because you are desperate to know:
our water is back on.
yesterday our furnace broke. heat-leaking-ness meant that it was a balmy 40 degrees in the living room this morning. the three of us spent last night sitting on alyssa's floor in our coats next to a ridiculously weak space heater, eating bad chinese food and cheering every degree of the stupid heater's meager output. then we had a sleepover upstairs.
however: as of mid-afternoon, our heat is back too.
please Lord, no more house-related disasters.
give me more sympathy. or money. whichever.
30 January 2004
here's something important. allen brill at The Right Christians has started a progressive christian meetup. it's the third thursday of the month, and i think i might be the ONLY PERSON IN PHILADELPHIA signed up. maybe you should come to the meeting (or tell your friends to) even if you're not a progressive christian. for example, if you're a christian wanting to think about progressivism, or vice versa. or if you're a progressive wanting to talk to christians. or whatever.
signup is at http://rightchristians.meetup.com/.
signup is at http://rightchristians.meetup.com/.
nori e-mailed me to say:
"Diebold says they've fixed the flaws pointed out by the geeks in
October, but the report finds that they have not been. Maryland's
election officials don't appear to care that they've spent $55 million
in order to systematically disenfranchise its voters.
"This is the company, you will recall, whose CEO has promised to
deliver the votes of his home state (Ohio) to Bush this November.
Ought we not to be skeptical? Ought there not to be public outcry?
And there it is, buried on page A fucking FOURTEEN, labelled
"technology"!! Jesus H. Christ."
and she's so, so right. the nyt article she's referencing is here, and it seems to have sunk-without-trace. and while there's clearly a lot going on in the world today (as there was yesterday, when the article was actually out), there's not so much going on that this shouldn't be front-page news. in fact, i want it to be front-page news every day until diebold goes out of business.
relatedly: did anyone else watch major network coverage of the NH primary? why do CNN and its cronies, along with the overwhelmingly white 1.4% of the american population currently living in iowa and new hampshire, get to decide who our nominee's going to be? obviously, it's not as literal as all that -- but it's close, and that's very depressing. folks who want to have an honest conversation about which candidate would be best, on any number of levels, are being denied that chance, as the networks have apparently decided that kerry should be our nominee because he's the least fucking threatening.
it ain't diebold, but it sure is equally disheartening.
"Diebold says they've fixed the flaws pointed out by the geeks in
October, but the report finds that they have not been. Maryland's
election officials don't appear to care that they've spent $55 million
in order to systematically disenfranchise its voters.
"This is the company, you will recall, whose CEO has promised to
deliver the votes of his home state (Ohio) to Bush this November.
Ought we not to be skeptical? Ought there not to be public outcry?
And there it is, buried on page A fucking FOURTEEN, labelled
"technology"!! Jesus H. Christ."
and she's so, so right. the nyt article she's referencing is here, and it seems to have sunk-without-trace. and while there's clearly a lot going on in the world today (as there was yesterday, when the article was actually out), there's not so much going on that this shouldn't be front-page news. in fact, i want it to be front-page news every day until diebold goes out of business.
relatedly: did anyone else watch major network coverage of the NH primary? why do CNN and its cronies, along with the overwhelmingly white 1.4% of the american population currently living in iowa and new hampshire, get to decide who our nominee's going to be? obviously, it's not as literal as all that -- but it's close, and that's very depressing. folks who want to have an honest conversation about which candidate would be best, on any number of levels, are being denied that chance, as the networks have apparently decided that kerry should be our nominee because he's the least fucking threatening.
it ain't diebold, but it sure is equally disheartening.
28 January 2004
my kitchen ceiling fell on my head this morning. or rather, grungy gooey chunks of my kitchen ceiling and a big splash of dirty water. at least i wasn't standing in the center of the room, where most of it fell. drywall is heavy stuff, even when it's wet.
genesis of this sob story:
january 8
alyssa: [landlord], our pipes are frozen. the shower doesn't work. fix it, please.
[landlord]: it will fix itself! also, this never happens!
alyssa: but didn't it happen to last year's tenants? and then didn't pipes burst?
[landlord]: [shifty eyes]
january 15th or so
alyssa: our pipes are frozen.
laurel: maybe we should call [landlord].
alyssa: but what would be the use?
amelia: you're right. just open the taps.
january 23rd or so
amelia: shocker! our pipes are frozen.
laurel: open the taps. don't bother calling that [expletives] [landlord].
two days later
amelia entering the kitchen: it's raining in here! oh wait. that doesn't happen. and the water is yellow! quizzically perhaps our pipes have burst...but didn't [landlord] say that would never happen? dials phone. hello, [landlord]? yes, i thought you should know that our pipes have burst and it's raining in the kitchen.
[landlord]: shit! i'll be right over! that never happens!
amelia: didn't it happen last year?
[landlord]: i'm on my way.
...and so on.
genesis of this sob story:
january 8
alyssa: [landlord], our pipes are frozen. the shower doesn't work. fix it, please.
[landlord]: it will fix itself! also, this never happens!
alyssa: but didn't it happen to last year's tenants? and then didn't pipes burst?
[landlord]: [shifty eyes]
january 15th or so
alyssa: our pipes are frozen.
laurel: maybe we should call [landlord].
alyssa: but what would be the use?
amelia: you're right. just open the taps.
january 23rd or so
amelia: shocker! our pipes are frozen.
laurel: open the taps. don't bother calling that [expletives] [landlord].
two days later
amelia entering the kitchen: it's raining in here! oh wait. that doesn't happen. and the water is yellow! quizzically perhaps our pipes have burst...but didn't [landlord] say that would never happen? dials phone. hello, [landlord]? yes, i thought you should know that our pipes have burst and it's raining in the kitchen.
