Monday, November 29, 2004

Sinner Man where you gonna run to?


will miss Ozzfest this year

Internet rule #1: Think before hitting "send" on an email.

Internet rule #2: Think before posting to a blog. I applied rule #2 carefully before completing the following post, but after some thought, additional research, and the addition of some disclaimers, I decided to go ahead with it. I'm not just talkin' trash here. I believe this post is fair to its subject, and that his story puts certain issues we face today into context. So here it is:
_____________________________

As part of our continuing study of the moral example provided by conservative "values" icons, Night Light today notes the passing of the Rev. Billy James Hargis, whose obituary is in today's New York Times. Hargis was the Southern clergyman who began as a "bawl and jump" country preacher, but moved on to bigger and better things. His life story is instructive in light of recent developments, particularly the conservative movement's use of the media and religion to promote partisan politics and an agenda of intolerance. Billy James Hargis condemned his political opponents for sins he was busy committing, and lived to pay for it (but probably not enough.)

As a self-proclaimed anti-Communist, Hargis used his radio and television shows to label certain institutions and individuals as Communist- sympathizing, Red-inspired, or just plain immoral. Among Hargis's main themes were the evils of indiscriminate and "deviant" sex, celebrities he considered sexually transgressive (the Beatles were a favorite target with those provocative mop-tops), and the liberal world's attitude of permissiveness toward sin. Other preferred targets were the Anti-Defamation League, the women's liberation movement, and Richard Nixon (after he "betrayed" America by going to China.)

A journalist named Fred Cook brought his media empire down (or diminished it considerably) by suing for equal time under the FCC's now all-but-dismantled Fairness Doctrine. Hargis had savaged Cook over Cook's biography of Hargis favorite Barry Goldwater. Broadcasters carrying Hargis' programming objected to carrying Cook's response and, as the Times puts it, "many stations thereafter were less inclined to broadcast controversial programs."

This was just the beginning of Hargis' troubles. He had long-running battles with the IRS over his religious organization's overt endorsement of Goldwater for President, and its support for specific legislation. The IRS ruling stated that this behavior disqualified his group for tax exemption as a religious organization, and was later upheld by the Federal courts. Can you picture today's IRS making a similar decision, and a Bush-appointed judge upholding it? Ironically, Hargis had ratted out another religious institution to the IRS, the Christian Century magazine, after it endorsed Lyndon Johnson in an editorial. The Century temporarily lost its tax exempt status.

The next twist in the 270-pound Hargis's career - well, let's let the Times tell the story: "In 1974, after Mr. Hargis was accused of having sexual relations with students of both sexes, he resigned as president of the college he had founded. He denied the accusations at the time and in a 1986 autobiography." So, it seems that male and female he "made" them, our Rev. Hargis. What the Times fails to mention is that Hargis originally confessed to the seductions, blaming "genes and chromosomes" rather than taking personal responsibility, before withdrawing his confession and undertaking a series of public denials of the charges.

His victims were members of his choir, the "All American Kids." Insert your own ironic joke here: I'm getting worn out. His pattern of behavior came to light, according to at least one source, when two of the Kids got married. On their wedding night, each learned that the other had also been seduced. Other members of the choir confirmed the allegations, leading to the Reverend's temporary confession. His abdication of responsibility to genetic science was followed by a withdrawal of the confession, then by a series of denials and the continuation of his clerical and political activities.

It seems to follow the usual pattern: conservative decries liberals for their immorality and their belief that you don't have to be responsible for your actions, then runs for every excuse he can find when they (or a member of their family) behaves badly. Consider the behavior of Rush Limbaugh or the Bush family, for starters. For reference, Merriam-Webster defines a "hypocrite" as "a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion."

Three Disclaimers: First, I would not repeat allegations that I thought might be untrue, but it seems unlikely these charges are false given Hargis's own confession. And imagine the courage it took for any molestation victims, much less devoutly fundamentalist college students, to come forward in the 1970's. (Unfortunately it's not much easier today.) Second, I hope I don't hold others to a higher moral standard than I do myself. I have made mistakes in this life, like anyone, but I hope I've made sincere amends and avoided hypocrisy. Third, I don't judge Hargis for his obesity, although it creates unfortunate graphic images of his life story. End of disclaimers.

So now Billy James Hargis takes his leave and faces Judgment. Far be it from me to say what fate awaits him. But a word to the Reverend: If you do meet Satan, please tell him thanks for the Black Sabbath reunion tour but not to bother moving on to Twisted Sister.

Today's Sinner: Billy James Hargis
Commandments Violated: VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery; IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness.
Deadly Sins: Pride, Greed, Lust, Gluttony


|

Sunday, November 28, 2004

Conservatives in Academia


meet your new department head

Jesse at Pandagon has a new post addressing George Will's latest piece. The esteemed Mr. Will is best known for helping Ronald Reagan prepare for a Presidential debate using stolen briefing materials, then providing live television commentary of the same debate while concealing his role in the candidate's preparations. Will is now using his position of moral authority to allege that academia is biased against conservatives. Jesse writes,

There is a groundswell of complaint about systematic bias against a phantom group of academics who appear to not really want to work in academia to begin with. The "problem" will continue apace, because most of the time of schools' recruitment departments will be spent out there trying to find any conservative professor who will teach there...or, worse yet, flooded with second and third-rate potential professors who are all of a sudden die-hard Bush supporters.

We know what's coming next, because academia is only the latest target. We''ve seen what happens when similar allegations of bias are levelled against the news media. The latest institutional victim of the accusations (PBS, for example) cantilevers even more precipitously to the right in a vain attempt to avoid further rebuke - or, as a worse fate, is forced to offer yet another primetime programming slot to Tucker Carlson. Thus, false allegations of bias toward the left result in an actual tilt toward the Right - which, after all, is the ultimate objective.

The rush to find willing media conservatives for "balance" has provided jobs for otherwise underqualified talking heads like Carlson, McLaughlin, O'Reilly, and the entire Fox Network staff. It's what affirmative action must look like on Bizarro World. Now it's academia's turn.

