To Fight Racists or Not to Fight Racists

The U.S. Commision on Civil Rigths appears to think racism is a thing of the past, and have instead spent most of their time and resources researching the conservative pet project: "reverse racism:" http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/the_civil_rights_commission_protecting_the_rights.php?ref=fpblg. Rather than look at the fact that racism appears to have again moved to the forefront of American life since the Obama election, or look at the income/wage differentials, disproporationate cost of the mortgage and larger financial crisis on Black Americans or explore the increase in Anti-Semitism in America today (http://www.latimes.com/news/la-antisemitism27-m,0,3140086,print.story), the group has relentlessly pursued charges that the Black Panthers intimidated voters in the 2008 election; even as these charges appear to be largely baseless. As I wrote about a few days ago, the politically expedient strategy will probably play dividends, as working class, middle class and even highly educated upper class White males seem to increasingly buy the story that Blacks and other minorities (and women) are given unfair advantages in education, jobs and life in general. While the numbers tell a different story, when groups charged with protecting the civil rights of all citizens focus exclusively on perceived white slights, the future looks bleak for ever reaching the Martin Luther King dream.

Teabaggers are like the founding fathers . . .

and apparently Jesus Christ: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_07/024880.php. This according to conservative activist David Barton. Barton has long been making the comparison to the founding fathers, apparently confusing limiting government power with ceding power completely to corporations and the church. The quote from a radio broadcast:

"[T]he media has decided to take on the Tea Party and whack 'em because really, the Tea Party, if they have their way, the liberal left is going to be on the outside in this thing. So the best you can do is try to villainize these guys. You know, when Jesus got a really big following, they started saying 'oh, he's a wine-bibber, he's a glutton,' they started all the name-calling and finger-pointing; you know, he's trying to install himself as king and he's going to kick out Caesar, trying to get the Romans stirred up. So they used all these ridiculous charges and so this is nothing new."

At it's heart, this follows the sine qua non of the conservative movement -- victimhood at the hands of insidious liberals, who are seeking to make America a gay, godless country dominated by foreigners, where individuals have no freedom. Of course, they want to limit freedom in countless ways -- from ensuring that all people follow their blind faith in markets and corporations, ignore racism, sexism and every other ism except jingoism and don't bother with pollution, corporate malfeasance, annoying workplace safety rules, etc. Fear and victimhood really define their entire discourse, and in a country that celebrates victimhood like no other. The fact that the victims of the left are really the victims of the very forces that prop up these activists or capitalize on their radical agenda, is an irony that escapes their somber, angry tongues. Really it is proof of the Dunny-Kruger effect, where people you don't know much tend not to recognize their ignorance and so fail to seek better information. Let mindful stupidity ring!

Billionaire Blues

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner announced that the Obama administration will allow the Bush tax cuts to expire yesterday, setting up a battle with Republicans and a few Democrats. Billionaires could lose millions, but the very same group that is talking about closing the deficit knows that these tax cuts helped allow the deficit to balloon, together with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the very necessary stimulus: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703467304575383131306753688.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories. The argument goes that tax cuts will make matters worse for the economy just when we are hoping to see a recovery. But is this necessarily true. As the Wall Street Journal argues, the top five percent account for 30 percent of consumption. But shouldn't this be troubling? Don't we need to build an economy where spending is more equitably allocated among the population?

And an article last month in Vanity Fair only strengthens the argument (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2010/07/peter-marx-excerpt-201007). It details the work of pop artist and millionaire Peter Max, who "paints" rather banal pictures of the famous for charity then sells them a triptych based on that original painting. The article starts with what I find a rather prescient argument "A sure sign of imminent collapse is when the obscene becomes normal. And it is clear that Wall Street has become obscene. Just a few points from the article should highlight the level of obscenity -- in the very year when this financial crisis started, 2007, five hedge fund managers made over $1,000,000,000. Not in net worth, in one year. How did they do it? Not by really adding value to the economy -- but by taking advantage of market imperfections and looming disaster, most obviously in the case of John Paulson, who made a fortune on CDOs and other instruments betting against bad mortgages. The top 100 earners had a combined take of $30 billion, or $300 million each (on average). The sum pales in comparison to how it was made though, as many with poor performance still pull in their 2 percent management fee and 20 percent on anything they make. That's the base, though, some charge as much as 5-44 (SAC Capital's Steven Cohn). But even former cab driver Bruce Kovner (who manages $12 billion), made $200 million for a flat performance. Infamous Liar's Poker star John Meriwether made $100 million for making 0%. The point is that these men add little to the economy, in fact leading the economy toward disaster as they control over $2 trillion in assets. Wall Street is a necessary evil that provides money to companies to grow, while helping scoot those who fail out of the market all together. The men in charge need to be well-paid to do their jobs well, ensuring the market functions properly. Yet it has been clear for some time that their added value, outside their personal wealth, has been going down for some time. Is taxing those who make obscene salaries really going to destroy the economy? Is regulating them so their are limitations on what they can accomplish really going to destroy America? As I've written about before, a society that disavows the relationship between success and performance stands in great danger of selling itself out, just as Peter Max seemed to do a long time ago. Art reflects life here in a way that should give us pause.

Media Malaise

The Sherrod story shows the nature of a news cycle that, unlike say the Watergate scandal, does not wait for anything pesky like fact checking or even an interview with the person being charged. Instead the instantaneous nature of news today ensures that we will act first and then ask questions later. It highlights the major problems and potential advantages of media today. The first thing to say is the power of bloggers to actually influence policy, something that should theoretically lead to a stronger democracy where we do not have to count on the mainstream media to dominate the political discourse. On the other hand, it continues to show how effective conservative media personalities are at scewing the news and dominating the "liberal press" through scare campaigns, emotionally charged reporting, the spreading of half-truths and outright lies and by framing debates in their own terms. In a broader sense, it highlights the problems with the mainstream media today. As their staffs are cut, the profit motive comes to increasingly dominate decisions on what and how they present news and the elite nature of the top institutions moves further away from the muckrackers of yore, the major outlets in both print and on television have increasingly followed the model of Fox News and its many offshoots. Rather than actually fact-check, they just report what is said by others and hope for the best. Given that so many of these others are ideologically-infused in their reporting, they fall prey to the charge that he said-she said coverage merely gives credence to whoever speaks the loudest. And conservatives will probably always win this game. The media still has the power to serve as the fourth estate of government, checking the power of the elites inside and outside government. But they must go beyond the surface and discourses of the two parties and more radical fringe to actually report what is true and untrue in ongoing debates. This is particularly true regarding the question of race, where we continue to debate the absurd notion of "reverse racism" much more than we look at the actual numbers, which show lower wages and wealth, higher unemployment, lower academic achievement (in schools that are quantitatively and qualitatively worse in significant ways), lower life expectancy and a whole host of indicators that show that Blacks in America are not given an equal opportunity to succeed in a country that prides itself on the promises of the "American Dream." What's possibly the most surprisingly is how little soul searching appears to be occurring within the ranks of the mainstream media, who seem to be more interested in maintaining their withering power to frame the debate.

Will She Stay or Will She Go

The right wing looney tunes are at it again, and the administration seemed to be listening to them this time -- at least the head of the USDA. After firing Shirley Sherrod for reverse racism, the head of the department is backpeddaling, realizing he is the latest victim of the "spin zone." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/20/AR2010072006158_pf.html). Apparently a video that showed her admitting "reverse racism" at a recent NACACP event turned out to be cleverly recut to eliminate important details, including the fact she later helped the white farmers she oringinally spurned and that the event took place years ago. On top of this, it appears that she is still friends with the family. The head of the USDA and White House have now offered her her job back and openly apologizized, arguing they acted rashly in their fast-paced discussion of Sherrod's speech. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said mistakes were made because of a "frenzied culture where everything happens so quickly." (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/21/AR2010072104191.html?hpid=topnews). What's fascinating about the story is both how conservatives continue to dominate the race debate in America today and the fact that reverse racism is always big news while rampant racism, often among these same conservatives, too often goes unreported. Is a reasonable debate on race possible in contemporary politics? Events since the election of the first Black president make the answer appear less sanguine than we might have dreamed in 2008.