[landlord]: shit! i'll be right over! that never happens!
amelia: didn't it happen last year?
[landlord]: i'm on my way.
...and so on.
27 January 2004
laurel wrote in comments, "it's really hard for most people (me included) to acknowledge that we've been actually fooled. I think we should all say the things we were fooled about/by, and maybe put that together as a website/ad/something. I'll go first.
"I've been duped. I believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I also believed that there were things the Bush administration would not do for reelection."
here's mine: i've been duped. i believed there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq, because the administration seemed so sure, and i couldn't believe they'd lie about something so serious.
i've been duped. i believed in bush's "compassionate conservative" rhetoric. i believed that he really cared about education, and i believed that the "texas miracle" had some sort of basis in reality. but now i know that the houston schools falsified records in order to bear out the "miracle," and i know that texas kids don't show any improvement on any test other than the one they're taught in texas schools. i care about education because i am a student and my parents are teachers, and that makes me mad.
you?
"I've been duped. I believed there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I also believed that there were things the Bush administration would not do for reelection."
here's mine: i've been duped. i believed there were weapons of mass destruction in iraq, because the administration seemed so sure, and i couldn't believe they'd lie about something so serious.
i've been duped. i believed in bush's "compassionate conservative" rhetoric. i believed that he really cared about education, and i believed that the "texas miracle" had some sort of basis in reality. but now i know that the houston schools falsified records in order to bear out the "miracle," and i know that texas kids don't show any improvement on any test other than the one they're taught in texas schools. i care about education because i am a student and my parents are teachers, and that makes me mad.
you?
oscar nominations are out, and for the first time in a while i've seen all five best-picture nominees. in fact, i saw them all in the theatre.
thank you, thank you all. thank you to the academy. thank you especially to dan blim, without whose help i never would have seen all these movies.
however: if master and commander wins, i'm gonna eat my hat.
i'm incredibly excited about the possibility that bill murray could win best actor. he deserves it, in that field, despite sean penn's performance in mystic river.
here endeth my bout of film criticism.
thank you, thank you all. thank you to the academy. thank you especially to dan blim, without whose help i never would have seen all these movies.
however: if master and commander wins, i'm gonna eat my hat.
i'm incredibly excited about the possibility that bill murray could win best actor. he deserves it, in that field, despite sean penn's performance in mystic river.
here endeth my bout of film criticism.
remember last week, when i wondered how to show folks that bush lies on policy? well, it's obvious that paul krugman and i are soul mates. or, at the very least, that he reads me every day to mine my brilliant intellect. anyway -- he writes today,
"So the right has used deceptive salesmanship to undermine tax enforcement and push through upper-income tax cuts. And now that deficits have emerged, the right insists that they are the result of runaway spending, which must be curbed.
"While this strategy has been remarkably successful so far, it also offers a big opportunity to the opposition. So here's a test for the Democratic contenders: details of your proposals aside, which of you can do the best job explaining the ongoing budget con to the American people?"
that's the best challenge i've heard from a columnist in quite a while. i hope the dems are up to it. however: like i said last week, it's going to take more than explaining this particular con, or any particular con. we have to figure out how to unspin the magic armor of bullshit surrounding the administration before anybody's going to pay attention to niceties like facts.
laurel and i spent some time talking about what sort of advertising might do the trick. personal testimonials? easy-to-read graphs? i decided that, while people don't want to hear that they've been duped, they might be more receptive to hearing that someone with whom they identify feels duped. maybe?
"So the right has used deceptive salesmanship to undermine tax enforcement and push through upper-income tax cuts. And now that deficits have emerged, the right insists that they are the result of runaway spending, which must be curbed.
"While this strategy has been remarkably successful so far, it also offers a big opportunity to the opposition. So here's a test for the Democratic contenders: details of your proposals aside, which of you can do the best job explaining the ongoing budget con to the American people?"
that's the best challenge i've heard from a columnist in quite a while. i hope the dems are up to it. however: like i said last week, it's going to take more than explaining this particular con, or any particular con. we have to figure out how to unspin the magic armor of bullshit surrounding the administration before anybody's going to pay attention to niceties like facts.
laurel and i spent some time talking about what sort of advertising might do the trick. personal testimonials? easy-to-read graphs? i decided that, while people don't want to hear that they've been duped, they might be more receptive to hearing that someone with whom they identify feels duped. maybe?
