I hold out hope, my heart goes out to those for whom hope is no longer a luxury, who have received the news no one wants to hear.
Where are you, Paul?
Christmas Eve
Posting will be light the next couple of days. Mr. Shakes and I are spending Christmas Eve recooperating from having imbibed egregious amounts of homemade wine at the next door neighbors' last night.
Everyone should have the lovely Christmas Eve Eve to which we were treated last night. Our next door neighbors are the most wonderful couple, who have been married 58 years. We often come home from work to find that Mr. Neighbor, well into his seventies, has mowed our lawn or snow-blown our driveway and walks for us. In a feeble attempt to repay such incredible generosity, we went over last night to take them a Christmas gift. They invited us in to join them for dinner (ribs, homemade baked beans and applesauce, and wine made from the fruits of their garden) with their children (who are our parents' age). We had an amazing dinner, played cards good fun, good conversation.
I know not everyone is as fortunate as we were, and I wish that weren't so. Peace and joy to all this holiday season and every season.
Pass the Baton, Salon
I'm sick of Salon. I used to love Salon, and I pay for a subscription, and I still look in to see what's going on every once in awhile, but they need an infusion of new blood.
They're turning into the worst kind of humorless, elitist, self-congratulatory, insufferable fucks. I'm all for intellectual snobbery, which is why I adore James Wolcott and dedicate my lunch every day to reading the Rude Pundit's latest rant. But Salon has become a parody of all that used to be good about it.
I suppose it's because I am a complete movie nut, with a collection of films and a mind clogged with egregious amounts of film trivia (which combined explain my inability to ever do anything remotely productive), but Salon's movie reviews are the perfect example of what's gone wrong over there. They are truly abysmal. Stephanie Zacharek and Charles Taylor should be shot. With adrenaline. Neither one of them seems to know how to enjoy anything. I've never read so many joyless movie reviews as in Salon. "Elf" doesn't need to be deconstructed, okay?
Get it together, Salon. You're worse than irrelevant - you're boring.
Job Security
Today, as the Bush administration announces its planned PR blitz to bolster support for its radical Social Security reform agenda, some House Republicans are voicing concerns about the intended restructuring of the program, although it’s not for the reasons one might think:
"It's a no-win for people in the House," [Rep. Ray LaHood, a] moderate, 10-year House veteran from rural Illinois said recently. "We risk our political careers. We risk 30-second ads against you saying, `You voted to gut Social Security.'"It’s not the multi-trillion dollar cost that worries LaHood. It’s not the determination of this administration to move forward with a plan that is less concerned with solving a real problem and more focused on ideological machinations. It’s not the gap in benefits that will beggar two generations of Social Security contributors, who could not possibly make up the difference between what they contributed and what they can afford to put into private accounts. It’s not any of the other myriad of problems with Bush’s plan.
It’s his career that he’s worried about.
I’m not naïve enough to be completely unaware of the balancing act required of the members of Congress. There is a precarious line upon which one hangs his or her hopes, both for successful legislation of the party’s agenda and for his or her own future. I understand that many members of Congress believe that it is important to secure their places, so that their ideals and the interests of their constituents may be realized.
But it seems as though fewer and fewer members of Congress are interested in maintaining that balance, and instead the emphasis has shifted solely onto job security. Idealism has been replaced with ideology, and self-interest has wholly swallowed the notion of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
The people, and what’s best for the people, seem to matter little to many of the members of Congress. And how easy it must be for them to lose track of those who gave them their place. They work shorter hours and have more vacation time than the majority of working Americans. They are guaranteed health and retirement benefits. They cannot be fired without cause. And the current annual salary of rank-and-file Congress members is $158,100. It’s no wonder that holding on to the position is more attractive than actually being a visionary who might risk such sizable comforts.
But such opportunism comes at the expense of the people whom they are meant to represent. They fight not for equal rights, or fair working conditions, or a reasonable solution to the (much exaggerated) Social Security problem. They instead fight for their jobs, and we are left wondering why Mr. LaHood and his cohorts’ careers are so important to them, when they don’t seem a bit interested in doing them well.
