March 08, 2010

fit me for my strand of pearls

Barbara Bush famously stormed out of the theatre during Silence of the Lambs. "I didn't come to a movie to see people's skin being taken off," she remarked. Fair enough, but I remember thinking Poor woman is so out-of-touch that she doesn't see how freakin' COOL this movie is.

What goes around hath come around.

18 Best Pictures later, I find that I, too, have walked out on the winner. Not that The Hurt Locker offended or surprised me. It was more or less exactly what I expected, only boring. Around the fifth "tense" bomb-defusing scene, I found my mind wandering. When my mind drifted back, it was not kind to Hurt Locker. Jesus fucking christ, this is monotonous. Haven't I already seen this scene three or five times? I realized that I didn't care if the characters blew up. I realized that I didn't know the characters' names. I thought of them in terms of their archetype. That's the Guy Who Might Snap. That's the Trailer Trash. That's the Noble Black Man. That's the Guy On His Last Tour of Duty. I wonder what Dex is doing in her crate right now? Fuck this. I'm bored.

So I left with 20 minutes or so to go.

As much as I'd like to chalk this up to my barbarabushification, I suspect something far less amusing is at work. That Kathryn Bigelow's film would win, and she for Best Director, was a fait accompli ages ago. What a story! The first female director to win those honors! Against her ex-husband, even!

And indeed it is a great story. I just wish it seemed more earned and less ordained by people who very much like to congratulate themselves for setting the trends of proper thought. (Now that's getting the most possible mileage out of their high school diplomas.) Indeed, the collective praise for the film seemingly amounts to little more than "It was directed by a woman."

But maybe, I thought, Maybe I'm just reading too much into this.

And then it came time for the Best Director award. Expecting to see last year's winner, Danny Boyle, be the presenter as custom dictates, I moaned when the most self-congratulatory windbag of them all trotted out instead. Tonight, Barbara Steisand was delighted to tell us, the first woman director might win. (Pause so you can applaud) Or the first black director, which would be delightful too. (Pause so you can applaud) And when she opened the fateful envelope, she didn't merely announce the name. "Well, The Time Is Now," she intoned in bold title caps, thereby ensuring her own place in history as this moment is reshown. And then she announced what we already knew with certainty to such a degree, Steisand and not Boyle was presenting. Barbara Steisand, the Rosa Parks of female directors, slighted for Yentl because of her vagina and not because it sucked bilgewater.

Yentl, that is.

Enjoy your circle-jerk, Academy. You earned it. Me, I'm going to go watch Lost in Translation, by the vastly more deserving Sophia Coppola.

But one question remains: who'd you pay to take your GED test?

posted by john at 11:13 AM  •  permalink

December 28, 2009

fight terror with error

Let's step through the confluence of events.

First, the Detroit bomber's dad contacted our government and said that his kid had radicalized and that Pops was worried about what Junior might do. Then young Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab pays cash for a plane ticket to America. For good measure, he takes no luggage on this international flight.

Were I king, I'd have diverted his flight straight to Guantanamo at this point. Save a few steps.

But let's review what we actually did. Was he stopped? No. Was his explosive-laden self searched? No. Did we so much as put him on the No Fly list? Uh-uh. Did we revoke his Visa? That would be rude. No, the sum of our government's response was to put a note in his file that maybe we shouldn't renew his Visa when it expires in June.

Fantastic.

What does a whackjob gotta do? Carry a bowling-ball candle under his arm as he boards?

posted by john at 12:00 AM  •  permalink

December 04, 2009

teabagga, pleez

Apparently the Republican fringe is considering co-opting the epithet "teabagger," a la "queer" and the n-word. From the National Review:

Some conservatives are happy to embrace “teabagger,” or are at least willing to do so. They are “owning the insult,” which is to say, taking what is intended as a slur and wearing it proudly. There are many words and names in our vocabulary that started out as slurs and became something else...What about a special case — the worst word in American English, as some of us see it, namely the N-word? When I was growing up, in Ann Arbor, Mich., there was a little debate: Should school officials try to prevent black students from using the N-word? I don’t believe the issue was ever settled. And this brings up the question of whether “teabagger” could be kind of a conservative N-word: to be used in the family, but radioactive outside the family.

Wow. Just wow.

posted by john at 01:10 PM  •  permalink

November 17, 2009

i'm just not that into you

I briefly considered getting Sarah Palin's new book, just for its doubtlessly staggering value to this page. I'm sure I could post for weeks about it. We could have contests to see who can find the dumbest passage in 60 seconds.

But one issue proved emotionally and intellectually insurmountable: to quote it, I would have to read it. And folks, you are simply not worth it.

posted by john at 11:53 AM  •  permalink

August 19, 2009

good reads

Speaking of Nazi health care, my two favorite political columnists both chimed in today.

Here's a good read on how Americans can't seem to get their act together until a crisis hits.

And here's the great Leonard Pitts on the woman's metaphor abuse.

posted by john at 12:31 PM  •  permalink

wither conservatism

What has happened to conservatism in this country? A public option for health care is a dramatic, expensive change and well worth intelligent debate. What we get instead frightens me.

This shrill, platitude-vomiting sociopath accomplished a minor miracle, though. She actually made me feel sorry for Barney Frank. This is why we have elected representatives, I guess: so they have to deal with her and I don't.

posted by john at 10:41 AM  •  permalink

March 09, 2009

obama's economy

This morning I saw my third or fourth article about whether we can start blaming Obama for the economy yet. One has to wonder 1) what a president can do 2) in six weeks that 3) he has not already done, but no matter. We Americans love crediting and blaming one guy, preferably the guy we give very little control over matters economic. All we need to know: are we there yet?

• • •

The Wednesday after W's re-election in 2004, I watched Nancy Pelosi on every network, applying the lesson she'd learned: the American people need to realize that Democrats are born-again Christians too! Holy hell, I thought. That's what we need: both parties run by the same zealots. Genius lesson.

I would have been pleased to see Pelosi's vapid moment stand alone in the annals of politics, but four years later here we are, with the GOP desperately looking for a new face of their party. It doesn't much matter whose face it is, just so long as it's not lily white like, say, the GOP. Because the American people need to realize that we're brown too, I hear in my head.

Yeah, that's exactly why you guys lost. The seasons changed, and so did the colors in fashion. So slip into a slinky little Jindal. He brings out your eyes and coordinates nicely with your Steele.

Genius.

posted by john at 08:13 AM  •  permalink

February 19, 2009

special kind of stupid

There's lots about the federal stimulus package that's annoying. Generally, I'm annoyed that it looks like the federal budget. Jobs? Infrastructure? Maybe. But there's definitely a little ground pork for everyone.

Specifically, though, I'm most annoyed by the $7500 tax credit for plug-in hybrids.

These cars do not yet exist. They will be mass-produced in 2010 at the earliest. My next car, Jeep willing, will be a plug-in hybrid. Thank you, federal government, for ensuring that when the car companies price my vehicle, that price will be exactly $7500 more than it would have been.

This subsidy couldn't have waited a year?

posted by john at 08:16 AM  •  permalink

January 21, 2009

mixed emotions

I feel all sorts of things about yesterday's inauguration. Mostly good things.

There's the palpable sense of history, of course, and the hope that this eminently likable man amounts to half of what is expected of him. Really, one foot standing on water will do. He can hop.

There's also an enormous sense of empathetic pride, as I know what his election symbolizes to my black friends and their community, to which I'll never belong but to which I've long been a friend, a doppelganger, and a bit of a prick. Their pride is not exactly my own, but I'm in imagination's neighborhood.

And then there are my white friends. My liberal white friends. My extraordinarily pleased-with-themselves liberal white friends. The friends who twice yesterday wished aloud that he'd talked more about his being black, lest anyone forget the true depths of their liberal whiteness. Every silver lining comes with a dark cloud, and folks, here they are.

With a bottle of lotion in one hand and a kleenex in the other, they spent their yesterday annoying the fuck out of me. Unconversant about either policy or history, they contributed to our conversations the following: "Did you see Barack's speech? Wasn't he wonderful? I don't understand what you mean, 'list of talking points.' Well, I thought it was wonderful. The best speech ever! What do you mean, 'Better angels of our nature?' Did he say that?'"

I wasn't there, but I'm pretty sure that the smattering of people in DC who whooped at every mention of race (WHOO! BLACK! WHOO!) were my white friends.

posted by john at 08:21 AM  •  permalink

January 19, 2009

this is all it took?

In the last 10 months, the number of black Americans who say that MLK's dream is fulfilled has doubled, from 34% to 69%. What a stunning statistical swing.

posted by john at 02:15 AM  •  permalink

January 02, 2009

shiny and new

I would love to do a mock article that fawns over our President-elect, but it's pretty hard to satirize the actual media on that count. I go back and forth over whether the New York Times' "Obama vetting White House dogs" or CNN's "Obama is hot: get used to it" is the more definitive headline of the age.

I hope this stops soon. Or that it lasts four to eight years. Just so long as I don't have to see the fall from grace.

posted by john at 11:58 AM  •  permalink

November 18, 2008

w book redux

Blondage shares this suggested title for W's upcoming book: Standing Tall and Talking Good

(From Time magazine)

posted by john at 07:47 AM  •  permalink

November 12, 2008

reason to live! reason to live!

(AP) Bush said he plans to return to Texas after he leaves office January 20. "I may write a book," he says.

posted by john at 07:57 AM  •  permalink

November 10, 2008

post-racial, my shiny white butt

Alternative title: "presidential race." More clever, but I figured no one would read it.

I've heard the concern several times, usually from white liberals. They fear for Obama's safety. Some crackpot redneck racist is going to take a shot at him, they say, as if presidents aren't already stalked by countless legions of terrorists and crackpots and thus could somehow be in more danger. Okay, so instead of merely 4 million people lining up to kill the U.S. president, there's 5.

More interesting to me is that these folks never for a minute stop thinking of Obama as a black president. Whether it's talking about how enlightened we look to the world for electing a person of color, or talking about the historical momentousness of his election, or whether it's, yes, these racist crackpots clinging to their guns, race is always at the forefront. And perhaps this should be so. Perhaps our country has reached a point where we're so weary of the strains of racism and we're going to deal with them overtly.

I'll bet five bucks against. Any takers?

New presidents enjoy about a 200-day honeymoon. Sometimes it's less. Clinton was carved up immediately, as was W., until 9/11 anyway. Sooner or later, though, every president is publicly hatcheted. They're viciously mocked. They're blamed for things that presidents do not control. We love us a scapegoat.

I watch with interest to see how race affects this. Minority readers are probably thinking the nastiness is already more intense. White liberal readers are probably thinking it will be only white racists who so indulge. White conservative readers? They're thinking "I daren't open my mouth." Me, I think all of the above.

Think back to the early days of Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43. The popular ridicule of their early presidencies was, in order, he's inarticulate, he's a philandering horndog, he's a moron. Now imagine the reaction in the press if anyone said such things about Obama. They'd skip right over the obvious—him? huh? how so?—and launch right into a competition to see who could breathlessly use the r-word most often in their coverage.

That's an extreme example, but I think it's what we can expect. Can we mock a black president in 2008 America? No, certainly not. But I also fear we're not mature enough to fairly criticize him, and that would be a shame.

posted by john at 07:22 AM  •  permalink

November 05, 2008

yes sir, mr. president, but did you really mean this how i read it?

From the AP this morning, about Obama's election:

Bush said turning over the White House to Obama "will be a stirring sight."

"I know millions of Americans will be overcome with pride at this inspiring moment that so many have waited for for so long," Bush said.

posted by john at 09:22 AM  •  permalink

October 13, 2008

"thank you for your question, ma'am. please hand me your microphone. faster. faster, please. good. now go home and read an actual book, like, without pictures."

The look on McCain's face is priceless. Like 'tard-melting beams were going to come out of his eyes.

posted by john at 07:24 AM  •  permalink

September 25, 2008

ew

Remember the "funny" New Yorker cover with the Obamas? The cover of Entertainment Weekly this week is bloody brilliant.

posted by john at 07:29 AM  •  permalink

September 24, 2008

right turn

Casual Stank troll Annette points out the following, frightening bit of self-awareness, which is inexplicably still in the 2008 GOP party platform:

We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself.

posted by john at 08:36 AM  •  permalink

left turn

The wank folks were all good Seattle people, so they vowed to move to Canada if the unmitigated evil that is John McCain should rise to the White House. Being unusually post-racial and color-blind, they also spoke of just how flippin' cool it would look to the world if we elected a black guy.

I asked about my primary concern with him. "Do you worry at all that his plans for taxing the everloving shit out of investment might, you know, discourage investment, thus hurt the flailing economy?"

"His plan isn't as stupid as John McCain's!"

Well, duh. "Touché."

And then this woman went on to belittle McCain for the president-of-Spain thing. And she admonished us all for not reading the same blogs that she reads. "He's the epitome of stupid. So much for the supposed 'foreign policy expert!'" snorted the professional writer who pronounced epitome "eh-pi-TOAM," and not for the first time that night, but no matter.

And thus has my intellectual exercise lately become not holding Obama's supporters against him. It ain't easy.

posted by john at 07:36 AM  •  permalink

September 18, 2008

hiss

I think I'm alone in that I respect both McCain and Obama. And Biden, for that matter. Even Palin has a fascinating and uniquely American story, even if I do think she's pretty much W. with a better haircut.

But at the tops of the tickets, I got exactly the matchup I wanted a year ago. These are both bright, honorable men who've devoted their lives to serving their country and communities in a way, I suspect, that you and I and the vast majority of Americans wouldn't at gunpoint. I'd be proud to have either as my head of State and commander in chief. Which is a helluva improvement on feeling shame.

And yet their inferiors, moral and otherwise, vilify them. When Chris Rock mentioned McCain during his show here in Seattle, the ditzy left in attendance booed viciously. Contempt? Really? Two days later, the College Gameday show was in Atlanta, and in passing one of them mentioned Obama. The cretins in the audience booed his name just as bloodthirstily. Hatred? Really?

I don't understand you people. Don't want to, either.

posted by john at 01:17 PM  •  permalink

August 15, 2008

racing

I got exactly the general election I wished for a year ago. Obama and McCain were the politicians I trusted most in their respective parties, and even though both looked like sure nomination losers at the time, I rooted for them. That I've made it to mid-August 2008 without losing complete faith in their integrity is unprecedented.

Much is written about race in this election, but seldom is it thoughtful. It's more of a reactive media frenzy whenever so-and-so accuses so-and-so of playing the "race card." Media blood sport ensues. I don't find it particularly constructive.

I'm disappointed in both candidates along these lines. For Obama to say that McCain points out how "Obama doesn't look like all the presidents on the dollar bills" is a curiously destructive lie from someone who ostensibly promotes unity and occupies higher moral ground. He learned his lesson well in the primaries. How very Bubba of him.

My bigger disappointment, however, is with McCain. In whoring for his base, he's passed up a historic opportunity to repudiate racists from that base. The GOP's tradition of pandering to those cretins is why even conservative minorities reflexively distrust the party.

It's nice that McCain says he hopes "people will look past skin color when voting," but that's like McDonald's saying "We hope you'll consider all the health ramifications before you down that super-sized fries." In my view, McCain has a unique opportunity to evict bigots and their policies from America's only conservative tent, or at least to give them notice.

"If you're just voting against a black man, I don't want your vote," he could say. "I would rather lose, frankly, than be your candidate. You are no longer welcome in my party. The days of our giving your kind sanctuary are over." And then prove it in the platform. He doesn't have to pander, but a less categorical opposition to, say, affirmative action would go a long way toward healing old wounds.