26 January 2004
professor burke's newest blog article is called "evil." i suggest you read it, because it raises some interesting points. for my part, i'd be incredibly interested to hear about burke's faith history -- just 'cause evil is such a tough word for us liberal christian types. he seems to have an easier time with it than i.
burke takes as a primary example the cover story in this week's new york times magazine, which i mistakenly tried to read while eating lunch. let me give you a clue: the headline includes the phrase "sex slave" and the cover photo is a nose-down shot of a girl in a catholic-school-esque uniform sitting on a bed. knees foreground. the article, even more than the cover, is an immensely disturbing look at something that is, yes indeed, evil. imprisoning a child, and then raping and abusing it for profit, is clearly evil.
like crashing passenger planes into civilian business centers is evil. like causing the deaths of thousands by orchestrating an unjustified war is evil? that's a harder one.
tim burke writes, "Most human suffering isn?t something that one person does willfully, with foresight and understanding of the consequences, to another...[E]vil is a term I?d reserve in this context for exceptional circumstances where the connection between particular actions and the serious suffering of particular individuals are clear and are known to the actor and known in advance by him or her to be morally indefensible."
i.e., systems can't be evil; concrete individual actions can. in a certain sense, this means that the more widespread the bad, the more difficult it is to define as evil. i don't know what i think about that.
relatedly (i think): i'm also not sure how to respond to burke's argument that mystifying or un-understandable acts and circumstances and motivations cannot be labeled evil. my sense is that he's wrong on this, but again, that might be my religious tradition speaking. i believe in evil as an active force in the world, and i also believe that i can discern many acts of evil -- but i lack the authority to label actors, themselves, evil. when burke discusses the difference between evil and not, he is suddenly speaking of persons rather than the "acts and ideologies" he refers to earlier.
if we restrict ourselves to acts (and maybe ideologies), do things get simpler? and can we make a case for evil that goes beyond the immediate -- beyond suicide bombers and serial killers and the logisticians of genocide and, yes, sex-slave traffickers -- and touches the conditions that make suicide bombers, serial killers, genocides, sex slavery? i think yes.
on that more diffuse definition, i'd say that willful misunderstanding of a sort that causes widespread death and suffering is probably evil, and that the bush administration has committed an evil act. just sayin'.
unrelatedly...man, catherine mackinnon is really not useful as anything other than a foil.
burke takes as a primary example the cover story in this week's new york times magazine, which i mistakenly tried to read while eating lunch. let me give you a clue: the headline includes the phrase "sex slave" and the cover photo is a nose-down shot of a girl in a catholic-school-esque uniform sitting on a bed. knees foreground. the article, even more than the cover, is an immensely disturbing look at something that is, yes indeed, evil. imprisoning a child, and then raping and abusing it for profit, is clearly evil.
like crashing passenger planes into civilian business centers is evil. like causing the deaths of thousands by orchestrating an unjustified war is evil? that's a harder one.
tim burke writes, "Most human suffering isn?t something that one person does willfully, with foresight and understanding of the consequences, to another...[E]vil is a term I?d reserve in this context for exceptional circumstances where the connection between particular actions and the serious suffering of particular individuals are clear and are known to the actor and known in advance by him or her to be morally indefensible."
i.e., systems can't be evil; concrete individual actions can. in a certain sense, this means that the more widespread the bad, the more difficult it is to define as evil. i don't know what i think about that.
relatedly (i think): i'm also not sure how to respond to burke's argument that mystifying or un-understandable acts and circumstances and motivations cannot be labeled evil. my sense is that he's wrong on this, but again, that might be my religious tradition speaking. i believe in evil as an active force in the world, and i also believe that i can discern many acts of evil -- but i lack the authority to label actors, themselves, evil. when burke discusses the difference between evil and not, he is suddenly speaking of persons rather than the "acts and ideologies" he refers to earlier.
if we restrict ourselves to acts (and maybe ideologies), do things get simpler? and can we make a case for evil that goes beyond the immediate -- beyond suicide bombers and serial killers and the logisticians of genocide and, yes, sex-slave traffickers -- and touches the conditions that make suicide bombers, serial killers, genocides, sex slavery? i think yes.
on that more diffuse definition, i'd say that willful misunderstanding of a sort that causes widespread death and suffering is probably evil, and that the bush administration has committed an evil act. just sayin'.
unrelatedly...man, catherine mackinnon is really not useful as anything other than a foil.
23 January 2004
straight up now tell me
laurel and i are going to make a political short that is also a music video. seriously. maybe.
we were sitting on the couch last night, talking as usual about what to do, when something, probably my recent concern with the treatment of reality in politics, caused the following crappop snippet to take over my head:
i've been fooled before/wouldn't like to get my love caught in the slammin' door/how about some information PLEEEEEEEAAAASE [please? a-pleaseplease?]
that's right, folks, paula abdul is going to save american democracy. dear george:
you are so hard to read/you play hide and seek/with your true intentions/if you're only playing games/i'll just have to say/buh buh buh buh buh buh bye
and
i don't mean to make demands/but the word and the deed go hand in hand/how about some information please (please please please)
and the image is going to be nice diverse american looking people lip-synching while some text about how they were screwed by bush rolls. yep.
laurel and i are going to make a political short that is also a music video. seriously. maybe.
we were sitting on the couch last night, talking as usual about what to do, when something, probably my recent concern with the treatment of reality in politics, caused the following crappop snippet to take over my head:
i've been fooled before/wouldn't like to get my love caught in the slammin' door/how about some information PLEEEEEEEAAAASE [please? a-pleaseplease?]
that's right, folks, paula abdul is going to save american democracy. dear george:
you are so hard to read/you play hide and seek/with your true intentions/if you're only playing games/i'll just have to say/buh buh buh buh buh buh bye
and
i don't mean to make demands/but the word and the deed go hand in hand/how about some information please (please please please)
and the image is going to be nice diverse american looking people lip-synching while some text about how they were screwed by bush rolls. yep.
