Who writes this stuff?
John J. McKay is an underemployed, grumpy, and aging liberal who lives in a small house with his clever wife, two cats, and a couple thousand books. To comment on anything in archy, send him an e-mail.


Mammoth Tales progress





Who is archy?
I introduced the patron cockroach, his creator, and his definitive artist in these two early posts.
One. Two.


Other sources of archy information
John Batteiger's DonMarquis.com
Jim Ennes's DonMarquis.org








Blogs I'm reading this week
Ahistoricality
Alicublog
The American Street
Bad Tux the Snarky Penguin
Bartholomew's notes on religion
Cocktail Party Physics
Cosmic Variance
Daily Kos
Demisemiblog
Dum Luks
The Early Days of a Better Nation
Eschaton
Firedoglake
The Greenbelt
Hatewatch
Hulabaloo
John Hawk's Weblog
Michael Bérubé
Mudflats
MyDD
The Nattering Nabob
Orcinus
Pacific Views
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
The Panda's Thumb
Paperwight's Fair Shot
Peevish...I'm Just Saying
Pharyngula
Political Animal
Progressive Alaska
Progressive Gold
Rev. BigDumbChimp
Roger Ailes
Sadly, No!
ScienceBlogs
Seeing the Forest
Shakesville
Skeptico
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
Slacktivist
Talk to Action
Talking Points Memo
TBOGG
That Would Be Me
Thinking Meat
Why Now?
Witness for the Prosecution
World O' Crap

The Liberal Coalition
archy
Bark Bark Woof Woof
Blog Around the Clock
Bloggg
Collective Sigh
Corrente (new home)
Corrente (old haunted mansion)
Dohiyi Mir
Echidne of the Snakes
First Draft
Florida Progressive Coalition Blog
Grateful Dread Radio
Iddybud Journal
The Invisible Library
Left is Right
Lefty Side of the Dial
Musing's musings
Pen-Elayne
Rational Animal
Rick's Cafe Americain
Rook's Rant
Rubber Hose
Scrutiny Hooligans
SoonerThought
Speedkill
Stupid Enough Unexplanation
WTF Is It Now??
Yellow Doggerel Democrat
You Are a Tree







ip-location

This site is certified 69% GOOD by the Gematriculator



Subscribe to
Posts [Atom]









Archives

Sunday, November 09, 2003

Sarcasm is wasted on children
The Stanford Daily is having one of those wonderful principled fights over an ad they published that only a college paper can have.

“You shouldn’t have published that because it’s racist.”

“Wait a minute, you saying they shouldn’t have published our ad takes away our free speech.”

“Does not, you hate-speaker.”

“Does too, you censorer. Besides, you’re a reverse racist ‘cause you hate us.”

“Am not, you oppressor.”

Et cetera.

If any ten commercial newspapers had as much concern for abstract principles as one college paper, the republic would be safe and uncorruptable.

Sigh.

Anyway, the Stanford Daily published an ad from some group calling itself the One Truth Foundation. I am assuming they are some variety of Zionists (Christian or Jewish), but I haven’t checked because it doesn’t really matter. The ad is part of series, parts of which have appeared in many college papers across the country and usually stirred up some controversy. The ad that has Stanford in a tizzy depicts Israelis lighting candles in remembrance of the 9/11 victims, with the caption, “On September 11, 2001, Israelis mourned in Tel-Aviv.” Next to this is a photo that was well circulated by neo-cons after 9/11 showing Palestinian men and children cheering, with the caption, “On September 11, 2001, Palestinians celebrated in Lebanon.” The punch line to the ad is the tag line for the entire ad campaign, “There are two sides to every story, but only one truth.”

A group called the Coalition for Justice has called the ad racist and is petitioning for the removal of the Daily’s editor. They have met with the editor in question, Ramin Setoodeh, who points out that he himself is of Middle Eastern origins, and the issue is chugging along.

So far, so good. Dozens of nearly identical controversies erupt every year. As far as this one is concerned, let’s just drop both of the terms “racism” and “hate” and say the ads are dishonest, misleading, and stupid. Now, although people have a free-speech right to be dishonest, misleading, and stupid out loud, newspapers are under no obligation to present them with a forum to be dishonest, misleading, and stupid in their pages.

