During the way home from work, and while eating dinner, Mr. Shakes and I were having the usual conversation that starts out about something vaguely intelligent and then degenerates into all manner of silliness.
Tonight, we started (who knows how) on recessive genes. It ended up a discussion of what various human / other animal crossbreeds would look like.
Mr. Shakes said, “What do you think a man-chimp would look like?”
You can imagine my response.
Somebody Get Him a Banana
Helms Still At It
The AP reports that Jesse Helms, who still isn’t dead, is going apeshit about Bill Clinton possibly succeeding Kofi Annan as Secretary-General of the U.N:
"I'm sure you might agree that putting a left-wing, undisciplined and ethically challenged former President of the United States into a position of such power would be a tragic mistake," wrote the 83-year-old Republican [in a fund-raising letter for his senatorial library], who left office in 2003 after five terms.Although Annan has selected Clinton to be the U.N. point man for tsunami reconstruction, Helms is getting his panties all in a bunch for no good reason. Someone needs to tell the useless old fart that the Secretary-General of the U.N. cannot be from one of the five permanent member nations, of which the U.S. is one. Dumbo.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of the letter Tuesday. It contains a petition asking President Bush to "rebuke all efforts by Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and every other liberal in Congress to push for Bill Clinton to become Secretary-General of the United Nations."
He probably hasn’t heard of the Voting Rights Act, either.
Hmm...
What do you think of this story? More "It's not my fault," or is this kid really a victim of a drug that may have been rushed to market before its full effects were known? I'm kind of torn, although I'm leaning toward the former. He didn't feel suicidal; he murdered his grandparents.
There seem to be more and more stories like this, about drugs having crazy effects on kids and teens. I think young people in general seem to be far too overmedicated these days, but it's an opinion admittedly informed with more anecdotal evidence than hard facts.
Anyway, just thought I'd throw it out there for consideration...
It's Not My Fault
A recent story making its rounds through the blogosphere (see Pam’s post here and The Fixer’s post here, for a start) reports on a study that reveals a third of American high school students believe there should be greater restrictions on the press. It gets worse:
The survey of 112,003 students finds that 36% believe newspapers should get "government approval" of stories before publishing; 51% say they should be able to publish freely; 13% have no opinion.I’m not totally convinced that these pro-censorship attitudes are strictly a result of lack of knowledge about the First Amendment. I don’t doubt that’s part of it, but I believe the attitudes are representative of a more pervasive and insidious problem that manifests itself in a myriad of ways, this being merely one. That problem is intellectual laziness, and not simply a lack of curiosity in and of itself (which is a problem as old as dirt), but a willful self-denial of knowledge as part of comprehensive method to deflect personal responsibility.
Asked whether the press enjoys "too much freedom," not enough or about the right amount, 32% say "too much," and 37% say it has the right amount. Ten percent say it has too little.
[…]
Kids aren't learning enough about the First Amendment in history, civics or English classes. It also tracks closely with recent findings of adults' attitudes.
It’s not that these kids don’t want to learn about the First Amendment and the importance of a free press in the same way they don’t want to learn about derivatives or predicate nomitives; it’s that they actively don’t want to know. And neither do the adults around them, which is why the numbers track so closely between teens and adults.
Self-imposed ignorance has become a successful self-defense mechanism of the Right—a means by which to hold outlandish political beliefs while deflecting any responsibility for holding them. Anyone who’s found themselves arguing with a conservative about an underreported scandal of the Bush administration has no doubt heard this challenge: If that’s true, then why isn’t it in on the news? (And often, thanks to our impotent and browbeaten media, it isn’t.) Imagine how much more difficult it would be to continue to support their rootin’-tootin’ cowboy president if everything from his service record to the payola scandal was reported with the attention (and accuracy) it deserved. Complete and unbiased information is a threat; it’s no coincidence that the more educated one is, the more likely to be a liberal one is as well.
The unfair and unbalanced reporting of Fox News, or the maniacal rantings of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Savage et. al.—peppered with half-truths and miscontexualizations, but delivered convincingly enough—act as a security blanket for the brain-dead legions, who prefer to have their thinking done for them. It’s so much easier to adopt someone else’s opinion than hold their own. Plowing through multiple news stories from multiple perspectives on multiple topics, forming an opinion based on careful and reasoned analysis of facts, is not only hard work (right, Mr. Bush?), but also carries with it the undesirable burden of responsibility. If you are the architect of your own opinions, you can be held accountable for them.