22 January 2004
very little linking today, as work is a bit nuts (i.e., i've been paralyzed on this brief for like a week now, and it's got to get done.)
nyt has some amusement: a front-page article on googlebombing. oy. there's also a headline that refers to dean's third-place showing in iowa as a "loss," which is rather (intensely) dumb.
but here's what i've actually been thinking about lately: how does one start a movement to educate against political spin? can americans be retaught to consider policy results? and is it self-undermining to couch such an effort in advertising-style bites?
it's become increasingly apparent to me recently that someone somewhere is going to have to do some very serious conceptual work in order depose george w. bush this fall. i'm pretty sure that the content of that work has a lot to do with -- somehow -- helping americans understand that bush lies.
but here's the hard part: americans hate knowing they've been duped or misinformed. if you tell them the wrong way, they'll never EVER listen. like this: i know most people in grand forks, ND, aren't racists, or at least aren't intending to be racist. but, by and large, they support UND's extraordinarily offensive racist mascot. unfortunately, when someone says, "that's racist!" these folks hear "you're a racist!" i can't even describe how the heels dig in then, but it's astounding. not even the best evidence works any more.
it's the same deal nationally with dubya. how do we help people figure out that he's "leading" us down the primrose path?
for now, i'd advise checking out moveon.org, which has a new project devoted to developing campaign themes.
nyt has some amusement: a front-page article on googlebombing. oy. there's also a headline that refers to dean's third-place showing in iowa as a "loss," which is rather (intensely) dumb.
but here's what i've actually been thinking about lately: how does one start a movement to educate against political spin? can americans be retaught to consider policy results? and is it self-undermining to couch such an effort in advertising-style bites?
it's become increasingly apparent to me recently that someone somewhere is going to have to do some very serious conceptual work in order depose george w. bush this fall. i'm pretty sure that the content of that work has a lot to do with -- somehow -- helping americans understand that bush lies.
but here's the hard part: americans hate knowing they've been duped or misinformed. if you tell them the wrong way, they'll never EVER listen. like this: i know most people in grand forks, ND, aren't racists, or at least aren't intending to be racist. but, by and large, they support UND's extraordinarily offensive racist mascot. unfortunately, when someone says, "that's racist!" these folks hear "you're a racist!" i can't even describe how the heels dig in then, but it's astounding. not even the best evidence works any more.
it's the same deal nationally with dubya. how do we help people figure out that he's "leading" us down the primrose path?
for now, i'd advise checking out moveon.org, which has a new project devoted to developing campaign themes.
21 January 2004
please keep reading that there SOTU post (two down). but also look at this! i'm going to reprint an entire message from alyssa, because it's just that cool. and important. (go laurel!) please comment?
-----Original Message-----
From: alyssa
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 2:03 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: the new fate of swatties
last two paragraphs from the Weekly's Dean cover story:
Still, Dean has something none of the other candidates can claim: People
don't just vote for him--they believe in him. They get on buses and drive
a thousand miles to knock on doors in the snow. And they do it with a
smile. Which is something even a king's ransom worth of TV ads can't buy
and the dirtiest Republican tricks can't change. Laurel Eckhouse says as
much as we file out into the frigid Iowa night.
"This is bad for the Democratic Party. This could have been a chance for
unity," she says. "Dean bypassed the party gatekeepers, built his own
movement and came up with his own paradigm--and it's brilliant. And that
scares the shit out of them. His issues should be the heart and soul of
the Democratic Party: government of the people, by the people and for the
people. Instead we get government of the corporations, by the corporations
and for the corporations. No matter what, if he doesn't win the
nomination, in four or eight years, people are going to look back and say
Howard Dean was ahead of his time."
*****
i think this is remarkable. i think it's remarkable that my buddy l.r.e.
had the best and brightest insight of the philly4dean adventure and so
scored the conclusion of the Philly Weekly's cover story. la[urel], you did the
journalist's work for him. perhaps this is the fate of swatties: to have
the kind of understanding that sits at the poignant end of a news article.
what does that mean?
to begin with, it means that if we want people to be smarter and more
thoughtful than we already are, we're not going to find it in 95% of the
media. maybe we already knew this. it also means that we should WORK THE
NEWSPAPERS.
-----Original Message-----
From: alyssa
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 2:03 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: the new fate of swatties
last two paragraphs from the Weekly's Dean cover story:
Still, Dean has something none of the other candidates can claim: People
don't just vote for him--they believe in him. They get on buses and drive
a thousand miles to knock on doors in the snow. And they do it with a
smile. Which is something even a king's ransom worth of TV ads can't buy
and the dirtiest Republican tricks can't change. Laurel Eckhouse says as
much as we file out into the frigid Iowa night.
"This is bad for the Democratic Party. This could have been a chance for
unity," she says. "Dean bypassed the party gatekeepers, built his own
movement and came up with his own paradigm--and it's brilliant. And that
scares the shit out of them. His issues should be the heart and soul of
the Democratic Party: government of the people, by the people and for the
people. Instead we get government of the corporations, by the corporations
and for the corporations. No matter what, if he doesn't win the
nomination, in four or eight years, people are going to look back and say
Howard Dean was ahead of his time."
*****
i think this is remarkable. i think it's remarkable that my buddy l.r.e.
had the best and brightest insight of the philly4dean adventure and so
scored the conclusion of the Philly Weekly's cover story. la[urel], you did the
journalist's work for him. perhaps this is the fate of swatties: to have
the kind of understanding that sits at the poignant end of a news article.
what does that mean?
to begin with, it means that if we want people to be smarter and more
thoughtful than we already are, we're not going to find it in 95% of the
media. maybe we already knew this. it also means that we should WORK THE
NEWSPAPERS.