Meanwhile, over at Volokh Conspiracy, David Bernstein feels the need to comment from a right-wing perspective:
It seems like anyone these days can throw around the term "racism" to try to suppress any campus speech that they don't like. How, exactly, can pointing out in an ad that Palestinians in Lebanon celebrated the 9/11 attacks possibly be construed as racism? Bravo to the editor-in-chief of the Stanford Daily, who refused to kowtow to such nonsense.

Setoodeh is to be commended for “refus[ing] to kowtow to such nonsense.” Except that’s not what he has done. He has engaged the protestors in a dialog that is, as yet, still continuing.

At this point, Atrios, seeing Bernstein’s comments, adds his own two cents worth. He posts two pictures. The first shows a French tribute to the victims of 9/11 with the caption, “On September 11, 2001, French people mourned in Paris.” The second shows Fred Phelps’ followers in a typical moment of celebrating human pain with their “Thank God for Sept. 11” and “God Hates Fags” signs above the caption, “On September 11, 2001, Kansans celebrated in Topeka [Phelps’ home base]” (actually, the photo is from the opening of Harvey Milk High in NYC just a few weeks ago, but it was the best Atrios could do on short notice). He then linked to Bernstein, an article in the Stanford Daily about the controversy so far, and added his own punch line, “I hate those evil Kansans.” He follows this with a parenthetical caveat, “also, please read the two links for context, in order”.

Could the fact that this is sarcasm be clearer? Yes, it could. At this point, no fewer than three comments are protesting the unfair stereotyping of Kansans.
“Hey now, I grew up in Topeka, KS, where those abhorrent protesters have their base. Don't stereotype us all, please.”

“I also must take offense with the generalization of Kansans. I happen to live in that state…”

“It really sucks when y'all talk about disenfranchising ((STATE X)) 'cause they're not sufficiently urban/Northern...” This one seemed to be aware that Atrios was being sarcastic, but couldn’t resist complaining anyway. Go figure.

When I was growing up, one of my mother’s favorite sighs was, “sarcasm is wasted on children.” My wife has adapted that phrase to, “irony is wasted on Americans.”

Just to make sure no one gets me wrong, let me present Shorter John McKay, even though that sounds like a comment about my height.
College students caring enough about abstract principles to get hot under the collar and argue them in public is a good thing. Atrios is funny. Irony is wasted on Americans.


posted by John at 8:07 PM |

The education president strikes again
Tom Spencer over at Thinking It Through and Atrios both have pieces up today on a bizarre article in the Christian Science Monitor concerning new history textbooks being introduced in Iraq. Under the summary, “As revised history books roll off Iraq's presses this month, some critics charge that they have moved from one-sided to 'no-sided'” the article begins:
For 15 years, high school history teacher Abtsam Jassom has dutifully taught 20th-century history according to the Baath Party. In it, America was the greedy invader, every Iraqi war was justified and victorious, and Zionists were the cause of world suffering.

Now, however, with the ouster of former President Saddam Hussein, US officials say teachers will finally be free to teach a more factual account of historical events. But the question is: Whose account will that be?

The first indicator of what a Saddam-free education will look like is arriving this month, as millions of newly revised textbooks roll off the printing presses to be distributed to Iraq's 5.5 million schoolchildren in 16,000 schools. All 563 texts were heavily edited and revised over the summer by a team of US-appointed Iraqi educators. Every image of Saddam and the Baath Party has been removed.

But so has much more - including most of modern history. Pressured for time, and hoping to avoid political controversy, the Ministry of Education under the US-led coalition government removed any content considered "controversial," including the 1991 Gulf War; the Iran-Iraq war; and all references to Israelis, Americans, or Kurds.

"Entire swaths of 20th-century history have been deleted," says Bill Evers, a US Defense Department employee, and one of three American advisers to the Ministry of Education.

Think about that for a second. Going catatonic in the face of any hint of controversy is pretty common for school districts in the US, but removing all references to the Kurds? How are they going to use these books in Kurdistan? It’s one thing to ignore uncomfortable events. But how do you ignore the second largest ethnic group in the country. Imagine a US history textbook that avoided any content considered controversial by having no references to women, African-Americans, or US relations with Latin America (now that I mention it, I think I did have that textbook in junior high).

Further down in the article we see the Bush administration’s strong commitment to helping democracy flourish.
In months ahead, Hussein [head of the text revision committee] will begin organizing a curriculum committee that represents different religious, political, and ethnic groups from around the country. US officials say most curriculum decisions will be made after the civilian government leaves Iraq, and that they will play a limited role - unless things go in a direction they don't approve.