Race to the Bottom

One of the most commonly agreed upon elements in academic success for k-12 students in class size. Smaller classes lead to better outcomes for students for a number of reasons. Among these is the ability of teachers to get to know their students, work with them individually and offer extra help to those in need. Smaller classes also allow for more skill level variation and even better planning of heterogenous groupings. Smaller classes often allow good teachers to create "communities of learning" where students and teachers work collectively to ensure success for all. Fewer students fall through the cracks. Yet cash strapped cities and states continue to cut funding to schools, and recently have instituted major layoffs in most major metropolitan areas in the U.S. What is the cost? The future of too many children and ultimately the ability of these students and the country as a whole to compete in the global economy. We are essentially holding our future hostage to the interests of corporations and a party that never saw a progressive tax they didn't want to reduce and flatten. Can we as a society really afford to allow this trend to continue? Can we allow the continued dumbing down of America, exacerbated by popular culture and its celebration of stupidity? Can we really throw away the future of so many children? As Congress continues to be bogged down in a disfunctional abyss, the calls for increased funding for education to states goes largely unheeded: http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2010-07-12-duncan-school-funding_N.htm. One wonders how long bad policy will continue to dominate educational policy, and at what cost.                                           

Racism Rampant in Tea Party Ranks

A few months ago a poll came out that showed those in the Tea Party were disproportionately white, older, more affluent and held more radical views regarding race in America than the public at large. Now another of their leaders has fallen, after it became clear that his racism went a little over a line they often feel comfortable crossing. Mark Williams, a conservative radio talk show host and spokesman for the Tea Party Express, who earlier this week called the NAACP a racist organization, has been expelled from the group after a "satirical" letter included calling slavery a "great gig." The letter started as follows:

"Dear Mr. Lincoln, We Coloreds have taken a vote and decided that we don't cotton to that whole emancipation thing. Freedom means having to work for real, think for ourselves, and take consequences along with the rewards. That is just far too much to ask of us Colored People and we demand that it stop!" (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38299783/ns/politics)

Williams has also reportedly called President Obama an "Indonesian Muslim turned welfare thug." Beyond the obvious question of what exactly a "welfare thug" is, is the increasing ugliness of the American right today. In their bid to keep America white and Christian, they have mercilously attacked the President, Pelosi, "illegal immigrants," gays and have now moved on to relatively overt attacks on Blacks we hoped had gone the way of the Jim Crow laws almost 50 years ago. It is becoming increasingly clear that the party of no is willing to employ these racist extremists in their bid to regain power, with the assumption that they can then reign in the "out of control government" that they really built over the past 40 years in power (with the help of their economic surrogate Bill Clinton). Corporations and banks are laughing all the way to the, well, polls I guess. Hate has always been one of the great motivators, and together with fear again defines essentially all the party stands for today. I have never been a fan of the Netroots and their "win at any cost using the strategies of conservatives against them" but I think if Dems are to rescue themselves in the mid-term election, they might have to get a little muddy. Let's hope their not afraid of a little dirt.

P.S. In a rather fitting postscript, I looked down at my counter just now and saw that this post comes as my counter hits 666.

Obama Gets Some Balls

Obama is speaking up about Republican obstructivism, trying to reframe the nature of politics today. Will it work? One of the problems Democrats have faced for years is framing the debate in a way that resonates with a tone deaf America. Global warming, the war in Iraq, somehow being responsible for the financial crisis and oil spill in the Gulf, a vote for change that doesn't want change. Democrats think reason can win the war of words, but it is emotion that wins elections in America. Axelrod and Obama recognized this and used his oratory skills to get people in America back toward reason. The only way they can win this battle is to again find the words and tone that awaken that old desire for change. They must break through the cynicism that infects the country and makes change all but impossible. Will speeches like this do the job? I'm a little cynical on the prospects (actually pessimistic) . . .

Filibuster Follies

Republicans continue to play the "make changes and we won't support the bill anyway," as the Disclosure Bill now seems destined for a premature death: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/14/dems-see-hope-without-bro_n_646654.html. The party was courting Scott Brown to again defect and support a sensible bill, to at least partially offset the terrible Campaign Finance decision from the Supreme Court, but he appears to have decided against supporting the bill. This follows a strategy that they hope to take to election glory in November, undermining economic recovery, financial regulation, environmental policy, judge nominations and anything else that might help democrats hold the line in the midterm elections. But what is the cost to the country? Continued unemployment, the real risk of falling back into recession, or if we are to believe Krugman depression, more foreclosures (already over 1,000,000 this year), families that fall into disarray and dissolve under acute financial distress and failure to deal with problems across the social and political landscape. They are still blocking unemployment benefit extensions and are calling for, you guessed it, more tax cuts for the rich (who, by the way, can now spend as much as they want through corporations to make sure the cuts keep coming). The idea of American democracy was to create a balance and separation of powers to ensure that tyranny never returned to America. Republicans have confused this with having a weak Federal government that can't do anything -- except support the interests of corporations and the wealthy. That was not what our forefathers had in mind. Representative democracy depends on the representatives actually representing the interests of their constituencies. Not merely the most powerful members of their constituency, but the will of the majority and the interests of all, including those who lack a voice and those suffering under the tyranny of that majority. It is time for democracy to fight back and reclaim its most important function, beyond protecting the population, which is to cultivate and support the common good.  

Kids will be Kids

. . . and rioters too. Riots throughout Belfast the past three nights have included kids as young as 9 years old, fighting for the nationalists against the loyalists and police. The pre-teens have been seen by a priest throwing rocks at police, "Recreational rioting is the term that's used, but it was a bit like a Euro Disney theme park for rioting. It was ludicrous." Recreational rioting? Even more troubling, young girls are lining up on the streets in their best dresses to watch along and then, when the young rioters go home, they are posting pictures on Facebook or videos on You Tube (http://slatest.slate.com/id/2260550/?wpisrc=newsletter). While the nationalists see it as a proud moment in their long-running struggle for independence, the President was less sanguine, and one wonders what will happen if one of these young tikes is actually hurt. Technology brings these moments to us in a way that the press often refuses to, but one wonders if some aren't on the streets just to add to their online constructed identities.

Fucking Hell!

This message is brought to you by the New York Federal Appeals court that just struck down the 2003 obscenity policy of the FCC: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/posttech/2010/07/court_strikes_down_fcc_indecen.html. Citing the irreperable harm that the law imposes on the first amendment and free speech and press, the court decided that obscenity will, in some cases, be allowed. It is a record decision for those of us that think swearing is just a part of life. The victory was one for Fox, CBS and ABC who argued fleeting expletives are impossible to control, and the law thus "arbitrary and capricious." It was also a win for Bono, who upon winning the Golden Globe said, ""This is really, really [expletive] brilliant. Really, really, great." (the irony is that the Washington Post actually dropped the "f-bomb" in the piece). So, while people can now swear by mistake during live broadcasts, we still have to live with the absurd hypocrisy of allowing violence on television and constant hints of sexuality, while making nudity and swearing verboten. Fuck all.

McCain Completing Faustian Deal

The devil is in the details, they say. Who "they" are is often unclear, but that's besides the point. It appears John McCain still owes Beezelbub for his Republican presidential nomination in 2008, even as he lost the election. Since then, he has moved even further to the right, paying off the contract by turning against immigrants, gays in the military, climate control legislation and Elena Kagan. He even went as far as claiming he was never a "renegade," a center point of his political career until he became Bush's best friend. It is hard for many ex-supporters to believe this is the same Senator who once supported campaign finance reform, opposed Bush's tax cuts, argued against torture and denounced Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson as "agents of intolerance." Satan was unavailable for comment, but clues abound that he has signed McCain up for active duty. It is also rumored that Dick Cheney, a key spokesman for the Dark Prince, will campaign for the Senator in his primary battle in Arizona.

Limbaugh Sells NYC Condo, New Yorkers Say Good Riddance!

Rush Limbaugh has sold the Upper East Side condo he has owned since 1994, fulfilling a promise he made last year after complaining about tax increases in the city: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100712/bs_yblog_upshot/limbaugh-sells-nyc-digs-for-11-5-million. The ever magmanimous Limbaugh claimed that he only comes to the city to escape hurricanes in his home state of Florida or to visit his "overrated" staff. It sounds like working for Limbaugh is even more unbearable than listening to the blowhard, drug addict, Clinton-obsessed conservative talk show host. Sensible New Yorkers rejoiced at the exodus of the fat cat Republican cheerleader. The article notes that Rush had also claimed he would escape to Costa Rico if healthcare reform passes. Let's hope he keeps that promsie as well.

The "Beautiful" Game

So the World Cup is over and Spain has won, playing sometimes lovely football, though their finishing skills have been suspect throughout. But the final ended on an up note with a beautiful goal my Iniesta, just as it looked like penalty kicks would again decide the most important sports tournament in the world. Immediate reaction from the press and fans was that the Netherlands played an ugly game, fouling relentlessly, attacking causiously and infrequently and turning a much anticipated game into a rather dull and brutish spectacle. But the Dutch's initial response to their play was to say, who cares? They feel winning at any cost trumps the "silly" calls for making the game engaging. "I'm a little sick of that entire discussion," standout goalkeeper Maarten Stekelenburg said after rolling his eyes when asked about his team's opting for wins over beauty. "It's really just about results at a tournament like this. You can play beautifully and … then you get bounced in the first knockout phase. We made the final. So beautiful soccer you can set on fire for all I care."