Would it cost him the election? Yeah, probably. But he'd be a historic loser, a Gore instead of a Kerry. And that's a win.

posted by john at 08:55 AM  •  permalink

July 03, 2008

stack-ranking prejudice

A self-described "very liberal" former student observed the following about the upcoming election. Of McCain, she remarked "I could never vote for someone that old." She said this in the same faux circumspect manner that someone of my parents' generation would say they wouldn't vote for someone black. Hearing this, Kate and I looked at one another. True, our country hasn't exactly discriminated against old white farts running for President, but still, the parallel tone made the the hair on the back of my neck stand up. Hers too.

This led to an exercise. "Stack-rank the following demographics in terms of most likely to be elected President to least likely," Kate said later. The candidates:

a woman, a Jew, a Muslim, an Asian, a Hispanic, a gay man, a lesbian, and an atheist.

"It sounds like a setup for a really ambitious joke," I said. "A woman, Jew, Muslim, Asian, Hispanic, gay guy, lesbian, and atheist walk into a bar..."

We assumed mutual exclusivity. That is, the "woman" is straight and white and walks with Jesus. I made my list.

Asian
Jew
Hispanic
Woman
Athiest
Gay man
Lesbian
Muslim

Kate, a white 39 year old woman, made hers.

Hispanic
Woman
Asian
Jew
Lesbian (if she was quiet about it)
atheist
gay man
Muslim

A lively discussion ensued. Hispanics will be a huge voting bloc. There aren't that many Asian politicians. Why the gap between gay man and lesbian? Lesbians have two demographic strikes against them (woman and gay), but a lesbian will be considered a stronger leader than a "pansy" gay man. A year ago, I would have ranked "black man" about sixth.

And then I sent the question on to Mark, a 40ish white gay man. His list was identical to mine. "Where would you put handicapped?" he asked. "FDR didn't have to deal with TV." Okay, um, I'll put paraplegic after "woman." One thing all three of us agreed upon: there's an invisible line bisecting this list. The line divides "could happen" to "not if I lived to be 200 would I ever see this." And all three of us place the line after the top 4 (5 if you count handicapped).

Then I sent the list on to the 22 year old white girl who started this all. Her response:

woman
Jew
atheist
Asian
lesbian
gay man
Hispanic
Muslim

She shatters the imaginary line. And clearly, she's smoking crack about Hispanics. And I wonder if any demographic would put Muslims anywhere but dead last? Like Mark, she wanted to add one: "Where would you put really ugly person?"

Sigh. Goddammit. Okay, my final list:

Asian
Jew
Hispanic
Woman
paraplegic
Atheist
really ugly person
-----------------
Gay man
Lesbian
Muslim

with a "never in my lifetime" line after "ugly." To my mind, the order of the things above the line is pretty pointless. All a group needs is its own Obama, and it has its candidate, but who saw him coming, really?

I'm especially interested in the opinions of folks not represented by our pasty white panel of four. Any ugly lesbian Muslim Asians out there? Shoot me your list.

posted by john at 08:06 AM  •  permalink

June 24, 2008

dobson blight

Obama's stock has taken a dive with me in recent weeks, but leave it to Rev. James Dobson to reverse the trend. Per CNN, this is what Obama said about religion in governance:

"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asks in the speech. "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?"

Sounds reasonable. Meanwhile...

A top U.S. evangelical leader is accusing Sen. Barack Obama of deliberately distorting the Bible and taking a "fruitcake interpretation" of the U.S. Constitution...In the comments to be aired later Tuesday, Dobson said Obama should not be referencing antiquated dietary codes and passages from the Old Testament that are no longer relevant to the teachings of the New Testament.

Presumably Dobson means the part where the New Testament says:

Slaves, obey your masters here on earth. Respect them and honor them with a heart that is true. Obey them just as you would obey Christ. Don't obey them only to please them when they are watching. Do it because you are slaves of Christ. Be sure your heart does what God wants.

Serve your masters with all your heart. Work as if you were not serving people but the Lord. You know that the Lord will give you a reward. He will give to each of you in keeping with the good you do. It doesn't matter whether you are slaves or free. (Ephesians 6)

It almost reads like it was written like a free man, doesn't it? Specifically the same free man who also wrote "Wives, obey your husbands" in Dobson's beloved New Testament. (Ephesians 5)

posted by john at 11:42 AM  •  permalink

June 12, 2008

june bug

It must be June, because I'm already wondering whether I'll vote this fall. I can't stand to hear the candidates talk at this time of the election cycle. Everything I ever liked about them vanishes and is replaced with focus group-tested slogans. Change! The right change! Bush III! Carter II!

Frankly, neither B3 or C2 is all that appealing.

McCain seems to have sold his soul. This is a man who once shoved 132 year old bigot Strom Thurmond on the Senate floor. Who stood up to his party on climate change, campaign finance, and tax cuts during wartime. I liked that guy. Now he's got his lips so permanently affixed to his party's pimply butt, I can't even understand what he's saying anymore. This is why courage matters, Senator?

Obama, meanwhile, knows the basis of his appeal very well. He's the candidate of hope. As in I hope his countless unnamed policies won't be completely asinine. As he retreats more and more into rock star territory, saying nothing but inoffensive platitudes, lest I know something concrete, I grow more and more twitchy. Is he cotton candy? That is, does there appear to be lots of substance, but really there's mostly just empty calories and air?

I hope not.

posted by john at 08:23 AM  •  permalink

May 08, 2008

the obama paradox

There once was a time when media labels for candidates, if they weren't quite accurate, were at least consistent. Reagan was the Mad Bomber. His successor, ironically, was derided as The Wimp. Clinton was Bubba. Nixon was Tricky. Kennedy was Catholic. Carter was, well, Carter. Perhaps the most hurtful label of all.

So is Obama too close to his Christian, voice-of-the-oppressed-underclass pastor, or is he the anti-religious elite? I swear it's the same people saying both.

posted by john at 12:49 PM  •  permalink

May 05, 2008

dahlia

I cringed on Friday when I clicked Submit. Anytime I write about race and stray from the traditional party line—this white child of privilege is deeply sorry for something TBNL—I get crucified. My lack of crucifixion this weekend gives me hope.

I will therefore tempt fate by writing about race again.

On HBO this week is a new episode of "Costas Now" that concludes with a remarkable chat with Jason Whitlock and Mike Wilbon, two black sportswriters. For all the "dialogue" on race that Obama has supposedly begun, this was the most breathtakingly honest thing I've heard all year. Or perhaps I merely identified with their sentiment that the moment they write about race, their voice-mails are going to fill up with invective from both sides.

It was Wilbon, though, who threw down a unique challenge: "If it's just Jason and me [writing about race] all the time," he said, "That just sounds like preaching. It's lecturing. It's not engaging. White men, specifically, do not get absolved from responsibility for writing about race and this culture. It's an obligation to engage the reader." When Costas pointed out that any white writer who departs from the traditional narrative will not be well served, Wilbon's answer was essentially Tough.

Good point. At most I can be called racist or, more likely, an obtuse white guy. From what he said, Wilbon's voice-mail gets lots more varied insults than that.

posted by john at 06:36 AM  •  permalink

May 02, 2008

obamania

The Reverend Wright business doesn't affect my favorable impression of Obama—lord knows I wouldn't want what my idiot friends say held against me professionally—but it does affect my impression of Reverend Wright. He's the sort of guy you hope is mentally ill instead of just another hate-mongering, self-aggrandizing, invective-spewing asshole.

Is it just me, or did Wright just torpedo his friend's candidacy so that Wright can later reap the rewards of victimhood? Nah. It ain't just me. The larger irony here is that Wright has put Obama in the bizarre position where a vote against Obama is conceivably a vote against interracial contempt and distrust, a repudiation of racism.

Clap. Clap. Clap.

But I'm sure I just don't understand.

posted by john at 08:39 AM  •  permalink

March 13, 2008

off to the races

Since I wrote yesterday's post, Ferraro has been soundly blasted and has stepped down from her post on the Clinton campaign. She was not, however, blasted for the things I was observing: her dubious motivation and her appalling lack of self-awareness. No, she was crucified for something even worse: daring to discuss the effect of race on the race. God forbid. No unvetted opinions on race are allowed in post-racial America.

When I meet a single Obama supporter who doesn't mention his race in their first fifteen seconds of emoting about the man, I'll grab my pitchfork and join the outraged mob storming Ferraro's castle. Until then, not so much.

posted by john at 08:29 AM  •  permalink

March 12, 2008

what goes around

In 1984, when Mondale was taking on the seemingly unbeatable Reagan, my neighbor said something I've never forgotten.

This woman in her 50s, a lifelong Republican, was going to vote for Mondale. She beamed as she explained that she couldn't not vote for his running mate, who was, like herself, an Italian Catholic. Yep. That was her whole reason.

Well, that's certainly retarded, I thought. And then I made a note never to again rely upon any wisdom dispensed by this woman.

It's 24 years later, and I'm astounded to watch that very same Italian-Catholic vote-getter (and Hillary Clinton fundraiser) chucking stones. Says Geraldine Ferarro:

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman ... he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept"

Just wow.

posted by john at 08:04 AM  •  permalink

February 08, 2008

election 2008

I'm not going to endorse a candidate for President. Such posts always seem like public masturbation to me. Which I'm certainly not above, but it won't be over the likes of politicians.

I am excited, though, by the prospect of a McCain vs. Obama election. For the first time in my life, I'll be able to vote the issues. Having been spared the need to vote against someone of demonstrably poor character, I can actually vote for someone. Wow. Would that it were always like this. But I'm sure Hillary will surge, and order will be restored.

posted by john at 10:46 AM  •  permalink

January 08, 2008

overtaken by events

I realize Sunday newspapers are printed well in advance, but in this case a reprint just miiiiight have been tasteful.

Did anyone else recoil at the sight of this week's Parade magazine cover? Two weeks after her murder by Islamic extremists, Parade declared Benazir Bhutto "America's best hope against al Qaeda" and "what the terrorists fear most." Now that's journalism.

Clap. Clap. Clap.

posted by john at 07:35 AM  •  permalink

December 28, 2007

white man’s overbite

I've always dismissed the chatter that Obama is somehow not "authentically" black. I stand corrected.

posted by john at 05:29 PM  •  permalink

December 18, 2007

election 2008: the stank town hall

I considered sending the major Presidential candidates a debate invitation, then publishing their responses here. That's where the plan completely disintegrates, of course: getting responses. It occurs to me, though, that at this late stage of the primary game, we already know the responses by heart.

Stank: Sen. Obama, how will you meet your campaign promises and both fund social programs and balance the budget?

Obama: A good question, one weighing heavily on my mind since back when I opposed the war in Iraq from Day One.

Stank: Is that it?

Obama: Day. One.

Stank: Sen. Biden, this is what you called "clean and articulate?"

Biden: I'm just going to stop talking to media altogether.

Stank: Good call. Sen. Clinton, how come you dropped your maiden name when you started running for office? Is that like when Joe Theisman changed the pronunciation of his name to rhyme with "Heisman?"

McCain: Are you ever going to ask a Republican a question? I haven't been treated this bad since I was a prisoner in Hanoi. Maybe you'd better write that down. That's "H-a-n-o-i."

Clinton: As for my maiden name, I experienced that experience. Which reminds me, it's time for the nation to experience the experienced.

Stank: Jesus H. Christ.

Huckabee, Romney: Yes?

Stank: False alarm. I was just swearing.

Huckabee, Romney: Despite our mutual, lifelong affinity for oppressive zealots, we suddenly and publicly support your right to do so.

Stank: Really.

Huckabee, Romney: No, not really.

Stank: Mr. Guiliani, how do you respond to charges that you're a cutthroat, vindictive assh—what are you writing there? Why are you adding me to a list of names? I'm right under Dan Fogelberg?!

Guiliani: Please. Continue with your question. Oh, and 9/11.

Stank: Um. Mr. Kucinich, have you seen the aliens lately?

Kucinich: We did lunch just yesterday.

Stank: Finally, an honest politician.

posted by john at 07:55 AM  •  permalink

November 14, 2007

pledge of allegiance redux

It's election season again—does it ever stop, anymore?—and with it comes the usual bushel of hysterical bullshit scandals. Barack Obama was recently lambasted by the usual suspects for not putting his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance in this photo.

Mouth-breathers were outraged. He's unpatriotic. A "terrorist," even. And then it turns out that the very premise of their argument was wrong: it was not the pledge of allegiance, but the national anthem. Reply the mouth-breathers: Faulty premise? No problem! Our conclusions remain unabashedly the same!

It's almost admirable, that degree of confident self-delusion. Almost.

posted by john at 08:54 AM  •  permalink

October 29, 2007

on loving hillary

"I'll vote for Joseph Goebbels for President before I vote for Hillary Clinton."
- John, 2000ish

I just can't stand her. I think she's cold, petty, vindictive, remorseless. If any prospective president is going to make a Nixonian "Enemies List," I think it's her. Yet I cannot imagine a circumstance where I will not vote for her in a year and a week. This depresses me.

The latest issue of The Atlantic had an article that resonated with me. About how even Hillary's admirers find these same traits off-putting, it's typically long, but it's worthwhile.

posted by john at 07:45 AM  •  permalink

June 22, 2007

the republican carter

A student and I were talking about her career prospects, and conversation wandered, as it's wont to do when I'm talking about work, to other topics. Any other topic.

Our mutual disdain for W., for instance. She leaned sideways and tilted her head uncomfortably. "God, I hope Obama wins," she said with enough desperation that I wondered if her parents' lives were in the balance.

"Why's that?"

"He's exactly what the country needs."

"Why's that? What about him appeals most to you?"

She babbled about fairness and peace for a while, soon betraying that she had no actual idea what his policy positions are. She talked at length about how Bush pretty much single-handedly invented Islamic terrorism. I let her. I like her, and I don't see much point in telling a 22 year old that they're as sage and worldly as a 22 year old.

I only bring this up, really, to illustrate what I think is Bush's second-most lasting legacy: an entire generation of Democrats. Unthinking Democrats, at that. Not one of my students professed even independent status. The man in the White House has simplified their world view considerably: R is evil; D is good. In my class, this was without question or exception. To this generation, it is a fait accompli that their votes will go to the Democratic candidates. It's just a question of determining which is most saintly.

It reminds me of the post-Carter, unconditional adoration of all things Republican. Lazy thinkers abounded then, too. There's as much depth of thought and tolerance of argument, and there's going to be as lasting a repercussion. Given what I saw, I can't imagine anything but Democratic sweeps for a decade.

Huh. Bush is a uniter, after all.

posted by john at 07:54 AM  •  permalink

June 06, 2007

the ditz strikes back

The ditzy left has fought back, making sure I'm very, very aware that it's very, very important that we not forget about the troops dying in Iraq. Because, you know, forgetting the troops was precisely what I was advocating.

Trust that there's as big a gap between that and what I actually said as there is between, say, "supporting the troops" and "celebrating troops' deaths because it validates your point of view."

posted by john at 07:38 AM  •  permalink

June 05, 2007

count along with the count

There's a not-so-fine line between opposing the current administration and celebrating its failure. The former is patriotic, the latter, not. The distinction seems clear to me. Although I intensely dislike this administration, I am not rooting against it. All things considered, I would rather they succeed. They just aren't.

I've seen it twice, now. People are putting troop death-toll tote-boards on their front lawns. Their point, ostensibly, is to "remember the troops," as if the unremitting media coverage of troop death is somehow lacking. These folks have appointed themselves our very public consciences. They care more and are better informed than you and me. One can almost imagine the eagerness with which they run out to change the numbers every time a roadside bomb goes off. After all, what are you doing to support the troops?

On campus last week, there was an enormous "remember the troops" booth on the central plaza. Students adopted a dead soldier and wore his dog tags for the rest of the day. I asked the organizers if they were remembering any troops who died someplace other than Iraq. Nah. I then asked about the very likely possibility that the soldier being memorialized wouldn't have wanted to be remembered in this way, to be exploited in a protest. They were unconcerned. Their sign should have said "Remember the troops...our way."