UPDATE: Michael Berube's now on this one, too. Keep following what he has to say -- it should be interesting.

|

Debunking the Realignment Myth




Let the numbers do the talking: "realignment" is a myth, an "is there/isn't there" debate that obscures the real picture. Today's Washington Post piece by John Harris revives the nearly month-old debate on whether this year's election represents a major realignment or just another squeaker. DemFromCT addresses the issue in DailyKos and is cited by the Daou Report and Memeorandum. Here's a number: In the Senate, a difference of less than one-half of one percent would have given Democrats a clear majority. Democrats would be foolish, however, to assume that they can succeed by conducting business as usual. Some imaginative research, and a defensive playbook against an Administration that will use every advantage of incumbency, will be needed if the Democrats are to thrive.

Let's look at those numbers. A difference of only 230,000 votes would have resulted in a deadlocked Senate, and an additional 113,000 votes (less than 400,000 total) would have given Democrats Senate control. That's a change of only 0.046% in total votes cast. Democratic candidates for the Senate received more than 3,000,000 votes than their Republican opponents, as shown here.

Several Republican Senate victory were certifiable squeakers, including a 4500-vote margin in South Dakota (1.16% of votes counted), 10,000 in Alaska (4% of all votes but a low raw number), 22,000 in Kentucky (1.3%), and 78,000 votes in Florida (1%). Then there's that screwball result in Louisiana, where there were four different Democratic candidates. The combined vote for these Democrats was only 66,000 less than the Republican victor's. Democratic victories in these states are achievable.

The Presidential race is another challenge, however. A 51% majority is still a majority. What is even more significant are the trends. Democrats need to be highly sensitive to those trendlines (in the Red states, among evangelicals, by class & ethnicity) that are moving against them. A lot more investigation is needed to determine what factors drove this year's results, and to separate temporary swings from developing trends. Incumbency, terror, media manipulation, evangelical and "moral values" drives, get-out-the-vote, negative campaigning - each was a factor. We need a comprehensive study that weighs these factors and their impact on the race, both nationally and by region. Democrats cannot build a Presidential election strategy without knowing the facts. Detailed analysis of this year's results should be job #1.

Non-voters are still the largest bloc, as this chart shows, and the one least understood. Bush was elected by 31% of eligible voters, while Kerry and other candidates were supported by 30% of eligible voters. "Decline to participate" continues to lead with 39%, a result with intriguing implications. The field of non-participant voter study, which should be an important political science subspecialty, appears fragmented and is certainly poorly understood by most commentators and political consultants. It is a rich and fascinating area of research, and will hopefully receive the attention it deserves.

The Republicans have their reasons for promoting realignment: to discourage their opponents, to create a false sense of "mandate" for a radical conservative agenda, and to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. The media will generally assist in this effort unless challenged, both because it can be 'spun' and because many reporters lack analytic skills. Harris' article is a refreshing exception, but it will be incumbent upon Democrats themselves to frame the discussion differently - both for political reasons, and to ensure that their own analyses are free of false assumptions.

The comments of Howard Wolfson and Mark Gersh in the Post article show both perspective and insight. There is no "major realignment" taking place, but we have an administration that is aggressively using policy and the power of incumbency to shore up its electoral strength. Democrats will need to display quick-wittedness and an ability to see beyond popular assumptions and mythologies if they want to prevail in the coming years. That, plus some innovative research into the behavior and belief systems of non-voters, could help the Democrats move beyond the "realignment myth" and into some creative strategic thinking.

|

Saturday, November 27, 2004

i hate myself for loving hugh

The Daou Report provides a link to Hugh Hewitt's blog - where, unexpectedly, I find myself agreeing with Hugh when he says "Democrats don't like being the minority party, and the Washington Post sympathizes. Well, then, win some elections ... Whining, however, doesn't win Congressional seats. In fact, the opposite is true: Sounding like a victim instead of a serious opponent gets a party all the respect it deserves."

He's right - the Democratic Party needs a change of tone. I suspect that Hugh's prescription for winning, however, would look like defeat to me. It might even mean bringing Joe Lieberman out of his "spider hole of denial." Can't win for losing, going that route.

Skippy's back in town, too, highlighting blog items of interest as always. Thanks to DR and Skippy for the valuable research and links. Oh, and for linking to our post about the God Gulag, too ... much appreciated.
|

Cartier-Bresson and God


The sin of Pride - a 'decisive moment'

This image, where Bush broke with protocol for a Presidential Library ceremony and forced his way past Clinton to be the first through the door, brought to mind these quotes:

Matthew ch.023 v.012: "Whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."

Proverbs ch.011 v.002: "When pride cometh, then cometh shame."

Job ch.040 v.012: "Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low."
___________________________________________

And this one:

"To me, photography is the ... recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event." Henri Cartier-Bresson



|

The God Gulag

FL Corrections chief Crosby - say "amen" or else
Bush Brothers - on a mission from God

I was going to write something ironic about the renewed call for faith-based initiatives, and how that means we'll need a Department of Religion. As I began to read and think about the whole issue of faith-based policy, however, darker realities began to set in, especially regarding "faith-based prison reform." It has been suggested that faith-based prisons will be high on the list of second term initiatives for the Bush Administration. That's a grim prospect. The Bush prison initiative disinters a 200-year-old thought control experiment and animates it with an "Up With People"/"Promisekeepers" facade. The Department of Religion will have to wait. The experimenters are at the gates.

The Acton Institute, a religiously-based think tank supporting faith-based imprisonment, is open about what it considers the value of this 'reform' program: "Able adults who are behind bars cannot contribute to the economy by using their God-given talents creatively. They cannot build up civil society by participating in social networks and supporting families." In other words, let's get more workers on the street - devout, presumably compliant workers. Let's have them join "social networks," which is a code word for churches, boosting membership and conservative voting rolls. Lastly, once they are indoctrinated let's make sure that "support families," meaning "procreate" and create more model citizens.