When I hear a conservative accusing liberals of believing whatever the New York Times (for example) tells them to believe, it infuriates me. Aside from the fact that I don’t find the Times particularly liberal, I find the suggestion that one’s opinions could be externally formed by a single source absolutely repellent. Yet many conservatives will proudly announce that they watch Fox News or read the Washington Times exclusively. Don’t confuse me with the facts. Should they be proven wrong, it’s not that they hold foolish opinions; it’s the fault of Fox or the Times. How was I supposed to know? It’s not my fault.
The worst of this lot are those with the most indefensible beliefs—the racists, the homophobes, the sexists, the false patriots, the vile masquerading as the godly. They sheath themselves from anything that would rightly compromise such abhorrent notions. It’s is also no coincidence that the most impassioned Christian activists tend to know little about the Bible, or that those who most fervently support the war couldn’t find Iraq on a map.
It’s not their fault, though. It’s the liberal schoolteachers who teach tolerance instead of geography, and the secularists who took prayer out of school, and…
It’s not my fault, they mutter, as they bury their hands in the sand, denying themselves knowledge to protect themselves from the shame they’ve rightfully earned.
Chertoff...
...hasn't gotten nearly the same attention as Rice or Gonzales, but he should. Go read Rook.
What If They Really Had to be Fair and Balanced?
One of the most significant components of the Right’s ascendance to national dominance is their ongoing relationship with the media. Facilitating media deregulation, thereby enabling consolidation of more and more media sources among fewer and fewer owners, intimidating journalists and media outlets by threatening to block access as retribution for failure to report issued talking points, rewarding partisan broadcasters (especially rightwing radio hosts) with news tips and invites to the White House, loud and repeated accusations of a liberal media bias, and now covert payoffs to conservative media operatives for the appearance of unbiased policy endorsements have all been part and parcel of the media strategy utilized by the Right to attain control of all three branches of government, and command of the national debate.
But perhaps the most important element of the Right’s plan to take over the media is also the least talked-about: the Fairness Doctrine. Established by the FCC in 1949 to ensure that broadcasters met their perceived obligation to afford reasonable access to opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, the Fairness Doctrine was an important FCC policy for decades, integral to preventing the existence of a Fox News Channel, for example.
It was under Reagan’s watch that the GOP began to challenge the Fairness Doctrine, and it was under his watch that it was eventually dismantled. Bipartisan support for it remained strong, though, and Congress attempted to reinstate the Doctrine under Reagan (who vetoed it), Bush 41 (who threatened a veto, effectively killing it), and Clinton, who in a spectacular fit of almost inconceivable indifference, offered next to no support for a revival of the Doctrine, leaving it to languish in Congress where it gasped its last breath.
(When you bitch and moan about the Rush Limbaughs and Bill O’Reillys who seem to infect our airwaves with increasing frequency, you can thank Mr. Clinton for not nipping that in the bud when it was first gaining traction. Of course, I’m fairly certain that the irony of having passed on the opportunity to vehemently support reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine in 1993, years before Fox made their name skewering him and endlessly spinning his liaison and lie, hasn’t been lost on him.)
Part of the fallout of the payola scandal, however, has been renewed interest in the Fairness Doctrine. Eric Boehlert reports in Salon:
Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., thinks the growing outrage over media misconduct will help spur interest in the doctrine. Last week she introduced the Fairness and Accountability in Media Act, which would revive the Fairness Doctrine with new requirements for local broadcasters.Media Reform is not a particularly glamorous issue. It’s fairly wonky and dry, with basic knowledge of broadcasting licensing (i.e. who would be subject to the rules of a new Fairness Doctrine) requisite knowledge for debate, and no compelling humanitarian arguments, like health care or Social Security reform. Nonetheless, I strongly believe that it’s something liberals need to get behind. None of our navel-gazing about whether to move left or move center or how to rebrand the Democratic Party will amount to a hill of beans if the media remains so lopsided.
[…]
Media consolidation "is the most critical issue facing the American people today: whether to allow a handful of people to determine what information we receive and influence the decisions we make," says Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., who will head the soon-to-be announced Media Reform Caucus in Congress. "In a free and open society, in a democratic republic, you need a free and open discussion of the issues. We don't have that today."
[…]
Bipartisan displeasure with the press may also allow the Media Reform Caucus, which at first will likely consist entirely of Democrats, to enlist some Republicans. In the uphill battle to restore real fairness and balance to the airwaves, backers will need all the help they can get.
Perhaps a good place to start is emailing Rep. Slaughter and Rep. Hinchey and let them know you appreciate what they’re doing. Dems who feel passionately about this issue are thin on the ground, so I’m sure they’d dig the support.