Gross. This public self-satisfaction seems like so much masturbation.

posted by john at 06:00 AM  •  permalink

June 01, 2007

just a lonely old bill

A curious statement in a recent Newsweek article about how Bill Clinton affects his wife's candidacy:

"To some he's a shrewd politician, a clear thinker, a brilliant explicator who was president during an era of relative peace and indisputable prosperity. To others he's Slick Willie, an undisciplined man who let his private appetites, and his addiction to risk, blur his focus, distracting the country for much of his second term."

A curious dichotomy, that. Where's "All of the above?"

posted by john at 06:10 AM  •  permalink

April 11, 2007

from punchline to teddy roosevelt in four years?

To paraphrase the great P.J. O'Rourke: the only thing more distressing than Americans' continually electing action figures as governors is that the action figures don't do a noticeably worse job than other governors.

Are you watching what's happening in California with fossil fuels? Governor Arnold (you look up how to spell his last name) is taking a dastardly Republican, free-market approach to changing the energy infrastructure of the state. You can keep your SUVs, says Arnie. Just make them run on hydrogen. And he's providing business incentives for both both supply and demand for hydrogen cars.

Will it work? I don't know. I'm sure parts of the program will fail, and I'm equally sure that its opponents will latch on to those as disproof of concept. The creation of hydrogen fuel costs more energy than the fuel itself contains, and that means burning fossil fuels or nuclear power during its synthesis—options that won't thrill everyone. But I love the approach. I love the assumption that people are basically selfish and won't give up their great big SUVs, for this is what I too believe. If giving up SUVs is critical path, change is not going to happen anytime soon. Instead, Arnold's practicing realpolitik that acknowledges the truth of human nature—as opposed to the bitter pill that the green movement usually serves up to the general public: the only possible solution is for everyone to be just like me.

And most of all, I love that Arnie's got a vision beyond 1) Priuses or 2) science cooked to deny the problem. Kudos to the great experiment. Anything that pisses off both Republicans and greenies just feels...right.

posted by john at 06:58 AM  •  permalink

February 26, 2007

let us all bow our heads and pray for a positive

Al Sharpton might be related to Strom Thurmond?

Deeeeelicious! Oh man. There's only one regret, really. Let's exhume Thurmond and prop his ass up, 'cause I have got to see the look on his face when the DNA results come in.

posted by john at 08:54 AM  •  permalink

January 01, 2007

extra, extra: administration flashes some competence!

Did you notice the timing of when the military announced the 3000th dead U.S. soldier? On a Saturday, comfortably nestled between Saddam's hanging and New Year's Eve. Some cynics might accuse the administration of manipulating the event to get the least possible news coverage. Some cynics like me.

posted by john at 08:03 AM  •  permalink

November 14, 2006

rum runner

Speaking of things sailing over my head, I'm at a loss to explain the delirium over Rumsfeld's departure. He needed to go, and I'm glad he's gone, but that's the sum of my feelings on the matter. The ditzy left, however, is orgasmicly elated. To whatever end, they got their pound of flesh, and they've been celebrating on Rummy's grave just a bit more than dignity should allow. Me, I'm chewing on a known unknown of my own: what of consequence was accomplished that merits all of this delight?

posted by john at 07:33 AM  •  permalink

November 09, 2006

random thought as the dems take over the senate

Wasn't it just six months ago that the Senate Republican majority tried mightily to get rid of the filibuster and other minority rights that inconvenienced them? How forward-thinking that notion was. How conservative.

posted by john at 06:11 AM  •  permalink

November 08, 2006

pelosi rises

Remember when I ridiculed Newsweek for selecting Danica Patrick over Nancy Pelosi for its "women in leadership" feature?

Advantage, Stank.

I'm bracing for the inevitable feel-good Pelosi Newsweek cover, now.

posted by john at 08:15 AM  •  permalink

November 07, 2006

election headline

Tuesday morning, I passed a newstand and glanced to see what the election day headline was.

WORST MAY YET BE COMING

Turns out it was about the weather. Oh.

posted by john at 08:30 PM  •  permalink

November 03, 2006

bush fulfills campaign promise

He's a uniter after all.

posted by john at 11:02 AM  •  permalink

October 26, 2006

the sleeper sexist

Yesterday's entry about the hurtfulness of lightly used -ist labels made me think of another instance. It was minor, but it shaped me.

When I first started teaching, I was a 26 year old T.A. One of the very first people to sit in my classroom was Bob, who was 75 if he was a day. It was awkward for me at first, presuming to teach someone three times my age, but Bob soon put me at ease by being utterly incapable. What he lacked in ability, however, he had in charm. He was a sweet, soft-spoken old guy, always forgetting that he'd told already us the story yesterday. We didn't care. We were all just running out the clock. The students and I all took to him as our sweet, daft old grandpa.

One day, the reading was about "sexist language." To his horror, Bob learned that his whole life, he'd been saying sexist things. It really upset him. By using the word "mankind" and the masculine generic third person ("When someone walks through the park, he should watch out for dogs."), as he and everyone else in the room had been taught to do, he was committing an ethical affront. Bob had no problem with using gender-neutral language, mind you. He was distraught over having been accused of perpetuating something so vile as sexism.

He stammered at length about how as a good liberal Democrat, he'd always supported equality in the workplace and culture. As the clock ticked off minute after excruciating minute during his pained, defensive soliloquy, soon we were all bitterly resenting the text's casual use of the s-word.

The moment stuck with me. It wasn't enough for the text to say merely "The rule you learned as a kid has changed. Use gender-neutral language." No, they got out their label-maker and got biz-ZAY. What good is being socially conscious, after all, if you can't smear society?

posted by john at 11:25 AM  •  permalink

October 25, 2006

time to homo sapiens up and face this thing that’s like a quagmire, only more of a deliberate trap

Don't say "homo!" say the trolls of my imagination.

Reaction to my defense of calling a spade a spade continues to trickle in. Heartwarming, it is, to again be reminded that people are just people. Black or white, rich or poor, young or old, male or female, we are all united in our one overarching goal: to be the most offended. To beat someone else over the head with the club of our own moral superiority. It's clear that my attempt at dialogue on race and language has degenerated into a competitive game of Outrage! New, from Parker Brothers!

Ah, unity.

It's a dark day indeed when on this page I quote Marky Mark in Planet of the Apes.

"Everybody shut up. That goes for all races."

The most fun part for me: in one ear, being called an oblivious white guy who doesn't understand the harmful effects of calling spades spades; in the other ear, hearing from Oblivious White Guys (OWGs) who don't think there's anything wrong with saying, well, pretty much anything. I especially enjoyed their equating my spade with the poor, misunderstood Confederate flag.

Pardon me while I scratch. I'm suddenly itchy.

We're talking about apples and anvils. I know I'm me and not you and am therefore not entitled to an opinion, but I propose that any reasonable discussion starts with an epithet taxonomy. Here's mine:

• Type 1 The presumed epithet. These are expressions that predate slavery, that have no discernible history of being used as epithets, yet are mistaken for one. The fallacy of equivocation is at play, here. Example: "calling a spade a spade."
• Type 2 A Type 1 that came to be used as racial epithet. Example: "tar baby." (Also, interestingly, the n-word. The most hurtful word in English started out as a mere mispronunciation of the Spanish word for "black.")
• Type 3 At least partially racist origins, post-slavery. Example: the Confederate flag. Sorry, but when the Idaho Klan uses it as a symbol, there's not much room for the "it's only about Southern pride" argument.
• Type 4 Unequivocatingly racist, post-slavery. No one who uses these terms denies racist intent. You know what the terms are.

Reader reactions have overgeneralized in polar ways. OWGs maintain that any attempt to deem Type 1 "racist" forgives the use of 2s and even 3s. Charming, no? Meanwhile, others don't distinguish between types at all—for me to protect Type 1 is for me to endorse them all, to say that words don't matter.

To be clear, my original point was merely that Type 1 words didn't belong with the others. I'll now add that their inclusion undermines the discussion. I thought, and still strongly feel, that it's a dangerous over-correction to go out looking for expressions to pronounce "racist." When they achieve Type 2 status, I'm all for revisiting 'em. Sensitivity is called for. Language does hurt, even kill. This dialogue is important and should continue, vigilantly and objectively. This is what I was attempting to do when I got pummeled.

Since that post, I've learned two things. First, OWGs cling to easy targets (like this overreaching exercise given to dorm residents at the University of New Hampshire) as evidence that any dialogue on language and racial sensitivity is silly and fruitless. That is not, however, what I see. I see an noble effort sabotaging itself. I'll argue that by ditzily scrambling innocent Type 1s into their examples, the exercise's authors—almost certainly well-meaning and white—completely undermined their own credibility and, ironically, engendered resentment toward minorities. Want proof? Read my mail. You will see misspellings you never imagined possible.

Meanwhile, several black readers were surprised that, when I'm told that my language is racist, I hear "you're racist." They took great pains to explain that we're talking about racist language, not people, but I'm unconvinced. Is it really that far of a stretch? When I say that someone's statement is "stupid," does that not impugn his intelligence? When I say that his comments are "evil," does that much allow for sainthood? I see precious little distinction between "someone who says racist things" and "someone racist." These folks could, of course, reasonably counter that they're only responsible for what they mean, not for what I hear. But then that argument would extend to garden tools, now, wouldn't it?

posted by john at 10:33 AM  •  permalink

October 24, 2006

october unsurprise

I'm sure the timing of this has nothing to do with the midterm elections in two weeks—or these two fellows' reporting lines. Guess which part I made up:

(AP) Iraqi forces should be able to take full control of security in the country within the next 12 to 18 months with minimal U.S. support, Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, said today. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad said "success in Iraq is possible and can be achieved on a realistic timetable." Continuing to read from a prepared statement, Khalilzad added that his White House captors have treated him well.

posted by john at 06:39 AM  •  permalink

bush uses the google on the internets

Remember when "regular guy" G.H.W. Bush went shopping at JC Penney's with some reporters, and he was flabbergasted by the bar code scanner at the cash register? That's what this clip reminded me of. Transcript:

HOST: I’m curious, have you ever googled anybody? Do you use Google?

BUSH: Occasionally. One of the things I’ve used on the Google is to pull up maps. It’s very interesting to see — I’ve forgot the name of the program — but you get the satellite, and you can — like, I kinda like to look at the ranch. It remind me of where I wanna be sometimes.

Just talking about it won't make it happen. Go! Go!

Insert predictable using-Google-Earth-to-search-for-WMDs joke here.

posted by john at 06:21 AM  •  permalink

October 13, 2006

foley grip

The term suddenly has creepy new meaning, doesn't it?

I haven't much to say that hasn't been covered ad nauseum.

• I'll really never understand the arrogance of power. How can someone who's risen to office—a status ensuring the existence of many enemies—prey on minors, leave a paper trail, and think that he won't be caught? Of course he's going to be caught.
• Equally astonishing is that some folks vehemently assert that this story didn't originate from the Democrats, as if there can be only one bad guy in a scandal. This is Capitol Hill. A sensational story, long-buried, exploding right before the midterm elections? They call it an "October surprise" for a good reason. Is there proof? Not yet. But there's a helluva lot of smoke worthy of examination. It's inconceivable to me that the Dems sat on the story for political reasons, but what about this story is conceivable so far?
• If there's a bright side to this wretchedness, it's the reaction of the religious right. Did they learn that they'd been played by the GOP? That the Republicans found a group of unthinking lemmings; made a couple of insincere, validating noises; and easily stole their devotion and votes—all the while secretly tolerating things like (gasp!) gays in their ranks? No. The lesson the religious right learned was that the Republicans aren't pious enough. They'll demand even more groveling lip-service next time.

Don't you people have children's cartoons to censor or something?

posted by john at 07:09 AM  •  permalink

October 10, 2006

the affirming nature of mortality, cont.

Helen Chenoweth isn't really endangered. That's a liberal lie. Why there she is, right on the shelf!

posted by john at 09:44 AM  •  permalink

September 23, 2006

newsweek: women in leadership

The latest Newsweek cover features their annual salute to women in leadership roles. In her regular editorial, that well-meaning airhead Anna Quindlen hails the very existence of this salute as a breakthrough for womankind.

Were it executed well, I might well agree. But Nancy Pelosi, the imminent first female Speaker of the House and highest ranking woman in our government ever, is not mentioned. That noted marginalizer of Cheney and Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice, is not mentioned. Sherry Lansing, the first woman to head a movie studio and the woman who green-lit Titanic? Nope. Indra Nooyi, the first female CEO of Pepsico? Shamila Kohestani, an Afghan woman who defies very real death threats from Islamic fundamentalists in order to play soccer? Oprah, even? Anyone? Anyone?

No, with a world of accomplished females to choose from, Newsweek led the story with noted leaders Danica Patrick and Queen Latifah. A breakthrough for women, indeed.

posted by john at 11:22 AM  •  permalink

September 14, 2006

photo negative life

During our conversation, Pam and I wallowed gleefully in scorn for three demographics that happen to irritate us both to no end: 1) young suburban whites who try to glom on to black culture, 2) young suburban blacks to whom every perceived slight is "racist," and 3) Pam's husband. Number three has nothing to do with the other two. I just wanted him in there. "Talk about your bait and switches," Pam groaned. "The man put on fifty pounds on our honeymoon."

That comment would bring me a whole lot more pleasure if I hadn't gotten even fatter.

• • •

I held forth for a time about how I hold accusations of racism to the same burden of proof that I hold accusations of lying or stealing, and about how, at times, younger blacks have become angry with me for not taking their word for what white folks are thinking.

Pam chuckled her agreement. "But let me ask you something. Just as an exercise. Do you think you'd be living the same life if you'd been born black?"

Of course not, I thought.

"Of course not," I said. "No way." This exercise was easy.

"Why?"

Why? Why. I stammered about racism and white privilege for a while. She let me. I tried to conjure evidence to back up my claim. I soon retreated into quiet reflection. It's not often that someone smarter than me comes along and traps me, but here I was, dangling by my ankles, my shirt over my head. I do not like the feeling. This must be what life is like for Dorkass every damned day. I reacted with typical grace.

"Fuuuuuuuuuuck you."

"The whys ain't so easy, are they?"

Indeed. The whys are a bitch. They're hard to quantify, or even to list speculatively. All the little advantages I've enjoyed and all the additional burdens placed upon my black peers—I know of these things, but I cannot readily prove their existence. Much like with a black hole, we understand the existence of institutional racism without being able to directly observe it.

I do not know, for example, that the linchpin people who've profoundly shaped my life would not have done the same if my skin were a different color. But it seems naive to assume that everyone would have treated me identically, does it not? With a couple exceptions, these twenty or so folks all looked very much like I do. I'd like to think that's not a variable. I just can't make myself believe it.

Pam was cleverly putting me in the shoes of having to prove racism. Point taken. My burden of proof was impossible to satisfy. Klansmen don't come along often; the everyday realities are far subtler than that. All the more reason to use the r-word judiciously, in my estimation. It's fine and healthy to scan for it, to debate it. But casually diagnosing it? I think the whys should be a bitch for all concerned.

posted by john at 10:54 AM  •  permalink

September 04, 2006

election fright

I'm presently examining my Washington State primary ballot. Here are the Democratic choices for U.S. Senator, verbatim:

Michael Goodspaceguy Nelson
Mike the Mover
Mohammad Said
Hong Tran
Maria Cantwell

Do I really need to break down why this will be a Cantwell landslide? Kudos, though, to Said for actually making me google "Mohammad said" and to Nelson for having the flakiest web site of this election season.

I do rather enjoy pronouncing the Republican candidates' names. Try a posh English accent with

William Chovil
Gordon Pross
Warren Hanson
Thurston Howell III

Okay, I might have made the last one up.

• • •

I hate this state's policy limiting you to voting for only one party. But I want to vote against them all!

posted by john at 09:18 AM  •  permalink

August 22, 2006

30 days

At one level, it's impossible to dislike Morgan Spurlock's TV series "30 Days." It's warm-hearted. It's affirming. People can learn, it tells us; if only you nudge them, they will grow and change. When they're forced to live with their opposite for 30 days, their horizons will stretch, their bigotries fall. It's a great message. It gives me warm tinglies.