"We will strongly recommend concepts of tolerance, and be against anything that is anti-Semitic or anti-West - content that would only sow the seeds for future intolerance," says Gregg Sullivan, spokesman for the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau of the State Department. "We'd hope it's only an advisory role, but if something develops that's disadvantageous to the Iraqi people, we'd weigh in on a stronger level."

In a democracy, you are free to say anything we want you to say. That whooshing sound you hear is the last vestige of American credibility going down the toilet.

posted by John at 1:22 PM |

Saturday, November 08, 2003

Grammar fun
Okay, grammar fans, parse this paragraph. This is a complete and unedited paragraph from Mona Charen’s column of last week as presented at the right-wing site townhall.com.
Have they thought this through? In the first place, Bush was hardly alone in believing Iraq possessed WMDs. All of the Democratic candidates thought so, too. As did the U.N., the British, the French (yes, the French should know, they built Saddam's first reactor back in 1981), the Russians and even Scott Ritter. He certainly possessed them in the past, and used them on the Kurds and the Iranians. And why would Bush lie about something that would so rapidly be revealed?

Does anyone really believe that former weapons inspector Scott Ritter used WMDs on the Kurds and the Iranians? On what do you base this stupid belief?

At one time most conservatives were language purists. Apparently they no longer believe in the necessity of unambiguous subject antecedents.

posted by John at 9:30 PM |

Friday, November 07, 2003

We should just stay drunk
According to a report presented this week at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America as reported in Scientific American, global warming gets a lot of the credit for better and more consistent wine vintages over the last half century.
Gregory Jones of Southern Oregon University and his colleagues analyzed data from 27 of the top wine-producing regions worldwide from the last 50 years …. Overall, they found an average temperature increase of two degrees Celsius for the wine regions and higher vintage ratings for their products. "There were no negative impacts," Jones notes.

No negative impacts for the wine industry, he means. In the future, as we paddle through our malaria-ridden, flooded costal cities and try to feed ourselves on the produce of dried out continental interiors, we will have the consolation of washing down our dinner of starling-on-a-stick with a really fine Pinot Gris. I suppose there are worse futures that we could look forward to.

posted by John at 9:53 PM |

Thursday, November 06, 2003

Dean and the CSA flag
I suppose everyone has heard the noise that followed Dean's public musing that he wanted to be the candidate for guys "who drive pickup trucks with Confederate flag decals." Yesterday Dean apologized for the comment. That won't quite be the end of it. Some of his Democratic competitors will have to harrumph a few more time before they let it die, but they will let it die. If the noise persists, most of it will come from the right. We can expect deep thinkers like Ann Coulter to bring this up forever as an example of liberal racism and hypocrisy.

This is not the first time Dean has used that line, though in his previous use I think he made his underlying point more clear. That point, is that socially conservative rural folk also need the social services that Democrats are better at providing and Democrats need to find a way to connect with them. It's a good point, one that I've also worried over. Many of the people who vote Republican are not served well by the Republicans.

However in searching for a nice sound-bite formula to make that point, he managed to make three mistakes in one short sentence. In his apology he showed that he clearly aware of, and sorry for, two of those mistakes.

The first, and most obvious, mistake was to give the appearance of being prepared to disregard two of the most dependable constituencies of the Democrats in order to reach out to a lost constituency. The dependable constituencies are, of course, African-Americans and non-Southern liberals to whom the Confederate battle flag is a symbol of raw hatred, slavery, insurrection, vigilante violence, segregation, and some of the most shameful episodes in the past of the Democratic Party. For us the Confederate battle flag is a zero tolerance issue. As a symbol it is so loaded with negativity that we can't even hint at endorsing it.

The second, and more subtle, mistake was to use the larger formula "guys in pickups with Confederate flags." Just as African-Americans and non-Southern liberals are hypersensitive to the symbolism of the flag, Southern liberals and moderates (and, I suppose, conservatives) are hypersensitive to any hint of patronizing and stereotyping by outsiders. Dean may as well have said "I want to be the candidate of toothless, inbred, redneck hillbillies." In an attempt to reach out to rural and small town poor whites, he instead reinforced the existing wall of suspicion between them and Democrats. It is very much to his credit that he got this point, and it is to the credit of those who helped him understand it (those included, at least, John Edwards and Jimmy Carter).