Contact Rep. Slaughter.
Contact Rep. Hinchey.
GET WITH THE PROGRAM!
Oh to be Rip Van Winkle and just sleep through the next four years…or however long it takes until we again have a president with the mental faculties of a higher life form.
Pam’s House Blend has the goods on what is truly a stunning display of ignorance by President Bush:
According to various eyewitnesses at a private meeting in the White House Cabinet Room last week, the president was characteristically cordial, yet remarkably non-committal in responding to a wide range of questions, mostly about racial disparities concerning such issues as employment, education, health care and legal rights. But the most "mind-boggling moment," in the words of Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), came after Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr. (D-Ill.) asked the president, "Do we have your support in extending and strengthening the 1965 Voting Rights Act when it comes up for renewal in 2007?"Well, Chimpy, you know how you’ve been encouraging the Iraqis to risk bodily harm to exercise their newly acquired right to vote? That happened here back in the ‘60s, only it was black Americans who were threatened, harassed, and killed in pursuit of the same right. So under President Johnon’s watch, the Voting Rights Act was passed, one year after the Civil Rights Act was passed, which you also might want to look into, if you’re not familiar with it, either.
The president responded, according to witnesses, in a way that made caucus jaws drop: He did not know enough about that particular law to respond to it, he said, and that he would deal with the legislation when it comes up. (Emphasis mine.)
Sometimes I just run out of new ways to express the contempt I have for this man.
Playbook of the Damnable
Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall has a present for us: the Social Security phase-out strategy playbook congressional Republicans used at their retreat over the weekend.
I haven’t even read the whole document yet (it’s over 100 pages), but here are some choice excerpts I’ve come across already:
Don’t say, “Social Security lifts seniors out of poverty”: People don’t appreciate all that Social Security does, and believe that despite the program, many seniors are still in poverty. Instead, talk about how Social Security is a “floor of protection” that keep seniors out of the most dire circumstances. (p7)Yeah, no shit people don’t appreciate all that Social Security does, starting with the GOP fuckwits that put together this entire retarded strategy.
The president says that "the crisis is now." That comment has inspired a lot of fairly tedious semantic debate. Let's just say that we have a serious problem. It is true that we do not have to fix it immediately. (p22)Fairly tedious semantic debate. Or, as we liberals like to call it, talking about the motherfuckin’ truth.
Republicans, and Bush especially, face a daunting series of questions as they figure out how to move forward on Social Security. How much should they let people invest in personal accounts? Should it vary by income, so that poorer people can invest a higher percentage of their wages? (p23-24)Once again, I am amazed at the lack of understanding the GOP has of the average working American. How are poorer people going to invest a higher percentage of their wages? We have private retirement accounts now—they’re called IRAs. Very few “poorer people” can fully take advantage of them as it is. Giving them the opportunity to put more money into private retirement accounts isn’t going to change their circumstances, their ability to invest more income. I have yet to meet a working stiff who complains about the restrictive cap on annual IRA investments. The day I hear, “Damn, I wish the government would allow me to put more of my money from my Wal-Mart salary into my IRA,” is the day I’ll support this horse’s ass of a plan.
Greater risk can produce greater reward, but it doesn't necessarily do so.Just LOL. Just seriously…LOL.
A study released last week by the Employee Benefit Research Institute in Washington found that 15 percent of retirees ages 64 to 74 lost half or more of their total wealth between 1992 and 2002, and 30 percent lost half or more of their financial wealth. On the other hand, more than half of the retirees sampled saw their total wealth rise by more than 50 percent during those years.
The study found that white men, married couples and the better educated did best at managing their wealth. (p32)
The campaign will use Bush's campaign-honed techniques of mass repetition, never deviating from the script and using the politics of fear to build support -- contending that a Social Security financial crisis is imminent when even Republican figures show it is decades away. (p33)Yowza. Create fear and then lie to 'em—repeatedly and consistently. It's one thing to know they do it; it's quite another to see it put on paper.
Is there no Republican in Congress who reads something like that and has even the remotest twinge of contempt for such a strategy? No pang of guilt? Not even the faintest bad taste in the mouth? Unfrickinbelievable.
The same architects of Bush's political victories will be masterminding the new campaign, led by political strategists Karl Rove at the White House and Ken Mehlman at the Republican National Committee.There’s a shocker. I don’t believe in hell, but if I did, I would hope there’s a special place in it for each of those two Machiavellian knob-ends.