This might make sense to many -- particularly in America, where winning is everything. But missing is a rather obvious counterpoint: the reason so many people are interested in the game is more the style of play than the wins alone. Winning at any cost often comes at the expense of those very fans -- who, by the way, indirectly pay the salaries of the superstars, and everyone else on the pitch. It is probably true that no other sport puts such a premium on victory for teams, with fights or deaths occasionally following losses (or wins for that matter). But as someone who loves the beautiful game, I think the game should be played beautifully. The ghost dives (Cristiano Ronaldo was the worst this cup), the hard, unnecessary fouls, the rather cynical, though understandable hand ball by Sanchez, constant arguing with referees (though often completely understable in this year's cup) and stacking on the defensive end, simply looking for counterattacks, really cheapen the game. I understand the desire to win, particularly when so much is at stake, but watching the rather meaningless third-place game between Uruguay and Germany, or most premier club matches in Spain and England, show us what is possible and I can only hope that Spain's win (and Brazil's early exit with a more defensive style than I ever remember) will make teams consider that their defensive strategies don't really pay off in the end. Viva Espana!

Republican Chasms

Two things that have defined the Republican Party since their rise to power in the early 80s, are a disciplned union and consistency of message. As popular discontent with Obama rose, Republicans saw an opportunity to quickly turn the tide after four years of Democratic rule. Yet as their moment arrives, the radical elements of the party led by Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin is causing dramatic internal strife, challenging their greatest strengths. That pressure is starting to show, as Steele continues his self-destructive behavior, many Americans begin to show hate and fear fatigue and they might lose an easy win in Nevada and many other races based on the "populist" uprising of the Tea Party. Two representatives have stepped into the fray, contemplating the chasm within.

Rep. Bob Inglis (R-SC), who lost a primary race last month, has come out arguing the party is "acquiescing to a poisonous demagoguery that threatens their long term credibility." (http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/07/09/inglis_says_gop_leaders_let_demagogues_set_tone.html).

And Senator Bob Bennet (R-NV) compalined about losses the party might suffer at the hand of extremists, including in his home state of Nevada -- as Sharron Angle seems to put her foot in her mouth almost every time she speaks, most recently with the turning lemons into lemonaid comment about 13-year old girls raped by their fathers: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/08/sharron-angles-advice-for_n_639294.html.

The party of fear might have to start fearing all the fear they are spreading, including "death panels," the notion that fighting global warming will somehow destroy America (apparently by limiting oil spills, reducing our dependence on the Middle East and making sure childhood cases of asthma continue to rise), the idea that any tax increase is bad (sales of third homes in Europe could go down) and that regulation will destroy corporate America (by reducing pollution, on the job injuries and premature death). Radicalism generally has a short shelf life in American politics and it is possible that the fiscal conservatives use of social conservatives might continue to backfire, as it largely has since 2006.

Defense of Marriage Act Unconstitutional

Good news should be reported, and social justice advocates got a positive ruling from the courts today. A federal court in Boston argued that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, under the equal protection clause of the constitution: http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2010/07/judge_declares_3.html. Judge Joseph L. Tauro used the history of marriage laws that go back before the revolution to argue, "This court has determined that it is clearly within the authority of the Commonwealth to recognize same-sex marriages among its residents, and to afford those individuals in same-sex marriages any benefits, rights, and privileges to which they are entitled by virtue of their marital status," Tauro wrote. "The federal government, by enacting and enforcing DOMA, plainly encroaches upon the firmly entrenched province of the state."

While the tyranny of the majority have weighed in heavily on this issue for several years, the courts have the power to turn the tide, arguing that the 14th amendment extends to marriage rights and that everyone should have equal rights to this legal institution that has defined society for most of civilized human history; and the 10th amendment prevents the national government from intervening on this issue. Conservatives will probably argue that an activist judge has overstepped his bounds and that marriage in America is now in jeopardy, but the first argument seems to fail under the scrutiny of the very documents they hold so dear (the constitution and declaration of independence) and the second has always seemed disengenous to me. Let's hope all soon have the right to get married.

The Russians are Going, the Russians are Going

So the inept spies that made Boris and Natasha seem like geniuses are on their way home: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/08/AR2010070803476.html?hpid=topnews. Newspapers and comedians across the country are mourning. Among them, now infamous Daily Show contributor Olivia Munn: http://www.oliviamunn.com/, who has gained notoriety for posing in Playboy and Maxim (in neither case nude) and for being an attractive comedian, from what I can gather. The feminist site Jezebel (http://jezebel.com/5570545/comedy-of-errors-behind-the-scenes-of-the--daily-shows-lady-problem) has turned this into a hubub about the boy's club nature of comedy and the Daily Show, though seemingly annoyed as much by Munn's attractiveness as the lack of female contributors to the show. In other news, women complain that they are underrepresented in the NBA and PGA. Oh wait . . .

Technophilia High

Two interesting articles today highlight the ways technology continues to infiltrate every aspect of our lives -- for good and bad. The first explores a new project form Central Florida's College of Education to use avatar-infused instruction to get future teachers "teaching" in the classroom: http://mashable.com/2010/07/07/oxygen-facebook-study/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29&utm_content=Google+Reader. Essentially the program creates a series of avatars linked to one or more real people that then interact with the teacher trainee who is in a separate room with a projector screen seeing these avatars in action. Some elements of the virtual classroom are automated, but the real life actors are used to make the simulation more realistic. The question to me, then becomes why use the technology at all, but I digress.

The second article relates to young women 18 to 34 who are increasingly becoming addicted to Facebook and other social networking sites, even logging on before they hit the bathroom or eat breakfast upon waking up in the morning: http://mashable.com/2010/07/07/oxygen-facebook-study/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Mashable+%28Mashable%29&utm_content=Google+Reader. The study from Oxygen Media and Lightspeed Research (of 1,600 adults over a two-month period) found that 57% of women talk online more than face to face, that 39% declare themselves addicted to Facebook and many check it in the middle of the night. As one researcher reports, "Our habits are changing due to social media technology, particularly Facebook. It's not just a connection tool for many women, but a research tool, a dating network, and a way to keep tabs on both boyfriends and enemies."

I know I have mentioned this before, but Marshall McLuhan once argued that after a period of negotiation with a new technology, we start to be defined by it as much as we define its use. It is not that this exists in stasis, as people change with technology and then change technology and readapt it to new uses or stop using it over time. Ultimately, we are conditioned but not determined. Yet it is clear that repetition and daily usage of technology change patterns of quotidian life in profound ways. Some do not succumb to the allure of a new technology, but many more do and it alters the nature of our lives. The question to ask is whether the time spent on Facebook is really productive. Sure maybe you can find someone to date there, but spying on boyfriends, friends and enemies, keeping the world updated on your daily activities or playing with their growing list of interesting but largely useless apps simply wastes time, doesn't it? In a deeper sense, what troubles me the most is the thought that we have created a generation of youth who assume that they should be engaged (or entertained) in every waking second of their lives. Lost then would be time to actually contemplate those lives, to use boredom as the fount to search out a hobby or interest, to read a book or, gasp, to think creatively about the world we live in and how to improve it. Of course, I type this online . . .

Technology Gone Crazy!

In the 20th century, the idea that technological advancement and progress were synonymous became the norm. While many challenged this claim (including Max Weber (instrumental rationality), Critical Theoriest like Adorno and Horkheimer (Dialectics of Enlightenment) and Deleuze and Guattari (indirectly, with the idea of the body without organs and desiring machines)), the majority of people appeared to assume that the flatter and better picture we get from the television, the smaller and cooler the phone, the better musical quality (even though most ears can't discern those differences), etc. always meant an improvement in quality of life. After World War II, and the death camps, fire bombing of Dresden and flight of the Enola Gay, led many to start questioning the logic of technology and science always pushing humans forward, yet positivism soon became the norm in the United States and few outside academia questioned the notion (except, of course, the countercultural 60s hippies).

In any case, since the 80s, most have come to fully embrace the connection between technology and quality of life. While the aging populations always decry the breakdown of the family or community, kids keep on embracing new technology with vigor, and even those old curmudgeons end up with Facebook pages and texting their way through a movie or lunch date. Yet what is happening with technology today? Beyond the oil spill in the Gulf, we have Toyota with seemingly endless recalls (http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/jul/02/toyota-lexus-recall), Dell knowingly selling faulty computers (http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/2010/06/29/dell-sold-11-8m-computers-that-were-doomed-to-fail-did-company-try-to-hide-the-problem/), Apple launching the new I-Phone before its ready (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704898504575342663977842890.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories) and "smart bombs" that never seemed to have as high an IQ as we pretend. Could a neoLuddhite movement be in the offing?

Even Republicans Are Wondering . . .

what the hell the party stands for; at least according to outgoing Utah Republican Senator Bob Bennett. Quoting Talking Points Memo from a speech he gave to the Ripon Society, his words speak for themselves:

"The pendulum will swing. And we will take control of the House—I think that's going to happen—and frankly, with the death of Robert Byrd there's a chance we will take control of the Senate as well," he said. But he said Republicans' emphasis on ideological fidelity over innovative thinking will hamper their ability to accomplish anything of substance. "As I look out at the political landscape now, I find plenty of slogans on the Republican side, but not very many ideas," Bennett said. "And indeed, if you raise specific ideas and solutions, as I tried to do on health care with Ron Wyden, you are attacked with the same vigor as we've seen in American politics all the way back to the arguments over slavery and polygamy. You are attacked as being a wimp, insufficiently pure, and unreliable." That sort of savagery may help an out-of-party win elections, but it won't help them govern after they're in office. Once you win, Bennett says, "it's 'thank you for the slogans' and 'thank you for the election.' But in the immortal words of Robert Redford in the movie, The Candidate, 'What do we do now?' .