It's also a lie.

The first thing I noticed was a predictable pattern to the epiphanies. You will find a skeptic who comes to embrace alternative fuels, New Age philosophy, or the like, but you will not ever see, say, an atheist who lives with Christians and turns her heart over to the Lord. Despite professions to the contrary, the show is simply not interested in exploring neutrality. The deck is stacked to promote an agenda, and time and again, Spurlock deals himself a winning hand.

I actually appreciate "voice" in entertainment. The Daily Show, for instance, pulls it off expertly. Without self-consciousness, they imbue their work with an overtly liberal point of view, and it lends to their observations a philosophical candor and ethos that I adore. I can't recall ever thinking that the Daily Show strained to mislead me. My trust earned, I simply listen to the message. And when they criticize the left, it carries the weight of angry introspection. Their voice gives the material real depth and credibility.

30 Days, on the other hand, feigns objective neutrality. Despite the fact that we can predict the outcome when we first hear the premise—gee, I wonder if the gun-toting border patroller will soften toward the plight of illegal immigrants?—Spurlock insists on going through the motions. Deception, however well meant, undercuts his message,

And the show flat-out cheats. I grimaced when, while demonstrating how hard it is to live on minimum wage for 30 days, both Spurlock and his wife "required" expensive emergency room care, for a cold and a sore wrist. Convenient, that contrivance. Thesis-affirming, even. Worse, though, are the cut-aways. Watch the epiphanies carefully. Look at how they're cut together. You'll find that the speaker is often off-screen and you're watching the "reaction" of someone else. If Survivor has taught me anything, it's that this signals a distortion. After the immigration episode, I was so suspicious of the border patrol guy's awkwardly edited change-of-heart that I went to the Internet and found interviews in which he accused the show of exactly the distortions I suspected.

Whether or not I was right is immaterial. As I tell my students, "if I have to go to the library to see if you plagiarized, you're already in trouble." I distrust the show. I distrust whether what I'm seeing is true. And that's a shame, 'cause the message is important and there's some great material in there. At times, the show achieves the critical-thought-as-theatre to which it aspires, and that's when it works best. The family of illegals, for example, is spectacularly loving and hard-working, a credit to any nation. Their plight needed no embellishment, but it was certainly diminished by it.

It's time for Spurlock to unstack the deck and demonstrate a little faith in his worthwhile convictions. His convictions will thank him.

• • •

I'd like to thank Mr. Spurlock for compelling me to search immigration-related web sites, which inevitably led me to the virulent, poisonous "anti" crowd. Yeesch. Those illiterate, hate-spewing bigots are truly the dregs of humanity, and I forever lost brain cells for being exposed to them. Thanks, Morgan.

posted by john at 02:17 AM  •  permalink

August 01, 2006

intellectual whacking material

"Do you ever read x?" someone will ask, even though I know the answer before they mention x. No, I don't. I am a snob. Snobs do not read what you read.

"Why not?" said recent houseguest Marie, clutching her New Yorker to her chest.

"You know that scene in the original Airplane! where the camera pans past the magazine rack, and one of the sections is labeled 'Whacking Material?' I think of that gag every time I read the New Yorker. It's left-wing whacking material."

"Well," she scoffed as she went back to her magazine,"I like it because they take shots at Bush."

Touché.

"So do you ever listen to y?" Dirt Glazowski asked just last night. No. I don't listen to right-wing whacking material, either. "He's really good. You should check it out."

"If I ever do, kindly and repeatedly exercise your beloved second amendment rights on my skull."

"Ha, ha. Which amendment is that, again?"

• • •

Dirt and I spotted a brown pelican, which are brand new to the Seattle area, having made their way up the west coast from islands off temperate Southern California. "Why are they moving up here?" he asked.

"Oh," I braced, "Because the climate is getting warmer. As the planet warms, some species are fanning out to where it used to be too cold."

"Well." End of conversation. He shut me down. He's doubtless heard of people like me, always wanting to refute dogma with evidence. I was best avoided.

Frustrated, I recounted the conversation later to Katrina. "No, Dirt, one day they just decided they were sick of the California heat and they up and moved someplace colder."

"No, that's no good either," she replied. "That'd be evolution."

posted by john at 05:27 AM  •  permalink

July 20, 2006

why do you think?

"High Fidelity" author Nick Hornby tells us that it's not what you are like that's important, but what you like. John's Third Law is not dissimilar: it doesn't much matter what you believe; it's why you believe it that matters.

This philosophy oft puts me in the position of admiring those with whom I disagree and cringing at people whose opinions align with my own. If there's anything more de-validating than the chiming agreement of someone who's put no thought whatsoever into an issue, I certainly haven't found it. It's the intellectual equivalent of a women pointing and laughing the first time she sees me naked. I hear.

The whys are huge. Are you vegetarian for moral or health reasons, or are you so vapid as to allow fashion to dictate something as important as diet? Are you trying to convert me to your religion because you're personally worried about my eternal soul, or is it merely what you've been told to do by the other goose-steppers? Are you as considerate when people aren't watching as when they are? Are you law-abiding out of a sense of conviction, or are you just afraid of consequences? Do you hate Bush because you're actually conversant about the issues, or have you just mindlessly hopped the Bush-hatin' train?

To someone like myself who thinks that almost all human behavior stems from a need for validation, the act of choosing invalidation is a heroic act of intellectual integrity. I have a friend who's a born-again Christian, a longtime Republican voter, and a staunch environmentalist. She is an independent thinker. To me, there should be statues of this woman built in town squares, but instead she's abused by both camps. She personally dispels the stereotypes they use to vilify those with whom they disagree, so she is marginalized. To her credit, she does not capitulate and toe the line. Invalidation doesn't feel good, I'm sure, but stupidity would feel worse. We disagree on much, but she's one of my heroes, and our conversations are among the most stimulating I've ever enjoyed.

Now for the flip side. A friend was recently railing that the disastrous Bush economy needs "saving."

"How does it need to be saved, again?" I asked, genuinely curious.

"What rock are YOU living under?!" he sneered, disdainful.

The rock with books, apparently. Books that tell me 1) entirely too much credit/blame is given to the President for the economy, and 2) the economy's nothing great, but it's in the black. It's slow-growing. Inflation is slow, interest rates are still near their record lows, and unemployment is under the 5% figure my college Econ professor said constituted "full employment" at any given point in time. I shared this and asked what leading economic indicators he was using. I expected to hear about unchecked spending, staggering debt, rising gas prices, flat wages, a poor stock market. Good arguments all. Bupkis. He had his hate for Bush, and behind that, nothing at all. Oh, how it thrills me to know we voted the same way.

Moral: leave the hating to the professionals.

posted by john at 06:51 AM  •  permalink

July 17, 2006

the shit heard ’round the world

Much will be made of the s-bomb W dropped today. It's already being called unpresidential. Me, I don't care so much about the profanity. Want unpresidential? How about the way W rudely and dismissively interrupts the British Prime Minister, a man who could slay W from 50 yards with the power of his brain waves? Here's a thought: quit running your hole and listen to someone who knows more than you.

And don't even get me started on how he talked while chewing, smacking his lips like a hooker blowing bubbles in front of a five-and-dime. That cracker must have looked to Blair like dirty clothes in a front-load washing machine.

posted by john at 10:37 AM  •  permalink

July 14, 2006

the outrage seems to comes and go

At the height of the Danish cartoon nonsense, the boys at South Park aired a satire of the situation. The end result: Comedy Central censored a brief image of Muhammad knocking on a door but allowed an image of Jesus defecating on George Bush and the American flag. To me, the even more stunning aspect of this is that an image of Muhammad has appeared in South Park's opening credits for years, to neither Muslims' nor network's outrage. Watch for it. He, Buddha, Jesus and friends all ascend skyward.

An observant lot, those morally outraged Muslims and morally bankrupt network executives...

posted by john at 08:54 AM  •  permalink

July 09, 2006

old town, new town
red town, blue town

Most people are surprised when I tell them that Washington state is mostly desert. The mountains and waters and mild weather you see on the postcards comprise only the western quarter of the state. Cross the mountains fifty miles to Seattle's east, and suddenly you're in an arid desert that continues for 200 miles until you get to Spokane, where pine trees suddenly pop out of the rolling yellow hills, where it hits 100 every summer and -10 every winter. You'd never guess you were in the same state.

That's where I lived for two years when I first arrived in Washington.

Much like their geographical differences, there's a sharp cultural and political divide between eastern and western Washington. Paint the areas east of the mountains red, the western areas solidly blue. And me, I've had the great misfortune to live in conservative Spokane when Clinton was ruinin' the country and in liberal Seattle now that W. is.

Is that ever tiresome.

If you ever get the chance, open the Spokane Spokesman-Review to the letters to the editor. Here's a synthesis of what you can expect to find:

To the editor,
When are Americans going to WAKE UP and realize that their country is being taken over by the anti-gun choice and tax-and-spend Dumbocrats? They had their chance and all they accomplished was BLOW JOBS! And now we have a President who walks with Christ and all they can do is criticize! Stop the country! I want to get off!!!

— Cooter P. McNugget, Hayden Lake

P.S. WAKE UP!!!

The letters are excruciating, yet you cannot avert your eyes. They beckon like sirens to the rocky shoals of your mind, they do. Nor can you long avoid having redneck world views shoved down your throat. "I swear to God," said one woman of Washington's new ban on smoking in public places. "The gummint just wants to control everything nowadays."

"Oh, they do not. This is reasonable. It's not like secondhand smoke is good for you."

"Tough. People have been breathing it for decades." And then she indulged in the stupid man's preferred form of argumentation: say the same thing, only louder and with a personal attack chaser. "THE GUMMINT HAS GONE TOO FAR! WHAT DO YOU WANT NEXT, BANNING FATTY FOODS?"

Because the AM radio tells them to, Spokanites complain about taxes a lot. And even those who pay zero taxes manage to complain about any public services enjoyed by those of us who shovel towering heaps of cash to the government. I once endured a Spokane retiree and a lazy-assed, white-trash, unemployed mooch of a Spokane husband complaining about how their taxes went to pay for my ferry.

"What taxes? Would you like to compare tax burdens? I guaranfreakingtee you I paid more in taxes last year than you've earned in any year of your life." They declined.

When I lived in Spokane, Limbaugh was lord, Clinton was Satan, and I couldn't wait until I was no longer pummeled by idiots' opinions. And then I moved to Seattle, and only the idiots changed.

"Hi, I'm Dawn and I drive a hybrid and go through your garbage looking for recycling fouls and wear no deodorant except for this herbal stuff I buy at the food co-op and I'm a vegan well almost but not quite because I have a silk blouse but it was made from free-range grain-fed silkworms in Tibet and I don't support Bush."

"Hi, I'm John, and I didn't ask."

"I SAID I DON'T SUPPORT BUSH! WHAT, DO YOU SUPPORT HIM?"

A friend once observed that Seatards don't show you who they are; they instead rattle off a list of trends that they've bundled together in lieu of a personality. There's no depth whatsoever to it. They'll speak smugly, and loudly, about owning a hybrid, yet their old car is still out there guzzling fossil fuels for someone else, making their purchase no more environmentally significant than any other conspicuous instance of consumer consumption. I've already railed about the stupidity of their electric busses. Their diversity parade? Please. You'll never meet a less diverse group of people than the Seattle ditzy left. Trust that they went straight from that parade back to social circles who uniformly look and, for lack of a better term, think just like them.

As evidence of Bush's election fraud, several Seatards have said the following to me: "I don't know anyone who voted for him." And they're earnest in this belief. So malformed is their intellect, they think this indicts the election results more than themselves. In a country in which a smidgeon more than half voted for Bush, they have labored to know none of them. Diversity, indeed.

So where does this leave me, other than feeling uncomfortable and vaguely assaulted on both sides of the state? I found myself preferring Spokane folks, though until yesterday I wasn't sure why. They're less educated, demographically. Marginally whiter. Flag-waving, gun-toting, ill-read drones of the AM radio–right. These are not qualities that I admire.

But yesterday when I was in Spokane, I found myself in the uncomfortable position of telling a friend that something he said offended me. And he asked why. And I told him. And he said he'd never considered that. And that was the end of it.

I felt a thud of realization: this was the difference. This conversation has never happened for me in Seattle. I can't imagine it ever happening. No, I would simply be blamed for my own offense. The idiocy in Seattle is not by lazy happenstance but by willful design. Whereas the irritating idiocies in Spokane are largely born of ignorance, those in Seattle are rooted in pretense and hypocrisy. And therein lies the crucial difference.

Ignorance can sometimes be cured.

posted by john at 10:13 AM  •  permalink

July 06, 2006

the strangest story out of russia since yeltsin took a whiz on the tarmac at dulles

Next up: Putin gets a chimpanzee and builds Nyetland Ranch in his backyard.

posted by john at 12:46 PM  •  permalink

June 14, 2006

anti-piffle

My Inbox has been filled with piffle this week.

It turns out that I'm an anti-choice freedom-hater. And I'm also anti-Freedom of Choice. I'm not sure if there's a difference, 'cause, well, it's all so much meaningless marketing piffle masquerading as philosophy.

I blame the abortion debate. I'm sure the Piffle Wars predated the abortion dialogue (dueling monologues, really, but I digress), but if in modern times there were ever an issue in which everyone hid behind meaningless euphemism, that's the one. I, myself, am both pro-choice and pro-life. I like choosing, and I sure as hell like living.

At any rate, as soon as I hear such a slogan invoked, I tune out. "Use your words," I say in my imagination.

Which brings us to this "Freedom of Choice" nonsense with regard to motorcycle helmet laws. How noble that makes vainglorious stupidity sound. How heinous someone must be to oppose "Freedom of Choice." Bravo.

Alas, merely casting helmetless motorcycle riding as a civil liberty does not make it one; it is a privilege, not a right, and as such it is reasonably regulated by the people who issue you a license and ultimately pay for the roads and your reconstructive surgery.

In the spirit of compromise, though, I'll ally myself with helmet "Freedom of Choice"... just so long as that freedom extends to my health insurance company choosing whether or not they'll pay for repairing the fruits of motorcyclists' vanity.

Hell, I'll even support this imaginary civil right as soon as I hear women assert its existence, which would disprove what I really think: helmet "Freedom of Choice" isn't so much a moral stance as a vain, unimaginably stupid penis thing. Somehow I doubt they'd protest as much if, say, bad-ass leather jackets were required.

posted by john at 11:49 AM  •  permalink

June 12, 2006

blame ben, yes, but let’s not forget to blow kisses their way, too

In 2003, the following Pennsylvania legislators voted to repeal the longtime helmet law.

Why? Because helmets aren't cool. No? Helmet hair, then?

The jagovs in question:

Source - Remember, "Freedom of Choice wins!"

posted by john at 01:51 AM  •  permalink

May 19, 2006

look for the hybrid label

I knew I was in Seattle 'cause a complete stranger was chiding me for driving a Jeep. People do that here, and when you're offended, well, you're downright rude.

It would be unethical of me to drive that, sniffed the new hybrid owner who, for consuming the world resources used in the creation of a new car and letting someone else waste oil in his unethical old car, was clearly fitting himself for the Nobel Prize. I talked about relative resource and cost savings, but he wasn't interested. His validation was firmly invested in the hybrid label.

Astoundingly, though, the man has four kids. He's done his part to double the world population. Relative to the amount of resources his four little vanity projects are going to consume over the course of their entire lifetimes, the five gallons per week my Jeep uses to haul my fat ass to work seem trifling. An environmentalist breeder? Is that like an honest thief?

posted by john at 07:38 AM  •  permalink

May 07, 2006

electric busses

At least one reader thought I was ridiculing busses and mass transit, so to clarify: I was ridiculing them thar electric busses. Simple physics tells us that the resistance in miles of power lines requires that far more power, hence far more pollution, be produced. The notion that these monstrosities are somehow cleaner and consume fewer resources is bullshit feel-good fantasy. They are, in my humble estimation, a monument to the ditzy left.

