Elections for Sale

Last week we heard that Fox was giving $1,000,000 to Republicans to help win the midterm elections. Now the magnanimous folks at the Chamber of Commerce have committed to spending $75 million to support candidates who are ""supportive of the free enterprise system" (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hrA5cmTXNFDiNuo6DOFLvMEC-kMQD9HNUP6G2).  Most of those candidates are, unsurprisingly, conservative Republicans. Since Obama's election, the group has spent $190 million on pro-business lobbying and elections, including helping to elect Scott Brown to the Senate in Massachusetts: http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/19/chamber-brown-influence.

The group is claiming itself as a veritable "third party" in American politics today, now that spending caps have been lifted. One could argue instead that they are "the party" in American politics today, spending so much money directly or through its powerful members that they essentially own much of DC. Less than seven years after McCain and Feingold tried to limit the power of corporate money in politics, we are going to the other extreme. And whose cause are they supporting? The very actors who have been instrumental in the financial crisis and growing gap between rich and poor.  Democracy cannot function when the powerful can buy elections, spending so much money they shout out the voices of everyone else. This is particularly true when the media is bought by those same interests, supporting their causes most of the time. Democracy is supposed to be participatory, with everyone having a voice. But where are the voices today? The only group garnering any real interest from the media at present is, ironically, the Tea Party, a supposedly populist movement that just supports the very tired conventional wisdom that created the current mess. Where can a real opposition come from? It's hard to say when the majority party seems unable or unwilling to offer a real challenge to the corporate/conservative juggernaut. The people have to reclaim the government, just as we did at the birth of the nation.

What Good for the Goose . . .

Republican logic generally has little to do with fact or rationality. In the latest example, they are now arguing Saudi Arabia would never allow a Church to be built in Mecca: http://firedoglake.com/2010/08/21/late-night-andy-mccarthy-attempts-thought-experiment-neglects-thought-part. And what's good for one of the most repressive societies in the world is obviously good enough for America. The stupidity of the argument would be appalling, if it hasn't been at the heart of our actions post 911 -- including unconstitutional (and anti Geneva Convention) torturing, the Guantanamo Bay fiasco and detention centers in the country, the illegal war in Iraq and a whole host of other morally contemptible actions supposedly justified by the "war on terror." This latest campaign, to stop a mosque from being built too close to the World Trade Center site, continues this faulty and dangerous logic. Will we soon have a second constitution specifically for Muslims? Or why not make them wear stars on their sleeves? This is not to say that the extreme elements of Islam are not still a profound danger to the world -- just that showing conciliatory side on something as innocuous as this could create goodwill and assist those who are fighting to suppress and defeat that more radical element from within. Of course, that's merely the mad ramblings of a radical lunatic who doesn't realize we are in a clash of civilization that will define our collective future.

P.S. On a related note, the idea of the big lie appears to continue to dominate certain ranks of the GOP post-Bush. Why do 1 in 5 people believe Obama is a Muslim? Well, maybe it's all those Republicans saying so (before correcting themselves, after they get the quote in the press): http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/08/lawmakers-who-push-the-birther.html.

Where Are You? . . . Just Check Facebook

Facebook has just launched Places a new application that allows you to check in at various places across the city: http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2264492, letting anyone with access to your page know where you are. While the idea might appeal to some -- friends can quickly find you or know if you are close by and that random guy or girl you've been flirting with might just show up unannounced, one wonders if it really does anything but keep you under surveillance by parents, jealous mates, exes and anyone else who wants to spy on you (in addition to the criminals that could also take advantage of the information). Not only does it tell people where you are, but can also tell them who you're with. Isn't it easy to just text or call someone you are going to meet up with? Are the chances of a chance encounter really worth meeting back up with that stalker who hacks your page or you forgot to defriend? What do we really gain from announcing to the world everywhere we go? And how many relationships will end under the paranoid delusions of a jealous partner? In the latest attempt to completely undermine privacy, the site might actually succeed. The odd thing is how many people will openly embrace this intrusion -- I already know one friend on Facebook who must have been part of the beta version -- increasingly living their lives out loud for all to witness; in real time! It is odd for those of us that still value our privacy, but the inversion of the public and private spheres Zygmunt Bauman argued for in the End of Politics only appears to expand endlessly outward. And unlike 1984, people are openly choosing to be monitored now.

P.S. For those who want to disable this feature, the following article provides all the infomration you need to restore a modicum of privacy: http://lifehacker.com/5616395/how-to-disable-facebook-places.