Kicking the Kennedys

Shooting has just begun on a new History Channel miniseries based on the Kennedys. The eight-hour project has already stirred up some controversy, as it apparently looks deep into the making of the family warts-and-all. "The Kennedys" is being produced by "24" creater Joel Surnow, who is a well-known conservative. The History Channel has always been an ideological channel, tending to offer conservative perspectives while feigning the imprimatur of "objectivity." But this seems a little ridiculous -- particularly the timing right soon after Edward's death. Next up, maybe they can do a recounting of the Clinton presidency by Rush Limbaugh and Richard Mellon Scaife. Or maybe a reexploration of FDR and the New Deal by Sean Hanity and Thomas Sewell. Or maybe they should just merge with Fox News . . .

Depression Redux?

An important op ed from Paul Krugman on Sunday suggested that we may be on the road to a depression: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/28/opinion/28krugman.html?ref=general&src=me&pagewanted=print. While the worst of the current financial crisis appears to be behind us, we still have historically high long term unemployment, rising debt and seem to be heading toward an austerity program when it is clear we need to further stimulate the economy instead. As Krugman argues, "In the face of this grim picture, you might have expected policy makers to realize that they haven’t yet done enough to promote recovery. But no: over the last few months there has been a stunning resurgence of hard-money and balanced-budget orthodoxy." To return to a rather obvious point, "if we do not learn from history, we are bound to repeat it." What appears to be happening at present is repeating the mistakes of Herbert Hoover and the other liberal, laissez-faire politicians and economists of the 20s and early 30s. Rather than heeding the clarion call of looming catastrophe, we are adhering to tired, orthodoxy led by neoliberal economists and politicians who refuse to admit they are wrong.

Lest us forget, these are the same economists that all but destroyed the Russian economy (before it stopped listening and recovered), that created the Asian Financial Crisis, whose policies have severely damaged Argentina and other countries in South America and Africa (where poverty is higher today than it was 30 years ago), who can be blamed for the S&L crisis, the two Stock Market collapses and the financial crisis of 2007. But we just keep listening, with a tone deafness that would be extraordinary if it didn't mean that millions in the Europe and the U.S. and billions across the globe were not about to suffer under the absurdity of the choice. It's as if world leaders across the developed world have completely lost their minds and their collective blind faith in markets renders them incapacitated to be reasonable. If we don't start listening to sensible voice, like Krugman (and Obama to some extent), we are headed toward the slow, steady and irreversible decline of not only the United States, but probably the entire West. While some might cheer that decline, I hope someone comes to their senses before it is too late . . .

Conservative, Non-Partisans Unite!

I write often here about the rhetorical strategies and tautologies conservatives use and the general tenor of conservative discourse. Today, I was looking up Mike Huckabee corruption charges as the New Yorker has a piece on him this week and many polls are now showing him as the early Republican favorite (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/105747-huckabee-says-hes-best-republican-to-take-on-obama-in-2012). Arkansas News' John Brummett's reading of the New Yorker piece is that it "was mostly flattering and favorable, devoting far more words to the good side -- the independent thought and interest-generating unpredictability, the communication and quipster skills -- than to the bad, meaning the huffiness, ethical shortcomings, bad judgment on commutations and paroles, and the occasional meanness or poor taste or hyperbole of those quips," So I thought I would check out some of these corruption charges.

This led me to a site, http://www.judicialwatch.org/, that had a list of their "Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicans." Ironically, during a period when one Republican after another is being charged with corruption charges of one kind or another, their lists always contain 8 to 10 democrats, including President Obama, Barney Frank, Nancy Pelosi and, of course, Hillary Clinton for two of the past three years. In 2007, the list included Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani and Larry Craig, as well as I. Lewis Libby. Funny that two were potential Republican candidates that conservatives don't like. After reading the list, I moved on to other articles, recognizing that this was a far right group that sent out press releases and had an official looking site that tried to give it the imprimatur of authenticity.

I finished by going to the "About Us" page, to learn more. And here, in the first paragraph, was an interesting distinction: "Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law." They go on to talk about educating the American people and conservatives about corruption and how to use the law and Freedom of Information Act (which the Bush administration abhored), to serve their cause. But I'd like to focus for a moment on the "conservative, non-partisan" nature of the organization. Is this an oxymoron? Actually it isn't, as one can be a conservative (like many Tea Party members, who they seem to support), without aligning themselves with one party of the other. However, I do think it is disingenuous with these groups, that might want to push the Republican party further to the right, but relentlessly attack anything and everything liberals do. What does non-partisan really mean in a country where most conservatives reject everything liberal and most liberals everything conservative?

On a final note, Huckabee did take the opportunity of his interview (for the station he works for, one might add) to laud Jeb Bush as one of the smartest Republicans in politics today. Could we have a third round of Bushies in the White House? I hope the American people are smart enough to remember the wars, the economic decline, the increased deficits and the verbal gymnastics that those 12 years brought us. Please, remember . . .

The Thankless Ones

There can be no more thankless job in the world than umpiring/referring big time sports (college and professional). When you do a good job, there is little praise -- and often these days, a series of prima donnas like Kobe Bryant and Derrick Fischer that berate you endlessly anyway. When you make a mistake, the fans scream at you, the television play the error over and over again (sometimes for days) with the benefit of multiple angles and slow motion, and you might even get death threats.

But something has to be said about how bad the referring has been in the World Cup. The second game of the tournament led some to believe it mght be the opposite, after a clever offsides call turned out to be right (the second defender rule that most of us never think about because of the goalie). In any case, since then we have seen one bad call after another. Obviously are the two terrible calls against the United States, who still advanced and won the Group (the first infamous ghost foul by the U.S. against Slovenia, the other now forgotten bad offsides call on a goal by Demsey against Algeria). But there were also several questionable reds including against Australia's Tim Cahill and Germany's star Klose, as well as against Nigeria in a game that probably kept them from advancing. There was a ridiculous double hand ball goal by Brazil against Ivory Coast, the flop by De Rossi in Italy v. New Zealand that led to a tying penalty and countless other minor offenses.

Now we enter the elimination round where these errors can be profound. And while the missed hand ball by a South Korean defender yesterday turned out not to matter, both games today were changed by terrible calls. In the England game, a strike by Lampart was clearly in the goal but missed by all the referees. The goal would have equalized the game in the first half and probably made for a must better second half. While Germany ultimately won 4-1, the last two were on breakaways that probably wouldn't have happened but for the necessity of England pushing for the equalizer. Now in Argentina versus Mexico, the refs miss one of the more obvious offsides calls I've ever seen. Argentina probably would have won anyway, but the truth is Mexico was looking good until that point and you never know.

Hockey was smart enough to introduce goal line technology a few years ago to eliminate errors of this nature. It is time for FIFA to join the times and do so as well. At minimum, they need to use replay for the goal line, maybe for offsides and potentially for terrible calls on goals like the two disqualified U.S. goals and the missed offsides that gave Argentina 1-0. Otherwise we will continue to see blown calls like this that arguably decide games. I still think the worst call in the history of sports happened at the 1988 Olympics, when Roy Jones lost one of the most lopsided victories in boxing history (to a South Korean boxer in South Korea); though the infamous ending to the 1972 basketball gold game is close. In football, the "hand of god" goal by Maradona probably takes the cake, though they might disagree in any given English pub tonight.

Ignorance Wins Again and Again

There was a wonderful post in Talking Points Memo a couple of days ago, which you can read here: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/24/republicans_are_undercutting_national_economic_rec/. In it, Theda Skocpol makes the point that Republicans have a tendency to engage in reckless economic behavior (tax cuts, deficit spending) then pass off the torch to Democrats. Afterwards, they ensure that no real stimulus goes through then blame the problems on Dems and run against their own policies. It's happening again, of course, and seems as if it will be very effective this time. What bothers me the most, beside the fact they are messing with the lives of the un- and marginally employed, is the reality that if Americans just read the paper or paid any attention, they would know the truth. Instead, as Jefferson once warned, we end up believing in what never was and never will be -- a country where citizens can be both ignorant and free.

Another Obama Failure?

It will be interesting to see how conservatives will spin what many might call another Obama/Democratic Congress success -- the passage of financial reform: http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/here-are-the-key-points-you-need-to-know-about-todays-big-financial-regulation-agreement.php. If the new plaform from Texas Republicans is any indication, it should be even more absurd then the silliness we've been hearing the past couple of years: http://politicalcorrection.org/blog/201006210004. Among their recommendations:

- Reinstating anti-sodomy laws
- Dropping out of UN and ending all foreign relationships
- Eliminating federal taxes and the IRS to replace with a national sales tax (progressive to regressive and oddly anti-federalist)
- Removal of tenure in colleges and universities (so we can fire them liberal professors)
- Overturn the minimum wage (why pay people enough to live; that's unAmerican!)
- Repeal of hate crime legislation (apparently they like hate crimes in Texas)
- End Head Start (one of the more effective anti-poverty initiatives)
- Elimination of the US DOE and rescinding of NCLB (wow, I agree with one!)