The prison "reform" project is actually a time travel experiment that takes us back to the 18th Century. That's a long journey even for this Administration, which usually aims no further back than the pre-New Deal 1920's. The first faith-based prison reform project was undertaken by Quakers in Pennsylvania in 1790, attempting to replace the dungeons of the time with a place where prisoners were kept in enforced isolation and given religious training. The hope was that the spartan living conditions and enforced spiritual indoctrination would eventually make the prisoners penitent (hence the name "penitentiary.") Inmates were housed in more comfortable surroundings, but were not allowed books, social contact, or any other distractions. They were required to work constantly, which would have pleased the Acton Institute, and given only the Bible for study. The abusive and coercive nature of this experiment led to its widespread condemnation and eventual closure, and these facilities eventually became the 'penitentiaries' of today.

Flash-forward to the 21st Century, where Florida "Secretary of Corrections" James Crosby described Jeb Bush's model faith-based prison as "a cocoon" where inmates could practice their faith free from "negative pressures and interactions." Mr. Crosby, thy speech doth sound strangely familiar.

Nobody can rationally argue that our prison system doesn't need reform. It is a torture chamber with 1,000 rooms. It is no coincidence that guards from the U.S. prison system were used to supervise the torture at Abu Ghraib. Yet the "reform" being promised here is a thought control project run amok. The misinformation being spread about this initiative includes the following:

Participation is strictly voluntary. Prisoners are, in fact, heavily coerced to participate. The potential consequences for refusing to participate include a longer prison term and harsher living conditions while incarcerated. Given this enormous pressure, it is surprising that 100 out of 800 prisoners at Lawtey Prison (the Florida experiment) declined to participate when the program was created, knowing that they would be transferred to other prisons and denied the opportunity of early release as a result.

It is non-sectarian. The program's organizers stated, and the press dutifully reported, that the prisoners at Lawtey represented 26 faiths. This implies an ecumenical program, but experience teaches otherwise. The InnerChange Prison Initiative, initiated in Texas in 1997 when George W. Bush was Governor and expanded into Iowa, is exclusively Christian. A more telling statistic, reported in Science & Technology News: "Most of the groups that work at Lawtey are Christian; on a roster provided by the Florida Department of Corrections, there are no non-Christian volunteers listed."

Just to underscore the point, I'm sure all the non-Christian prisoners got the message when Jeb Bush came to visit for the holidays and said, “I can’t think of a better place to reflect on the awesome love of our Lord Jesus than to be here at Lawtey Correctional. God bless you.” Happy Hannukah to you too, Mr. Governor.

There is no coercion to practice religion: In fact, the InnerChange Initiative required prisoners to study the Bible and to attend church regularly for three months after release. Failure to comply is reported to prison authorities and can impact release and parole restrictions. In Lawtey, Science & Theology News describes an evening service:

“My job is to guide you to a personal relationship with the god of your faith. Amen?” (the leader) asks, moving from one man to the next and resting his palms on their shoulders. “And the only way I know how to do that is prayer.”

The leader is asking for an "amen" back from each prisoner. Jews don't shout out individual "amens" like evangelical Christians do. Neither do Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, or Native Americans. Imagine the social pressure on a prisoner who does not, in fact, reply with a hearty "amen" in front of his peers - and under the eyes of the warden, who was sitting in a back row during the service.

The Prison Fellowship Initiative actively participates in the faith-based prison initiative. Its leader, Pat Nolan, is refreshingly honest about his motivations, in contrast to the Bush brothers: “We don’t do this because it works. We do it because it’s what Jesus calls us to,” Nolan says. “We do it because Jesus was explicit, and we think that Christianity is the way, the truth and the life. That’s what we have to share. If we try to get it down to a generic faith thing, it loses its meaning.”

If Pat Nolan was talking my Parole Board, I know exactly what I'd say to him: "Amen."

In a related story, a Christian-based operator of privatized prisons called the Maranatha Corporation has been charged by the State of California with misappropriating $1.6 million in funds collected from prisoners' pay phones and redirecting it to their reform efforts. They are in negotiations with the state, which wants them to return the funds. "Maranatha" means "our Lord is coming." Maybe he'll bring the money.

Charles Dickens wrote extensively about the horrors of Poor Houses and prisons in England, and one might have expected him to be de-sensitized to harsh penal conditions by the time he visited an American penitentiary. Yet he wrote this in 1842 after visiting one such institution: "Those who designed this system of Prison Discipline ... do not know what it is that they are doing. ... I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body."

Let me hear you say 'yeah.'

|

Friday, November 26, 2004

friday hepcatblogging


Lord Buckley

My kitty is sleeping in one of her secure undisclosed locations, so I have to use another cat for Friday catblogging. If mine ever gets up I'll post a picture, if only for Night Light reader Grandma Jo and other devotees of Friday catbloggers everywhere.

Today's substitute is the hippest of all hip cats, the great Lord Buckley, spoken-word artist of the Jazz Age. Learn more about him at www.lordbuckley.com. Once inside, I recommend you go to "wordland" (cool name, that) and peruse Lord Buckley's speeches using the Hip 'O' Matic 5000 Turbo as a translator. But be warned - there is no substitute for the Lord. He must be heard, rather than read, to be truly appreciated.

Find your way to "The Nazz," his beautiful and surprisingly reverentful telling of the story of Jesus. It sure ain't the Pat Robertson version.
|

Wednesday, November 24, 2004

Talking Deadspeak to Leahy


look, i can catch my hand

So Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, has been quoted as saying that Alberto Gonzales is "nice," and that he's "no Attila the Hun." I know we've lowered our standards, guys, but didn't realize that as long as you don't rape & pillage you're OK. Sure, Mr. G was the legal architect behind Abu Ghraib, but he didn't tell Leahy to "go fuck himself" like Cheney so Pat's thinks he's got "good vibes" or something. (Check out Liquid List's post on Mr. Nice.)

How do you reason with a guy who says Gonzales is "nice"? Wait: He told us himself. When Jerry Garcia died, Leahy mentioned that he's been a lifelong Deadhead. (Was that him in the corner in '71, tripping on Sunshine and moving his hand up and down in the strobe light?) So, Pat, let me try some Deadspeak and see we can communicate. I've linked to this useful Grateful Dead lyric database to use phrases you'll remember from their songs. (Deadheads, I've footnoted each lyric in case you want to play Name That Tune.)