His third mistake, which he may or may not have gotten, is that it is just bad tactics to discuss strategy in public. You don't go around talking third-person about manipulating people, even if if you have their best interests at heart. "I want to get these goobers to vote for me," sounds too Machiavellian. If he wants their votes he needs to speak directly to them, in second-person. He needs to spend time with them and listen. He can't cry out, "we're better for you; why can't you get that?" and expect a favorable response. He need to go to them, in their space, and listen respectfully to their concerns. Only then should he say, "I can help you." He needs to ask as much as announce.

Large portions of the South, Midwest, and real West vote Republican for no other reason than that they are suspicious of Democrats. They find Republicans more likeable and sympathetic even as they get screwed by them. Some of that is the result of some really skillful propaganda work by a generation of Republican operatives that appeared on the stage in the seventies. They are sharp and embarrassingly well funded. But there is a limit of how many of our troubles we can blame on them. We need to take a good look at some of our self-inflicted injuries.

Dean may or may not recover from this (I'm betting he will). However, we shouldn't dismiss this as just Dean's problem. Too many Democrats make the same kind of mistakes. So do Republicans, but they can afford it. We can't; we are the opposition party. If we are going to retake some of the levers of power and begin to undo the damage of Bush and the radical Republicans, we need to expand our base and stop making avoidable mistakes.

posted by John at 2:39 PM |

Monday, November 03, 2003

Fast moving poop
I cannot figure this one out:
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration is shifting policy so cities and towns can skip a required treatment procedure for sewage they pump into rivers, lakes and coastal waters during high rains.

All I can figure is it must be the speed; when water is at high flood and moving fast, it’s okay to put poop in it, but when water is moving slow it’s not okay to put poop in it.

The rationale of the EPA seems to be that utilities shouldn’t have to bear the cost of treating extra water during storms. It might make some sense if they were allowing the treatment plants separate storm drain water and actual raw sewage. Treating poop is more important than treating runoff. If the runoff threatens to overwhelm the sewage treatment, then it would make sense to vent some of the runoff and keep treating all of the poop. That’s not what the new guidelines say. The new guide lines allow water treatment utilities to just start skipping treatment steps at peak times and dump diluted poop into rivers.

But perhaps they’ve overlooked something here. When rivers flood during storms they not only go faster, they rise and break free of where we would rather their banks were. This means poop filled water gets in yards, basements, cars, offices, and wells. I know the only science this administration cares about is bookkeeping, but I think it might be in all of our interests if someone explained to them where cholera comes from. And as long as they are in an explaining mood they might mention what the “P” in EPA stands for.

posted by John at 7:54 PM |

Saturday, November 01, 2003

Time's up
I majored in history, not math or law, so don't take this to the bank. But by counting on all my fingers and toes, using two cats, and a chipped coffee mug full of pencils, I do belive the 72 hour deadline set by the stalker Luskin's idiot lawyer has passed. As of 10:25 PM Pacific Time both of the non-libelous posts that had Luskin whining like a kindergardener are still up with comments.

Now that he has drawn shame and ridicule upon himself and his kin, is Luskin going to 1) draw the inevitable counter-lawsuit by outing Atrios' secret identity, 2) expand his cowardly legal actions to everyone who made the same libelous remarks by repeating his own characterization of himself as a stalker, 3) shut up and hope everone forgets, or 4) grow a beard, change his name, and move to coffee plantation in Costa Rica?

PS - I am Atrios.

posted by John at 10:37 PM |

Friday, October 31, 2003

Signs of the Apocalypse
Holy whore of Babylon, Batman! Someone calling themselves Human Events Book Service is making a talking Ann Coulter Action Figure doll. One big Ann Coulter going around spewing bile is unbearable enough, thousands of tiny Ann Coulters can only mean we missed the Rapture and the Tribulation has begun. HEBS describes their crime against nature as:
Amuse your conservative friends and annoy your liberal neighbors with the brand new Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure. This incredibly lifelike action figure looks just like the beautiful Ann Coulter, and best of all . . . it sounds like Ann, too! Ann recorded these classic Coulter sayings especially for this action figure.

[ … ]

This highly collectible doll comes in a display box with information highlighting Ann's unique contributions to America's political discourse. If you can't get enough Ann Coulter, you'll want to order the Ann Coulter Talking Action Figure today!