There’s more, oh so much more. I just don’t know whether to laugh or cry.
Legitimacy, Legitimacy Über Alles
In a great article titled “Elections Are Not Democracy,” Fareed Zakaria articulates the fear that many of us share: the quest to justify our invasion of Iraq has usurped priority from the goal of creating a stable Iraq.
The United States has essentially stopped trying to build a democratic order in Iraq and is simply trying to fight the insurgency and gain some stability and legitimacy. In doing so, if that exacerbates group tensions, corruption, cronyism, and creates an overly centralized regime, so be it.Zakaria’s thesis mirrors Lawrence Kaplan’s assertion (in an article previously referenced here) that, "The war for a liberal Iraq is destroying the dream of a liberal Iraq,” which was his conclusion after a recent visit to the war-torn nation. The elections are, of course, simply just the latest in a string of half-baked achievements (such as the June turnover) concocted to approximate an ongoing success.
No matter what the violence, the elections are an important step forward, for Iraq and for the Middle East. But it is also true, alas, that no matter how the voting turns out, the prospects for genuine democracy in Iraq are increasingly grim. Unless there is a major change in course, Iraq is on track to become another corrupt, oil-rich quasi-democracy, like Russia and Nigeria.The elections are no less important for the Bush administration as well, as the appearance of successful elections not only justify this particular intervention, but lend credibility to the Bush Doctrine of preemption, thereby ensuring future endeavors of the same intent. James Wolcott quotes the Iranian blogger Hoder, who gave voice to a thought shared by many of us, I imagine:
On the one hand I'm really excited that Iraqi people have been able to start the path to a potentially democratic political system, on the other hand I'm really upset that this will embolden neoconservatives and will be seen as a confirmation of their dangerous plans for the world.Once the troops are gone, leaving behind only a sparkling new $1.5 billion dollar US embassy in their wake, once the Iraqis have been left to fend for themselves under whatever government is chosen and with whatever infrastructure is left, once all questions about and criticisms of the gonzo elections have faded into the ether, the story will seem unfamiliar to those who paid attention all along, because it will be a story about the courage of a president who did what was right even if it wasn’t popular (never mind that the vast majority of Americans supported the invasion when it began), and a tyranny replaced by compulsory liberty—the triumph of democracy over evil.
The Iraq of this story will no longer be a quagmire, a black hole for American tax dollars and the scene of death and torture at the hands on American troops, but a prototype, ready to be rolled out across the world, as America the Empire opens new franchises of its tyranny of liberty.
And who will we be in the story, those of us who remember the facts eclipsed by the fiction, the muck from which the tall tale grew? A diminished Greek chorus, perhaps, standing between the actors and everyone else, chanting desperately, futilely, that we’ve lost our way, we’ve lost our conscience, we’ve lost the truth…
Nine Billion Mistakes and Counting...
A report released yesterday reveals that special inspector for Iraq reconstruction Stuart Bowen, Jr. has determined that the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), which governed Iraq from June ’03 to June ’04, lost track of nearly $9 billion appropriated for Iraqi government ministries due to a lack of crucial infrastructure. Nine billion dollars.
That’s $9,000,000,000.
Unaccounted for.
The official who led the CPA, L. Paul Bremer III, submitted a blistering, written reply to the findings, saying the report had "many misconceptions and inaccuracies," and lacked professional judgment.As opposed to the magical beans method currently used by Iraq.
Bremer complained the report "assumes that Western-style budgeting and accounting procedures could be immediately and fully implemented in the midst of a war."
Now call me crazy, but perhaps the strategy to implement appropriate budgeting and accounting procedures should have been brainstormed before we rushed to war on an invented timetable, thus avoiding the chaos about which Bremer is complaining. As I recall, the wise neocon architects of the war were convinced they had accurately prognosticated exactly how the war would go, so surely they would have been able to sort out a program for setting up accounting systems in the midst of that war. Or maybe they just weren't sure where they'd put the calculators with rose petals and sweets lying all over the place.
In all seriousness, it is disturbing that it seems to have completely escaped the notice of pre-war planners that the need to set up accounting procedures would be necessary in a war-time situation. Plus, I am curious as to why there's a specific reference to "Western-style," as it indicates a cultural superiority where none should reasonably exist.
(In further unseriousness, howsabout the irony of an agency called the CPA having such magnificent accounting failures?)
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Sunday the authority was hamstrung by "extraordinary conditions" under which it worked throughout its mission.See, so everything fine, and Bowen is wrong. The Pentagon disagrees with the conclusions, probably because it reflects unfavorably on their ability to provide proper oversight, communications, and security measures, so therefore, the audit is bunk.