"Dear Mr. Fantasy" (1):

"Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothing new to say." (2) "This town ain't got no heart" (3) and "treachery is tearing me limb from limb." (4) Unfortunately, "you've all been asleep and would not believe" (5) that you can't be a "friend of the devil" and still be a "friend of mine". (6) Remember, "in the thick of the evening when the dealing gets rough" (7) these guys will "steal you face right off your head." (8) "Some folks look for answers, some folks look for fights, " (9) so ”watch what you're doin' with your time." (10)

”What do you want me to do, to watch for you while you are sleeping?" (11) There's "trouble ahead, trouble behind" (12) and it's "later than I thought when I first believed you." (13) "What else do you lack to make it right" (14)? Sure, "it costs a lot to win," but it's "even more to lose" (15), and "if you make a mistake, you're going to pay for it twice." (16) "If all you got to live for is what you left behind (17)," then, Pat, history will ask of you: "Did he doubt or did he try?" (18) So, come on, brother. "Nobody's finished, we ain't even begun." (19)

See you at the snack bar during "Dark Star."

---------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Dear Mr. Fantasy (orig. by Traffic); (2) New Speedway Boogie; (3) Shakedown Street; (4) Althea; (5) Estimated Prophet: (6) Friend of the Devil; (7) Scarlet Begonias; (8) He's Gone; (9) Playing in the Band; (10) Cream Puff War; (11) Box of Rain; (12) Casey Jones; (13) Ship of Fools; (14) Cats Under the Stars; (15) Deal; (16) Chinatown Shuffle; (17) Mississippi Halfstep Uptown Toodeloo; (18) Saint Stephen; (19) The Golden Road (to Unlimited Devotion)


|

Tuesday, November 23, 2004

A Progressive Gives Thanks



William Blake - who lays the smackdown on Jerry Falwell (below)

I've never really been a big fan of Thanksgiving. A 'progressive,' if that's what I am, is a person who sees what is wrong with the world and seeks to right it. Being a progressive, like being a conservative, is as much a statement of personality as it is of politics. The character trait of discontentment can be a great force for good. Some of us can take a good thing too far, though. Like while driving.

Gratitude has never been a natural part of my emotional repertoire, so Thanksgiving and I were never a good fit. I've been lucky enough to have some good advice over the years, however. It's been suggested that I stop every now and then to remember the positives - to try keeping my balance through difficult times like these. There are a few good things out there that come to mind. It means letting go of my ironic detachment, to which I've become very sentimentally attached, but here goes anyway ...

I'll be giving thanks tomorrow to whatever Force or scientific principles gave us the following:

Our voters - More than 57 million people voted for John Kerry. More than 41 million voted for Democrats in the Senate races, a 3,000,000+ victory over the Republicans nationally. This shows that there is a great reservoir of wise people in this country - people who were able to see the truth and act accordingly, despite the armada of electronic hypnotists that we call media. This is a strong base for future action.

Our activists - A huge wave of volunteers was formed this year. MoveOn.org and other organizations created outlets for nascent activism, and the results were impressive. So they beat us the first time around - big deal! They've been doing it for thirty years and we're just getting started. To the Falwells and Dobsons of the world, I'll quote the great Satchel Paige: "Don't look back, something might be gaining on ya."

Good advocates - We've got a lot of effective communicators speaking up for progressive positions. Michael Moore, you may have your flaws, but don't we all? You've gotten the word out to a heck of a lot of people, and you never quit. Thanks, big guy. Bruce Springsteen, I always knew you were a hell of a songwriter. Now I know you're a great spokesperson, too. It figures - some guys have all the luck. Bill Maher, Jon Stewart - who knew that stand-up comedians would become the new protest singers. What's next - Shecky Greene leads the revolution? Jackie Vernon as Minister of Culture and Brother Theodore as spiritual advisor?

New information outlets - I don't care what anybody says, the "Internets" worked. We have the blogs to keep us informed, MoveOn to keep us (sort of) organized, and outlets like Guerrilla News Network, truthout.org, Democratic Underground, Liberal Oasis, and Common Dreams to gives us voices.I'm thankful for every information source we can get, and for voices like Daily Howler and Media Matters that let us know just how distorted a picture our "news organizations" really provide.

Great music that's also good - See the above-mentioned Mr. Springsteen. He's Exhibit A, but we've also got John Fogerty, Eminem, Willie Nelson, Chuck D, and a bunch of great punk bands speaking out for us. Not to mention the immortal Merle Haggard, who's not on anybody's side but wrote a terrific song called "That's the News" about the Iraq war.

Some new leaders - Barack Obama, Barack Obama, Barack Obama. There's probably somebody else I'm forgetting.

Fine writing - Eric Alterman. Thomas Franks. James Wolcott. And lots more where that came from.

Their political mistakes - They're already overplaying their hand. I mean, come on - Changing the House rules so that DeLay can stay on even if he's indicted? Thank you, thank you, thank you! It remains to be seen if the Democrats can effectively use gifts like these, but I'm grateful for each golden opportunity.

The religious teachings of the Jewish prophets, Jesus Christ, and Mohammed, which stand in stark contrast to the actions of their purported followers in the Israeli ultra-right, our so-called "religious" Right, Islamic terrorists, and Wahhabi states like Saudi Arabia. We can use the teachings of these three religions to combat religiously-inspired oppression. And for the wisdom of William Blake, who wrote "that vision of Christ which thou dost see/is my vision's greatest enemy." Take that, Jerry Falwell.

Heroes like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandala, who struggled for many years against odds much longer than we face, and yet prevailed. I know I've got it easy.

Bush approval ratings that are hovering at 50%, despite the fact he just won an election. They went from 90% after September 11 to 71% after we invaded Iraq. Now he can't get much past the halfway mark. That's a major shift in the right direction. Not far enough to win the 2004 election, but now we've got 2006 in our sights.

Real Democrats - I'm thinking of Jimmy Carter and Al Gore, who seem to have become the conscience of the Party. I just wish both of them had been this forceful when they were elected President.