Stank stands by the the pickup truck with the machine gun.

posted by john at 02:17 PM  •  permalink

May 05, 2006

fringe benefits

Eight years of living in the Seattle area had me wondering if at heart I wasn't an AM-radio listening, bible-thumping, card-carrying member of the GOP. Not that my dial ever switches to AM or that I even own a bible. I just so perpetually wanted to pimp-slap the smug left, I found myself waiting in line with Republicans. Chattering airheads lectured me about my diet, recycling habits, gas-powered car, aversion to protests, etc. from the moment I arrived until the moment I left. In reaction, I even started using that most Republican of epithets: "the elite." I despise their public masturbation, their sneering presumption, their group-think. I especially despise their self-inflating answers to questions no one asked.

Just when I was about to buy a red, white and blue SUV made of old growth timber by non-union labor and fueled by baby-seal head-pulp, I moved to Metamuville. Now I'm a left-wing nut. I'm one of the "librawls" I hear derided pretty much every day. Good lord, I hear he even votes both ways. Clearly, he don't support the troops. It's time for an intervention. John needs some learnin.' Conservative learnin.'

If I vote for a school levy, refuse to fertilize my lawn, or ask that racial slurs not be used around me? I'm a bleeding heart librawl. High gas prices? Librawls' fault. Requirements that you have a permit to construct a building? Damned librawls. Can't smoke in restaurants? You better believe it's the librawls. Ill-read, ill-educated cretins made these self-inflating pronouncements, parroting, I suppose, what they heard on the radio or O'Reilly.

A typical such moment: last week I was at a buffet with some Metamuvillians. The waitress took our drink order and forgot about it, and a fellow got up and got his own. "See, I ain't no librawl," he said pointedly. "A librawl would have just sat there and whined for someone else to bring them their drink, where me, I just took care of it myself."

I stared at him. So this is what passes as a friend in the post-baby-boomlet era. Shudder.

Maybe if I make fun of him.

"Yes, we're all very proud of you. But you did that server's job for her. She's going to get paid for not working. How do you reconcile that?"

"Good point. I hadn't thought of that. Damn."

Maybe Guam. I hear good things about Guam.

posted by john at 07:37 AM  •  permalink

May 02, 2006

immigrunting

I celebrated the "Day Without Immigrants" by watching two Mexicans and a German wrestle a 1200 pound concrete slab from one side of my house to the other.

"Hey, Javier. Can you rotate it so the handprints are facing the right way?"

I love this country.

• • •

The demonstrators have taken enormous pains to characterize themselves as "immigrants" opposing infringements on "immigrants' rights." This is, of course, a half-truth. We're not talking about enforcing the rights to which legal immigrants are obviously entitled—we're talking about granting new legal rights to illegal immigrants. This is not an insignificant difference. The demonstrators do their cause a disservice by attempting to blur the distinction between the two. I'm not unsympathetic to their arguments, but I've learned to distrust that sort of posturing. I find it disingenuous, disquieting. They'd have done better if they'd been forthright.

posted by john at 12:02 AM  •  permalink

April 27, 2006

journeys with george

From Carl, the first man I ever sent flowers, comes this mesmerizing animation. The configuration of the bubbles is different every time, so keep hitting Refresh.

Update: Esteemed Stank Troll "Dug" points out that you can click-and-drag George by any part of his anatomy. I hadn't even noticed.

posted by john at 09:24 AM  •  permalink

April 26, 2006

helping the last 1000 days begin with a bang

posted by john at 12:00 AM  •  permalink

April 19, 2006

he’s a decider, not a divider

There's something unsettling about a president making like Alexander Haig and publicly grabbing at his own authority. Even mocking the word "decider" can only bring so much relief.

posted by john at 07:22 AM  •  permalink

April 11, 2006

we are america: on keeping the cost of lima beans down

I have conflicting feelings about immigration reform. On the one hand, we have right-wing cranks in Congress targeting illegals. They're taking jobs away from real 'Merikuns, we're told, and we need to erect a 750 mile fence along the Mexican border to keep them out. For those keeping score: whereas al Qaeda operatives don't merit a fence, crop-picking migrant workers do. Congress falls short of explaining to my satisfaction why illegals are such a threat to me and mine; they speak about an impending Hispanic population explosion, but such talk—historically also said about blacks, Chinese, and Irish, among others—make me squeamish. It feels like ethnic baiting. Score one for the illegals. I'm also sympathetic to the immigrants' point that families would be split, the legals remaining here and the illegals returning to Mexico. And there's some sense of historical justice in California and Texas slowly ceding back to Mexicans. If only American Indians would take it back from them, it'd be perfect.

Where the illegals lose me is with their obvious sense of entitlement. People who have broken the law, who have essentially cut in line in front of those who would immigrate legally, are taking to the streets to decry the unfairness of the enforcement of that law. Um, no. They might look like civil rights protesters, but they're essentially just squatters sneaking into the country and declaring that this gives them rights. Can I get a "Hell no?" In the immortal words of Teddy Pope, "Who the fuck is you?" I find their presumption offensive, not inspiring. It's like I have 150,000 Mexican relatives I knew nothing about until this week. Gimme, gimme, gimme, mine, mine, mine.

Which brings us to Bush, who offers the scarily pragmatic solution of temporary "guest worker" permits, which acknowledges the inevitability of migrant workers, makes them legal guests for a time, and puts in process a place that ultimately results either in their citizenship or in their leaving the country. It's hard to find flaw with this, save one: its source. Supporting a Bush measure makes me feel filthy. (I just know there's a clause requiring the guest workers to build new churches and Halliburton offices in Iraq.) The measure is damned by the company it keeps. Hence "I have conflicting feelings." Everyone's a bad guy. I'm hoping for a compromise solution that royally pisses everyone off. It's a safe bet.

Welcome to America. Viva democracia.

• • •

Alternate heading: if you're america, how come the terrorists aren't trying to kill you?

posted by john at 06:15 AM  •  permalink

April 07, 2006

when i grow up, i wanna be leonard pitts

Swell. Now he's showing me up in real time. Line I wish I wrote: "You would, under other circumstances, consider this a rather minor contretemps. But McKinney is black, which brings race into the picture. And where race enters, stupid is seldom far behind."

posted by john at 09:54 PM  •  permalink

can’t we all just get a grip?

I've refrained from writing about the Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) situation, as I was never able to find her account of the actual sequence of events. I like to wait for emotions to ebb and for facts to reveal themselves before I issue an opinion; call me peculiar. Like many, I read with alarm her accusations of racist treatment at the hands of the Capitol police, and I waited for her to refute the nuts and bolts of their story: that she had attempted to circumvent a security checkpoint without wearing the pin that identifies members of Congress, that she refused three requests to halt, and that when a guard grabbed her arm to keep her from entering the restricted area, she walloped him. Then she took to the airwaves to decry the "racial profiling" and declare that it wasn't "about a pin, it's about the cornrows."

And then like an idiot, I awaited the evidence that would corroborate this most serious of charges. Any evidence would do—another minority congressman citing a similar occurrence, for instance. Instead, Danny Glover and Harry Belafonte were trotted out before the cameras in a show of support. As the days have worn on and no further support has materialized, McKinney has apologized for the assault and said she'll vote for some idiotic Republican stunt-legislation praising the Capitol police for their hard work. That's swell. Now how about an apology for an apparently baseless charge of racism? I've asked it before; I'll ask it again: why are people allowed to scream "racist!" without meeting the slightest burden of proof?

Don't buy my moral argument? Then how about a practical one? Keep crying wolf and soon even the most well-meaning villagers will stop putting on their socks and boots and coming to your defense. Me, for one. I'm worn out from all the false alarms, and I'm increasingly distrustful of them. And I'm very nearly done listening. Is this really the goal? Racial profiling is a serious charge and should be addressed with utmost gravity and zero tolerance for the offender—but how can it be when charges fly so loosely, with such impunity?

Comic relief comes from ol' reliable outgoing Rep. Tom DeLay (R- TX), who shows us that mind-reading is, in fact, a color-blind superpower: "Cynthia McKinney is a racist. She has a long history of racism. Everything is racism with her."

Yeah. Really helpful, thoughtful stuff, that. He'll be missed. Don't let the door hit an illegal contributor on your way out, Tom, and don't drop the soap.

posted by john at 07:20 AM  •  permalink

March 11, 2006

see? i told you mortality is life-affirming.

Bon voyage. Give my Dad my regards.

posted by john at 10:10 AM  •  permalink

February 14, 2006

wmd found at last

I just can't get enough of the Cheney-shooting-a-lawyer/contributor story. What's more delicious: that they sat on the story for so long; that gun-lobby whore Cheney shot a donor in the face, thinking it was a bird ("Guns don't kill people. Sitting Vice-Presidents do," says Katrina.); that a Texas corporate lawyer took it in the face; or that Cheney was hunting illegally? Be still my heart.

posted by john at 07:18 AM  •  permalink

the smartest member of my family

This morning I awoke to a wide-distribution email from my sister, who when we were kids narrowly defeated me for highest IQ in the family. Other than my favorite line being "please use no invectives or emotion," I offer no further comment. Enjoy.

To my friends,

The attached letter from Curt Weldon’s office, dated yesterday, MAY or may not be good news. My prediction: the hearings about Able Danger will uncover enough “slipshod crap” to get a few people in trouble and give others a public slap on the wrist. It will actually be supposed to satisfy the American people of some incompetence in the government. Many suspect that the government could have done more towards prevention of the attacks. There is much more deception and lies about the attacks than Americans know of. I won’t tell you why I believe the attacks occurred. But I will tell you that the European community is aware of the U.S.’s imperialist ventures in the Middle East, especially in Iraq, all in the name of fighting terror. The U.S. has conveniently located 4 military bases in Northern Iraq, all along the proposed oil pipeline passageway. Haliburton is putting in the pipeline.

It is certain that the Israeli intelligence agency told U.S. intelligence agencies and the U.S. government that they knew attacks on the trade center would occur. They told them which week they would occur. Our government PURPOSEFULLY ignored them, and they “happened.”. The Israeli’s had a center in one of the towers. It vacated it one week before the attacks. Israel could not save the American people, but they saved their own. Do some fact checking.

I have ALWAYS voted Republican, but I NEVER will again. This administration has passed several laws that completely violate our Constitution. They have an agenda that was set out in the 90s, and they are currently following it. They could not act upon it until they could got the support of the American people, which they gained after the attacks.

Don’t believe me if you don’t want to. But Do do some homework on this. And you will get little news from Fox, ABC, CBS and NBC or the Columbus Dispatch. The media delivers what their financial supporters want. The American people are not given all the news.

I have a few DVDs that point out the above – and much more. Two senators and a former LAPD narcotics agent speak in the first, and a number of retired military, (one of them pointed out the bases I spoke of), scholars, and concerned citizens of other countries who know that the American people are being misled by our media and government speak in the second, “Hijacking Catastrophe.” It is excellent and only one hour long. I recommend it.

Still don’t believe me? Here’s a VERY well known quote that leading members of our government made famous: “It is now certain that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.” How many weapons did they find? None. Any apologies? Nope. Try disagreeing on me on this one.

I know a few of you are stout Republicans – and you are my friends. PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE DATE OF THE ABLE DANGER HEARINGS, AND SEE IF THEY ARE OPEN OR CLOSED WHEN YOU TRY TO WATCH THEM. This email was sent to me last night, Monday, February 13th, at 5:30 p.m. Surely, I must be one of the first to know of the hearings. Why do I have less than 48 hours to disseminate the news? Have they told about them in the newspapers or on the t.v. yet? Maybe so. In the last day or two? If it is longer, they must realize that I do not watch or read bought out news stations or newspapers, and I needed to be personally contacted.

Even if you are angry with me, because you think I am against our government (I am), please write to me and tell me what date it was when you found out that the hearings will be February 15th. It is now the 14th.

I am a VERY patriotic American. And I believe in the American people, especially all those in their 20’s. They have a hard road ahead of them to fix the huge problems that this current regime is creating for the American people. We are now hated over much of the world. What? Why? Because of what our government is doing in the Middle East and in other countries. Instead of building an arsenal in the 80s and 90s, our government should have been supporting research into alternative energy sources. Yes, I know they did. With a mere fraction of the amount of money that was given to “defense.” We wouldn’t be attacking and intimidating peoples of other lands who have what we want – oil – today, if we had done the work we needed to do in the last few decades.

Sadam was a terrible leader of Iraq. But we let him perform his atrocities as long as Iraqi interests aligned with U.S. interests. He became “evil that needed to be rooted out” when, and only when, Iraqi interests didn’t align with U.S. interests. The atrocities are well documented during our years of “friendship” with Iraq.

By the way, does anyone know what happened to Colin Powell? I liked him. I HEARD he retired. Did he refuse to be a part of the government of the U.S. based on personal convictions and morals? If you know what happened to him, I would like to know.

Recapping, watch for Able Danger hearings tomorrow, Tuesday.

Write and tell me when you heard the date of the hearings.

Write and tell me what really happened to Colin Powell.

Feel free to disagree with the facts in this letter. Tell me where you got your alternative findings, and how current legislation does not go against our constitution. Please don’t use invectives or emotion. Quote the rights that our government is not violating – of the American people, in, say, the Patriot Act, and the rights of peoples of other countries. Tell me how the Patriot Act, for example, is actually aligned with our constitution – ALL of it. No U.S. citizen has protection against what used to be illegal search and seizure, spying, and more. Officials in Congress did not have much time to review the Patriot Act before a vote was called for. Many blindly voted for it in a time of crisis and emotion. It will be interesting to see if it is re-upped now that everyone is aware of what it can actually allow to happen.

I love you guys. I hope this is helpful. Watch for the hearings!!! They will tell of wrongdoing in the government before and after 9/11 – and a coverup.

posted by john at 06:37 AM  •  permalink

February 08, 2006

trent lott

I know I shouldn't be enjoying the fact that Trent Lott didn't have flood insurance on his Mississippi home, but I am. I'm just a lousy person that way. I want to kick back, make a bowl of buttered popcorn, and watch State Farm do to him what he's been doing to Americans for decades, in as many positions.

posted by john at 12:53 PM  •  permalink

February 01, 2006

states of disunion

COLUMBUS - I'm listening to W robotically reading the State of the Union speech. Tell me that Churchie McBrash didn't just lump the following calamities together: crooked politicians, natural disasters, children going unloved, disease going untreated, and gay marriage.

Cough.

Nah, that's not leading. Me, I'm against hamster molestation, nun beating, baby cancer, puppy broiling, and W.

posted by john at 11:54 PM  •  permalink

January 20, 2006

family is not a hate value

I always figured if I had a son, I'd say, "Boy, I've got one hyphenated word for you: long-snapping. You're only on the field for punts and extra points, you never take a hit, you don't have to shower after the game, and the NFL rookie minimum is $650,000 a year. So let's go. Throw Daddy the football from between your legs. That's it. Now try not to bounce it."

I still think that's a mortal lock of a retirement plan. Specifically, my retirement.

If I had a daughter, I have no less of a lock in mind. "Girl," I'd drawl like Robert Duvall, or maybe Solomon Burke, "You'll never go broke if you make your living telling people what they already believe. And if you tell them everyone who disagrees with them is a bona fide idiot, you'll be obscenely wealthy."

Hopping around the web tonight, I came across the Top Ten Conservative Films of 2005. A conservative film is not, as I would have thought, a documentary about textiles that was made on-time, under budget, and released slowly, perhaps opening in Des Moines.