"We simply disagree with the audit's conclusion that the CPA provided less than adequate controls," Whitman said.
And why not? Refusal to acknowledge reality to shift blame and avoid responsibility has worked wonders for the administration so far.
Some of the transferred funds may have paid "ghost" employees, the inspector general found.Huh. I wonder from where those insurgents are getting their funding? I mean, I know Iran has kicked in $20 million or so, but that’s chump change. With $9 billion, a resourceful insurgency can really get things done.
CPA staff learned that 8,206 guards were on the payroll at one ministry, but only 602 could be accounted for, the report said. At another ministry, U.S. officials found 1,417 guards on the payroll but could only confirm 642.
When staff members of the U.S. occupation government recommended that payrolls be verified before salary payments, CPA financial officials "stated the CPA would rather overpay salaries than risk not paying employees and inciting violence," the inspector general said.
The inspector general's report rejected Bremer's criticism. It concluded that despite the war, "We believe the CPA management of Iraq's national budget process and oversight of Iraqi funds was burdened by severe inefficiencies and poor management."Welcome to Democracy, Iraq!
Bloggerman
Rook and John Aravosis point us in Keith Olbermann’s direction, who has been writing some smart and funny stuff about Dr. Dobson and his evil minions:
It goes back to the core of the Dobsonian point of view here: the fear of the “pro-Homosexual” agenda. That may be the way he delicately phrases it, but it is not shared by most of his followers who emailed me. They were clearly angry that there was no anti-homosexual agenda. And one of the most fascinating things about the studies of homosexuality in this country is that while there is still debate between the creationists and the environmentalists, I’ve never heard anything suggesting that a child is more or less likely to be gay, depending on whether he’s taught not to hate nor be intolerant, of gays.
Schneeberger finishes his piece with the hope that I’ll experience the same kind of epiphany he claims to have in 1997. “Let’s pray, if he ever does, that he comes up with the right answer - and not because it may lead to fairer reporting. But because it may lead to a redeemed life.”
Hey, guys, worry about yourselves. You’re spewing hate, while assuming that for some reason, God has chosen you and you alone in all of history to understand the mysteries of existence, when mankind’s existence is filled with ample evidence that nobody yet has been smart enough to discern an answer.
You might try keeping it simpler: did you help others, or hurt them?
I’ll be happy to be judged on the answer to that question, and if it’s a group session, I don’t expect I’ll find many members of “Focus On Family” in the “done ok” line.
Keith Recommends: Keep It Simple Stupid.
Read the rest. There are three or four entries on the topic, and each one is better than the last.
Tangentially, when someone involved with a Christian activist group of the tenor like that of Focus on the Family says, “Let’s pray, if he ever does, that he comes up with the right answer - and not because it may lead to fairer reporting. But because it may lead to a redeemed life,” do you think that he actually cares about fair reporting or redeemed lives? Something tells me that the greatest benefits of the converted to the likes of Dr. Dobson and friends is having just another sheep to bleat their cause.
If redemption were the goal, it would be bad for business. Forgiveness is a key component of the redeemed life, but forgiveness is the cure for outrage, and without sustained outrage, Dr. Dobson’s bank accounts would just as empty as his soul.
Good Stuff
Middle Earth Journal is cookin’ today. First read Jazz on the disturbingly recurring claim that Iraqis were compelled to vote if they wanted their food vouchers. Then read Ron on how a possible constitutional crisis is bringing together liberals and true conservatives.
Also recommended reading: Blogenlust’s John on cultural arrogance.
President Pan
In responding to a Washington Post article examining what Bush’s legacy might be, Kevin Drum writes:
I continue to dither about what exactly it is that motivates George Bush, but there's at least one thing that's always seemed clear to me: he is the most unfailingly partisan president we've had in a long time. It's genuinely hard to figure out a political philosophy that ties together tax cuts, Medicare expansion, war in Iraq, immigration reform, Mars missions, Social Security privatization, and vastly increased domestic spending, but even if ideological coherency sometimes takes a backseat in Bush's world, partisan advantage is always front and center.I’ve thought about this a lot, too, wondering what is, exactly, the method behind his madness. Whole books have been written on the subject, and I cannot begin to fathom the number of words across the blogoshere dedicated to the pursuit of discerning the enigmatic motivations of this president are. Dry drunk, child of privilege, slave to overwhelming Oedipus complex, puppet, idiot…legions of hypothesis have been proposed, and yet instead of one having more veracity than another, I think they are all part and parcel of one pathetically simple overarching character attribute, so entrenched as to have become immutable. The man is pathologically immature.