Mosque Melee

The ongoing controversy of a Mosque being built by the site of the World Trade Center seems to highlight a fundamental disconnect between conservative and liberal notions of freedom. To conservatives, who tout freedom as if it was their theme alone, freedom is just another word for following their worldview blindly. They believe freedom exists for corporations, white Christians, those who have blind allegiance to the flag and media outlets that support their ideas. When it comes to gays, those who critique America, immigrants, liberal professors, Muslims and anyone who disagrees with conservative orthodoxy, freedom must be limited. This includes those who, in what some might consider a conciliatory move, want to build a mosque not at the World Trade Center site, but a few blocks away (and by the way, there already is a mosque close by). What is the real issue? Respect for the victims of 911? Or is this yet another example of realpolitik? I'm leaning toward the latter. Religious freedom is at the heart of the constitution they love, unless it disagrees with their desire to end that pesky separation of church and state, allow equality to all (the 14th amendment), give due process to all citizens or a host of other issues that contradict their worldview. What is interesting is that the framing of the issue again appears to be working. Ignorance may very well be bliss, but not to those of us that believe the constitution serves to offer all Americans access to real, positive freedom.

Be Stupid

You may have seen the 2010 Diesel advertising campaign somewhere around town, on a billboard, in a store and or in some other instantiation. It all revolves around "Being Stupid." Among its many mantras include "Smart Critiques. Stupid Creates," "Smart May Have the Answers, But Stupid Has All the Interesting Questions," "Smart Has the Plans, Stupid Has the Stories," "Smart Listens to the Head. Stupid Listens to the Heart," "Smart Says No. Stupid Says Yes," "Stupid is Trial and Error. Mostly Error," "Smart Had One Good Idea and That Idea Was Stupid," "If We Didn't Have Stupid Thoughts We'd Have No Thoughts at All," "Only the Truly Stupid Can Be Truly Brilliant" and "Smart May Have the Brains But Stupid Has the Balls." Usually it is a series of billboards that end with the "We're With Stupid." (http://www.creativeadawards.com/diesel-be-stupid-advertising-campaign)

While the ad has a certain resonance, attempting to argue for the freedom of the human spirit, creativity and a certain joi d'vivre, it also captures one of the deepest problems in America today. Essentially, do we really need advertisers to implore Americans to be stupid? Aren't we succeeding on that score without the necessity of reinforcement? A troubling trend that has developed is a firmly entrenched belief that actually thinking, critiquing, being creative outside the largely delimited scope of consumer culture and thinking outside the business language of "thinking outside the box" may actually lead to something truly radica or innovative. Wrapped around a relatively cynical veneer is the continued triumph of the conservative idea that certain knowledge is dangerous, that elites are those that are actually educated and question conventional wisdom and that accepting things as they are is a more pragmatic and realistic approach to life. This is fortified by a ahistoricity that demands short term and long term amnesia. They thus accept American exceptionalist ideology, fully believe that corporations and the market are somehow de facto superior to the government (even in the midst of the financial crisis), that the poor and minorities are to blame for their own situation (even if they work 60 hours a week) and that teachers somehow define all that is wrong with education. A deeper problem appears to revolve around a certain laziness of thinking across the political spectrum. I find many liberals as bad as conservatives at accepting party or ideological orthodoxy without any real thought or critique. The immanent critique of critical theory or perpetual deconstruction of Derrida seems like the only way to get out of the current intellectual malaise, but one wonders whether people have the will or training to actually inspect their own ideas with any rigor. In fact, schools seem to be teaching students the opposite most of the time these days (under the auspices of passing tests and keeping knowledge "neutra").

A new poll reinforces our adherence to stupidity, or maybe just not thinking at all. Apparently one in five Americans now believe that Obama is a muslim: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/18/AR2010081806913.html?wpisrc=nl_cuzhead. Um, he isn't! And this follows a series of misperceptions of the public in recent years, from a belief that Saddam Hussein planned 911, to the idea that it was Iraqis on the planes, that there were weapons of mass destruction there, that we later actually found them and that our mission in Iraq was to spread democracy once the other reasons proved false.