Conservative cinema does more than entertain; movies that do no more are visual candy. It instructs and inspires. Conservative films celebrate virtue. They tell timeless tales of individuals overcoming all manner of adversity to achieve true greatness. They’re about honesty, loyalty, courage and patriotism. They’re concerned with conservatism’s cardinal values – faith, family and freedom.

I've carefully combed every dictionary I can find, but no definition of "conservative" includes words anywhere close to instruct, inspire, celebrate, virtue, timeless, overcoming, adversity, greatness, honesty, loyalty, courage, patriotism, cardinal, values, faith, family, or freedom. It's almost like the author made all that crap up. Other than that, though, he's spot-on. The dictionaries use many of the same prepositions.

While I'm itching to speculate as to what the author would consider the characteristics of liberal cinema—how much does "cowboy" mitigate "gay?"—I'm far more interested in defining Stank cinema. Stank cinema trumpets my pleasing appearance and soothing natural odor. It celebrates me and those who celebrate me, of whom there should soon be more, if the movie is truly Stank. It instructs others to think exactly like me, to share my values, to hate the same people I hate. It's about cardinal Stank virtues, namely how honesty, loyalty, courage, patriotism, faith, family, and freedom are all somehow inextricably tied to me. Dishonesty, disloyalty, cowardice, America-hatin', godlessness, orphanhood, and slavery? Those are Michigan values.

posted by john at 01:26 AM  •  permalink

January 18, 2006

chocolate cities and plantations

MLK Day brought some curious comments from two Democrats speaking to black audiences. One comment's daft, the other despicable. Shortly after saying that the hurricane was God's retribution for Iraq (echoing an identical statement from al Qaeda), New Orleans Mayor Nagin said that God wants New Orleans to remain mostly black. "This city will be chocolate at the end of the day," he said. And thus concludes the black community's long search for Dr. King's successor.

"Where justice is denied, where poverty is enforced, where ignorance prevails, and where any one class is made to feel that society is an organized conspiracy to oppress, rob and degrade them, neither persons nor property will be safe." - Frederick Douglass

"I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
- Martin Luther King, Jr.

"This city will be chocolate at the end of the day."
- Ray Nagin

And then along came Hillary. To make the point that the Republican House leadership has stifled debate, Clinton invoked slave ownership. In her speech in Harlem, Clinton, who has never served in the House, told the audience that "when you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about."

No. We don't. Help me understand. Explain the analogy, and please use small words. Debate-stifling on a plantation? What the hell are you babbling about? Tell me you didn't just inform the descendants of slaves that their ancestors' suffering is analagous to politicians' being marginalized by parliamentary procedures. It's a sad, weird MLK day when Bob Jones-lovin', affirmative action opposin', insincerity-spewin' Republican politicians sound more like MLK than do his supposed supporters.

I've joked that my political philosophy is defeatest but simple: "Democrats are incompetent, and Republicans are evil." But with Hillary reaching across the aisle like this, I may have to rethink.

posted by john at 12:39 AM  •  permalink

January 13, 2006

Vick arrest delights hate-mongering fool

ROANOKE (Stank Press) - Virginia Tech quarterback Marcus Vick—fresh off expulsion from college because of drugs, multiple arrests, and his deliberately trying to injure another player—has been arrested yet again, this time for threatening people with a gun at McDonald's. Philadelphia NAACP chief and aspiring Nobel Laureate J. Whyatt "Jerry" Mondesire issued a statement of general approval. "Now that's what I'm talking about," he said. "Keep it real, baby."

posted by john at 08:36 AM  •  permalink

December 17, 2005

anyone else remember when republicans at least pretended to be against big government?

So the government has been spying on you and me without probable cause, and the New York Times has been sitting on this story for a year. The only thing less credible than the Times' explanation for going public now`—on the very day of the Patriot Act renewal vote—is W's elusive, smirky "trust me." There are no good guys.

posted by john at 05:58 AM  •  permalink

November 29, 2005

oh, canada

The Canadian government was toppled tonight when the House of Commons gave the boot to Prime Minister Paul Martin. On behalf of all Americans, I'd like to be the first to say..."Who?"

posted by john at 12:28 AM  •  permalink

November 15, 2005

the ditzy left

Politically speaking, I seem to have four kinds of readers.

Category 1: thoughtful right-wingers who carefully avoid being called "Republican," who are frustrated by the Democrats' incompetent opposition.

Category 2: monosyllabic right-wingers who read my reference to the "ditzy left" and feel so validated, they write in gratatude and prayse.

Category 3: thoughtful left-wingers who read "ditzy left" and see a careful qualification that excludes them and who, grateful, write to tell me I hit the nail on the head. They find their association with the ditz factor to be politically debilitating.

Category 4: ditzy left-wingers who read "ditzy left" and see their reflection and who, hysterical, send bravely anonymous, screechy mail.

Category 5: skeevy men of indeterminate politics who've googled "Kari Byron's breasts" and found their way here.

Category 6: people who just want more Percy, please.

Categories 1 and 3 and 6, welcome. Everyone else click here.

posted by john at 07:13 AM  •  permalink

November 14, 2005

proof, as if further proof were needed, that the ditzy left is bankrupt of ideas

Pretend, for a moment, that you are a world class bolt-turner. That you have a shoving match with your assistant manager. That you publicly deride his manager. That you're suspended for embarrassing the company with your antics. As you quit that job, you sneer, on television, that your former co-worker is gay, making him deny it again and again for reporters. You get a new job. Your new contract pays you seven million a year for seven years. You're delighted with it. Then you're again shown fighting on TV, screaming at your latest co-worker. After nine months, you decide that you're not so delighted with your contract after all, so you stop honoring it. You don't report to work. Your complaining about the contract you just signed becomes a fixture on the news. You bash the company. You bash your co-worker, who is widely regarded as the heart of the organization. When you finally relent and report to work, you say you're not going to work very hard. Soon after, you tell your assistant manager not to speak to you unless you speak to him first. You tell his manager to shut up. And you seek out the cameras again to trash your beloved co-worker, and this time you add that the company has no class and integrity because they didn't throw a party to celebrate your turning your 100th bolt. And the company, who put into your contract a clause protecting them from your badmouthing them, cuts you loose. They suspend you for the contractually allotted time, a month, and they say that after that, they don't want you coming back, ever, so they'll pay you to stay at home.

Perhaps it's the last provision that struck Jesse Jackson as unfair. He's taken to the airwaves, decrying Terrell Owens' mistreatment. Yes, mistreatment. If Microsoft fired me for badmouthing them in this space—with pay, yet—would Jesse be on Face the Nation calling me a victim and defending my right to work? No. As he shouldn't be. I asked for it. I submit that if you publicly and repeatedly trash your employer, if you double-dog dare them to fire you, you waive all claims of victimhood when they do. But not on Planet Jesse.

Meanwhile, Ralph "You're welcome" Nader says T.O.'s suspension is a vital consumer issue. We bought tickets, the logic goes, on the assumption that the team would feature T.O. An interesting argument, but odd that it wasn't made a half-century ago. Coaches rest healthy stars all of the time, especially at the end of the regular season. How is that any less a consumer issue, Ralph? What about those players who are listed as "questionable" and could play but are held out in a precautionary manner?

Shouldn't these guys be opposing a war or a Supreme Court nominee or something? To my many international readers who've wondered how we ever elected W twice, I give you my answer: the camera-whoring ditzy left.

posted by john at 07:03 AM  •  permalink

November 05, 2005

spiritual shell game

After much soul-searching, I've decided I can no longer abide living a deception. I have decided to come out. I'm out and proud. I do this not to be in-your-face about my sexual orientation, nor do I consider myself a hero. I'm just tired of living a lie. Yes, I am a heterosexual man.

Not news? No kidding. It irks me, however, that the opposite is still considered sensational. Why do we give a rat's ass about who Sheryl Swoopes bumps into when she rolls over at night? Seems to me that an "enlightened" approach would be to think of her orientation not at all. It is whatever it is. It's as interesting to me as her height. Alas. Her height isn't emblazoned on the ESPN The Mag cover.

Swoopes has come out. Great for her. She's good people, and I really hope things works out. But until it doesn't, it ain't news.

• • •

Also in that issue is Matthew Cole's article about an obsessive-compulsive indoor soccer player by the name of Adam Bruckner. (He supposedly helped to solve a murder, although the relevance of his contribution isn't really evident). His O-C disorder took a typically eccentric form. He counted objects obsessively, and he associated random things with future outcomes. The number of times he flicked a light switch when leaving a room, for instance, controlled his health and his Mom's safety. And so he lived his life, mystically controlling events by clearing sidewalks of pebbles, touching every tree and telephone pole with both hands and knees, counting cracks in the sidewalk, and so forth. One day,

...he found himself transfixed by a streetlight; if he didn't touch it, something bad would happen. "I'll get injured during practice," he worried. "Or I'll be hurt in a car accident and end my career." But something different happened that day. During his travels, Bruckner had found himself growing more spiritual as he sought to connect with the strangers around him. Though only vaguely Catholic—he hadn't read the Bible since Sunday school—he couldn't help thinking there was a common thread in his encounters: the woman on the train who talked to him about the power of God; the Christian who picked him up when he was hitchhiking; the pastor who stuck around for hours after Bruckner stopped by an Evangelical retreat looking to catch a ride. Now, as he stood there on that Baltimore street, staring at that light pole, he could hear a voice—his voice—rising above the noise in his head. Trust God and you'll be all right. So he walked right by that pole, didn't touch it. And much to his surprise, he felt better, not worse. He felt free. For the first time since he was a boy, Bruckner's obsessions abated.

I found this paragraph absolutely jarring. I'm sure there are those who read this and see the power of Christ healing a tortured soul, but me, I just see a man substituting one arbitrary, imaginary comfort for another. Touching a light pole brought needed balance and sense to his life. Then in one spectacular moment, he traded belief systems; now poof—believing in God brings his life needed balance and sense. Whoa. A better example of the emotional role of religion you will never find.

Still, you have to be impressed by his evidence: his chilling pattern of running into evangelical Christians who were actually willing to discuss their faith. What are the odds? I mean, what are the freaking odds?!? In the Small Blessings Department, let's be thankful he didn't run into three Amway salesmen willing to talk about pyramid schemes.

posted by john at 12:39 PM  •  permalink

October 26, 2005

whoo! death!

Like many, I adore the Daily Show. Unlike many, I don't direct all of my love at Jon Stewart, who, while a decent stand-up comic, is but one of dozens of writers in the show's stable. It's embarrassing how much credit he gets. But my stars-getting-credit-for-other-people's-lines rant will have to wait, because today's post is about the increasingly insipid Daily Show audience.

One of the things that sets the Daily Show apart is its unabashed point of view. These folks lean left, and they don't hide it. No "fair and balanced" smoke here. Yet they're the kind of biased I can respect. They're no DNC mouthpieces. If anything, they're infuriated by the Democrats' ineptitude. Contrast that with one-note partisans like, say, Limbaugh or Franken, who would sooner die than utter a thoughtful criticism of their own houses. In this, the Daily Show staff stands alone.

Which, sadly, brings us to my beef. Their studio audience. They're never shown, so I can't be sure, but I'm betting the audience is jam-packed with 19 year old College Democrats of America, each with a mug in hand so that he might drink mightily from the well of validation. It has some curious results. I don't begrudge them going batshit whenever W. is insulted, but now they're spring-loaded, ready to cheer anything that remotely validates their world view. Twice this week Stewart mentioned Iraq casualties and got raucous cheers.

Stewart: So today, the list of American dead in Iraq passed 2000—

Audience: WHOOOOOO! YEEEAAAAH! WHOOOOOO! (applause)

I don't know about y'all, but the distasteful display of self-pleasuring irritates me. It makes me not want to watch.

posted by john at 08:56 AM  •  permalink

October 25, 2005

rosa parks

Thirty seconds of lazy research shows that "Rosa" means either "beautiful rose" or "horse serpent." So much for that lead.

• • •

Much will be written about the death of civil rights pioneer—historical giant, really—Rosa Parks today. It's not often a historical icon dies while enjoying icon status. Perhaps this is because so many folks attain icon status by, well, dying. For me personally, my reaction was that of a teacher. Rosa's living was one of my go-to illustrations in class.

Even when I'm teaching banal technical writing, I manage to sneak a few of my personal loves into the assignments: history, astronomy, cooking, etc. This primarily stems from laziness. I'll be giving the students a technical description assignment, and I won't have prepared, so I'll tell them to research and write tech descriptions of words off the top of my head: aqueduct, seething, doppler shift, baleen, retrograde motion, etc. Invariably, I end up discussing their descriptions in class, and voila. For a day, I'm a histsciwrithomeec teacher. This being my class, the discussion immediately spins wildly out of control, and before you know it we'll have spent two lively hours discussing, say, the civil rights movement. Which brings us to Rosa Parks.

It's a tribute to Parks, among others, that your average 20 year old has no idea what the country was like two of their lifetimes ago. I think the black students have something of a grasp, but the others are hopeless. Rosa Parks is just an abstract name in a list to them— the list they memorized every year during Black History Month: Frederick Douglass, Dred Scott, Rosa Parks. I think they were friends! This lack of appreciation for how far we've come, how fast, how recently—in their parents' lifetimes—both appalls and delights me. The ignorance appalls, of course, but it's also delightful to think that maybe an entire generation considers racial equality a given, and inequality a historical demon slayed long before they were born, like slavery or plague or Nazism. Nevertheless, these kids have received an enormous gift. I want them to appreciate it. The lessons are less abstract if they're more immediate, if history is still living, so I would often point out that "You know, this wasn't that long ago. Rosa Parks is still alive. She's not just a name in a book." Alas. Among the many things lost today, we have lost that.

• • •

As part of W's overall cratering, his approval rating among black voters has fallen to 2%. This leads me to three questions:

1. What was the margin of error? I'm betting around ± 2%.


2. How many relatives does Condi Rice have, anyway?
   (Cheap shot, I know. Don't write me.)


3. Didn't Strom Thurmond have an approval rating of 5% among blacks? And he was an old-time segregationist!

posted by john at 09:06 AM  •  permalink

October 22, 2005

life, schmife.
choice, schmoice.
i’m now just plain ol’ pro-abortion.

Especially if it involves anyone involved in the production of this maudlin, ham-handed, steamin' pile of pathos. And forget this second trimester nonsense; I'll abort them well into their 60s. Listen to it. You'll understand. If you can hear this without thinking of 1) the Chipmunks, 2) South Park, 3) the Lollypop Kids, or 4) suicide, I salute you.

The backstory:

Lil' Markie (Volume 1)
There's no photos or credits anywhere on this album. Just the sickly drawing on the cover and a list of song titles. I bought it for 50 cents on a hunch after noticing the title: "Diary of an Unborn Child".

As far as bizarre Christian LPs, I gotta say, this is this most extreme thing I've ever heard. It's some full grown man with a munchkin voice, singing terrifying songs about drug use, abortion and being a fat kid and each fill me with a profound sense of dread, horror, and disgust.

At one point, he acts out the part of a baby fetus, telling how happy he is to have fully formed fingernails at 4 1/2 weeks, and a well functioning heart after 6 1/2 weeks, etc., etc.

And then ... You can guess what happens.

source

posted by john at 07:45 AM  •  permalink

October 20, 2005

united nations

Long Way Round, for those who don't know, is a TV documentary chronicling the London-to-New York motorcycle trip undertaken by actors Ewan Macgregor and Charlie Boorman last year. They struggled through remotest Mongolia and Siberia, where often there were no roads, so a support crew rode a day behind them to help with the various crises that occurred. The support crew was largely British but was led by the producer, an American, and included a Russian doctor.

In barren Siberia, the support crew caught up with the motorcycles. What ensued struck me as a little microcosm of international relations. Boorman had severely injured himself, and the Russian doctor was aghast, appalled, and morally outraged that Boorman would even consider going on.