A stunted child in a colossal candy store, he is the ultimate spoiled child, with everyone around him catering to his every whim, indulging his fanciful desires, and never, ever, but never, telling him no. Those who may dare are quickly dismissed as disloyal, unpatriotic, or just plain wrong.
Attempts to find cohesion in his pet policies are futile, as whatever he fancies is what he pursues. There is, clearly, a theme that runs throughout many, though not all, of his proposals, which falls neatly under his label of “Ownership Society,” an ideology which itself exposes a puerile stinginess, with its emphasis on me over we. What is Bush’s proposed Social Security reform if not resistance against delayed gratification and a childish refusal to share?
A child is not an adept contextualizer. Assessing long-term ramifications and the effects of one’s actions on others are skills developed with maturity, as one realizes that the world revolves around something distinctly more vast than oneself. It is only Bush’s extreme immaturity that allows him to hold the views of the world he does; role-playing, spending beyond one’s means, acting like a bully, making rules that benefit only one’s friends and marginalize those different than yourself, never owning up to one’s own mistakes and instead blaming everyone else for everything…these are the traits of a schoolyard antagonist, the habits of a child. A spoiled and insolent child who will never grow up, because no one ever forces him to do so.
Compromise, empathy, and sacrifice are concepts of a grown-up world. Consistency, compassion, and reason are not to be found in the purview of an arrested adolescent who mocks those at his mercy.
I remember being young and foolish, thinking that I knew more, knew better, than all the adults around me. I was smarter than they were, the unbearably dull old fools. Rejecting the counsel of those wiser, sensing the years in which that wisdom was earned create a seemingly untraversable distance, are familiar marks of youth, one that falls away as we ourselves age.
But imagine if someone spent his entire life never recognizing the folly of declining guidance, never learning to defer to the advice or judgment of others, always believing that he knew more, knew better, than everyone else, and so had no use for curiosity or counsel. Imagine if he were handed the power of an empire. Imagine if the boy who refused to grow up became the most important man in the world.
No Grown-Ups Allowed
The Fixer on the Bushies’ babysitters for journalists:
Those of you who are my age and older remember this happening when journalists reported from inside the old Soviet Union. For those of you younger, the Soviet Union was a totalitarian society. Draw your own conclusions.
Election Day
It’s election day in Iraq, and I’ve been reading a lot of stuff trying to figure out exactly what’s going on over there. There have been some attacks, and some are reporting decidedly uneven turn-out among different factions. But there are also reports of dancing in the streets and celebrations that democracy feels within Iraqis’ reach for the first time.
It’s probably a little of everything.
Ultimately, I think I’m going to go with Scott on this one; it’s probably too soon to make any calls about how the election went. One thing I will say with certainty is that I agree with Kofi Annan, who said today that “It’s a beginning, not an end.”
Hello to Bayh
It was recently requested that being perhaps the only blue blogger in the very red state of Indiana, I give my two cents on Senator Evan Bayh, who was one of the brave 13 voting against the confirmation of Condoleezza Rice. To be honest, because of where I live in Indiana, which is the northwest corner, I’m really part of suburban Chicago, and, combined with spending the ten previous years living in Chicago before I moved back to Indiana in ’02, it means I tend to know more about Illinois’ politics than I do about Indiana’s. And frankly, Indiana politics hasn’t offered much to care about if you’re a liberal. (Remember Dan Quayle?) Until now…maybe.
Evan Bayh in ’08?
There are two things to keep in mind about Bayh in reading my assessment. One: his vote against Condi indicates almost surely that he intends to run in ’08 (and it was, frankly, only a matter a time, as it’s family tradition; his father Birch ran in ’76 but lost the nomination to Carter). Two: He has been handily elected as both Governor and Senator on the Democratic ticket in Indiana, which, on election night, was the first state called for Bush on almost every channel, so red runs Hoosier blood.
Issues2000 categorizes Bayh as a Moderate Liberal Populist:
It’s a fair assessment. The lowdown on Bayh is this: he’s a very appealing centrist who is eminently electable. The question is whether he’s the kind of Democrat we want to elect.