Hollywood and the Marketing/Quality Conundrum

The following quote from A.O. Scott's New York Times review of Knight and Day perfectly captures the problem with Hollywood today:

"Ms. Diaz is June Havens, a collection of alternately appealing and exasperating traits thrown together to satisfy market research data suggesting that audiences go for women who are tough but not aggressive, flaky but not nuts, sexy but not actually having sex, and willing to fall for a certain kind of guy without entirely losing their heads" (http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/06/23/movies/23knight.html?nl=movies&emc=mua1).

It is not that films shouldn't be made to appeal to audiences, per se, but the fact that these decisions are at the heart of the Hollywood model. Rather than making quality films that will sell themselves, the marketers seem to be brought into the process too early, thus underming the artistic process itself. Art then succumbs to the dictates of the market, much as appears to be the case with publishing and popular music today (though to be fair, I have read several good novels this year).

But Hollywood has always been like this, right? I assume this is the response many would have to this argument. I would say not always. Certainly not in the early days, not in the 60s heyday and not when the studio system collapsed in the early 70s and the great American auteurs took over the business. Unfortunately, one of those auteurs became the doppelganger of the future -- making the sequel into a Hollywood norm (and not stopping at 2), reintroducing product placement in a big way and creating the notion of the blockbuster that has increasingly driven the business in recent years. His name, of course, is Steven Spielberg. While many of his films are great, I really do think we have to look at him as the leader of a movement that took his ideas and translated them without his talent for narrative and character development (though he has done several clunkers himself).

The main problem appears to be that marketing trumps content today. The key questions seem to be: Can we make a compelling 90 second trailer? What stars and directors will bring in the big audiences? How can we get women to action films, men to romantic comedies and/or old men to any film not starring Clint Eastwood (the only guy who seems to consistently make good films in the mainstream today)? Lost is the art of a good script, coherent character development and a push toward technique over artistry. One can see this most clearly in Avatar, which lacked a truly compelling narrative, but amazed with its visual effects. Film has always comprised both elements, but I think the true geniuses bring them both together. Hollywood has fallen prey to the lowest common denominator perspective and it shows up in everything they make, thus forcing good films to the art house or abroad.

Like many things in America today, what worries me the most is the distance between quality and success. In sports, quality still wins most of the time (except when the referees get involved), but in most other popular culture, hype, money and effective marketing have stolen the reigns from those artists still interested in making good films with the big studios. Hopefully, the trend will change, but this appears to be one of the worst years in film I can remember.

First Free Speech, Now Free Reign?

Corporate executives got more good news from the Supreme Court yesterday, as a suit brought by ethically-challenged Jeffrey Skilling of Enron fame and, less well-known, former media mogul Conrad Black might lead to the overturning of a number of convictions based on the "honest service" corruption statute (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704911704575326644174012942.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories). One might find it understandable that corporate leaders would have a hard time discerning between criminal and lawful behavior, particularly in the current milieu of winning at all costs, and the Supreme court followed this logic, basing their decision on the ambiguity of "legal" behavior in corporate America today. Apparently, the confusion violates the 5th amendment, which states that due process requires knowledge of what is right and wrong. One wonders if Hitler might have gotten off if he had lived and was tried by the Supreme Court today. On a more serious note, if what Enron did to shareholders, employees, the people of California and countless other victims doesn't count as crime, I think it is time to seriously consider what ethics really means and how to reform civil and criminal codes to deal with corporate malfeasance in a real way.

And Now For Something Kind of Different . . .

I usually allow this blog to sort of follow the news of the day, but I think it is time to ask a broader question that doesn't relate to any news coming out today or this week. Do Republicans want to destroy the country? I have thought this on and off for some time, but for all their rhetorical posturing about this or that legislation leading toward the destruction of America, their words and actions actually tend to be oriented predominantly toward that end. Let's take a look at a few of the general themes in recent years . . .

1) Environment: whether you believe in global warming or not, it is clear that ending our addiction to oil would be good for this country on a number of fronts. These include a) allowing us to get out of the middle east, b) reducing pollution in the country, which could help alleviate alarming asthma rates, c) help us become competitive in the emerging alternative energy industry and d) reduce the chances of another oil spill devastation. But conservatives like to talk of a "global warming" conspiracy bound to make bankers rich and scientist . . .what exactly? The only scientists really benefiting from the debates appear to be those paid by oil companies to refute the claims of nobel prize winners.

2) Regulation: conservatives consistently argue against regulation, even after the financial crisis that was clearly a result of lack of regulation (not their conspiracy theory Community Reinvestment Act narrative). Some of these regulations are to protect consumers, many protect workers and some even protect their own children. But the party of corporations seems to have little concern for the future of their children, grandchildren or the country they claim to love.

3) Healthcare reform: I have written about this before, but beyond the looming retirement of an increasing proportion of the baby boomers is the troubling trend in the U.S. toward spending more and more of our GDP on healthcare expenditures. We pay more for drugs than our neighbors to the North and South, live shorter lives than most industrialized countries, and have a system in disarray. But their doomsday predictions lead them to argue against any change at all.

4) Income Disparity/Social Services: Republicans answer to everything is tax cuts. When times are bad, cut taxes (even though government deficit spending has a higher multiplier, which means stimulates the economy more) and when times are good, cut taxes (even though the Laffer curve turned out to be laughable). The rich are getting richer and the poor poorer, but somehow many conservatives have convinced the public that taxes are akin to socialism and that the deficit is much more important than poverty and our collective economic future. By the way, it was mainly republicans who supported the diminition of Americas manufacturing base, which has turned out to be a very bad idea (countries like Japan and Germany that kep theirs seem much better off).

5) Education: the No Child Left Behind started as a bipartisan bill, but though Obama seems unwilling to make any radical changes to its central tenets, it is clear that it is actually leaving many more children behind and lowering standards and expectations in too many public schools today. Stupidity and historical amnesia have served the Republican party for a long time and there program for limiting the knowledge and information available to the public appears to be paying dividends. But what of our future, as an increasing proportion of public school children are black, Latinos and immigrants who are receiving substandard access and opportunities.

6) "Activist" Judges: Conservatives have been decrying liberal judges "activist" tendencies for years. Yet it is really conservative judges that have been the most effective at actually changing public policy since the 60s. Conservative judges have essentially ended Brown vs. Board of Education and overturned the spirit of the 64 Civil Rights Act without any fanfare (in addition to ending most affirmative action in the country -- while conservative politicians and personalities continue to decry a "reverse racism" that seems as fictitious as is supply side economics). It was a conservative court that gave the presidency to Bush 10 years ago, that just gave corporations full citizenship and carte blanche to fully buy the federal and state governments, that told colleges they can't use race as a factor in admissions decisions (except Michigan Law school). that severely limited women's power over their own bodies, etc. The party of freedom appears intent on taking away our freedom.

In the end, the lack of the concern for the average citizens among many conservatives might rightfully be labeled "reckless endangerment." Yet they are likely to gain seats in November. And the music fades.

The "Basketball" Set

The match that wouldn't end finally did, after three days and 11 hours and 5 minutes on court, with a 70-68 final set victory for American John Isner over Frenchman Nicholas Mahut. In this nonpareil moment, the loser was an equal winner (held serve 65 times with the match on the line), the club honored both players and a first round match between a qualifier and a young American became a classic -- the longest match in history, with the most points, the most aces (individual and collective) and the most winners. The moment leaves us with indelible hints of the human spirit as the largely cynical world beyond seems to learn little from the continuing financial crisis, an unprecedented oil spill in the Gulf, ongoing wars and the mounting human costs of neoliberal economic policy and unfettered corporate hegemony. Wimbeldon and the World Cup give us these sublime moments the world so infrequently offers, from a last second U.S. win, to the two finalists thrust out of the cup in the group stage, to a huge first round comeback from Roger Federer, to the goals that we marvel at from Brazil and Portugal to a match that started on a quiet Court 18 and ended with a media frenzy on that same 750-person court two days later. This is the beauty of sport, to offer respite from a world where just today . . .

- BP is going forward with even more dangerous drilling in Alaska
- Blackwater gets a $100,000 contract from the CIA under its new sobriquet: Xe
- Massey Energy sues the Mine Safety and Health Admin over potential safety regulation
- And yesterday the new British PM announced cuts of $99 billion dollars, mainly to social services including education. One wonders if the whole Western world will soon follow the U.S. in dumbing down anyone unlucky enough to find themselves in public schools.

Do You Believe in Miracles

The U.S. soccer team completed a nail-biting group stage of the World Cup with a dramatic 1-0 victory over Algeria in the 91st minute. It was a an apt end to a game that looked like it might leave bitter memories of another blown call -- an errant offsides that wrongly negated a goal for the second game in a row. This is an ongoing trend in the World Cup, where the Americans suffered several terrible calls in a 2002 quarterfinal defeat by Germany (including a missed hand ball in the box and two questionable offsides) and a ghost foul against Ghana after a questionable red card in a draw with Italy.