I don’t even want to think about the dateless dittoheads that are going to be lunging for their credit cards to order this graven idol. Ick. I gotta go take a shower.

posted by John at 10:46 PM |

Thursday, October 30, 2003

Theological pondering
On January 20, 1993 we had a huge wind storm in western Washington, one of those that tore roofs off and left hundreds of thousands without power. A local Republican announced that this was the wrath of God on Seattle for voting for Clinton the previous fall. Naturally the Republicans responded by nominating her for governor in the next election. I don't suppose anyone has noticed that hellfire decended on California as soon as the Arnold became governor.

Just wondering.

posted by John at 10:20 PM |

Modern life
Technology didn't seem to like me last night. When I got home late and saw the brou-ha-ha erupting on Atrios, I banged out the below post. Not my best work, but I thought it more important to show immediate solidarity than to test each word and try to craft the final say on the topic. So, I finished the post and went to Blogger to paste it in (I always compose offline). Blogger told me they had shut down a few minutes earlier for a night of maintenance. What to do? I rushed back to Atrios to put my "me too" on post four hundred or so of one of his comment threads. I wrote a few words promising to post my blog in the morning and pressed the "send" button. I received a bold-faced message informing me that the webmaster had banned me from the site and my message would not be posted.

I don't post comments at other people's sites very often. The last two sites I tried it at gave me the same result. I can only assume that there is some evil John McKay out there annoying people. It's not like it's an uncommon name. I have a cousin, uncle, and grandfather that all share the name. From my great grandfather there is an unbroken line of John McKays heading off into the mists of medieval Scotland where they are, no doubt, complaining about the weather. If I Google my name, the first couple pages are the Seattle Federal Prosecutor, the Republican speaker of the Florida Senate, and a Tory MP from Ontario (or least he was till the last election). I don't show up till page four or so.

After a few more failed tries at Blogger and Atrios, I e-mailed a short note to the anonymous avenger and went to bed. By then it was after three on the east coast so I figured he wouldn't read it any time soon.

I woke up to my alarm radio telling me, "...she said many of the terrorists are militants..." My first thought of the was, "and the rest are moderates." Then I remembered Atrios and went downstairs to post my blog. All went well. Maybe technology likes me better today.

posted by John at 6:31 PM |

I hate bullies
I also hate jumping on bandwagons. But I hate bullies more.

A number of my blogging betters (Kos, Calpundit, Orcinus, Tristero to name just ones my spellchecker rejects) are covering Donald Luskin’s threatened libel suit against Atrios. Luskin, for those new to this story, writes an NRO column and a blog primarily dedicated to hating Paul Krugman, the best columnist at the New York Times (note my lack of link to Luskin, I’ll get back to that). Luskin’s May 7 NRO column was called “We Stalked, He Balked” and was based on the idea that by getting Krugman to answer the claims of Luskin and his “squad” they somehow had him on the defensive (Krugman has been so fatally damaged by Luskin that he was nominated for a Nobel Prize this year).

On October 5 Atrios posted an item on his indispensable Blog, Eschaton, with the title “Diary of a Stalker” that had a pointer to Luskin’s blog and no further comment. Luskin’s main post that day was called “Face To Face With Evil,” and described attending at a lecture and book signing by Paul Krugman. Apparently Luskin feels that throwing his own words back in his face is libel and complained. He was especially upset at some of the comments that were made by people who had the gall to actually go to his site and read his words. Atrios picks up the story:
In my correspondence with Luskin he asked that I take down the post because of the comments, and said I had an obligation to do so. I asked if he meant a legal or ethical obligation, and he didn't respond. I then informed him that if he would tell me which comments he specifically was unhappy with I would be happy to delete them. He declined this offer, and said I should just take them all down.

That’s not good enough for Luskin and he has retained a lawyer. Luskin’s attorney, described by Kos as a “dumbass sleazebag lawyer (Jeffrey J. Upton of Hanify & King P.C.),” officially notified Atrios of their demand that he remove post and comments deemed objectionable by Luskin. In an apparent non sequitur, the paragraph describing Atrios’ dastardly crimes ended with the sentence: “Determining your identity for the purpose of making service of process can be easily accomplished through a subpoena to Blogspot.com.”

Atrios’ secret identity is as closely guarded as that of Superman or the Batman. Even the Joker and Lex Luthor are far too honorable opponents to think of fighting that dirty (Brainiac might, but he’s a machine lacking such subtle emotions as honor). However, outing is not too low for Luskin and Upton. The threat is clear, cede editorial control over all mention of Luskin (a public figure by virtue of his NRO column) or lose your privacy. It’s pure, cheap legal intimidation. It’s the very definition of a nuisance suit. And the precedent has a chilling affect on all bloggers.