Handed ‘96’s Democratic Keynote Address slot by Professor Emeritus of Centrism 101 himself, Bill Clinton, Bayh can play to both sides of the aisle. Overall, Bayh’s voting reveals a near-perfect centrism. He’s given rankings of:
75% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record
74% by the LCV, indicating pro-environment votes
63% by CURE, indicating mixed votes on criminal rehabilitation
60% by the ACLU, indicating a mixed civil rights voting record
43% by the US COC, indicating a mixed business voting record
33% by CATO, indicating a mixed record on trade issues
33% by the Christian Coalition: an anti-family voting record (versus the 100% scored by Indiana’s Republican Senator, Richard Lugar, or the 0% scored by John Kerry)
30% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record
26% by NTU, indicating a "Big Spender" on tax votes
His best records are on Education, Social Security, and Labor:
91% by the NEA, indicating pro-public education votes
90% by the ARA, indicating a pro-senior voting record
85% by the AFL-CIO, indicating a pro-labor voting record
Most notably (for liberals), Bayh’s record is pretty spotty when it comes to abortion and gay rights. He voted for a partial birth abortion ban, though he believes it should be allowed in cases of danger to the mother, and, when Governor of IN, he indicated support for a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, but never proposed or signed one into law. He was also (tentatively) against a federal marriage amendment; I couldn’t find any specific references, but I think it’s safe to infer that he would opt for the standard Dem punt of supporting civil unions but not marriage.
Bayh’s record speaks for itself; the “cons” for progressives are obvious. The pros for centrists, and progressives who believe a centrist is hell and gone better than Bush, are also obvious. He is, without question, an appealing candidate. In fact, an Indy Star article (that is currently not available online) reported that during Kerry’s veep-selection process, Republican pollster Frank Luntz was asked to test the appeal of seven potential running mates. Bayh won hands-down (even beating John Edwards).
Are there any pros for progressives? Well, there’s this: it’s easier for someone who has been a left-leaning centrist to move further left without having his credibility (and motives) questioned, than a liberal to move center without looking like a schmucky opportunist. While Kerry had to tie himself into pretzels to try to explain his contrasting votes on the war (as his pro-war vote contrasted with his typically liberal record), Bayh easily voted no on Condi without seeming disingenuous. (Indeed, many were pleasantly surprised by it.) Voting no on Rice may well have been part of a political strategy geared toward an ‘08 run, but it also seems to have stemmed from a genuine belief that Rice did not deserve the confirmation.
I suspect Bayh is personally more liberal than his home state allows him to be if he wants to get elected. He’ll be a guest of Stephanopoulos tomorrow, talking about his vote against Condi; if you’re interested in seeing if Bayh has any true liberal credentials, and whether he’s willing to flex them, tune in.
Time to Make Some Noise
After what feels like a very long week, the dismay surrounding the inauguration of President Bush to his second term now seems to be fading away, replaced instead with the dread of what the next four years will bring. Of particular concern is the sense of helplessness, of voicelessness, that we on the Left seem to share. We celebrate isolated incidents of strength from the elected Dems—Barbara Boxer standing up to Condi Rice, the brave baker’s dozen that voted no, the two that voted no to both Condi and Gonzo—but the reality of having no control in any of the three branches is wearing slowly on all of us, perhaps because ’06 seems yet so far away; perhaps because things seem to be getting worse, rather than better.
The chance we have rests firmly in whether or not we have the ability to effectively challenge the tactics of the Bush administration, which requires first addressing the reality of how truly radical their agenda is. There are those who feel that claims we are veering dangerously close to handing America over wholesale to extremists are, in themselves, extreme. But such claims are not extreme; they are part and parcel of the beginnings of an successful offensive strategy.
Our president has joked about his affinity for dictatorships on more than one occasion. In describing his role as governor of Texas, he mused:
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." (Governing Magazine 7/98)And on two other occasions, he referenced again how much easier things would be were a pesky little thing like democracy not in his way:
--From Paul Begala's "Is Our Children Learning?"
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.”Said once, it’s a joke in questionable taste. Twice, and it becomes discomfiting. By the third time, it tends to raise genuine concerns about the inner feelings of a man who is meant to be leading a democracy. When that feeling stirs in our guts, that creeping sense that something isn’t right, we must listen to our intuition. We cannot keep our heads down, hold our breath, and wait for it all to be over.
--CNN.com, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it. "
--Business Week, July 30, 2001
In reading Lawrence Kaplan’s intense dispatch from Iraq today, I was struck how with a few very minor edits, an account of the politically mangled Iraq was easily turned into an applicable description of the political landscape in America:
[A] powerful executive branch…exerts significant control over all other branches of the state, being in some cases free from institutional checks and balances […O]fficial corruption runs rampant, [the president] governs more or less unchecked, and endless layers of bureaucracy weigh down the government.I was reminded of President Bush’s assertion in his inaugural address that he seeks to end tyranny. One wonders, however, whether he is truly interested in pursuit of that goal, or rather in simply replacing the old-fashioned tyranny with a new and improved version. In Bush's view, peace and freedom have become freakishly Orwellian threats; you will submit to our will for you to have peace and freedom, or we'll bring it to you with war and oppression.