Let me know if you have anything to add to this list. Otherwise, have a Happy Thanksgiving.

UPDATE: Two good new additions to the list from Ellen M. - Al Franken (how could I forget Al?) and Sorry Everybody, the website where we can tell the world we did everything we could to win in 2004.


|

Monday, November 22, 2004

The Joy of Losing


this is SO the wrong way to go

Bob Somerby at Daily Howler has a great piece today on the contempt some people have been showing toward those who objected to the NFL's new locker-room-seduction promo. You don't have to agree that the ad was offensive, or that Janet Jackson's breast-baring was vulgar, etc. etc., to respect other people's feelings on the subject, yet many of us don't. Hel-lo .... Instead, some of us adopt an attitude of moral superiority toward anyone who's offended or repelled by sexual content. Good way to perpetuate the Blue/Red culture gap. Remember, "offended" or "repelled" reactions are emotions, not political positions. I thought we believed in respecting the feelings of others.

Why do so many people want to mock or demean those with whom they disagree? Bob says it's tribal, and I think he's right. The "IDIOT" image and label shown above is from one of those places that sells clothing to "progressives," if that's the right word. There was a time when to be "progressive" meant to have respect for all, even those who disagreed with you. It meant working to create a better country in partnership with many diverse groups. That's the point of community organizing - the community only agrees with you after you organize it, not before. Should Saul Alinsky have stayed home with his friends, talking about how inferior other people and their leaders are?

This t-shirt represents, to me, much of what's wrong with the new 'progressive' movement's thinking and behavior. Don't we want to win people over to our side? Those who voted for Bush won't be persuaded by political apparel like this. If you're NOT wearing it to win people over, then I think Bob's right and it's about some kind of social bonding with those who already agree with you. That may make you feel better, but shouldn't we draw the line when our 'feel-good' activities start harming the cause we want to feel good about?

Here's another question (the obvious one): If Bush is such an idiot, why do the people buying these t-shirts keep losing to him? Clearly what he does resonates with a lot of voters. That something is worthy of study, so we can learn and improve. He's doing something right, even if its only picking the right people to lead his campaign. Face it: he picked Rove, and Kerry picked Shrum. Who was smarter there?

On the same note, this morning I saw a bumper sticker that said "Yee-ha is not a foreign policy." Well, "yee-ha" isn't Bush's foreign policy, either, so this is a stupid sticker that oozes misguided contempt. Like it or not, our government's actions are driven by a calculated strategy, not a goofy rebel yell. Granted, the execution has been terrible, but our government's actions reflect both strategy and ideology. Belittling them doesn't win any voters over, and it blinds us with such a brilliant ray of self-satisfaction that we don't analyze what that strategy might be and how to combat it. That's playing right into the hands of the "idiot."

I don't think the people who voted for Bush are bad people. I think they're human. I think they're preoccupied with their very human lives, and I think they believed what they were told over and over in the 'liberal media.' Insulting Bush means insulting them, too. It lets them know that WE'RE WRITING THEM OFF. And it doesn't accomplish anything positive.

Which leads me to a question that's often asked in Twelve Step circles: Would you rather be "right" or happy? Meaning, would you rather have the satisfaction that comes from knowing you're on the "correct" side of a nasty fight, or would you rather avoid the fight if possible and work together to solve your relationship problems? Because what we have, when all is said and done, is a bad relationship with our Red-voting neighbors. Do we want to "work things out" or get one of those "secede from the South" divorces so many people are fantasizing about? I'd rather see a few more Bush voters become comfortable with the Democratic Party and its values - values that are often consistent with "Red State" sociology, anyway, no matter what hokum David Brooks is peddling this week. Honey, can we talk?

Caring,respect, love of children, kindness -- these things are as important to the average evangelical as they are to the most ethical liberal. (I exclude their leaders, the cynical ministers and politicians, from this assessment.) I know, because I've lived among of them. Yes, progressives, like Margaret Mead or Levi-Strauss I've lived among the natives and come back to tell the tale.

The new progressive mantra: People are the same everywhere - except in Texas, Mississippi, Oklahoma ...

The good news about the values we all share is getting scrambled in transmission, and lost in the noise of our disagreements over gay marriage, sexual content in the media, and abortion. We don't have to back away from our beliefs. But do we want to be right, or happy? The happiness of winning will be ours when we learn to stress consensus as well as conflict, agreement as well as antagonism. Unless, that is, we've decided we'll never win an election again, in which case we're free to trash anybody who doesn't think like we do.

Once you've lost hope, the natural reaction is to lash out. But how much satisfaction will that really give you? And wouldn't you rather find reasons to be hopeful? I would - and so would most Bush voters. After all, it's only human.


|

Saturday, November 20, 2004

Democrats for Christ


Sen. Tom Coburn, MD (R-OK)

I'm going to role-play a little here. Say I'm a political consultant who likes to win. You ask me what it would take to win a couple more Red states for the Democrats in the '06 Congressional and Senatorial races. Here's what I say:

First, form a Christian values 527. Then find a white male Southern minister to serve as a spokesman. Now, run an ad like this throughout the Red states during the campaign:

AD: "FOR GOD'S SAKE"

"Hello, I'm Reverend ____ ____". As he speaks we see a black screen, with pictures of Republican politicians fading in and out as they are mentioned.

REVEREND: Republicans. They claim to represent our moral values. Then why did they elect a U.S. Senator who, by his own admission, killed unborn children - and then lied about it so that he could get paid for it out of your tax dollars? You can't represent life when you've delivered death. And why did the Republicans elect a Speaker of the House who cheated on his wife - while she lay in a hospital bed with cancer? Why did they elect a Governor in California who molested unwilling women, and now supports dissecting fetuses for stem cell research? Are these really people you want upholding your moral values?

Abortionists. Cheats. Adulterers... Republicans. For God's sake, don't vote for them.