The only way to fight a bully is for everyone to stand up for the victim. Do not let them pick us off one at a time. Do not abstain because you have some quibbles with Atrios. I did not speak up when they came for the Jews and all that. This is easy for me to say, because I like Atrios, but I hope some conservative and especially libertarian bloggers will see that their interest lies in not allowing this kind of intimidation to stand.

The course of action is clear. First, write about it. Second, boycott Luskin. If you’re linked to him, unlink him. If you are not linked to him, make a link then get rid of it just for the principle of the thing. Third, call the creepy little stalker a creepy little stalker; they can’t sue us all. Fourth, if they do sue Atrios (right now they’re just at the blustering threats stage), send him money. Calpundit has already offered to form the legal defense committee. Fifth, when they come looking Atrios, we all stand up and cry, “I am Atrios.” Sure, that leads to us all being crucified on the Via Appia, but we’ll all laugh about it when we’re older.

posted by John at 6:55 AM |

Wednesday, October 29, 2003

The spirit of George
My friend Trey is currently using this quote as his e-mail signature. It's about a different George and a different war, but I think it pretty well sums up the rationale behind the administration's optimism PR offensive over Iraq.
That's the spirit, George. If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

-- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett
(Blackadder Goes Forth)

It applies equally well to George Bush and George Nethercutt.

posted by John at 1:26 PM |

Pop quiz
What is this quote describing?
Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world.

If you guessed slavery in the South, you’re right. If you agree, you’re nuts. With people like this out there, is it any wonder that the radical right has managed to take over the Republican Party?

David over at Orcinus has more intelligent comments on this.

posted by John at 12:24 PM |

Le monde c'est moi
At yesterday's press conference, in yet another unscripted Freudian slip moment, Bush revealed what he thinks his job description is.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush ... said his message that "the world is more peaceful and more free under my leadership" will be a prominent theme of his bid for a second White House term.

Shouldn't someone break the news to him that he is only the president of the United States and not of the whole world?

I love it. More peaceful? It’s a measurable lie. Let’s compare the number of suicide bombings worldwide in the last three years under Clinton and the last three under Bush. If the world is more peaceful, it’s because a couple African civil wars have wound down, a process with which he had almost nothing to do.

Later in the same press conference he admitted he’s all hat and no cattle. Referring to the coming election: "There's no question politics can -- will -- create ... a lot of noise and … hot air. I'll probably be right in the mix of it, by the way."

Update Corrected my lousy French.

posted by John at 11:14 AM |

Monday, October 27, 2003

I can’t make up my mind
The conservative punditocracy has yet to catch on to the fact that most of us Bush-haters are also Cheney-haters, Ashcroft-haters, Rice-haters, Wolfowitz-haters, and Rumsfeld-haters. What a dilemma it is to come across a headline like this.



Which is better: getting rid of Rummy, because we hate Rummy, or keeping Rummy as a continuing liability for Bush, because we hate Bush? Instant gratification or long dragged out gratification? A bird in the hand or a bird (in this case an albatross) around the Bush’s neck? Hmmm.

posted by John at 9:31 PM |

Saturday, October 25, 2003

The glass is only half empty
The Senate just voted to give themselves a pay raise. Although this is an incredibly crass and insensitive thing for them to do when the economy is in the crapper and millions are unemployed, they could have behaved much worse.

Technically, they voted not to exempt themselves from a cost of living raise for civilian government employees. Congressional raises are tied to raises for the civil service. This is a fairly recent innovation that saves any individual congressperson from having to put their name down as the sponsor for a bill raising their own pay. So by giving a raise to the civil service they should get a raise without political consequences. However, some clever people have figured out how to make them put there name down on the record as specifically voting themselves a raise. Russell Feingold proposed an amendment to the payroll bill that would have exempted Congress from this year’s raise. The only way to get the raise was to vote to kill the amendment. In a heartwarming show of bipartisanship, rarely seen these days, 64 Senators did just that.

How could they have made this worse? Well, they could have cancelled the civil service raise. And indeed, that’s just what the President of Compassionate Conservatism wanted to do. Bush’s proposal, sent just before Labor Day, was to cut the civil service raise in half and privatize thousands of their jobs. In keeping the raise and preserving the raise (in a 91 to 3 vote) the Senate defied the popular wartime President. In addition, the Senate only took the smaller raise that Bush originally proposed. So they get two-thirds of a pat on the back.