This presents a real problem for [the country’s] liberals. The advantages of democracy, after all, routinely get lost in societies divided along ethnic and religious lines, and, [here], these allegiances are rapidly crowding out all others. As a result, the very things that make for shifting majorities in liberal democracies--civic concerns, economic calculations, political preferences--have increasingly taken a backseat to the latest edict from [religious leaders].
The guise of propriety is undermined by close examination of the realities. In a tyrannical governorship, opposition is controlled through intimidation. We associate such intimidation with old school tyrants like, ironically, Saddam Hussein, whose death squads handily eliminated any dissention with all the death or destruction required. In Bush’s updated version, the intimidation is of a less violent but no less perilous sort, where any opposition is crushed with the burden of carrying the tag of treason. Those who seek to make their voices heard by casting a vote for a challenger are subjected to questionable voting machines, prohibitive waits, and excessive challenges by controlling party operatives. With dissenting voices of the minority party's elected representatives silenced at every turn, and the rank-and-file relegated to casting a vote and hoping for the best, real opportunity for change remains elusive. In the new tyranny of liberty, democracy is the opiate of the masses.
What better way to quell the threat of revolt than to offer the chance to effect change once every few years, through the simple and effortless act of casting a ballot. But when those ballots have lost any remnant of power, then they have also lost all sense of purpose, and the act of democracy becomes an impotent gesture, its sole meaning to stave off acts of rebellion against an increasingly centralized and exclusionary ruling class.
We are, to be sure, collectively reluctant to acknowledge that our democracy is slowly becoming little more than a useful tool to mollify and distract any element that would seek to impede the increasingly boundless control of the Right. We tell ourselves that all the things that contribute to the steady march toward authoritarianism—no checks and balances, media deregulation, weak and ineffectual opposition—will be solved as soon as we get another chance to vote. But the vote came and went, and the will of the authoritarians triumphed over the will of change. It will not get easier to undo the damage with the last shreds of our democratic system; it will only become more difficult, and more unlikely.
Yet our tunnel vision controls our response. We look to ’06 with blinders, ignoring the reality that focusing steadfastly onto a democratic solution is the very thing that will eventually render such a solution an impossibility. What will they accomplish in the next two years while we wait? What schemes will deepen their hold on us all while we depend on our votes to save us?
We must not give up on our right and our responsibility to vote, but voting alone will not solve the problems we face. Those of us who can look beyond our next chance to trek to the voting booth must find other ways of making our voices heard in the interim. When Ukraine’s government attempted to undermine their democratic principles, there was rioting in the streets. When will we riot in the streets? I wonder, anxiously, what it will take to shake us from our immutable belief that democracy will solve the problem of its own inevitable ruination so long as we depend exclusively on its fading potency.
Citizens of a democracy, we are taught, address their concerns and protest bad administrations and their dire policies on election days. We are polite and respectful as we register our dissent in quiet booths with drawn curtains. But maybe, just maybe, the pride we take in our civility will become our greatest shame.
It's So Right
In case anyone still needs inspiration for the Official Right-on-Right Get-It-On-a-thon, which seems like a good topic for Friday afternoon, I found a couple more images of our favorite revolting Righties to move you.
Enjoy!
“Pucker up,
buttercup.”
“Gagging for it.”
“He ain’t known as a
blowhard for nuttin’.”
“Wanna take a walk with
Wolfie?”
“I love a good pork sandwich.”
“Santa’s sack of goodies.”
“Please, sir—may I have another?”
“Rrrrrrowwww.”
Q: If utter disrespect had a wardrobe, what would it be?
A: An olive parka complete with fur-trimmed hood and embroidered name of wearer, knit ski cap, and brown, lace-up hiking boots.
“An Ass Goes to Auschwitz”
The whole story is here.
Friday Cat Blogging
These pictures were taken last night with my camera phone. They are as murky as my brain feels by Friday afternoon, so it seemed appropriate to post them, especially since I couldn't find the charger to my digital camera.
What Jim would look like at the bottom of the ocean.
Olivia doing her acrobatic routine.
Matilda scratched me for no good reason, so her punishment is one week of obscurity.