@#$%ing midwestern republicans.
or perhaps this is the appropriate time to use my old argument that ohio's not actually part of the midwest anyway.
or perhaps this is the appropriate time to use my old argument that ohio's not actually part of the midwest anyway.
bush's state of the union address last night was, as expected, a total disgrace. i called his language "orwellian" here a few days ago, but now i'm wishing there were some stronger word for what i heard last night.
back in the dim distant past, presidents often spoke in the SOTU addresses about things that were at least related to the country's experienced reality. now bush appears authorized to ramble about nothing for an hour and be considered a statesman of sorts. or worse, authorized to tell half-truths (and even a few outright whoppers) in order to project some sort of positive image of himself and his administration.
were i to fully discuss any of the myriad problems with that speech, i would be writing all day. also, my head might explode. so let me just make a list: continued conflation of war on terror with war on iraq; claims of success in iraq; claims of international cooperation in iraq war; claims of success in afghanistan; claims that women will be "fully equal" in the "new afghanistan;" no child left behind labeled effective; testing called only way to identify and help low-achieving students; anti-drug message, apparently first written for bush's unsuccessful seventh grade student council run; abstinence education labeled effective; will support constitutional amendment re: "sanctity of marriage;" more championing of "faith-based" social services...the list goes on.
later, i got all sputtery on the phone to my mom -- she probably thinks i'm nuts now. but honestly, i haven't any idea how i would deal with another four years of this homicidal bungling. what would i do? where would i go? could i responsibly leave the country? the solution, obviously, is to make sure he doesn't get reelected. i just wish i knew how to make my energy serve that purpose.
a final note: where have all the exciting leaders gone? pelosi's and daschle's responses were as unsatisfying as bush's speech was horrifying. and kerry, while he was classy as hell, didn't excite me either. i acknowledge the importance of grass-roots opposition, but i think the grass-roots opposition is in serious need of a charismatic leader. just...who the hell is that going to be?
back in the dim distant past, presidents often spoke in the SOTU addresses about things that were at least related to the country's experienced reality. now bush appears authorized to ramble about nothing for an hour and be considered a statesman of sorts. or worse, authorized to tell half-truths (and even a few outright whoppers) in order to project some sort of positive image of himself and his administration.
were i to fully discuss any of the myriad problems with that speech, i would be writing all day. also, my head might explode. so let me just make a list: continued conflation of war on terror with war on iraq; claims of success in iraq; claims of international cooperation in iraq war; claims of success in afghanistan; claims that women will be "fully equal" in the "new afghanistan;" no child left behind labeled effective; testing called only way to identify and help low-achieving students; anti-drug message, apparently first written for bush's unsuccessful seventh grade student council run; abstinence education labeled effective; will support constitutional amendment re: "sanctity of marriage;" more championing of "faith-based" social services...the list goes on.
later, i got all sputtery on the phone to my mom -- she probably thinks i'm nuts now. but honestly, i haven't any idea how i would deal with another four years of this homicidal bungling. what would i do? where would i go? could i responsibly leave the country? the solution, obviously, is to make sure he doesn't get reelected. i just wish i knew how to make my energy serve that purpose.
a final note: where have all the exciting leaders gone? pelosi's and daschle's responses were as unsatisfying as bush's speech was horrifying. and kerry, while he was classy as hell, didn't excite me either. i acknowledge the importance of grass-roots opposition, but i think the grass-roots opposition is in serious need of a charismatic leader. just...who the hell is that going to be?
20 January 2004
ok, so we didn't pull it off. on the other hand, i keep thinking back to this time last year, when i had no sense that howard dean would do anything but keep the eventual nominee honest. new hampshire will be better.
a new worry is what's going to happen now gephardt's out. he appears to have said that he'll endorse someone else quite soon. the only reasonable person for him to endorse (given the battle with dean and edwards's inexperience) is kerry, and that makes me nervous.
a new worry is what's going to happen now gephardt's out. he appears to have said that he'll endorse someone else quite soon. the only reasonable person for him to endorse (given the battle with dean and edwards's inexperience) is kerry, and that makes me nervous.
19 January 2004
today is martin luther king day.
the mayor of atlanta, shirley franklin, had this to say to the president (from the times article): "Perhaps some prefer to honor the dreamer while ignoring or fighting the dream,'' she said. "For those of us who hold elective office, the public policy we advocate and adopt -- from foreign affairs to domestic budgeting -- tells the real story of our celebration of Dr. King's legacy. ... Can't we protect our borders and promote peace around the world?''
franklin's speech drew a standing ovation, as well it should have. coretta scott king, sounding a somewhat different note, spoke on the need to end, or at least moderate, acrimony in politics. is there a way to make politics less acrimonious without bowing to attempts, like bush's, to "honor the dreamer while ignoring or fighting the dream"? i don't know.
king's message of nonviolence and social justice seems as difficult and as radical today as it did in the '60's. and only some of the challenges are different. american schools are still segregated. i'm still working on race discrimination cases -- lots of them -- at work.
meanwhile, the challenges that are new are also *really* scary: the bush brothers making speeches to "honor" dr. king; war in the name of peace; destruction of our welfare state with a rhetoric of empowerment. it's this new sort of affront to the memory of dr. king that has me clicking back and forth between mlk day coverage and iowa caucus coverage. i'm hoping the dems will field someone who doesn't speak bush's orwellian language. obviously, i'd like it to be dean -- in fact, i think it will be. the important thing will be finding someone who's willing to risk charges of acrimony in order to point out the differences between bush's rhetoric and his policy.