It has been a great World Cup, with the exception of pretty consistently bad refereeing (not just against the U.S.). We have witnessed serious challenge to the European stalwarts, though England and Germany pulled through in their final matches to advance and Spain looks like they will as well. We've seen the reemergence of Diego Maradona, this time as a coach who doesn't seem to fit in his suit either metaphorically or satorially. Brazil looks good, but it is Argentina that looks great, and really all of South America, with the exception of Honduras. The World Cup has not been great for the home continent, except Ghana who snuck through today on goal differential.

The greatest event in the world marches on. The U.S. will have their chance at redemption from four years ago Saturday and this team has the potential to go far, if they can keep from the defensive mistakes that wil cost more as the talent level of their opponents increases. Lets hope the referees stop intervening for our opponents. The beautiful game has gotten some beautiful moments from a team that used to play the game even uglier than Germany. One wonders if the country will ever find real love for a game that  has limited commercial opportunities and excitment that is more oriented toward team than individual performance. I hope so, as I have grown to love it ever since living in Barcelona 10 years ago.

Always Look on the Bright Side of Life

Following the advice of positive thinking gurus the world over, BP's PR team is in overdrive turning a tragedy into good news (http://blogs.wsj.com/source/2010/06/22/bp-magazine-discovers-a-bright-side-to-the-oil-spill/). The company's online, in house magazine, in fact, reports "Much of the region's [nonfishing boat] businesses — particularly the hotels — have been prospering because so many people have come here from BP and other oil emergency response teams." The glowing article continues with a quote from a Gulf seafood entrepreneur who points out that oil is THE industry in the region: "There is no reason to hate BP." Screw contrition, let's just pretend an oil spill already eight times as big as Exxon Valdez is a boom to the Gulf economy. CEO Hayward who was lambasted by some Congressmen (and apologized to by others) last week decided to take the weekend off to attend a Yacht race before heading out to Russia to convince Medvedev that BP is still a good company, before taking a bath in caviar and Crystal.

Palin Prays; Sane People Glad its Not From the White House

Sarah Palin had a tweet today about the Gulf Crisis . . .

“Gulf disaster needs divine intervention as man’s efforts have been futile. Gulf lawmakers designate today Day of Prayer for solution/miracle.”

Now that's the kind of sensible policy prescription we need.

Obama's Disposition

New York Times Visual Editor and Op Ed contributor Charles Blow has an interesting Op Ed on the waning popularity of Obama: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/19/opinion/19blow.html?pagewanted=print. The love affair, of course, didn't last long and one could argue the media contributed to the quick fall by holding him to impossible standards. The right then pounced and anti-government sentiment was stirred, even as we arguably need the government like never before. Even when Obama cajoled BP to set up an unprecedented $20 billion account for damages, he is still critiqued. The main focus of that critique is his stoic nature and ability to control, or at least conceal, his deeper emotions. In most countries, this would be celebrated. Here a President has to be both leveled and show the pain of the average person. It is a relatively cynical statement on American politics, given that one could quite convincingly argue that Bush didn't really care about the average American while Obama advocated for them for years in Chicago, but the press gives Bush the pass because he often wore his emotions on his sleeves.

The real irony, I believe, is the media's failure to report that Obama has been largely successful in getting very contentious legistlation passed, from the recovery bill (that was not enough from many liberals) to healthcare reform to smaller successes on the environment, labor rights and changing global attitudes toward America. In fact, a website PoliFact.com, as reported by Blow, reports that of the 168 promises Obama made where actions have been completed, he only broke 19. Compare that to the record of Bush, or Clinton for that matter. Remember GW's promise of bipartisanship! And yet the media, including Blow, believe that the major problem with Obama is that he must change and show his emotions. I think he needs to gain more resolve to take on the party of no and complete his work, though he must address his cosmetic relationship with America to save us from another conservative revolution led from an even more radical right.

No Place for Privacy in the Workplace

While we do not have to sell our souls to the corporate devil quite yet, we do apparently have to sell our privacy. So said the Supreme Court 9-0 yesterday, arguing that companies can read the private text messages of employees: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-worker-texting-20100618,0,7772406.story. To be fair, it's actually not private companies at all, but the 20 million employees of state and local governments as well as federal employees. It also appears that it only relates to phones given to you by the agency. However, the questinon in the case revolved around private text messages used by an employee who was told he could use the phone for private messages. Why then is the police chief in this case able to check those messages? Apparently the rights of employers trump employees here. The question of whether this case will serve as precedent for private companies is a serious concern though, as is the thought that it might extend to private phones at some point. Many companies already block access to certain websites (which seems fair) and track professional emails (sometimes more troubling, depending on how scanning is done). And without much fanfare, Wal*Mart started using technology a few years ago that would allow someone to quickly walk through your apartment and scan all the products you bought through a tiny microchip they use for shipping and receiving. It appears that employers continue to gain more and more rights, as those of employees are increasingly challenged.

More Republican Malarky . . .

During the BP hearings today, Texas Republican Congressman Joe Barton criticized the White House’s brokering the $20 billion fund as a “shakedown,” and apologized to Mr. Hayward for what he called the politicization of the crisis. He went on to claim he was "ashamed" of the White House meeting (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/us/politics/18spill.html?hp). I wonder how he can be ashamed of the White House, unashamed of kissing up to our old landlords and of chosing corporate interests over those of the people of the gulf or the 11 that died in the accident. And how is this crisis not "political" exactly? It strikes at one of the key political questions today -- are government going to hold corporations accountable for their behavior, or treat them like victims of efforts to regulate or hurt their bottom line by actually considering the common good or the "small people" BP CEO Hayward mentioned in the now infamous quote: "I hear comments sometimes that large oil companies are greedy companies or don't care. But that is not the case indeed. We care about the small people." (http://www.csmonitor.com/From-the-news-wires/2010/0617/BP-Small-People-comment-and-oil-spill-blasted-on-Capitol-Hill). The obvious question is who these small people are, exactly? The customers that make BP execs rich? Everyone on the planet worth less than $500 million? Those pesky ex-colonists that keep pestering us with their problems? Or does he just mean people under six feet tall? The real question is what is more embarrassing -- the Republican party today aligning with BP execs or the English football team tying the United States. Tough call, really.

Republicans Decry BP $20 Billion as "Chicago-Style Shakedown"

After eight years of Bush, Cheney and crew arguing that the President has almost unlimited power, Republicans are actually complaining that Obama was able to bully (or cajole, depending on your perspective) BP to set up the $20 billion fund to pay for some of the damages associated with the Gulf Oil Spill: http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/06/house-conservatives-call-escrow-account-chicago-style-shakedown.php. Is there any sanity left in the party of big business cheerleading, ecumencial haters, empty rhetoric and pure opposition?  Their main argument revolves around a troubling truth -- the U.S. government has no right to hold corporations accountable for their behavior. Though that is not completely true, as was shown with the tobacco companies, it is largely true. And this is a serious problem. The courts can certainly handle incidents of individual, or through class action, group damages at the hands of corporate malfeasance. But governments have little, and arguably waning, power over corporations, who are largely free to do whatever they can get away with. American corporations were originally given their charters by states with the caveat that they must "serve the public good." If they didn't, their charter could be taken away. Can anyone imagine that happening today? Can any sane person listen to the Republicans with a straight face?

One interesting point on their endless opposition to healthcare reform -- more Americans apparently support the reform than at any time since the debates began and legislation passed (45% in favor, 42% opposed): http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100617/ap_on_bi_ge/us_ap_poll_health_overhaul.

Big Pharma Losing an Excuse?

Seniors and others in the U.S. have called for legislation to lower the cost of prescription drugs in America (with much cheaper versions of the same products available to the North and South) for years, but Big Pharmaceutical companies always argued that the higher prices paid for researching new drugs. Those arguments were always suspect, as the industry moved from curatives to palliatives in the 70s -- recognizing they could make a lot more treating symptoms than curing conditions -- and as advertising budgets increased astronomically. Those shifts also substantially increased the number of people on prescription drugs for non-congenital conditions -- like depression (major or minor), general anxiety disorder, ED, restless leg syndrome and the like. Now even the claim of researching new drugs will be called into question, as budgets for R&D are being slashed across the globe: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE65F25Q20100616. I think we should help out these poor companies by coming up with some new excuses for paying such exhorbinant prices. Any ideas? Maybe it will hurt the sale of first class airline tickets, or summer homes, or undermine the big karat diamond market? Or maybe we should consider if we really want to shift from being the "prozac nation" to "generic nation"?

Tea Party in New York

Many think of the Tea Party as a fringe party that is much more active in the backwoods of American life. But as the New York Daily News reports today, one in four New Yorkers and 21% of those in the City claim to the support the party (http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/06/14/2010-06-14_you_betcha_theres_a_bunch_of_em_here_news_finds_wide_streak_of_conservatives_in_.html). While these findings in themselves are interesting, I though it might be interesting to deconstruct a paper that could never be confused with the "liberal" media bias we hear so much about from the right:

Let's start with the lede paragraph:

"Much of America sees New York City as the epicenter of bleeding heart liberaldom, a tolerant, immigrant-friendly, tax-and-spend kind of place." Now does most of America think liberalism is dominated by "bleeding hearts" anymore? When did "tolerant" take on a negative connotation? I guess we will never get rid of the "tax and spend" label, even as that is the obvious thing one does with collected taxes, and taxes in the U.S. continue to be among the lowest in the world.