(END)

It's a page from the Karl Rove playbook: Attack them where they're strong, not where they're weak. Pretty soon false equivalence will work for you, not against you. "Yeah," evangelical voters will say, "I guess neither party's really very Christian." GOP voter turnout drops, and then a few close elections in the Red states (e.g. KY, OK, South Dakota this year) swing back our way.

Now this ad might never even get aired, given the attitudes of media owners, but the free publicity it would receive (as with the Swift Boat ads) will guarantee that it gets shown over and over on the news. Democratic candidates can express their outrage over it, calling the ad "vile" and "indecent" while reaping its benefits.

So when I'm done, you tell me you don't want to run that kind of dirty campaign. I say "Hey, do you wanna win or don't you?" Brutal? Yes. Effective? Probably.

This is the "bootleg version" of Democrats for Christ, but there's a radio-friendly one, too. In that version, the Reverend talks about the ethics and teachings of Jesus and how they're routinely violated by Republicans and conservatives. We would all more be comfortable with this approach, and some might even consider it high-minded. But I'm the consultant, right? And I say the nice version just isn't going to be all that effective. You want to fight, you gotta get dirty.

So consider this a thought experiment for Democrats. Visualize the bootleg ad and ask yourself: How badly (in both senses of the word) do you want to win? Because they want to win really, really badly.

I'm struggling with this one, because I don't want us to become like them. I don't want them to keep winning ugly, either. And ugly seems to win every time. So help me out. Should we get in the trenches or not? And if we don't, how do we stop losing the Red states?


|

Friday, November 19, 2004

evil dead


killed 4 children, went free for 30 years in "moral values" Red state

The right-wing catchphrase of the 1980s was "moral relativism. " This was originally an academic term, but came to be used by Christian conservatives to denounce the tolerant attitude they felt liberals held toward sin. The fuzzy-headed, atheistic "progressives" (supposedly) condoned drug use, street crime, even murder, when practiced by people toward whom they were allegedly biased - the poor, minorities, youth, and the like. Moral relativism became an epithet, containing as it did the suggestion that lefties condoned or rationalized evil when their friends were doing it.

Turns out the real moral relativists are the so-called Christian right. Any one of the Ten Commandments can, it seems, be broken with impunity by their allies and friends. I'll give you couple of case studies that are, as the old movies used to say, "ripped from today's headlines."

Today's obituaries note the passing of two luminaries from the religious Right. The indisputably evil Bobby Frank Cherry died of cancer in prison. Cherry was one of the conspirators who set the bomb that killed four little black girls attending church school in Birmingham in 1963. Though their identities were well-known to local law enforcement, the perpetrators of this horrific crime lived in freedom for thirty years after committing their murders, enjoying the wonders of nature and the comfort of friends and family. These precious gifts, forever denied to four beautiful children, were made possible by the sympathy felt toward these killers by white politicans in the Red state of Alabama, and the "moral values" of those who voted for them.

The segregationist leaders of Cherry's home state were among those who created the Republicans "Southern strategy," which continues to rely on coded racist signals to build its dominance in the once-Democratic South. Ronald Reagan launched his 1980 Presidential campaign in Philadelphia, Missisippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered by segregationists. The symbolism was not lost on Cherry's allies and sympathizers at the time. The same goes for George W. Bush's 2000 campaign speech at Bob Jones University, where interracial dating was still banned at the time.

Today's Sinner #1: Bobby Frank Cherry.
Commandment broken
: #7 - Thou shalt not kill.

No responsible conservative political or religious leader would do anything but condemn a killer like Cherry. I would never suggest otherwise. Liars are another matter, however.

Today's obituary page also marked the passing of Reed Irvine, the founder of Accuracy in Media. Irvine was the architect of the "liberal bias" myth, and successfully pressured the media into assuming its current supine position regarding the mass deception carried on by the religious right, the Republican party, and the Bush administration. Not content with this achievement, Irvine went on togenerate a continuing stream of falsehoods regarding the Left, Democrats, and especially then-President Bill Clinton. There is ample documentation that he and his allies knew they were spreading falsehoods - which is also known as bearing false witness. (See the writings of David Brock, who now runs Media Matters.)

The most shocking and repellent act in this man's sordid career remains his campaign to frame Clinton for murder. His calculating lies regarding the suicide death of Vince Foster caused untold torment to Foster's grieving family and friends. The elementary decency most of us would show to a bereaved widow and her children was lacking in this man, whose political blood-lust overwhelmed any sense of morality. Media Matters and others continue to document the Right's disinformation campaign.

Today's Sinner #2: Reed Irvine
Commandment Broken: #9 - Thou shalt not bear false witness

I wonder what Jesus would say to these two men should they ever meet in Heaven - which is not a likely prospect, given their track records.

|

whirling claws of steel


look into these eyes. then try petting her.

It took me a year to be able to hold her - a scratch-filled passion play of a year, with theme music by Ted Nugent. (She was my wife's, originally - a stepcat.) It was a Zen exercise to try making friends with her. Now, ten years and two pints of O-positive later, I can't get her off my lap. The end result: i can friday catblog, too, just like the legends.
|

Sunday, November 14, 2004

dedicated to the one i love


not the Democratic minority leader

Oh, so the Senate Democrats have selected Harry Reid to be their leader, not Terry Reid. I wasn't clear on why the Democrats would turn to a minor British rocker from the 1960's to lead them in this critical time. I thought maybe it was part of this "search for a new identity" they keep talking about. If feeding the poor isn't a good enough image anymore, or protecting innocent civilians from death and injury, or defending Social Security, or respecting a woman's right to choose - if standing for these ideals isn't good enough for them anymore, then I figured they might be ready for anything. And, while Harry Reid opposes a woman's right to choose and pandered to the right with a flag-burning amendment, Terry Reid was offered the lead singer position in Led Zeppelin before Robert Plant took it. That's a pretty good credential. He also covered Sonny & Cher's "Bang Bang," while Harry Reid seems determined to remake their other big hit, "The Beat Goes On."