the mayor of atlanta, shirley franklin, had this to say to the president (from the times article): "Perhaps some prefer to honor the dreamer while ignoring or fighting the dream,'' she said. "For those of us who hold elective office, the public policy we advocate and adopt -- from foreign affairs to domestic budgeting -- tells the real story of our celebration of Dr. King's legacy. ... Can't we protect our borders and promote peace around the world?''
franklin's speech drew a standing ovation, as well it should have. coretta scott king, sounding a somewhat different note, spoke on the need to end, or at least moderate, acrimony in politics. is there a way to make politics less acrimonious without bowing to attempts, like bush's, to "honor the dreamer while ignoring or fighting the dream"? i don't know.
king's message of nonviolence and social justice seems as difficult and as radical today as it did in the '60's. and only some of the challenges are different. american schools are still segregated. i'm still working on race discrimination cases -- lots of them -- at work.
meanwhile, the challenges that are new are also *really* scary: the bush brothers making speeches to "honor" dr. king; war in the name of peace; destruction of our welfare state with a rhetoric of empowerment. it's this new sort of affront to the memory of dr. king that has me clicking back and forth between mlk day coverage and iowa caucus coverage. i'm hoping the dems will field someone who doesn't speak bush's orwellian language. obviously, i'd like it to be dean -- in fact, i think it will be. the important thing will be finding someone who's willing to risk charges of acrimony in order to point out the differences between bush's rhetoric and his policy.
17 January 2004
there's a good discussion going on now at allen brill's the right christians about an attempt at making christian progressives(/progressive christians/whatever) more of an on-the-ground force. (as opposed to, say, just a bunch of bloggers who read each other often.)
some of the discussion (the comment threads, mainly) strikes me as a bit naive, or underthought. after all, here are a bunch of likeminded people who are probably minorities in BOTH their faith communities and their political communities. while it's important to celebrate the fact that we exist, i think that a big part of the "real mission" is getting progressives and christians who see themselves as opposed to talk to each other, or at least acknowledge each other.
honestly, the christian/progressive thing reminds me a little uncomfortably of my interest in dialogue between radicals and moderates in the anti-war movement. in both cases, the two "sides" (ugh) mistrust the others' motives and goals, although they may have many (nearly all?) of the same intermediate-level visions. particularly in the anti-war situation, such distrust can be very damaging. being more of a moderate than many in that movement, i experienced the behavior of some radicals as extraordinarily alienating and even damaging to the movement.
in any case, i think it would be a mistake to proceed blithely with any christian progressive community without ironing out some similar issues. how would a christian progressive group react to being told that it is not wanted as the ally of some progressive cause with which it agrees?
some of the discussion (the comment threads, mainly) strikes me as a bit naive, or underthought. after all, here are a bunch of likeminded people who are probably minorities in BOTH their faith communities and their political communities. while it's important to celebrate the fact that we exist, i think that a big part of the "real mission" is getting progressives and christians who see themselves as opposed to talk to each other, or at least acknowledge each other.
honestly, the christian/progressive thing reminds me a little uncomfortably of my interest in dialogue between radicals and moderates in the anti-war movement. in both cases, the two "sides" (ugh) mistrust the others' motives and goals, although they may have many (nearly all?) of the same intermediate-level visions. particularly in the anti-war situation, such distrust can be very damaging. being more of a moderate than many in that movement, i experienced the behavior of some radicals as extraordinarily alienating and even damaging to the movement.
in any case, i think it would be a mistake to proceed blithely with any christian progressive community without ironing out some similar issues. how would a christian progressive group react to being told that it is not wanted as the ally of some progressive cause with which it agrees?
16 January 2004
apparently the stereotypes are all true. or maybe moving to society hill causes people to lose their souls. whatever the reason, i have to say that the 'young adults' party at our priest's house last night was approximately the strangest event i've ever attended.
first off, i was the youngest 'young adult' in the room. some of the 'young adults' were definitely pushing 40. i'm sorry, folks, but when you're forty you're a 'real adult,' also known as a 'regular adult.' do you live in a house you own? do you pull down $50,000 or more yearly? have you been MARRIED for more than a calendar year? chances are you're not a young adult.
so that was odd.
more importantly (this is the stereotypes-all-true bit), folks seemed totally uninterested in speaking about anything even remotely substantial. politics? nooooo, that would be divisive. religion? noooo, that would be....what? too religious? for a church group? eh? certainly nobody expressed desire to, oh, say, connect the two. the whole gathering reminded me of eddie izzard's bit on anglicans -- you know, the one about the "hobby church."
basically, this was not what i expected from any gathering sponsored by st. peter's. is it that people aren't listening to the sermons?
also, that guy bob was a total manarchist.
first off, i was the youngest 'young adult' in the room. some of the 'young adults' were definitely pushing 40. i'm sorry, folks, but when you're forty you're a 'real adult,' also known as a 'regular adult.' do you live in a house you own? do you pull down $50,000 or more yearly? have you been MARRIED for more than a calendar year? chances are you're not a young adult.
so that was odd.
more importantly (this is the stereotypes-all-true bit), folks seemed totally uninterested in speaking about anything even remotely substantial. politics? nooooo, that would be divisive. religion? noooo, that would be....what? too religious? for a church group? eh? certainly nobody expressed desire to, oh, say, connect the two. the whole gathering reminded me of eddie izzard's bit on anglicans -- you know, the one about the "hobby church."
basically, this was not what i expected from any gathering sponsored by st. peter's. is it that people aren't listening to the sermons?
also, that guy bob was a total manarchist.