In the next paragraph we get a description of the Tea Party, "the right-leaning, close-the-borders, anti-government movement of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck." While New York City is the epicentre of liberalism in America, even as Giuliani and Bloomberg (two moderate Republicans) have ruled the city for over a decade, apparently the far right Tea Party now merely "leans" right? Give me a break! What is more fascinating is that any party led by characters like Palin and Beck could be taken seriously by anyone but the most fring of groups in the U.S.

The third paragraph continues "Here in this city of labor rights, gay pride and lefty havens, Tea Partyers lead double lives as foot soldiers in a quiet war to reverse the direction of America." One must again question what is so bad about labor rights and gay pride, but obviously to conservatives these two issues alone can send them into spasmodic diatribes on free markets and religion (the media never seems to concern themselves with the fact that the party arguing for liberty and freedom, seems to believe corporations are the only ones that really deserve it (and top teir tax payers) while gays, women or immigrants . . . not so much).

We then have a quote from perrenial losing candidate Rick Lazio, next slated for a GOP governor run: "Citizens and patriots! We have a government that overtaxes, overspends, overreaches and overregulates - and we want them out of our lives!" It is fascinating to me to hear this when it is undertaxation that helps create the deficits they decry, underreaching that has arguably caused many of the problems in America today and underregution that was clearly at the foundation of the financial crisis. The argument of the right centers on not only historical ignorance, but an inabilty to even look back a few months to the reality of where America stands today. It is a fascinatingly effective strategy that shows how effective empty rhetoric has become today -- though one shouldn't be too surprised given two elections for George W. Bush.

The article then does mention a slight hypocrisy in supporting anti-immigrant reforms in Arizona while hanging out at Mexican restaurant Tio Pepe's. It closes with this brilliant observation from Tea Party member Frank Santarpia, "We are the silent majority." Of course, 21 percent is not a majority and no one is going to confuse the Tea Party with the silent majority Nixon talked about 40 years ago -- those who had grown weary of the Civil Rights Movement, anti-war Protesters, counculturalists, feminists, etc. but were not out in the streets challenging them. Nixon turned out to be right, exemplified by the conservative revolution to come. Will the Tea Party lead us even further to the right, a mere two years after Obama's election? God, I hope not.

Bryant Admits Foul

Boston, MA -- For the first time in six years, Kobe Bryant admitted a foul call. The momentous event occurred with 3:24 left in the fourth quarter of Game 5 of the NBA finals. Ironically, a replay showed that Paul Pierce in fact flopped on the play, but for the first time anyone can remember, Kobe did not argue the call. Referees around the world celebrated a rare moment in the career of one of the greatest players in NBA history, who never saw a call go against his team he didn't feel worthy of arguing. Bryant made up for the concession going down the stretch, but many will remember the moment as a magnanimous one in his ongoing, endless debate with referees. Kobe scored 38 in a losing effort, as the Celtics pulled off a 92-86 victory to take a 3-2 lead in the series. The Celtics almost gave the game away in the fourth quarter yet again, with an airball by Ray Allen (0 for his last 19 three point attempts), continuing a pattern for the team this year, but pulled it out after a circus catch and pass from Pierce to Rondo. The next game will be in Los Angeles Tuesday night at 9 p.m. EST on ABC.

Marketers Empathize with Teens Who Lack Empathy

A new study finds that college students lack the empathy of their peers from 30 years ago: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100528/sc_livescience/todayscollegestudentslackempathy. Students scored 40% lower on an empathy scale than those in 1979, based on 72 studies of 14,000 American college students. This is good news to marketers who have been trying to replace human emotions, family members and friends with products that can stand in and embody them. "Many people see the current group of college students - sometimes called 'Generation Me' - as one of the most self-centered, narcissistic, competitive, confident and individualistic in recent history," said Konrath, who is also affiliated with the University of Rochester Department of Psychiatry.

"While narcissism, individualism and self-centeredness might be bad for democracy and the common good, we love it," said marketer Sophie O'Patty, arguing empathy is a retrograde emotion that doesn't really serve humans in the 21st century world of success at any cost. "All empathy does is make us feel bad for the losers in the global market. That is a waste of our valuable time and cuts efficiency."

Another Blow to Same Sex Advocates

In yet another blow to those arguing that all people in the U.S. should have equal access to the institution of marriage, a new study finds that lesbian parents actually raise smarter and more socially healthy children (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn19014-children-of-lesbian-parents-do-better-than-their-peers.html). It is a given that gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of one of the oldest social institutions and that men will start leaving their wives, eating their children or engaging in gay orgies (and women could actually demand that men actually do their fair share of the housework) but the thought that our children could be smarter only further solidifies how gay marriage woulddestroy the country. For isn't it those elite intellectuals who listen to NPR, watch foreign films and actually read books that are destroying the country? The last thing we need is smarter children! Luckily, No Child Left Behind and the general nature of our K-12 system today ensure that most children will not receive an adequate education.

Kids will be . . .

poor, it appears. A new study finds that quality of life for American children has fallen to 1975 levels. That translates to 21% of children living below the poverty line, over 500,000 homeless children, almost 3/4 of a million more children in food insecure households and all of the costs associated with this degradation. Kids who are grow up in stressful environments have "Higher rates of cancer, liver disease, respiratory disease and other conditions." (http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/06/08/children.wellbeing/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+%28RSS%3A+Top+Stories%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo). The good news is they are less likely to make it to retirement age, thus not contributing to the strain on Social Security. Of course, we can blame this on the government as well, I'm sure. If only we allowed corporations to pay people what they the market would bear, all our problems would be solved. Right?

Republicans Start Talking Sense

The party of no is starting to say yes -- at least to Internet users who might have an actual platform for them. Rather than telling us what they stand for, the party has largely been telling America what it's against -- essentially anything Obama wants. This includes the bailout that started the economy back on track to growth, a healthcare bill to deal with one of the fastest rising costs for working families in America (it has gone from 8% to 18% of income in the past 30 years), finance reform to try and ensure that bankers and investment firms are held partially accoutable for their risky behavior, regulations on anything, environmental policy to address global warming or even a Supreme Court justice that appears pretty moderate. Now they realize they have to be for something as well, and they have turned to the Internet to get input from Americans on what they want: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/25/AR2010052504396.html.

Here are some sensible ideas on how to fix the country:

"End Child Labor Laws," suggests one helpful participant. "We coddle children too much. They need to spend their youth in the factories."

"How about if Congress actually do thier job and VET or Usurper in Chief, Obama is NOT a Natural Born Citizen in any way," recommends another. "That fake so called birth certificate is useless."

"A 'teacher' told my child in class that dolphins were mammals and not fish!" a third complains. "And the same thing about whales! We need TRADITIONAL VALUES in all areas of education. If it swims in the water, it is a FISH. Period! End of Story."

"Build a castle-style wall along the border, there is plenty of stone laying around about there." That was in the "national security" section of the new site.

"Legalize Marijuana, cause, like, alcohol is legal. Man. Also." That was in the "traditional values" section.

"I say, repeal all the amendments to the Constitution." ("American prosperity" section.)

"Don't let the illegals run out of Arizona and hide. . . . I think that we should do something to identify them in case they try to come back over. Like maybe tattoo a big scarlet 'I' on their chests -- for 'illegal'!!!" (Filed under "job creation.")

Creative solutions to fixing America! Maybe the Tea Party is too moderate for Republicans these days . . .

Media Malaise

I have been absent from my blog the past month or so with an end of semester rush, but wanted to start it up again now. I have talked often about the media abrogating their responsibility in recent years and wanted to start offering specific examples as they become available.

One of the most obvious ways in which the media has lost its critical touch is by failing to fact check claims made by politicians. In this relatively minor example, we witness a writer from the Omaha World Herlad who appears too lazy to check a simple fact:

"The Iowa senator has questioned why people should be charged upwards of $5 to withdraw their own money. He said the cost of an ATM transaction is only about 36 cents, yet people often are charged $2 or $3 to take out $20." (http://www.omaha.com/article/20100520/NEWS/705209844#atms-a-mystery-to-senator).

This is a common and infuriating trend that reaches from the smallest local papers all the way up to the Washinton Post, New York Times and LA Times. Rather than tell us who is closer to the facts, they tend to just report what each side says and leave it up to the reader to chose which one to believe -- which I imagine would tend to be the side they are aligned with. Luckily we do have the Internet and a series of organizations and bloggers doing that fact checking for us, but unfortunately they tend to reach people who agree with their general political positions. When media becomes mere entertainment, we all lose -- but most of all those who believe it plays an integral role in democracy.