So this is how the Senate Democrats choose to define themselves. Mrs. Night Light brought this issue to my attention this morning by flinging the New York Times across the room and emitting a near-ultrasonic shriek that cleared the trees of birds and left hairline cracks in the French crystal. (Well, not really, but she was pretty pissed.) She was reading about Sen. Reid, the teetotaling Mormon who boasts that a former Republican Committee chair is one of his biggest supporters, and who promises that his friendship with President Bush will not affect his performance.

Remember, Democratic Senate candidates won the popular vote nationally by more than 3,000,000 votes, a mandate equal to or greater than the President's. Remember, too, Harry Truman's observation that "in a race between a Republican and a Republican, the Republican wins every time." Yet the Democrats have once more chosen the time-worn path of appeasement. Mr. Reid will be polite and humble and won't make a mess on the carpet. Give 'em ... heck, Harry. They continue to try the 'loyal opposition' approach, since it worked so well for Tom Daschle. And that pro-Iraq vote sure helped Kerry craft his message. Listen up, wimps: The meek may inherit the earth, but not while Karl Rove's alive.

Thanks, Democrats, for destabilizing my marriage. I had finally talked the Mrs. out of moving to Europe by pointing out that conservatives didn't move to Argentina when Goldwater lost. They hung in for 30 years and took over the world, like Number Two did for Dr. Evil. We can do it, too, I told her. She was just starting to go for it, and now this. Why fight for Democrats, says Mrs. NL, if they're going to start becoming more & more like Republicans? She says they've stabbed all of their voters in the back and let down the armies of GOTV volunteers (she was one of them), by picking this guy.

|

flawless execution


going all the way

From Dahr Jamail's Daily Dispatches, this link to a Scottish newspaper's story of an innocent Fallujah family decimated by the assault there. You won't read much about these kinds of civilian horrors in the US press, though. What you can read are the exultant statements of Marine Major General Richard Natonski, from ABC News' website. "Maybe we learned from April," Natonski said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We learned we can't do it piecemeal. When we go in, we go all the way through. We had the green light this time and we went all the way." And, says ABC,

"On Sunday, Marines were expected to reopen the bridge where two American contractors killed by militants were strung up in March, sparking the earlier siege of Fallujah by U.S forces. 'This is a big event for us,' said Maj. Todd Des Grosseilliers, 41, from Auburn, Maine. 'It's symbolic because the insurgents closed the bridge and we are going to reopen it.'"

So, a year after the images of Saddam's statues being pulled down by "ordinarily Iraqis" were proven to have been staged, there's going to be another "symbolic event." Expect lots of press coverage for it, but none for the funeral of Artica Salim, who was seven months pregnant when she died.

|

Thursday, November 11, 2004

DEMS WON 3,000,000 MORE SENATE VOTES THAN GOP

Have Extensive "Political Capital" For Blocking Presidential Extremism

I just spent an hour totaling the Senate results for the entire country. Democratic candidates received 3,184,943 more votes than Republicans nationally - a victory margin of nearly 4% in the popular vote. Disproportional representation in the Senate accounts for the difference. Barbara Boxer's margin of victory in California alone (1,956,938 votes more than her Republican challenger), is greater than the Republican margins in Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, South Dakota, North Dakota, North Carolina, South Carolina, Oklahoma, New Hampshire, Missouri, and Utah put together. This may be the most votes ever received nationally by a political party for a Senate campaign.

What a mandate. In fact, the Democratic Senatorial mandate is virtually identical to the Bush's self-proclaimed Presidential "mandate." Look:





Let's get the message to Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats: stay strong. Question Alberto Gonzales directly and clearly. Filibuster judicial nominees if they are biased and partisan. Block the dismantling of fifty years of social progress.

Don't be shy -- we've got lots of political capital to spend.

NEW HEADLINE - "Dems Win by 3,000,000 Nationally - Unfortunately, in an election that's even less representative than the Presidency."





|

Tuesday, November 09, 2004

wolfs


weakness attracts those who are waiting to do America harm

Poor Wolf. No matter how distorted his reporting gets, he always seems like such a decent guy to me. He just seems weak, cowed, afraid to wander off message and get clobbered. Tonight he was reading from the new post-election script, the one that reflects all that new political capital the President says he's amassed. There's a trapped look in his eyes, and I can't see his fingers when he's on TV. Maybe he's using hand gestures like the USS Pueblo sailors did, signalling to us that he doesn't want to say these things but they put him under so much pressure.

Tonight on NewsNight Wolf told us thatBush "visited injured solders, which he does from time to time." He should take notes from CNN's own Dana Bash, who reported today that the President made "his sixth trip to Walter Reed (to visit injured soldiers), but he hasn't been there in about eight months, since March 19 ... Now, the White House denies that the campaign, either the campaign schedule or politics, was the reason for him not visiting wounded soldiers there in eight months." Dana, maybe you can talk to your anchorman and let him know you can still slip a little truth onto TV in Red America. For the moment.

The President "visited injured solders, which he does from time to time." That sounds so ... nice, like it's something he remembers to do on the way back from the grocery store. From time to time. Like when it's not politically inconvenient. Wolf, his spine torqueing from the administration's headlock, papers over the unpleasant but embarrasingly obvious reality that even our wounded soldiers are nothing more than props to be hidden or paraded as deemed expedient.

The CNN anchor: he can be ... persuaded.

You know, I hope Wolf really is caving under pressure, because I don't know how he can believe this stuff. Wolf, Rush's girlfriend Daryl Kagan, Paula Zahn ... I'd love to see what the employment application forms at CNN look like. "Describe an incident in your career where you successfully made a Mobius strip out of factual information." "Please provide the names of three references - one from the American Enterprise Institute, one from the Cato Institute, and one from the Republican party - to provide a broad political spectrum of opinions about your capabilities."

I still want to believe, though, that Wolf is a good person in a bad situation. Maybe it's the beard. Maybe I just wish we still had a Fourth Estate in this country. Edward R. Murrow, the nation turns its lonely eyes to you.


|

First, solve for x


the arc of red over blue

We seem to be the kind of people who don't balance their checkbook. All the airtight arithmetical arguments about tax cut inequality, social security, and ballooning deficits failed against the steady drumbeat of slogans and images. Our campaign speeches sounded like algebra problems to a lot of voters. That's the bad part.