Feingold's Road Trip
Russ Feingold, D-WI, who will be sworn in for his third term on Jan. 4, wrote a piece, published in today's Salon under the title "Goin' South," from which I have heavily excerpted, below. It's a compelling reminder to Democrats that we need to point out at every opportunity the amount of people in this country who vote against their own best interests.
On Nov. 2, I was fortunate enough to be elected by the people of Wisconsin to a third term in the U.S. Senate. Right after the election, I confess I immediately went looking for a warm place to golf. So I piled into a van with some friends in Milwaukee and drove from Wisconsin to Alabama.
[...]
As she made the turn onto Exit 130 in Greenville, [my wife Mary] saw the same little building my buddies and I had seen a day earlier. Banners on the roof read "Republican Headquarters" and "George W. Bush." At the very top of the roof, a celebratory message had been unfurled. It read, simply, "Hallelujah." She had the same thought that had occurred to the rest of us when we first saw the tiny structure and the big banners: If the red-and-blue map of the United States were to have an intensity meter, this place may well glow as the reddest spot on the whole map.
[...]
After our meal that evening, we drove around Greenville to see what there was to see. And what we saw -- check-cashing stores and abject trailer parks, and some of the hardest-used cars for sale on a very rundown lot -- told us the people there were hurting economically and deserved more than they were getting.
[...]
Having held town hall meetings in every one of Wisconsin's 72 counties each year for the past 12 years, I've heard repeatedly of the difficult struggles that so many working families are enduring in both urban and rural areas. And in [Greenville], I connected again to an American experience that isn't dictated by whether you live in a red state or a blue state.
The people of Alabama appear to be among the most generous and most unsung philanthropists in this country. What they give is unimaginable to many others and they give it time and again: They regularly give their turn at the American dream to someone else. And they give it simply because they're asked. So many people in Greenville don't seem to have basic healthcare coverage or promising job opportunities. Meanwhile, their children volunteer to risk their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can only be humbled by their sacrifice.
But because I am a lawmaker and a student of history, I also know who has been asking them to give so much. And I can only wonder how many more generations of central Alabamians will say yes when the increasingly powerful Republican Party asks them to be concerned about homosexuality but not about the security of their own health, about abortion but not about the economic futures of their own children. As my wife and I drove through Greenville that night, I thought how fundamentally unfair this all is in order to support an increasingly radical conservative movement.
[...]
I'm tired of seeing the power-hungry persuade the hardworking people of this country that the only way to preserve important values is to vote against their own families' basic interests. I believe that the working people of both [Wisconsin and Alabama] have sacrificed for other people's agendas for too long. And I believe that any political party or political movement or political candidate who would consistently say this would be heard throughout America.
We need to go to the Greenvilles of every state, red and blue, and say, "Thank you. You've sacrificed long enough. Now it's your turn at the American dream."
The Real World
The American Prospect Online features an article by John B. Judis and Ruy Teixiera; entitled “Movement Interruptus,” it examines the Democratic trend toward majority status. I have a few quibbles with some of their premises; they ignore Ross Perot’s contributions to Clinton’s victories, and they claim that “Kerry’s health-care program was incomprehensible except to policy wonks,” which seems absurd to me, as I read it and understood it, and I’m hardly a healthcare policy wonk, unless battling with my health insurance company has somehow qualified me.
The particular conclusion, though, with which I take the most issue was the following:
[Kerry’s] margin among African-Americans was slightly smaller than Gore’s in 2000 – no doubt a product of his patrician aloofness.
In their essay, Judis and Teixiera recall a pre-election visit to Martinsburg, a small, blue-collar West Virginian town (which I assume, as its associated anecdotes are separate from their discussion of minority voters, is predominantly white). Martinsburg voters cited gay marriage and family values when addressing concerns with Kerry as a candidate. I find it astonishing that Judis and Teixiera allow for such reasoning among white voters, but conclude that a lower number of black votes for Kerry was “no doubt” due to aloofness. Perhaps the authors of The Emerging Democratic Majority are too hopeful about the prospects of solidifying the traditionally Democratic black vote, ignoring or willfully blinding themselves to the slow but determined efforts of the Right to peel off socially conservative black voters.