15 January 2004
so is she positioning herself for veepness? i'd be pretty cool with that, actually. not that it's ever going to happen.
here's something to make you want to never, ever read the times again. as is often the case, this particular bit of mean, senseless drivel comes from maureen dowd.
i don't know much about ms. dowd's life, but i bet it's fair to say that she's a "career woman."
...which only makes it harder to understand why she chose to write this piece about judith steinberg dean. really, you have to read it to believe it. first there's a pallid attempt at bush criticism (the phrase "national yenta" is involved. oy.) -- but then she reveals her real intent: trashing the nontraditional political spouse.
i love (read: hate) that the national media is so up in arms over the fact that dr. steinberg dean is not on the campaign trail with her husband, stumping at every turn. but what do they want? she's shy, she has a very successful career of her own, and she's not very interested in politics. also, according to our pal maureen, she (gasp!) doesn't care very much about appearances.
these are good things, but they don't make for an ideal campaign spouse. judith dean has stated and restated that she supports her husband, that he would make a great president. shouldn't that be enough? why is the political wife who doesn't adore her husband in the manner of a (rather more articulate) golden retriever always cast as cold, distant, uncaring? and how does that label get transferred to her husband so effectively?
God, i love gender(ed) politics.
i don't know much about ms. dowd's life, but i bet it's fair to say that she's a "career woman."
...which only makes it harder to understand why she chose to write this piece about judith steinberg dean. really, you have to read it to believe it. first there's a pallid attempt at bush criticism (the phrase "national yenta" is involved. oy.) -- but then she reveals her real intent: trashing the nontraditional political spouse.
i love (read: hate) that the national media is so up in arms over the fact that dr. steinberg dean is not on the campaign trail with her husband, stumping at every turn. but what do they want? she's shy, she has a very successful career of her own, and she's not very interested in politics. also, according to our pal maureen, she (gasp!) doesn't care very much about appearances.
these are good things, but they don't make for an ideal campaign spouse. judith dean has stated and restated that she supports her husband, that he would make a great president. shouldn't that be enough? why is the political wife who doesn't adore her husband in the manner of a (rather more articulate) golden retriever always cast as cold, distant, uncaring? and how does that label get transferred to her husband so effectively?
God, i love gender(ed) politics.
14 January 2004
so it's all marriage and space from here on out. it's as if the bush administration has decided it can't possibly win on actual issues and will therefore just pretend they don't exist:
"i didn't do it! i didn't lie about iraq! i was dead at the time! i was on the moon...with steve! or at least that's where i'll be in 2015!"
my suggestion is that we just send him up, like, tomorrow, and let earth do some healing.
also: can you believe this shit about ditching the international space station??? oy.
"i didn't do it! i didn't lie about iraq! i was dead at the time! i was on the moon...with steve! or at least that's where i'll be in 2015!"
my suggestion is that we just send him up, like, tomorrow, and let earth do some healing.
also: can you believe this shit about ditching the international space station??? oy.
good Lord, how depressing. the times says that the bush administration is going to spend $1.5 billion promoting marriage, especially among low-income people.
i can't really even express how stupid and bad this idea is. maybe -- MAYBE -- if such a program were specifically aimed at eradicating domestic violence; if it were available to all couples who wanted it, queer or straight or what have you; if it somehow were less coercive and more empowering; if we as a country could actually afford it -- maybe then it might be something we could begin to think about.
at the moment though, as the times article notes, this is at best an empty sop to conservative groups. sadly, it's a very expensive sop with no history of improving the social maladies of poor communities. obviously it's better for kids to live in a household with more, rather than less, parental contact and supervision. but these programs have been around for a while now, especially in the conservative south, and there's never been any evidence that they do what they ought. none. as my father would say, show me the &%$#ing data.
the thing that really gets to me is the cynicism of it. this adminsitration is not going to make it possible for poor parents to actually spend time with their children. it's not going to push for meaningful job growth, and it's certainly not going to push for a more generous welfare state or more stringent labor regulations. instead it pretends that marriage solves the poverty problem, rather than the other way around.
such small, mean minds these people have.
i can't really even express how stupid and bad this idea is. maybe -- MAYBE -- if such a program were specifically aimed at eradicating domestic violence; if it were available to all couples who wanted it, queer or straight or what have you; if it somehow were less coercive and more empowering; if we as a country could actually afford it -- maybe then it might be something we could begin to think about.
at the moment though, as the times article notes, this is at best an empty sop to conservative groups. sadly, it's a very expensive sop with no history of improving the social maladies of poor communities. obviously it's better for kids to live in a household with more, rather than less, parental contact and supervision. but these programs have been around for a while now, especially in the conservative south, and there's never been any evidence that they do what they ought. none. as my father would say, show me the &%$#ing data.
the thing that really gets to me is the cynicism of it. this adminsitration is not going to make it possible for poor parents to actually spend time with their children. it's not going to push for meaningful job growth, and it's certainly not going to push for a more generous welfare state or more stringent labor regulations. instead it pretends that marriage solves the poverty problem, rather than the other way around.
such small, mean minds these people have.