Tea Party Movement and Trust in Government

Not surprising given attitudes on taxes, the countries trust in government has been trending downward for the better part of 50 years. Pew, in fact, finds that only one in five Americans trust the government today: http://slatest.slate.com/id/2251257/?wpisrc=newsletter. In the late 50s, almost 70 percent trusted the government, and even during he Nixon years, trust remained high. But since Watergate and the ascendancy of conservatives, trust has declined precipitously and has not improved under Obama. This seems to lend support to the argument that the Tea Party is reflecting the interests of the American people. And yet an article in The New Republic challenges the idea that they represents the "real America" at all. In fact, The New York Times and CBS News conducted a careful study of the group last week and found that they are more conservative than the average American, older, more affluent, Whiter and, not surprisingly, more racist (www.tnr.com/article/politics/the-populism-the-privileged?utm_source=TNR+Daily&utm_campaign=a691feb8b2-TNR_Daily_041910&utm_medium=email). So while trust is low, it is not clear that the average American does not want the government to step in and address some of the social and economic problems that plague us today. Yet the media has incessantly focused on this vituperative 20 percent and thus kept the focus away from the popular will. What a surprise!

News Alert: Americans Hate Taxes!

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll found that most Americans think "most taxes" are wasted. A surprising 74% of respondents felt that the government wasted most of their tax dollars and another 23 percent said they believed some of their tax dollars were wasted. There were, of course, differences between Republicans and Democrats: with nearly half of the former saying they were angry with the taxes they pay while only 29 percent of Dems feel that way (and 44 percent of Independents). It is interesting to contemplate these numbers in relation to the election of Obama. It appears that people want the government to solve their problems, but without the money necessary to do so. It also appears most people have not taken macroeconomics, which teaches us that government spending tends to have a multiplier effect (a dollar spent by the government adds more than a dollar to the economy). Of course, with all the talk of the deficit, it is not surprising that people think government is wasting money. But the larger issue of the notion that government is largely wasteful shows the power of conservative discourse from Reagan forward to lead people to believe that government is bad and markets implicitly good. While many see the partial lie in the later, their short lived faith in government after 911 (and arguably when voting for Obama) has been supplanted by the dominant conventional wisdom for the past 30 years. The most surprising aspect of this finding is the fact that people generally demand government intervention in bad times and expect a more laissez-faire approach when times are good -- but seem unwilling to count on the government even now to solve our persistent economic troubles.

It's a Bird, It's a Plane, it's . . .

Lehman Brothers screwing their investors by hiding its riskier investments through its undisclosed subsidiary Hudson Castle: www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/business/13lehman.html?hp. Like Enron before them, investment firms often use these shadow organizations that: "enable banks to exchange investments for cash to finance their operations and, at times, make their finances look stronger than they are." It's a perfect postmodern tool that allows companies to hide their true financial situation and keep overly nervous investors calm and happy. Content, that is, until the firm collapses, right after the board and execs sell their shares, and they help start a worldwide financial crisis. But hey, it's a small price to pay to keep banks solvent (at least in the short run) and money flowing into the hedge funds so important to our long term economic growth. Though this has never been satisfactorily explained to the public, it has to be true. Markets are always better than government, right? Healthcare reform will destroy the economy, won't it? Sadaam Hussein planned 911, didn't he? And global warming is a farce constructed by nefarious scientists to destroy oil companies and make the world a much safer place. What will those bastards do next?

Postmodern Art

A couple of weeks ago, I went to see the new exhibit at the Guggenheim. It provided a sometimes interesting engagement with the evolution of photography and video, and their strong relationship to the past: www.guggenheim.org/new-york/exhibitions/on-view-now/haunted-contemporary-photography-video-performance. What interested me most about the exhibit was a subject I have been discussing with an MFA student who is doing an independent study with me this semester: the necessity of mediation in much postmodern art. Picasso once said that art is a lie that tells the truth. Yet modern art, though sometimes difficult to decipher, attempted to tell that truth without the necessity of additional mediation. Since the 60s, and definitely more recently, that need for mediation has seemed to increase. Art in galleries, museums and that sold to collectors have always had different goals and different audiences. But one trend that seems much more pervasive is the necessity of explanation to make the art understandable to audiences not "in the know" (and even some in it). In other words, the producers of art, who are generally influenced by the audience they are doing the art for (though arguably more in recent decades), are taking a more active role in attempting to influence not only the way we see and be in the world but how we see their art.

Art has always been about new ways to see the world, offering re-presentations of reality that reflect different perspectives, views, languages and the like. As Marcuse argued, art can be seen as a form of the "great refusal" -- an instrument to step outside the dominant discourse and rationality of a given epoch. Yet much PM art is about deconstructing perception itself, the production of art and how it is produced and received. Much of the language employed toward that end revolves around irony and self-reflexivity. As many have argued, this has lent it a more elitist stance toward the world, where experts/critics are the main arbitors of quality and the public needs the aforementioned mediation to understand it. What is gained and lost in this process? I think one thing is the ability to contemplate art as it is -- without that mediation. We lose our space of receptive autonomy, as we are oriented toward the prescribed meaning, or at least the assumed meaning of the interpretors (in the case of museums). It seems to follow a larger trend in society to expect and almost require that mediation. Something is not real until it is instantiated within the media culture and given form that is manipulated by the delivery vehicle (e.g., film, television, commentators, etc.) Art seems to be increasingly following this trend and it may be a further point of concern for those worried about creativity and critical thinking. There is still a large fount of creativity and critical thinking among the creative class, but what of everyone else. It is clear that we have expanded the ability to be creative for larger audiences (through the Internet) and to expand those involved in defining what quality work is (ala YouTube and so many other sites). Yet is creativity called into question when art becomes too self-reflective and when audiences come to expect an explanation of what they are seeing or hearing?

Many sites are poping up these days to give the public access to contemporary art online. Here is one: http://www.sightunseen.com/.

Great Book: The Manual of Detection

There have been some impressive debut novels in recent years, including Gary Schtyngart's The Russian Debutante's Handbook and Jonathon Saffron Froer's Everything is Illuminated. And I just picked up another worthy of the praise it has received -- The Manual of Detection by Jedediah Berry. I have always been a fan of mystery -- going through everything Agatha Christie and Rex Stout wrote by the end of high school, moving on to Patricia Highsmith, Dashielle Hammett and Ray Chandler among countless others and seeing anything and everything that even skates on the edge of noir. Here Berry revives the old crime drama, but with a postmodern flair that is truly inspired. The plot circles around and comes together wonderfully, the writing is crisp and clear and the outlandish plot begs some broader questions about a society under constant surveillance. There are plenty of unexpected plot twists, fascinatingly odd characters and riveting action, intermingled with a flair for description and some very funny moments. The main character is a clerk at a large detective agency who suddenly finds himself at the center of a plot involving the disappearance of a famous detective he has written reports for for 20 years. As the plot unfolds, we are drawn deeper into a bizarre world where mystical figures have mastered a way to insinuate themselves into your dreams and a cast of carnival characters and agency detectives fight a battle over the heart of the city and its denizens. If you want a great read that will keep your nose in the book, grab a copy of this book and enjoy!

The Optimist

David Brooks used to be a conservative I could occasionally look up to. When he was on PBS, he seemed to be reasonable and often had interesting, incisive things to say about politics. Since becoming a regular on the Op Ed pages of the New York Times, however, I have found him to be a relatively insipid public intellectual largely out of touch with the America he often claims to speak for. Today, in is column "Relax, We'll be Fine," he offers "great luscious orgy of optimism" in the face of America's ongoing crisis: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/06/opinion/06brooks.html?pagewanted=print. After regaling us with his claim that America will grow by 100 million people in the next 40 years and that we are especially adept at "assimilating immigrants" (a claim many immigrants, including the Mexicans, might disagree with), he claims that self-sufficent suburban villages like Fargo, Dubuque and Boise will be the hotbeds of American renewal. Huh? He then goes on to say, "The United States already measures at the top or close to the top of nearly every global measure of economic competitiveness." While we do have the second highest GDP per capita there are a lot of numbers that are quite troubling. For example, we have the largest gap between rich and poor of any industrialized country, among the highest infant mortality rates and lowest life expectancy, work longer hours than europe (almost four extra weeks a year) and have an education system that ranks near the bottom of developed nations. But what comes next is the truly absurd. Brooks claims that America will rise again because of our acumen at providing "emotional experiences." This is because "educated Americans" grow up in a "culture of moral materialism." What is moral materialism? Apparently shows like The Sopranos, The Wire and Mad Men. All three are good shows, but are they moral? They appear to provide pretty strong critiques of the greed, violence, general discontent and unhappiness, corruption and poverty so endemic to American society. And this is the problem with the argument. It is quite plausible that America will restore itself as the super power in the world. But what is real progress? How should we measure ourselves as a society? I would say the general happiness of the people should matter. And this is missing from Brooks, just as it is missing from that other cheerleader for capitalism and unfettered globalization -- Thomas Friedman. My optimism is a little different. It is that someday Brooks and Friedman will retire and we will get some real intellectuals that actually challenge readers to think more deeply about what makes a country truly great; not just what makes some of its citizens truly rich . . .