We Don't Want No Subway Restaurant

Springdale Utah is fighting an interesting battle at the moment -- trying to keep chain resaturants out of their quaint little town of 500, located near the foothills of Zion National Park. And the chain restaurants that are itching to disrupt the local charm of the town are hopping mad about it: http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-08-17-chain-restaurants_N.htm. In yet another test of how much power corporations wield, the fundamental question is whether their interests trump those who would gain, or suffer, at their expense. Does a town really need to allow businesses to open within its borders? Los Angeles, as an example, has kept Wal*Mart out for many years, arguing they would cause too much harm to local businesses. Other towns across the country have also controlled access to their populations, for economic, moral or aesthetic reasons. And shouldn't they have that freedom? Religious groups have kept out porn and stripper clubs, conservatives are trying to block a Mosque from being too close to the World Trade Center (even though one already exists within four blocks) and the list goes on endlessly. We have given first amendment rights to corporations and more recently allowed them to spend as much on elections as they like (Fox just gave Republicans a $1,000,000, maybe finally putting to rest the silly "fair and balanced" moniker they have been touting for years -- though I'm sure the "no spin" zone will continue to keep the oxymoron-rich station happily sequestered from reality). The fundamental question we never seem to ask is whether corporations should really have so much power over our lives. Sure there are towns like this, academics and "special interests" that seek to limit corporate power, but a national debate on whether they should have free reign over our lives is largely missing. And yet corporate excess is at the heart of so many of our problems today, from global warming and income distribution problems to the current financial crisis and real concerns about privacy, safety and our control over our own bodies and future (as they buy up the very essence of our being -- the genome). This debate is necessary, but one wonders where it will come from in a country where politicians are essentially corporate sponsors, selling their votes to the highest bidder. Et tu, Subway?

Jetblue Blues

Steven Slater appears to be the latest media spectacle to become a household name, after he told off a cabin full of JetBlue customers, grabbed a beer and slid out the emergency exit. While many across America are lauding him as a working class hero -- a redux of the 80s mantra "take this job and shove it" -- I wonder if some of these may realize they themselves are the reason he took a leap off the plane's ledge toward momentary freedom (he was arrested when he got home and could face up to seven years in jail). Hating our jobs used to be an American pasttime, though it appears many were pretending to like theirs while secretly reading Dilbert or watching Office Space with great relish until the latest financial crisis. Now we appear back to open contempt and can celebrate Slater as not a buffoon, but a hero. Yet to return to my point, one reason he did this is because too many passengers are unbearable. They don't listen to exhortations to turn off their cellphones and pagers, get out of their seats early, try to ignore any and every rule on getting water, going to the bathroom and even giving the person sitting next to them a tiny little sliver of the arm rest. One reason jobs may suck in America is because of the way we treat those we are in contact with. But that's just crazy talk. Everyone else is a jerk and I am perfectly well-mannered. Sing Slater's praise and then headbutt a stewardess for fun next time you fly!

Lame Duck Congress?

So Republicans are now passing out oaths to Congressmen asking them to pledge not to engage in any lame duck Congress activity. Ironically, one of those leading the charge is presumptive presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, who12 years ago led a lame duck Republican House to impeach Clinton, even as they seemed to lose a number of seats because of the investigation: http://www.slate.com/toolbar.aspx?action=print&id=2263033. Rumor has it Dems are poised to use the lame duck to pass unpopular legislation like cap and trade, card check and tax increases. Are Republicans right? I have always been troubled by the lame duck sessions myself. The will of the people is enacted primarily through the vote and the fact that legislators and presidents often use those last few months to pass unpopular bills seems to undermind that will. I wish Democrats had the will to pass some of this legislation before the election (except cap and trade, which seems to be a bad idea in its current form -- another windfall for banks), but afterwards it simply seems cowardly at some level. On the other hand, without the ability to steer public discourse in a positive way, one wonders if it would cost them even more seats in the interim election cycle? What continues to confound me is how effective conservatives have been at arguing for essentially returning to the path that got us into this mess, even as unemployment lingers at 10%, the mortgage crisis continues and the economy seems nowhere near a real recovery that positively affects most citizens. Myopia, cynicism and fear seem to define the heart of the problem and why Obama has essentially abandoned the message that won him the election (particularly hope and change) is probably the most upsetting aspect of where we stand today.

On a related note, Target has gotten in trouble in Minnesota for spending large amounts of money to support a far-right candidate that culminated in their stock dropping $1.3 billion in value. But the tone-deaf CEO is listening to Wall Street and ready to keep the engine of corporate greed pushing forward undaunted. At least American companies are thinking in the long term. Unfortunately the long term seems to be about their interests alone, leaving the rest of us out in the cold -- particularly those who allowed Bush to stack the court with conservatives in constitutionalist sheeps clothing offering more and more rights to corporations while taking them away from the average citizen (as with the backtracking on Miranda, among other things). The conservative juggernaut can be relied on for one thing -- hypocritical consistency of message.

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."