09 January 2004
god hates tennessee courts dot com -- this by way of atrios.
there is so much interesting news (& cetera) out there (where "out there" = "in the new york times") today -- jobless recovery news, it's-cold-in-minnesota news, a krugman column on enron, and, on the heavier side of things, some scary new attacks in iraq and a spate of dean-bashing. plus a shocking report involving wesley clark, women voters, and argyle sweaters. i want to write about all of it, but considering today's workload, i think it's more likely i'll write about none of it. check it all out, though.
there is so much interesting news (& cetera) out there (where "out there" = "in the new york times") today -- jobless recovery news, it's-cold-in-minnesota news, a krugman column on enron, and, on the heavier side of things, some scary new attacks in iraq and a spate of dean-bashing. plus a shocking report involving wesley clark, women voters, and argyle sweaters. i want to write about all of it, but considering today's workload, i think it's more likely i'll write about none of it. check it all out, though.
08 January 2004
the imf a bastion of sanity. who'da thunk it?
(just for starters, nearly every economist not directly attached to the bush administration.)
(just for starters, nearly every economist not directly attached to the bush administration.)
07 January 2004
republicans, at least the ones in texas, have formally announced that they no longer have any scruples whatsoever about hijacking democracy for their own purposes. i commend them for their honesty.
here's the article from the times on the recent decision that the texas gerrymander will stand, and here are a few choice snippets:
of the three judge panel who made the decision: "They also found that politics — not illegal racial discrimination — prompted the redrawing of district lines." that's right, folks, our friends the judges have decided that racial discrimination has nothing to do with politics, and that politics has nothing to do with race. great!
or this gem: "Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, called the ruling "a serious blow to the Democrats" and added, "It makes their already remote chances of taking back the House slimmer than ever.""
because after all, making sure the democrats don't take back the house is what democracy should be all about. [aaaarrgghh.]
here's the article from the times on the recent decision that the texas gerrymander will stand, and here are a few choice snippets:
of the three judge panel who made the decision: "They also found that politics — not illegal racial discrimination — prompted the redrawing of district lines." that's right, folks, our friends the judges have decided that racial discrimination has nothing to do with politics, and that politics has nothing to do with race. great!
or this gem: "Tom Reynolds, chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, called the ruling "a serious blow to the Democrats" and added, "It makes their already remote chances of taking back the House slimmer than ever.""
because after all, making sure the democrats don't take back the house is what democracy should be all about. [aaaarrgghh.]
so the eyebrow has bruised. don't worry, it's very subtle. in fact, it looks almost exactly like blue/purple eyeshadow. well, except for the part where it's starting to be yellow and green. seriously, though, you wouldn't know it was there unless i told you.
alyssa told me not to worry; it's still "white hott." oh yeah.
alyssa told me not to worry; it's still "white hott." oh yeah.
06 January 2004
$3 million is not enough. it's nice that the diallo family gets some sort of resolution -- they probably have very few resources for lawyers and trials and whatnot, after all -- but i can't believe the city, and the officers involved, avoided their responsibility so completely. the "apology" quoted in the times sounds like the shooting fell out of the sky. like an earthquake or a hailstorm, it just "occurred." regrettably, but apparently uncontrollably.
the officers were found not guilty of all criminal charges. no federal civil rights violations were found by the justice department. there wasn't even any departmental discipline. apparently the penalty for murder is now "retraining."
...whereas the penalty for offering the police your ID (while black) is death.
the officers were found not guilty of all criminal charges. no federal civil rights violations were found by the justice department. there wasn't even any departmental discipline. apparently the penalty for murder is now "retraining."
...whereas the penalty for offering the police your ID (while black) is death.
05 January 2004
another long hiatus. sorry. however, today i have happy news: bill bradley is going to endorse dean. this is not actually all that astounding -- bradley was a washington establishment type for years, but he positioned himself left of gore in 2000, and left politics thereafter. consequently it shouldn't be a surprise that he's decided to support dean, who is also (a) left of gore, or at least left of where gore was as a presidential candidate and (b) not (any longer, i presume) sensitive to dean's less-than-totally-respectful treatment of congressional democrats surrounding the iraq war. there's also the fact that politics has more peer pressure than any middle school: now that dean is the "front-runner" (whatever that means at this stage), folks are going to start endorsing him right and left, previous conflicts be damned.
thank goodness for bandwagons.
by the way: while this isn't astounding, it is great. i supported bradley in 2000 before i had to hold my nose and work for gore-lieberman, and his confidence in dean reinforces my own in a way that the gore endorsement didn't. so yay.
now watch the conservatives try to spin this as a black mark on dean, bradley, or democrats in general...
OH! AND! with my lovely housemates in tow, i made a trip to south street on friday. now i have an extra hole in my face. cool! because i'm extraordinarily vain, there is a picture here. i forgot to format said picture, so it's embarrassingly big, but...oh well.
thank goodness for bandwagons.
by the way: while this isn't astounding, it is great. i supported bradley in 2000 before i had to hold my nose and work for gore-lieberman, and his confidence in dean reinforces my own in a way that the gore endorsement didn't. so yay.
now watch the conservatives try to spin this as a black mark on dean, bradley, or democrats in general...
OH! AND! with my lovely housemates in tow, i made a trip to south street on friday. now i have an extra hole in my face. cool! because i'm extraordinarily vain, there is a picture here. i forgot to format said picture, so it's embarrassingly big, but...oh well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)