Meanwhile, Bush’s plan to gut the civil service by privatizing their jobs—he calls it “competitive sourcing”—still has some life in it. New OMB regulations, known as Circular A-76, allow the government to farm out more jobs through private sector bidding. A bill to repeal Circular A-76 was proposed by Sen. Barbara Mikulski and failed by one vote on a mostly party-line vote. If Kerry and Edwards had been home it would have passed. The closeness of the vote probably means the civil service is safe for now. On the other hand, if Bush gets a second term or the Republicans increase their majorities in congress, it’s a sure bet that hundreds of thousands of good middle-class jobs will become minimum wage temp jobs.

posted by John at 3:33 PM |

Wednesday, October 22, 2003

We have no troops in Iraq
Or at least that seems to be the opinion of our highly principled leader (via Atrios).

From a new book on Bush’s religion:
Aides found him face down on the floor in prayer in the Oval Office. It became known that he refused to eat sweets while American troops were in Iraq, a partial fast seldom reported of an American president.


From Reuters, today:
Bush was in an expansive mood on the flight from Indonesia to Australia, wearing an Air Force One flight jacket, snacking noisily on a butterscotch sweets and chopping the air for emphasis.

posted by John at 11:07 AM |

Saturday, October 18, 2003

Advice to bin Laden
A new bin Laden cassette tape has surfaced on Al-Jazeera. He is calling for a holy war against the West. I blame this on Hollywood and their homogenization and corruption of the world. When the Right speaks of corruption emanating from Hollywood, they usually have moral corruption in mind. Me, I have artistic corruption in mind.

One of the most sacred rules of thumb in Hollywood is that when you have a successful formula, you do not stray from that formula in the slightest. This holds true whether you are producing movies, music albums, or television show. If the formula works, keep repeating it for all you’re worth until someone else stumbles on a new working formula, then slavishly copy their formula for all you’re worth.

If bin Laden was here, I would have to say to him, “Osama, baby, I know this holy war against the West shtick has been good for you, but it’s time to spread your creative wings and try something new. You’re a big man in the international terror world—as big as they come. You create trends; you don’t follow them. You might be the only man big enough to wear the mantle left by the late Barry White. At one dulcet word from you, ten thousand Palestinian kids will take up crooning, changing forever the shape of Middle Eastern politics. And one other thing, what's with the cassette tapes? Everyone knows CDs are where it’s at.” Yep, that’s what I’d say.

Okay, maybe I wouldn’t say that, but I’d be thinking it.

posted by John at 3:52 PM |

Wednesday, October 15, 2003

Racist or opportunist
This is a somewhat old story that I missed the first time around. Fortunately, Kos brings it up again at his nifty new site, thus giving me the opening I need.

Haley Barbour, former chairman of the Republican Party, is running for governor of Mississippi. Two weeks ago, the Jackson Clarion-Ledger ran a story on Barbour’s embracing of the neo-Confederate cause.
Some of Republican gubernatorial candidate Haley Barbour's campaign material features the state flag and its Confederate battle emblem, a symbol many black voters find offensive…

Mississippi Republican Party Chairman Jim Herring said the party conducted a poll recently in which voters were asked their position on the state flag. He said the question was used to find potential supporters.

"We think the people voted on that issue, spoke on that issue, and we have no plans to make it an issue," he said. However, he said, "it's legitimate to find out how people voted on the flag issue. It helps you determine who your voters are and how you identified them."

Kos follows the last line with his own conclusion: “In other words, let's find the racists because they're our supporters.” Now, I’m the last one to defend a Republican when he is saying something stupid, but I think even Kos gives Barbour too much credit.

Racism, while repugnant to most of us, is still a principle. Barbour’s market testing of his racism is completely unprincipled. To say Barbour is a racist and wants to find his fellow racists underestimates the amorality of the modern Republican Party. If mere racism was his goal, all he would need to do would be state his position and let the recessive genes flock to his standard. The point of market testing the issue is to see whether a position sells, whether or not the candid ate believes it.

Barbour’s people know liberals and Negros (or whatever he calls them, probably not that) are not going to vote for him. He cedes these constituencies to the Democrats. The point of market testing neo-Confederate battle flag nonsense is to see if he can gain votes from normally nonvoting radicals without alienating the Republican rank and file. They pander to the extremist right while counting on the moderates to be loyal enough not to vote Democrat. This has been the strategy of a faction of the Republican Party that has grown from a fringe in 1964 to dominate the strategy-determining heights of the party since about 1994.