The good part (and I think there is one) is that we are a country that votes with its heart. That's an endearing quality, if you don't think about the consequences. The heart makes us do foolish things, as they say. Hearts want to do good, but don't know how to do it. Learn to reach more hearts, and we will win. Besides, I don't balance my checkbook either.

Hearts are won with music, not numbers or words. The power of repetitive slogans is the power of a catchy song: you forget the words but you can't stop humming the melody. We've got the right political math, now we need to create political music.

How about stealing a tune from Barry Goldwater? "In your heart, you know he's right." Or let's make up a song of our own, something catchy. Something that gets in your head and stays there. Something you might sing to yourself while you're sitting through 5th period Algebra. C'mon, kids, let's put on a show!


|

Monday, November 08, 2004

bringing it all back home


a senator's best friend?

Nick at Blogging of the President has the right take on the Republican cultural offensive.

How do we do wage culture war right back? We target ALL MODERATE (and not so moderate ie. that bitch, Rick Santorum) REPUBLICANS IN BLUE STATES. They want to support their crazy fucking party? Then they should have to pay for it. (snip) A simple scary ad. "You grew up in a pro-choice world. A vote for INSERT MODERATE LOCAL CONGRESSMAN HERE will ensure that you lose that choice." A vote for Governor Pataki is a vote to reverse Roe V. Wade. A vote for Arlen Spector is a vote to give your tax money to evangelical Churches. A vote for Mayor Bloomberg is a vote to have Creationism taught in schools.

That may be putting it a little harshly, but it's absolutely right - bring it on for every Blue State Republican (or BSRs, as I call them.) Raise the price of collaboration with the New Republicanism and its agenda. Let the Republicans know that if they want to win campaigns through polarization, they're going to lose some the same way. The Democrats have been using Marquis of Queensbury rules while the Republicans have been fighting with chains and knives.

The new mantra: a vote for a Republican is a vote for extremism. That will be effective, and you know what - it's true. BSRs showed us during the campaign that when the chips were down they would twist into whatever contortions Karl Rove asked of them. Pataki lied about Kerry. Guiliani disparaged the troops. Santorum raised the visibility of man/dog love* as a lifestyle option. (That one might not have been Rove's idea, though; it has the ring of personal inspiration to it.)

As we used to say in the 60's, bring the war back home. We don't have to lose moderate voters by pointing out the consequences of voting for a BSR, either. The Republicans seem to retain some moderates no matter how extreme they get. In fact, they've shown us that once you've gone all medieval you can backpedal just a little and people think you're more moderate than the other guy. You might even get a hug from Tom Daschle - a good and decent man who just didn't understand what he was up against.

*Prompting my favorite reporter’s quote of the year: “I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about "man on dog" with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out.” He was experiencing that "clash of cultures" we've been hearing so much about. And people say we're too out there for them? Santorum should at a minimum observe the same rules that Mafia porn distributors allegedly once used: no bestiality.
|

political capitalism


Less than one-third of all eligible voters endorsed the Bush/Cheney vision for America. They're gonna write a lot of checks with this "capital" anyway. It's called leveraging.
|

Saturday, November 06, 2004

Kubler-Ross for DNC Chair


Dr. Elizabeth Kubler-Ross

The Daily Kos is floating some names as replacements for Terry McAuliffe. I'd like to propose a new one: Elizabeth Kubler-Ross. She can help the Democrats through the five stages of grief:

Denial: Conspiracy theories are our denial mechanism. Face it - the guy won. We won't find four million stolen votes. Sure they might've grabbed a few here and there. We need to let them know we're watching (which is why I support Black Box Voting), but whatever we find will have just been a practice run for next time. The electorate really voted this way, and we should plan our lives accordingly.

Anger: Dr. K-R taught us to accept this emotion, unjudged. It is healthy. It will motivate us for the task ahead. Don't stay in this stage too long, however, or you will burn out. We need steady combustion for the next four years, so let's not explode in a brief ragingl fire. We have work to do.

Bargaining: This stage is best represented by those who call for cooperation or negotiation with the Republicans. As Cass Sunstein effectively points out in Salon (yes, it's a subscription link, but you should subscribe anyway), this is a futile effort. Just ask Tom Daschle.

Depression: Many of us went straight to this stage. Fine. We've broken out the George Jones records, watched old film noir DVDs, engaged in "risk-taking behavior," or survived for days on nothing but coffee and comfort food. Feel better? Now let's get to work.

Acceptance: In this case, acceptance does not meet silently withdrawing to meet our fate. It means accepting that we're at war. Acceptance means fighting. Remember, we're looking for "closure." You want closure? This is life during wartime - welcome to the Resistance.

So I vote Elizabeth! She's the one. And her accent's more authoritative than Arnold's. Sure, she's passed away herself and that's unfortunate. On the other hand, Bob Shrum's died, what, like seven times already? The Democrats still turn to him. Dr. Kubler-Ross, this is your moment.

|

Friday, November 05, 2004

tomorrow's ghosts today


coming soon to a haunting in your neighborhood
|

yeah, yeah, my sign is Big Fun

George W. Bush is a Cancer. The excerpt below is from "Regina Russell's Tea Room":

The sign Cancer is symbolized by the Crab.

You are emotional, intuitive, sympathetic and moody. You enjoy shopping and visiting with friends. Cancer is sentimental, sensitive, and needs to have a sense of security. Cancer may be interested in politics even if it's only on the local level. You tend to over protect what is yours. Cancer is intensely romantic and has a vivid imagination. Your home and family are very important to you.

Possible negative aspects of the sign Cancer:

You can be cruel, grasping, weak, possessive, domineering, timid, lazy and tend toward brooding and cynicism.

I think I have to start believing in astrology now.
|

bipolar disorder


license to ill

"'A house divided against itself cannot stand.'

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other."

Abraham Lincoln

(chart courtesy of Pandagon and Tom Tomorrow)


|

Thursday, November 04, 2004

an empty bottle, a broken heart, and you're still on my mind


Robert F. Kennedy: 1925-1968
|

Permalink Page