Homophobia remains pervasive within all ethnicities without exception, but there is a particular aversion to homosexuality among communities where either traditional gender roles of a male-headed household are preferred and/or where there exists a dearth of strong male role models. All too many black communities fall into the latter category. Combined with the increasingly hostile conservative Christianity that seeks to extend the oppression of gay rights, homophobia in black communities (as in others) is becoming a significant problem, and one that Democrats cannot ignore as they pursue equal rights on behalf of gays and lesbians.
The recent advertising insert placed in the Washington Post by Grace Christian Church is indicative of the type of divisive strategies that are being utilized by the Right to attempt to splinter the black community and pull social conservatives into the Republican fold. To reduce losing black voters to a disconnect with a Northeastern liberal is to deny the problem we face, not just among black voters but among social conservatives of all stripes.
* * *
Recently, there has been heightened interest in the disparity between the rates of HIV in women of white and non-white communities. One of the theories that has captured some media attention is men on the down-low – men who lead their lives as straight men, but have sex with other men. I’m not going to purport to know whether there is any significant causal link between men on the down-low and HIV rates among women, but I am interested in the link between men on the down-low and homophobia in the communities from whence they come.
At university, one of my closest friends was a black man who was and is still one of the coolest, strangest, most interesting people I’ve known. We had the kind of friendship that meant a call in the middle of the night if one of us had read an interesting line in a book, the kind of closeness that means one shared look can move both of you out of a crowded bar and off to a swath of grass somewhere. He spent weekends with my family; we spoke at my old high school together to a creative writing class.
I can remember the day he told me that he had gone home from a bar with another man and spent the night with him. I remember him insisting that he wasn’t gay, even though I didn’t care if he were. I remember him continuing to chase women with an oddly false determination that seemed quite strange to me. I remember his roommate accusing him of being gay, and his behavior becoming increasingly erratic. And I remember him telling me that black men aren’t gay.
He was brilliant and beautiful and weird, and most of all, he was tragic. He seemed torn straight down the middle sometimes, and he lived on the down-low, although back then (almost a decade ago now – oh my), there wasn’t a name for it, aside from “a little fucked-up.”
* * *
He differed from the men to whom something like the Grace Christian Church piece might appeal, because he wasn’t religious and he wasn’t homophobic – we shared many gay friends in common, though none of them black. He was similar to them, though, in that the homophobia with which he’d been raised was insidious and intense enough to have denied not only his own homosexuality, but also the existence of any gay men in his home community.
I fail to believe that such a situation was unique to him, or that such strong antipathy toward gays and lesbians would not translate into an extreme discomfort with gay marriage. And though I’ve been highlighting the black community in response to Judis’ and Teixiera’s article, frankly I’ve yet to meet anyone of any color who is virulently anti-gay, but comfortable with a political candidate who supports gay rights.
The Right is claiming that homosexuality is immoral, and they’re telling anyone who will listen in any way they think will convince them. I wonder when the Left will speak as loudly in defense of equal rights, reminding the Right that denying rights to gays and lesbians is immoral, and it’s an injustice we are determined to rectify.
The problem is that Democrats have taken their black constituents for granted for far too long, and I fear the same will happen as the GOP makes their fractious inroads using gay marriage as a hateful but effective wedge. The Democrats have turned all but a blind eye to the needs of their black voters, about which Al Sharpton cautiously warned during his speech at the Democratic Convention, while still assuring the Right that his vote was not for sale. But as the Republicans increasingly come calling in black communities, what will be the Democrats’ reply when the voters there ask, “What have you done for me lately?”
I fear that ignoring the reality of the gross prejudice that haunts gays and lesbians in their communities is a conscious decision to avoid addressing the problems in a community that, by and large, both parties have massively underserved. Democrats have had their votes, but they haven’t given as good as they’ve got, and now socially conservative blacks have been offered a real alternative – a party that will address their concerns about gay marriage, if nothing else (and nothing else it would be). While the Right is taking advantage of those very prejudices, fanning the flames of fear and hatred, Democrats convince themselves it was Kerry’s patrician aloofness that did them in and continue to ignore the realities of black communities.