"Zis eez so fooleesh, to reesk zer healths like zis. For what? Zey have famileeze, you know? Just stupid, stupid!" the doctor scolded, making the cigarette hanging on his lower lip bob like a conductor's baton. I was utterly charmed by this guy. The perfect Russian.

Later, the support crew was gingerly driving their SUVs through five feet of disgusting standing water. The vehicles konked out, and the Brits took to slogging through the muck on foot. Then the SUV driven by the American plowed through at breakneck speed, violently sending a wake of muck at his British companions—and getting through without stalling. The look on the Brits' faces said it all, a telling combination of respect, bewilderment, envy, and utter disgust. I thought the moment crystallized Anglo-American relations perfectly.

posted by john at 08:52 AM  •  permalink

September 30, 2005

the validation manifesto

Several women have already stopped reading. Several weary women.

I've referred to my "Validation Theory" many times on this page, but I've never spelled it out. Simply put, I believe that the primary social force in the world is the human need for validation. In the bulk of human interactions, we are either seeking or granting endorsements. Simple, no? This theory scales like a motherfucker. Once you start filtering human behavior for validation, you see nothing else.

And yes, I'm fully aware of the irony here. I'm waxing about my belief system on my web site. Self-indulgent and validation-seeking behavior if ever there were one. See how well it scales?

So say I'm right. So what? It's a harmless enough social force. Sadly, it is not, for the Validation Theory has a very ugly corollary: most people view validation as zero-sum. If I'm to feel good about myself, you cannot—unless you make the same choices I do. But if you don't, any happiness you feel invalidates my own and must be denigrated.

My favorite example of zero-sum-validation thinking will forever be the Christian bumper sticker

Know Jesus, know peace

No Jesus, no peace

If you want to drive a fundy positively insane, show them how happy you are without their religion. That so invalidates everything they believe, everything in which they've invested their self-image, they cannot even consider the possibility. Nope, you're Satan's intermediary.

All the new moms in my life have experienced a zero-sum crossfire lately. If they continue to work, stay-at-home moms revile them as bad parents. If they stay at home, their professional colleagues snort disdainfully about "breeders." The invective is harsh, unrelenting, and unsolicited, and it invariably comes from women whose own choices are being—cue the organ music—invalidated.

Let's view recent posts through the validation filter.

• Lionel, pretentiously suggesting that poetry be read at business meetings? Seeking validation.
• Courtney, thinking people in Seattle are mean? Obviously being invalidated. Me, posting about it? Being validated.
• Jim and Marceline, irrationally defending their product in the face of evidence? The validation they get from their work was threatened.
• Ed's failing health? No validation link—she's a dog.
• Jessica Alba, saying she really wants good roles? Please.
• I'll skip Bobby Brown's playlist. That's too easy.
• Percy? His "that kid already has everything" comment suggests my age and station make him feel much resentment.
• My friends, pouting when I didn't go with exactly their color choices? I suppose they feel as though I criticized their taste.

And on and on. The need for validation is why people dress up and wear make-up. It's why they buy expensive things. It's why people pair up. It's why lousy relationships persist well past the establishment of lousiness. It's why people have kids. It's why they pray instead of taking kids to doctors. It's why your family goes batshit if you don't come by and stare at the TV with them often enough. It's why managers create direct reports aliases (e.g., "Jim Jones' Direct Reports") that are of no conceivable use to anyone but them but that inconvenience many. It's why we insulate ourselves with people who affirm our belief systems. It's why seemingly good people can rationalize doing horrible things. It's why we want our friends—strangers, even—to couple/parent/buy something/change cities/etc. like we did, and it's why we feel curiously rejected when they don't. It's why we feel self-conscious about dining or going to movies alone. It's why people with no education disdain its necessity, and it's why I so value it. It's why people find a way to diminish your new house/car/S.O. It's why the top-10 non-fiction list is half books about how smart you are, half books about how stupid "they" are. It's why readers send me email arguing "I don't seek validation from other people." It's why people kill those who don't share their beliefs. It's why they want to introduce matters of faith into the science classroom. It's why I go weak-kneed every time I hear "Lover Lay Down" and remember that the sexiest woman I've ever known actually thought of me when she heard that song. It's why my brother and sister-in-law would rather lose me altogether than admit that the John mythology they've concocted is untrue. It. Is. Everywhere.

• • •

What, if anything, is to be learned from this? Like any point of view, it's subjective. It's a theory that happens to fit the facts. A helluva lot of facts. What began as a desperate attempt to explain one person's behavior became a plausible explanation for most of mankind's behavior. Does this make it right? Is it the only possible explanation for a given behavior? Of course not. But I've yet to come across an alternative explanation that scales so, so well across all of human behavior.

Although I found the theory life-changing, I didn't exactly find it life-affirming. Understanding validation, both your need for it and others', is not an A-ticket to bliss. The benefits are more subtle than that. I look at it more as something to keep an eye on within myself. When someone upsets me, I question why, filter for my validation needs, and very often am able to let it go. This is a good thing. I take great pains not to feel invalidated by others' beliefs or choices, and that eliminates much of life's unnecessary misery. And of course, the rhetorician in me benefits from appealing to others' validation needs. At this point, Allie and I are pretty overt about it.

(phone rings)

Allie: Hello?

Me: I need some unconditional validation.

Allie (bored): You're so smart.

Me: Thanks.

So there you have it, my world view, honed by years of wondering why so-and-so is acting that way. And if you don't agree with my Validation Theory, well, you're just stupid.

posted by john at 08:20 AM  •  permalink

September 16, 2005

barney fife lives

When the fan went splat! in New Orleans, police converted a Greyhound bus station into a makeshift jail for looters. Implausibly, this event serves as a perfect illustration of what different people Carla and I are. When Carla heard this moronic cop boast about arresting a man who drove to the bus station in a stolen car, she felt compelled to write a thoughtful treatise on presumption and race. Me, I'm stunned by the sage detective work here. A man steals a car, drives it to a bus station, and tries to buy a freaking bus ticket—naturally, the cop concludes that the man "looted" the car. Really, Enis? Really? Was the car going to be stowed luggage or carry on?

posted by john at 10:50 PM  •  permalink

September 11, 2005

rampant ismism

I once dated a woman with an infuriating argumentation style. She would tell me what I thought and felt. That's galling enough, but she didn't stop there; if I said what I thought and it contradicted her expectation, she would correct me. We were young, needless to say, but still: it takes sheer intellectual chutzpah to say to someone, "No, you don't think x. You think y." It wasn't her being controlling and trying to lead me somewhere, either; she was trying to forcibly shoehorn me into her stubborn view of the world. It's amusing the first couple of times, but after day in, day out of your S.O. saying she knows you better than you do, you're pushed to the brink of insanity. It soon became my hot-button, a button I retain to this day.

I think of this often when I see people lightly throw -ism (and its sister affixes, anti- and -ic) around.

That this presidential administration was too slow in responding to the hurricane is generally accepted, even by them, but it's not enough for some people. W. can't be merely incompetent and uncaring. It must be some deep-seeded evil. Racism, classism, cronyism, someism. And those who oppose the administration? Why, they're elitist, classist, unpatriotic, anti-troop, anti-business, anti-Christian, tax-lovin', terrorist-coddlin' baby murderers.

Another favorite example: "sexist" language. This is what academics now call someone using the pronoun "he" gender-neutrally, as in "When someone votes for Kerry, he is being unpatriotic." Mind you, I do not quibble with using "he or she" here; my complaint is with Mom being told that merely writing the way she was taught to write is a "sexist" act. Can't we just say "archaic?" "Gender-biased?" Why the personal attack? Why purport to know of an sinister motivation behind, of all things, a choice of pronouns?

Because ismism is power. When we purport to divine what evils occupy others' hearts, it not only controls the terms of the debate in our favor; it puts them on the defensive, in a position of having to prove a negative. Bush can't prove he's not racist any more than Kerry can prove he's not unpatriotic or Mom can prove she's not a sexist. It's a lazy, hurtful form of argumentation. It's the cheapest of the cheap shots.*

*Except for the yes-or-no question "Are you still beating your wife?" That still reigns supreme.

posted by john at 07:27 AM  •  permalink

September 08, 2005

what a friend we have in private katrina

There's an direct correlation, I've decided, between how full of shit your religion is and how much you claim hurricane Katrina affirms your religious beliefs.

Fundy Christians in this country point to the hurricane as empirical evidence of God's fury over our decadence and corruption. Apparently drunk, God killed scores of believers, yet left the decadent and corrupt French Quarter completely intact. Nice shot. To be fair, other Fundy Christians point to the hurricane's last second course change away from New Orleans as empirical evidence of God's grace. Uh, yeah. Clearly, God answered your prayers when he killed thousands and flooded only 90% of New Orleans. It's the Frequent Pray-er Discount: 10% off retail.

Not to be outdone, and still basking in triumph over the Battle of the Lone Downed Helicopter, Fundy Islamics hail the hurricane as empirical evidence of God's anger at America. They've even granted "Private Katrina" an honorary commission in their grand and mighty imaginary army. The Islamic God, who apparently had nothing to do with last week's tragic Iraqi bridge collapse or the Muslim-slaughtering tsunami, is powerful enough to send a hurricane to kill Americans, yet not powerful enough to make it a Category 5. Or to hit a city more populous than New Orleans. Or for that matter, to hit New Orleans squarely. Or to take out the city's cash cow, the French Quarter.

I think it's time for a fight-to-the-death cage match: born-again fucktards vs. jihadist goons. No matter who loses, the rest of us win.

• • •

Something I've been mulling over: I know that Americans and the rest of the Western world poured millions upon millions in donations into the Muslim countries devastated by the tsunami, and that legions of us remain there to help the victims cope, but I never heard about the surely intensive charitable efforts of that great self-appointed guardian of Islam, al Qaeda. Stupid biased media.

• • •

In related news, did you see this freakshow email yet? A veritable treasure trove of logic, it is.

The image of the hurricane above with its eye already ashore at 12:32 PM Monday, August 29 looks like a fetus (unborn human baby) facing to the left (west) in the womb, in the early weeks of gestation (approx. 6 weeks). Even the orange color of the image is reminiscent of a commonly used pro-life picture of early prenatal development. In this picture, and in another picture in today's on-line edition of USA Today, this hurricane looks like an unborn human child. Louisiana has 10 child-murder-by-abortion centers - FIVE are in New Orleans Baby-murder state # 1 - California (125 abortion centers) - land of earthquakes, forest fires, and mudslides Baby-murder state # 2 - New York (78 abortion centers) - 9-11 Ground Zero Baby-murder state # 3 - Florida (73 abortion centers) - Hurricanes Bonnie, Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne in 2004; and now, Hurricane Katrina in 2005 God's message: REPENT AMERICA !

Clearly, hurricanes, terrorists, floods, quakes. et. al. started with Roe v. Wade.

• • •

I found this while confirming the above. The Resistible Link of the Millennium: "To View Helpless babies murdered by abortionists like Barnett Slepian click here." Oh boy, can I?

posted by john at 02:06 AM  •  permalink

cease fire, epilogue

Congress is creating a bi-partisan, 9/11-style commission to analyze the federal hurricane response. Excellent. What a novel concept: careful fact-finding before assigning blame.

posted by john at 01:00 AM  •  permalink

September 06, 2005

cease fire

It certainly didn't take long for the knives to come out regarding the hurricane. On the left, we have those who can't wait to blame Bush and the Iraq war for the slow response to the flooding. On the right, we have those who blame the victims for not having evacuated. In between, we have those of us who suspect there might, just might, be more constructive ways to invest the vast energies being expended on crass, divisive blame-games. To the blamers: although self-gratification is of paramount importance to you, most of us have other priorities this week, and those include promoting cooperation, not exacerbating divisions. Grab your checkbook or a bucket and shut the fuck up.

posted by john at 02:38 PM  •  permalink

August 27, 2005

IH8ROWFS

On my commute yesterday morning, I saw a ROWF (Rich Old White Fart) driving a brand new, gas-guzzling Lincoln Continental with temp tags still on it, and the following bumper sticker:

Scenes like this are why I don't own a gun. (Besides, don't you mean you love their Social Security?)

posted by john at 10:48 AM  •  permalink

August 24, 2005

pat robertson

Pat Robertson on Chavez, yesterday:

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability."

Pat Robertson to his viewers, today:

“I didn’t say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' 'Take him out' could be a number of things, including kidnapping. There are a number of ways of taking out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP, but that happens all the time. So that I may better combat such media slanders, please send me large bundles of cash in nonsequential bills.”

(Okay, I so made up the last sentence, but no more than the rest was made up.)

posted by john at 02:48 PM  •  permalink

August 23, 2005

in defense of pat robertson

Some might think us strange bedfellows, especially after he prayed for the deaths of Supreme Court justices, but I have to throw my support behind televangelist Pat Robertson's call for the U.S. government to murder the Venezuelan dictator, Chavez. The liberal media is shrieking itself hoarse about illegalities and hypocrisies, but they should instead give Robertson credit for courageously sticking to the tenets of his faith. For doesn't the Bible tell us that:

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus)

Oh. Wait. Wrong passage. I meant:

If...evidence of the girl's virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her father's house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy)

Crap. I meant:

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. (Exodus)

Hmmm. That's not even remotely relevant. But while we're digressing, here's my personal favorite, the justification for wives being subordinate to their husbands. Rarely do husbands asserting their biblical rights bother to quote the second part.

Wives, obey your husbands, as is proper in the Lord. Slaves, obey your human masters in everything, not only when being watched, as currying favor, but in simplicity of heart, fearing the Lord. (Colossians 3)

Okay, back on task. Which is to say, back to killing Chavez:

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged. (Deuteronomy)

Why, here's pretty much a blank check from God. Go to town, Pat!

Everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, will be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles)

I close with God's very welcome endorsement of male pattern baldness. Turns out He and I are of like mind on dealing with children, too.

While he was on his way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him. "Go up baldhead," they shouted, "go up baldhead!" The prophet turned and saw them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two shebears came out of the woods and tore forty-two of the children to pieces. (2 Kings)

Can I get an "Amen?"

posted by john at 10:33 AM  •  permalink

August 15, 2005

you heard it here first

Don't get lost if you aren't white and pretty

(Except that I said it shorter and better.)

posted by john at 09:18 PM  •  permalink

August 04, 2005

never believe a finger-wagging man

Qaeda #2 man Ayman "I'm too valuable to be a martyr and go to heaven. You go." al-Zawahiri is at it again. He took to the airwaves to bedazzle the world with his linguistic dexterity, his oh-so-intimidating set decorations—"oh my god, Gladys, that scary Muslim still has that gun!!!"—and a grasp of the American psyche apparently learned through TV movies.

"We exploded volcanoes of anger in your countries. If you continue your politics against Muslims, you will see, God willing, such horror that you will forget the horrors of Vietnam."

Dude, you've lost. Oh sure, it's easy enough to kill Americans. You can do it. So can I. Who couldn't? But this cowering you covet is a figment of your imagination. Ain't happening. We've reluctantly adjusted to the reality that a bunch of fundamentalist fucktards are trying to kill us and that we're in a race to kill them first. Proof: the headline this morning wasn't about your histrionics. It was that Martha Stewart was going to have to serve three more weeks. The next headline was about Dave Chappelle. You were above John Daly missing the cut, but he hasn't won a tournament since 1993 or so. Best of all, when you bombed London, the world's stock markets went up. Thanks for that.

You can bite and yap all you want, but at the end of the day, it's still the tinny arf of a lap dog desperate for attention.

posted by john at 08:52 AM  •  permalink

July 26, 2005

current events quiz

Can you identify this woman?

Right. The late Laci Peterson. How about this one?

Right. The almost-certainly-late Natalee Holloway. How about this one?