What was once unsaid, communicated to the extremists with a wink and a nod, is now openly proclaimed. This is the party of George Bush, Trent Lott, and Tom DeLay. This is not the party of Lincoln Chaffee or Olympia Snowe, but it counts on their unresisting assent to conduct its reactionary business. As long as humane Republicans would rather win than be right, the extremists will continue to dominate. Only when principled Republicans say “enough” and repudiate unacceptable candidates or leave the party will the Republican Party regain its soul and rejoin the mainstream of American life.

As always, I’m not holding my breath.

posted by John at 10:31 PM |

Sunday, October 12, 2003

Churchill, chasing a quote, and Arnold’s character
Back in August I linked to Martha Bridegam's Demisemiblog where she was trying to track down the provenance of this quote credited to Arnold Schwarzenegger by a number of sources:
My relationship to power and authority is that I'm all for it. People need somebody to watch over them and tell them what to do. Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave.

My thought at the time was that it was a pretty shocking quote and almost too perfect in its ability to confirm all of the worst suspicions and stereotypes of liberals about the lumpy Austrian bodybuilder.

Bridegam found the quote in an Australian academic article on body image. That source cited a 1995 book, also on body image. From there she traced it to 1990 U.S. News and World Report profile of Arnold. The U.S. News piece simply credited it as “he once explained.” From there the trail seemed to go cold. That’s pretty good research. When I was teaching history I would have given any student who pursued a quote like that a good grade (when I was a student I loved to write that kind of paper).

At he time, I was content to be lazy and use Bridegam's work as a “if this is true” departure point for my comments. Well, she wasn’t content to call it good enough. She tried to contact the U.S. News reporter, but received no answer. When the admiration of Hitler story broke the week before the election, Bridegam found this familiar phrase in the news:
I think we can't live without authority. There's a certain amount of people meant to be leaders, and to control, and another large amount, 95 percent, are followers. We have to tell (them) what to do and how to keep in order, you know?

This version is from the San Francisco Chronicle quoting Inside Edition quoting the outtakes from Arnold’s first movie Pumping Iron. These are the same outtakes that Schwarzenegger paid 1.2 million dollars to buy up in 1991. These are the same outtakes that contain the admiration for Hitler quotes.

So, is this the original source for the quote? Maybe yes, maybe no. This morning I started reading my New York Times and stumbled across this in Frank Rich’s column:
Mr. Schwarzenegger's credo was laid out quite specifically in his autobiography, Arnold: The Education of a Bodybuilder: "A certain amount of people are meant to be in control. Ninety-five percent of the people have to be told what to do, have to be given orders."

This philosophy, which he has repeated elsewhere and never retracted, sums up his politics far more than conventional conservative-vs.-liberal, Republican-vs.-Democrat paradigms.

This is not exactly same as either of the above versions. So what gives?

One of my favorite Churchill quotes runs something like “a dangled preposition is something up with which I will not put.” I’ve tried to look up the exact context and phrasing of this quote a number of times and found a half-dozen authoritative answers. Churchill was a first-rate speaker and writer. He was a journalist before he entered politics. Churchill knew a good line when he heard one. It’s most likely that having uttered this line once he liked it and used it over and over again. We all do that.

Schwarzenegger probably used his power gag in exactly the same way. Arnold Schwarzenegger has spent his entire adult life playing a fictional character named Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unfortunately for him, this character has changed over time. The early Arnold—bodybuilder turned actor—needed to occasionally say something outrageous to keep people’s attention. To say that the masses need a firm hand worked perfectly for that role. He got the right reaction the first time he used, so he reused it, in conversation, on film, and in print. The later Arnold—actor turned politician—needs to sound responsible and now needs to explain the old Arnold away.

But to say it was a cynical line chosen for effect doesn’t mean I think it was insincere. Schwarzenegger clearly likes power. His oafish and bullying frat/jock behavior over the years wasn’t all clowning for the audience. Winning the election doesn’t give him a get-out-of-jail-free card for his past behavior. He’s on probation and he’s going to be living under a microscope for a long time to come.

posted by John at 4:05 PM |

Copyright 2003-2009 John J. McKay. Use what you want, but give credit where credit is due.
Powered by Blogger Pro™ Weblog Commenting and Trackback by HaloScan.com