Stumped, aren't you? Fidgeting uncomfortably because you know I set you up, aren't you? Don't worry; I couldn't pick her out of a lineup, either. That there is one Latoyia Figueroa, a pregnant woman from Philly who, yep, has been missing for a week now and who—despite the fact that her case echoes the Peterson situation—only now is getting the slightest trickle of media attention, now that black activists have been beating the media into a guilty white pulp for a week or so. And justifiably so. It appears that I need to amend my June 5 post—it's missing pretty white chicks who get the media all lathered.

posted by john at 03:58 PM  •  permalink

July 17, 2005

when you lean a little bit closer, Rove-s really smell like doo doo

Do I think Karl Rove broke the law? No. I think he left just enough wiggle room to take his shot, then get himself off the hook. Do I think anything the man says is accidental or incompetent? Hell no. The man can slay people from 50 yards away with the sheer power of his brain waves. Do I think he deliberately skirted the law and wrecked that woman's career out of spite? Yep. Why do I feel this way? Because the man has already shown us his venomous, ruthlessly effective ways. Bob Jones. McCain in South Carolina. Kerry and the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. And on and on. At this point, Rove couldn't buy the benefit of the doubt.

What's really curious to me is why he saved that Time reporter from going to prison. This is little reported: the reporter was prepared to go to jail to protect his confidential source (Rove), as other reporters have in the past. At the eleventh hour, Rove waived their confidentiality agreement and thereby allowed all hell to rain down on himself. I want to know why. It surely wasn't out of his profound sense of decency. What's he up to? Who's he protecting?

posted by john at 12:08 PM  •  permalink

July 15, 2005

the unpersuadable mind

In his column yesterday about Sandra Day O'Connor, the great Leonard Pitts shared his notion of a "persuadable mind." For your convenience:

Contrast this, then, with our President, who views vigilant reassessment and critical thought as hand-wringing, as poor leadership, as failings of courage and conviction. He is, in my estimation, entrenched in the intellectual laziness of dogma and the comforts of blinders. His is a proudly unpersuadable mind. Global warming hasn't been proven. Saddam definitely has WMDs is a really really bad guy and must be should have been removed. Better to throw fetuses away than use them to save lives. Slam dunks all, yet all royally botched. He could not even feign acknowledging a mistake when asked; such isn't in his makeup. He nearly imploded. Jesus H., man, throw us a bone and say you should have chewed that pretzel better or something.

Reagan and Tip O'Neil opposed one another by day and drank together by night, completely defusing the political rancor of the 70s. When red-baiting Reagan met Gorbachev, he recognized an opportunity to end a half-century of Cold War on our terms, and he reversed course 180 degrees. When Clinton came into office and royally stepped in it, he sought counsel with conservatives Richard Nixon and David Gergen, who helped him pull out of the skid. Later, he came to rely on Orrin Hatch for help with judicial appointments and, most especially, Bob Dole for passing an ambitious legislative agenda (and for keeping Newt Gingrich in check). You tell me: are these presidents weaker or stronger for challenging themselves, for evolving? Me, I think this is what leadership looks like. And having the unjustifiably cocksure W. at the helm is very nearly having a leader with a crippling mental disability.

• • •

I leave you with a quote from the Hon. Clarence Thomas, who, on the subject of justices like O'Connor who grow beyond partisanship, proudly tells his clerks: "I ain't evolving."

posted by john at 09:26 AM  •  permalink

July 09, 2005

stupidity quantified

I wasn't going to write about the London bombings, and I still won't per se, but I'm increasingly annoyed by the gratified whining coming from the Dim Left. "This," they gurgle in vacuous baby-talk, "is why I'm against war." I'm not going to harp about their presumptions of causality. I'm not going to point out the glorious history of innocents being slaughtered by al Qaeda before W. sent us into war—before he was elected, for that matter. Nope, let's simply grant their argument that this Qaeda attack was a direct result of the war in Iraq.

Now let's follow this logic to its natural end. In the prior, peacetime Qaeda Spectacular, 2992 people died. The present death-count for the wartime London attack is 37, or 1.2% of those killed in peacetime. According to the Dims' logic, then, W. can take credit for a 98.8% reduction in deaths.

Clap. Clap. Clap.

Seriously. Take a toke, eat your organic Twinkie, and stop feigning cognizance before you sprain something.

posted by john at 09:43 AM  •  permalink

July 04, 2005

of dims and bigots

When I finished that post, I grimmaced. "I just wrote the perfect entry," I thought. "It offends everyone."

Response has been such that I can see that's not the case, though, and my sense of hope has been restored. A little.

I gots the smartest readers there is.

posted by john at 06:43 AM  •  permalink

July 01, 2005

me dim, him bigot

"Are you a Democrat or a Republican?" my sister recently asked, presuming only the two options and proving, yet again, that creepy lurkers in Copenhagen know me better than my own family.

"Neither," I replied. "I think and talk in complete sentences."

"I'm a Democrat and [her husband] is a Republican," she replied, though in my mind I heard "Me dim, him bigot."

I've been giving a lot of thought lately to hope. Specifically to lack of it. Oh sure, the honorable and thoughtful Joe Biden and John McCain are making noises about running in 2008, as if either could wrest the nomination from the goose-stepping nuts who run his party. I'm not optimistic. Further, when I ask myself which party would be easier to save, I just skid more and more into hopelessness. Before either party can be saved, I've decided, it needs to admit to some things. Here're Dr. John's prescriptions:

republicans must admit that

• Reagan does not belong on Rushmore. Historians rate him a good, flawed president.
• Clinton is not the antichrist. Historians rate him a good, flawed president.
• Supply-side fiscal policy is a general economic force, not a comprehensive economic plan.
• Capitalism is zero-sum. Where you have haves, you have have nots. There are reasons for being poor beyond laziness, you oh-so-skilled trust-funders, you. As a beneficiary of the system, it's your moral responsibility to help those who fall through its cracks.
• You give a home to the scum of humanity: bigots and gun nuts. Where is your shame?
• Minorities have very good reasons to distrust you. (See above)
• Alternative-energy policy is defense policy. Let's stop pumping cash into the hands of zealots who despise us.
• Investing in education is economic policy. Pell grants paid for my undergraduate tuition, and last year alone I paid 8x more in federal income taxes than four years of grants cost taxpayers (adjusted for inflation). That's a good investment.
• Tort reform is not the cure-all for health care. Get out of the pockets of money-grubbing pharmaceutical companies.
• You are whores for corporations, especially greedy drug and oil companies, and everyone despises you for it.
• Not everyone who disagrees with you is an entitlement-lovin', Christian-hating hippie. Stop demonizing.
• You betray the word "conservative" every time you run up the deficit or allow natural resources to be irreparably destroyed for a buck. (Or worse, just to spite those who care about it.)
• Affirmative Action is ugly, but the alternative is uglier. It's the chemo vs. the cancer.
• The second amendment does not prohibit gun regulation. It demands it. If you want something else in the constitution, add it.
• Your recent constituency is significantly less educated and better-armed than your opponents.' But hey, you've got the gun-toting illiterate vote all locked up. Congrats.
• You royally screwed up the pretext for the Iraq war and have set back our foreign policy for a generation.
• Private Social Security accounts create enormous short-term shortfalls for unproven long-term gains.
• Increasing production of finite fuels is not a long-term energy plan. It's pretty much the opposite.
• The ultimate exercise in Big, Intrusive Government: the government executing prisoners.

democrats must admit that

• Reagan was not the antichrist. He was grandpa, for good and for bad.
• Clinton's impeachment wasn't "about a blowjob." It was about the chief executive of the United States committing the felony of perjury to save his own skin at a sexual harassment trial. This is a big deal.
• Al Gore didn't win one single recount. Shut up already.
• To suggest that Ralph Nader should not have run is to shamefully denigrate democracy itself.
• Hate-America-firsters do indeed exist, and you give 'em a home.
• When you subsidize something, you get more of it. Like poverty, for instance. You've created permanent underclasses. Congrats.
• Carelessly raising taxes on the rich crushes the economy across the board. How many poor employers do you know?
• Taxing gasoline is the most regressive tax there is. You're strangling the poor you supposedly protect. I swear, you have exactly the same grasp of economics that my dog has of the fake tennis ball throw.
• The Supreme Court's job is not to spackle holes you dislike in the Constitution. If you want something in there, put it in there.
• Supporting abortion rights with a mythical constitutional right to privacy is specious reasoning at best. See above.
• You're historically guilty of oppressing minorities...right up until they get the vote and you start piddling yourselves over them.
• You hate on the rich and overtly delight in punishing them for their success. Where is your shame?
• Regulating drug companies is not the cure-all for health care. Get out of the pockets of greedy trial lawyers.
• When you gush over eco-terrorist electric busses and say things like "For the cost of 9 feet of a Trident submarine, we can cure shingles," you sound unfathomably vapid.
• When the electorate decides to spend its money on something, say a sports stadium, you should shut up and admire democracy in action—not bitch petulantly that their money should have been spent on what you want it spent on.
• You are whores for special interests, especially greedy unions and trial lawyers, and everyone detests you for it.
• Coddling the Hollywood and crystal-clutching sets hurts your credibility and exposes you as airheads.
• People vote against you for reasons other than they're stupid religious nuts. Get over yourselves.
• Given a choice, you wouldn't want to get needed health care in a country with socialized medicine.
• Social Security is in deep, deep trouble, and you're prepared to sacrifice the program just to spite W. Do your jobs.
• Social Security was not intended to be a primary source of retirement income.
• Nuclear power ain't that bad.

posted by john at 10:22 AM  •  permalink

June 18, 2005

hypocritical oaf

March 18 - Bill Frist addresses the Senate, "speaking more as a physician than as a US senator. There is insufficient information to conclude that Terri Schiavo is in a persistent vegetative state. I question it based on a review of the video footage which I spent an hour or so looking at last night in my office. She certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli."

June 15 - The autopsy goes public.

"(AP) An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband’s contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had massive and irreversible brain damage and was blind, the medical examiner said Wednesday. He also said that her brain was about half of its expected size."

June 16 - A humbled Frist is contrite. "I never, never, on the floor of the Senate, made a diagnosis, nor would I ever do that," he tells the Today show. "I never said she responded." Showing as firm a grasp of the word "never" as he does of his Hippocratic Oath, he adds: "Would I do it over again? Yes, I would do it over again."

posted by john at 05:33 PM  •  permalink

January 01, 1800

Originally published February 6, 2005

tom delay

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, inciting fundamentalist wrath on on the judges who allowed Terry Schiavo to die naturally:

"The time will come for the men responsible for this to pay for their behavior!"

Tom DeLay, on his paying his wife and daughter half a million bucks in election funds as "advisor salary:"

 "Politics is a tough business and it is difficult to trust people." 

Tom DeLay on Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy:

"He said in one session that he does research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous!"

honorable mention

nah, these aren't desperately empty people searching anywhere, and i mean anywhere, for meaning

"(AP) A steady stream of the faithful and the curious, many carrying flowers and candles, have flocked to an expressway underpass for a view of a yellow and white stain on a concrete wall that some believe is an image of the Virgin Mary."

I know what they mean. I think I've seen the face of Satan in my guest bathroom toilet bowl.

posted by john at 12:00 AM  •  permalink

validate this

Originally published November 5, 2004

So a giddy W has reassured an anxious, divided nation that his efforts will be bipartisan. Kinda. "I'm going to reach out to those who share our goals." Um, maybe you should look up "bipartisan," fella. And in that inclusive spirit he added rhapsodically, "I've earned political capital in this election. I'm going to spend it. That's what I do."

I suppose so. Sigh.

While W drinks heartily from the cup that was actually a pretty damned close election, the left is greedily toking the validation pipe like it's their only source of air. If I receive that mildly-amusing-the-first-twelve-times "Jesusland" cartoon one more time, or see that British tabloid headline one more time, or receive any such self-aggrandizing jibe at people who voted differently from me, I'm gonna find my ballot, change my vote, and staple it to the sender's forehead. Enough already. They won. We lost. Must you add desperately defensive circle-jerking to our feelings of failure? Lose with some dignity, for chrissakes.

[censored]

Candidates should pay me not to vote for them

Originally published November 3, 2004

I'm reminded this morning of a comment I recently made to Ed's vet. The vet wanted me to put Ed on prescription dog food, and she suggested I buy a small bag, "Just in case she doesn't like it." Blinking, I didn't immediately understand. "OH!" I said, "You think I'll care! Don't worry. She'll eat it eventually. I can last a lot longer than she can. Just gimme the 40 pound bag." And after a few days of starving, Ed finally yielded and ate the dog food I put in her bowl.

Mine, I think, is the same strategy the Democrats used in nominating Kerry. Kerry is objectionable dog food we were expected to pout about, then gag down in the face of the alternative. Oops. When the Democrats are performing a post-mortem on this election, which I presume will be sometime after they've taken off their shoes and socks and done the fateful arithmetic in Ohio but sometime before they agree to blame the stupidity of the electorate for their loss, I hope that they somehow manage to reflect upon the wisdom of running a douche on the one-plank "at least I'm not a turd" platform.
As much as this day hurts them, it hurts fiscal conservatives more. Bigotry's and zealotry's coronation will cast them out of the Republican party for a generation. Fold up the tents, boys. The special interest whores are in charge. Praise the lord and get out.
I'm going to extract what little solace I can from how devastatingly insignificant this must make high school graduates cum policy experts Michael Moore and Sean Penn feel.

posted by john at 12:00 AM  •  permalink

why conservatives should vote for john kerry

Originally published August 14, 2004

Let me preface this with a definition. When I say "conservative," I don't mean "people who want to regulate where other people put their penises." Nor do I mean people who use the label "conservative" as a euphemism for bigot; wealthy business interest; religious zealot; or AM radio first-time-caller, long-time-listener. I'm not even talking about Republicans. I don't see much conservative about 'em, really.

No, when I say "conservative," I mean moderate, cautious, restrained. Conservatives do not put the cart before the horse or charge into wars without having their ducks in a row. (Pick your favorite zoological metaphor.) They don't whimsically use the Constitution to deny civil rights. They don't so much believe in small government as they believe big government is dangerously immoderate. They don't think that government does much very well and when possible, they'd prefer to let nature take its course. They're a mistrusting lot, generally presuming that people will act in their own crass self-interests, which is from where the penchants for a strong national defense and free-market principles originate. This paranoia also makes them famously resistant to change, always fretting about consequences. Consequences like doing irreversible damage to the deficit, Constitution, ally relations, and the environment. But I digress.

As an exercise, let's view a dead horse through this redefined conservative lens. Take gun control. The battle lines are drawn, yes? Conservatives want little or no gun regulation, and liberals want some or total regulation. We're so accustomed to this reality that we don't even notice the philosophical hypocrisies at play. Conservatives championing unrestricted civil rights and liberals trying to take them away? Liberals championing a literal (read: moderate, cautious, restrained) interpretation of the Constitution, and conservatives presuming to divine the framers' intent? What's the difference between that and the much-ballyhooed "judicial activist judge" making similar presumptions? None. None whatsoever. Party politics has so warped the discussion that both sides have this issue exactly, 100% wrong. Yay, parties.

This brings us to the upcoming election.

I'm not going to make the argument that John Kerry is a conservative choice; he clearly isn't. My argument is that a President Kerry is a small, fleeting price to pay for getting rid of the ultimate bastardization of conservatism, the one currently wrecking our foreign policy, environment, and budget as he bloviates the size and intrusiveness of government like no one before. The one who wants to make penis regulation a "conservative" campaign issue. View the choice through a truly conservative lens: whose damage to the country, in the the end, is going to be more lasting? Bush has wrecked an entire political party, appalled even Republicans with his dismal environmental record, handed our grandchildren enormous deficits, and needlessly set our Mideast policy back a generation. These blunders are not easily undone. Government-subsidized squeegie guys—or whatever silliness Kerry ends up being in favor of—will be easily enough dismantled. Hell, it'll die in committee in Congress. And that's my larger point: the side effects of the medicine are far preferable—far more moderate, if you will—relative to the symptoms of the disease. Consider these vital differences: