AKA "I Know Why The Caged Barbie Doesn't Do Math"
sculpture by Debi, newspaper by Riley, Ziggy by Tom Watson
Saturday, April 16
Yard Sale Manifesto #6 (Beauty Pageant Blogging)
AKA "I Know Why The Caged Barbie Doesn't Do Math"
sculpture by Debi, newspaper by Riley, Ziggy by Tom Watson
Friday, April 15
Digital Media
M*lk*n is all over the finger-in-the-chili story, wah wah wah, serial litigator, boo hoo hoo poor Wendy's. You'd think that recent events might make her a bit more reticent about jumping all over a story before the facts are in, but that's your problem right there. Thinking.
First, let me make it plain: there are people who try to prey on businesses that way. Restaurants are particularly vulnerable. The word for such people is criminals, and that's how they should be treated when caught.
But if we want to talk about the effects of bad publicity on the Wendy's Corporation then it's another group we're discussing. They're called The Media. And yes, our M*chelle likes to bash them too. But in neither instance is she interested in more than a temporal political gain, which is roughly equivalent to the scoop mentality that brought the problem on in the first place. Okay, a finger tip in somebody's food has its ghoulish charms. But there's such a thing as understanding the layout here. You can't tell me that reporters, or editors, are completely unaware of the concept of frivolous lawsuits. Hell, they're happy to tout the story every time Bush brings it up. Nobody at Wendy's claimed the finger, and it was likely clear to the untrained eye the thing wasn't fresh. So you've got a story with only a couple possibilities: either the woman, or someone else, maliciously put it in her provender, or it came from somewhere back along the supply chain. In either case that's a rather considerable argument for keeping your powder dry until the facts are in. But that didn't happen. It rarely happens. And M*chelle's okay with that so long as the papers are whoring the latest White House distortion or school-board removal of somebody's flag decal.
If M*lk*n wants to confront that issue, fine. There must be a couple of windows left in that glass house she inhabits. And if she wants to tell us all that she herself would stand on principle and not sue faster than Dan "Million Dollar Paper Cut" Burton if she found something human floating in her soup, I'll believe her. But the idea that some tabloidized incident of criminal behavior makes a grand statement about genuine liability claims is just right-wing moonshine. The principle is old enough that it comes to us in Latin: abusus non tollit usum. The Romans didn't have a catchy phrase for "bad anecdotes don't make good arguments" but then they didn't know M*chelle.
First, let me make it plain: there are people who try to prey on businesses that way. Restaurants are particularly vulnerable. The word for such people is criminals, and that's how they should be treated when caught.
But if we want to talk about the effects of bad publicity on the Wendy's Corporation then it's another group we're discussing. They're called The Media. And yes, our M*chelle likes to bash them too. But in neither instance is she interested in more than a temporal political gain, which is roughly equivalent to the scoop mentality that brought the problem on in the first place. Okay, a finger tip in somebody's food has its ghoulish charms. But there's such a thing as understanding the layout here. You can't tell me that reporters, or editors, are completely unaware of the concept of frivolous lawsuits. Hell, they're happy to tout the story every time Bush brings it up. Nobody at Wendy's claimed the finger, and it was likely clear to the untrained eye the thing wasn't fresh. So you've got a story with only a couple possibilities: either the woman, or someone else, maliciously put it in her provender, or it came from somewhere back along the supply chain. In either case that's a rather considerable argument for keeping your powder dry until the facts are in. But that didn't happen. It rarely happens. And M*chelle's okay with that so long as the papers are whoring the latest White House distortion or school-board removal of somebody's flag decal.
If M*lk*n wants to confront that issue, fine. There must be a couple of windows left in that glass house she inhabits. And if she wants to tell us all that she herself would stand on principle and not sue faster than Dan "Million Dollar Paper Cut" Burton if she found something human floating in her soup, I'll believe her. But the idea that some tabloidized incident of criminal behavior makes a grand statement about genuine liability claims is just right-wing moonshine. The principle is old enough that it comes to us in Latin: abusus non tollit usum. The Romans didn't have a catchy phrase for "bad anecdotes don't make good arguments" but then they didn't know M*chelle.
Badges? We Don't Need No...Wait, Do We?
I'm slow at everything. My parents were hardworking people. I think there was a mix-up at the hospital.
I labored over that Murdock story, and I wound up taking out the part of his speech which had really incensed me in the first place, because it wasn't working. But today, via Roxanne it's back in.
First, here's Rupert:
I've been in similar situations many times, and I can attest that there's nothing that compares to having some megalomaniac lucky sperm badmouth his underlings for their insufficient enthusiasm for perfect little plans. What's really disturbing here is the idea that this must reflect personal prejudices rather than, say, a functioning cerebral cortex. Can anyone look at what's happened since 1999 and say their confidence in the American public is unchanged? Only if it started at zero.
No, it's a way of saying we're caught in a traffic jam of idiocy and you're the traffic cop, and reporters, and no doubt much of the public, are aware of it.
Yeah, swell. Now the man wants reporters to start acting like those idiot waiters who think you've come in to find a new best friend. Look, Bradley, take that pasted-on smile off your face and get my order right for once, huh? Then we'll be buddies.
[There's a cashier at my local drug store who is the freakin' poster boy for this. He says "thank you" after every sentence, even sentences which have included two or three in the body. Every single customer is another opportunity to make five minutes of small talk. By the time you get to the head of the line your prescription's expired. And you know, you know he thinks he's in the running for Midwest Cashier of the Year.]
Today, Roxanne catches our media pros chewing over the idea of training citizen journalists:
I can't say it any better than eRobin did in the comments:
So, forget that earlier stuff about the cerebral cortex. Reporters don't trust Americans because we haven't learned our 5 Ws, haven't mastered the inverted pyramid, and need some pointers on sucking up, following the script, and phoning it in. Forget I brought it up. They deserve Rupert Murdock. And with their guidance, so will we.
And Kathy, much thanks for the book link.
I labored over that Murdock story, and I wound up taking out the part of his speech which had really incensed me in the first place, because it wasn't working. But today, via Roxanne it's back in.
First, here's Rupert:
According to one recent study, the percentage of national journalists who have a great deal of confidence in the ability of the American public to make good decisions has declined by more than 20 points since 1999. Perhaps this reflects their personal politics and personal prejudices more than anything else, but it is disturbing.
I've been in similar situations many times, and I can attest that there's nothing that compares to having some megalomaniac lucky sperm badmouth his underlings for their insufficient enthusiasm for perfect little plans. What's really disturbing here is the idea that this must reflect personal prejudices rather than, say, a functioning cerebral cortex. Can anyone look at what's happened since 1999 and say their confidence in the American public is unchanged? Only if it started at zero.
This is a polite way of saying that reporters and editors think their readers are stupid.
No, it's a way of saying we're caught in a traffic jam of idiocy and you're the traffic cop, and reporters, and no doubt much of the public, are aware of it.
In any business, such an attitude toward one’s customers would not be healthy. But in the newspaper business, where we rely on people to come back to us each day, it will be disastrous if not addressed.
Yeah, swell. Now the man wants reporters to start acting like those idiot waiters who think you've come in to find a new best friend. Look, Bradley, take that pasted-on smile off your face and get my order right for once, huh? Then we'll be buddies.
[There's a cashier at my local drug store who is the freakin' poster boy for this. He says "thank you" after every sentence, even sentences which have included two or three in the body. Every single customer is another opportunity to make five minutes of small talk. By the time you get to the head of the line your prescription's expired. And you know, you know he thinks he's in the running for Midwest Cashier of the Year.]
Today, Roxanne catches our media pros chewing over the idea of training citizen journalists:
What this might mean is that news organizations would start training the public in how to be citizen journalists, perhaps by offering online courses, or even in-person seminars. By completing these courses or seminars, a citizen reporter could then receive some sort of elevated status when posting. [washingtonpost.com Producer/Moderator Lindsay] Howerton suggests that this gives people something to strive for while at the same time "educating them toward more balanced submissions."
I can't say it any better than eRobin did in the comments:
I can't wait to sign up for an in-person seminar! At the end, I hear they give everyone who passes the written test a fedora with a press card stuck in the band. Only the card reads "Press?" To get the quotes removed and the question scratched out, you have to be invited to and attend at least a dozen power cocktail parties and get a nickname from BushCo - then you're in!
So, forget that earlier stuff about the cerebral cortex. Reporters don't trust Americans because we haven't learned our 5 Ws, haven't mastered the inverted pyramid, and need some pointers on sucking up, following the script, and phoning it in. Forget I brought it up. They deserve Rupert Murdock. And with their guidance, so will we.
And Kathy, much thanks for the book link.
The Poor Man's iPod Shuffle
Note: not affiliated with The Editors or any cute kittens.
I don't own an iPod. Or a cell phone. I still wear spats. You kids get off my lawn.
But dammit, I wanna have fun, too. And since sex is out of the question at my age I dusted off another relic, the lamentably no-longer-supported Apple™ Hypercard and programmed it to turn up random numbers between 1-762, which is the number of Long Playing Records stored in the basement, followed by a number from 1-15 indicating which cut was selected. (This only applies to tracks I actually listen to and intend to digitize before I die.) After that big buildup, you're just itchin' for the list, right? Me, too. But first, no, I didn't stop buying music in 1986; this is the stuff I have on vinyl. And show a little respect, I had to run up and down stairs for this:
I don't own an iPod. Or a cell phone. I still wear spats. You kids get off my lawn.
But dammit, I wanna have fun, too. And since sex is out of the question at my age I dusted off another relic, the lamentably no-longer-supported Apple™ Hypercard and programmed it to turn up random numbers between 1-762, which is the number of Long Playing Records stored in the basement, followed by a number from 1-15 indicating which cut was selected. (This only applies to tracks I actually listen to and intend to digitize before I die.) After that big buildup, you're just itchin' for the list, right? Me, too. But first, no, I didn't stop buying music in 1986; this is the stuff I have on vinyl. And show a little respect, I had to run up and down stairs for this:
- Robin Lane and the Chartbusters: Rather Be Blind
Captain Beefheart: Candle Mambo
Adventures: Send My Heart
Scruffy the Cat: Hello Angel
Eno: Cindy Tells Me
Waterboys: A Bang On The Ear
The Church: Constant In Opal
James Brown: Get Up Offa That Thing
John Renbourn: Alman/Melancholy Galliard
Nick Lowe: 36 Inches High
Thursday, April 14
A Fair And Balanced Futurama
Rupert Murdock's speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors.
I don't think it's thought-provoking quite in the way intended.
Now, first of all, this has a distinct air of "Times Style section declares Olsen twins fashion icons". There are only two things I know about trends among the young: 1) I don't know anything and 2) most of it is determined by what gets sold to them, not what they demand. And we are certainly living in an age where nearly every trend is despised by a large segment of the public almost as soon as it's embraced by another. "The swift departure of Dan Rather" or the "Swiftboat incident", whatever he meant by that, don't qualify as some utopian "people controlling their media" in any objective sense. Those are stories whose import is due to their having run in the mainstream, traditional media, not because they were on somebody's blog. Bob Somerby catches hundreds of stories like that, but none of those are ever cited as examples of "New Media", because they don't run on the "Old Media".
Stifling the gag reflex, Murdock sensed ten years ago something which dated to the Nixon administration. He had enough money to take advantage of the end of the Fairness Doctrine and the public monopoly of the cable companies, and the moral code required to trash the very notion of balance and objectivity. That's no more heroic or insightful than bringing out a new flavor of soft drink. We are talking here of consumers "controlling their media" in the same way we talk about FAUX being fair and balanced.
Is this why newspapers are in such dire straits? Because people don't want their stories? Why, a generation ago, did four out of five people read the newspaper, and so few want it now? Could the tabloidization of the news have anything to do with it? Hasn't the thirty-year slide into All Michael Jackson All The Time been defended as "giving people what they want?" But the fact is that change came about because media outlets, especially television, chose to trivialize their reporting in response to attacks from the right. Had they held to standards of real reporting, instead of sheltering behind Happy Talk and slick graphics, maybe a solid majority would now respect journalism. Pandering, slanting, and trivializing the news seems to have had the opposite effect. Is the ability to get that crap on your cell phone going to change that?
I don't think it's thought-provoking quite in the way intended.
What is happening is, in short, a revolution in the way young people are accessing news. They don't want to rely on the morning paper for their up-to-date information. They don't want to rely on a God-like figure from above to tell them what's important. And to carry the religion analogy a bit further, they certainly don't want news presented as gospel.
Instead, they want their news on demand, when it works for them. They want control over their media, instead of being controlled by it. They want to question, to probe, to offer a different angle. Think about how blogs and message boards revealed that Kryptonite bicycle locks were vulnerable to a Bic pen. Or the Swiftboat incident. Or the swift departure of Dan Rather from CBS. One commentator, Jeff Jarvis, puts it this way: give the people control of media, they will use it. Don't give people control of media, and you will lose them.
Now, first of all, this has a distinct air of "Times Style section declares Olsen twins fashion icons". There are only two things I know about trends among the young: 1) I don't know anything and 2) most of it is determined by what gets sold to them, not what they demand. And we are certainly living in an age where nearly every trend is despised by a large segment of the public almost as soon as it's embraced by another. "The swift departure of Dan Rather" or the "Swiftboat incident", whatever he meant by that, don't qualify as some utopian "people controlling their media" in any objective sense. Those are stories whose import is due to their having run in the mainstream, traditional media, not because they were on somebody's blog. Bob Somerby catches hundreds of stories like that, but none of those are ever cited as examples of "New Media", because they don't run on the "Old Media".
...we sensed ten years ago that people watching television news felt alienated by the monolithic presentation of the news they were getting from the nightly news broadcasts or cable networks. We sensed that there was another way we could deliver that news objectively, fairly, and faster-paced. And the result was the Fox News Channel, today America's number one cable news network.
Stifling the gag reflex, Murdock sensed ten years ago something which dated to the Nixon administration. He had enough money to take advantage of the end of the Fairness Doctrine and the public monopoly of the cable companies, and the moral code required to trash the very notion of balance and objectivity. That's no more heroic or insightful than bringing out a new flavor of soft drink. We are talking here of consumers "controlling their media" in the same way we talk about FAUX being fair and balanced.
What I worry about much more is our ability to make the necessary cultural changes to meet the new demands. I said earlier, what is required is a complete transformation of the way we think about our product. Unfortunately, however, I believe too many of us editors and reporters are out of touch with our readers. Too often, the question we ask is "Do we have the story?" rather than "Does anyone want the story?"
Is this why newspapers are in such dire straits? Because people don't want their stories? Why, a generation ago, did four out of five people read the newspaper, and so few want it now? Could the tabloidization of the news have anything to do with it? Hasn't the thirty-year slide into All Michael Jackson All The Time been defended as "giving people what they want?" But the fact is that change came about because media outlets, especially television, chose to trivialize their reporting in response to attacks from the right. Had they held to standards of real reporting, instead of sheltering behind Happy Talk and slick graphics, maybe a solid majority would now respect journalism. Pandering, slanting, and trivializing the news seems to have had the opposite effect. Is the ability to get that crap on your cell phone going to change that?
Wednesday, April 13
Teevee With The Sound Off
The worst thing about Turner Classic Movies is their theme business. I don't understand artificial excitement ("Every Tuesday this month: Movies About Twine"). But then, y'know, I'd rather just have the three day weekend and skip the holiday, too. The worst is August, when the do the star-of-the-day bit and you get to see just how many clunkers Kate Hepburn made.
But this month it's comedies, which is a very good thing. Buster Keaton two-reelers on the other late night. I'm a lifelong Buster fan. I'm not sure how far back it goes or where it came from--he had a teevee show in the early days, but that was before my time. But I distinctly remember The Great Stone Face from early childhood, especially "One Week", where he and his new bride (Buster frequently had a new bride) try to build a prefabricated house. Unlike Chaplin's music-hall artiface, Keaton's movies seem somehow personal, a celuloid precursor to "Borges and I", small obsessions turned into stagey mannerisms which in this case are actually on the stage.
I do remember where I first saw the Marx Brothers: the afternoon movies hosted by Frances Farmer. Frances ended her days in Indianapolis after running out of money doing summer stock. She was notoriously drunk, they say (I was just a kid; all grown-ups seemed loopy to me). Nobody knew what she'd gone through until she got cancer and her largely fictional autobiography came out. There's a former local "personality" who was supposedly her close friend I see in the grocery store from time to time. We make small talk. I think he used to be happy for the attention, but now this grizzled prospector probably reminds him of how long ago it's been. I've always been careful not to say, "I watched you when I was a kid." Never asked him about Frances, though. Maybe someday I will.
But this month it's comedies, which is a very good thing. Buster Keaton two-reelers on the other late night. I'm a lifelong Buster fan. I'm not sure how far back it goes or where it came from--he had a teevee show in the early days, but that was before my time. But I distinctly remember The Great Stone Face from early childhood, especially "One Week", where he and his new bride (Buster frequently had a new bride) try to build a prefabricated house. Unlike Chaplin's music-hall artiface, Keaton's movies seem somehow personal, a celuloid precursor to "Borges and I", small obsessions turned into stagey mannerisms which in this case are actually on the stage.
I do remember where I first saw the Marx Brothers: the afternoon movies hosted by Frances Farmer. Frances ended her days in Indianapolis after running out of money doing summer stock. She was notoriously drunk, they say (I was just a kid; all grown-ups seemed loopy to me). Nobody knew what she'd gone through until she got cancer and her largely fictional autobiography came out. There's a former local "personality" who was supposedly her close friend I see in the grocery store from time to time. We make small talk. I think he used to be happy for the attention, but now this grizzled prospector probably reminds him of how long ago it's been. I've always been careful not to say, "I watched you when I was a kid." Never asked him about Frances, though. Maybe someday I will.
Tuesday, April 12
First The Garbage Disposal Breaks, Then The Lawnmower Won't Start, Now I'm Four Months Behind On My Outrage
Via M*chelle M*lkin, the story of the little girl punished for her patriotism continues.
First, despite something of a personal interest, I've lost count. What is this, the nineteenth incident of right-wing persecution of the school year? Oh, well, I suppose there's always the chance this one might turn out to be correct, huh?
Except that sharp-eyed readers have probably already noticed that young persecutee Raven Furbert seems to be wearing a Support Our Troops t-shirt with flag, and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and guess she wasn't told she couldn't wear that or we'd have heard about it.
If every time you took your car in the mechanic told you the problem was "the goddam liberal catalytic converter" you'd change mechanics. It should be the same thing with pundits. Nobody operates in real life like this.
I'd be the last one to say school administrators, or any related species of bureaucrat, never go off half-cocked. But fer cryin' out loud. Any school with a hint of gang activity inside its walls has got to be on top of the problem, and they've got to respond in a way that treats every student equally. You'd think it would be so-called conservatives who rallied around beleaguered administrators when this sort of thing made the papers. But no, suddenly they're champions of free speech.
And the Court has been clear about it. Students do not have an expectation of protected speech, anymore than they have an expectation their lockers won't be searched. We can debate that. I think there is a genuine concern about an over-regulated school environment. But those are the terms of the debate, not whether the rules should apply to everyone except right-wing Christian students and teachers. Are they really too delusional to see the difference?
Does that necklace look threatening? No, it doesn't. If the law required me to act in loco parentis for Miss Furbert would I be willing to risk possible violence over it? No, I wouldn't. It's rather sad that a parent can't simply see this reasoning and teach her child to compromise over small things for the benefit of the community at large, but it's sadder yet that the M*lk*ns in this country can't at least approach it with some perspective. Would that they were one-tenth as concerned when people get tossed in a cell for five years without access to an attorney.
Tag, I'm It
Thanks again to Alex.
1. You're stuck inside Fahrenheit 451 , which book do you want to be?
The Little, Brown Book of Anecdotes ed. Clifton Fadiman.
2. Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?
I'm more a "Pictures of Lilly" guy. Louise Brooks or Tallulah Bankhead.
3. The last book you bought was. . .
The Living Lincoln ed. Paul M. Angle and Earl Schenck Miers. One of those cheapie Barnes & Noble imprints, compiled from the nine-volume Collected Works.
4. The last book you finished is. . .
Reginald Hill, Dialogues of the Dead.
5. What are you currently reading?
Michael Innes, The Ampersand Papers
and two re-reads:
David Fromkin, A Peace To End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East
Garry Wills, Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.
6. Five books you would take to a deserted island.
I'd try to save a guitar plus a transcription of Bach's Cello Suites and all the Tarrega I can play first, but:
Lolita, Gravity's Rainbow, Borges: A Reader, Thurber's My Life and Hard Times, and How to Stay Alive in the Woods, by Bradford Angier.
7. Who are you going to pass this stick to? (3 People)
Over to:
Tom Watson
Winston Smith and
s.z. who's probably already ignored it. I was gonna send it to you Kathy, but I see I'm too late.
1. You're stuck inside Fahrenheit 451 , which book do you want to be?
The Little, Brown Book of Anecdotes ed. Clifton Fadiman.
2. Have you ever had a crush on a fictional character?
I'm more a "Pictures of Lilly" guy. Louise Brooks or Tallulah Bankhead.
3. The last book you bought was. . .
The Living Lincoln ed. Paul M. Angle and Earl Schenck Miers. One of those cheapie Barnes & Noble imprints, compiled from the nine-volume Collected Works.
4. The last book you finished is. . .
Reginald Hill, Dialogues of the Dead.
5. What are you currently reading?
Michael Innes, The Ampersand Papers
and two re-reads:
David Fromkin, A Peace To End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East
Garry Wills, Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence.
6. Five books you would take to a deserted island.
I'd try to save a guitar plus a transcription of Bach's Cello Suites and all the Tarrega I can play first, but:
Lolita, Gravity's Rainbow, Borges: A Reader, Thurber's My Life and Hard Times, and How to Stay Alive in the Woods, by Bradford Angier.
7. Who are you going to pass this stick to? (3 People)
Over to:
Tom Watson
Winston Smith and
s.z. who's probably already ignored it. I was gonna send it to you Kathy, but I see I'm too late.
Everything You Need To Know About Hoosiers
One thing I miss about Table Talk is threads lasting for entire administrations, mostly because I never met an issue I couldn't talk to death, but also because of this: in now-buried comments, Howard Peirce weighs in on Hoosier pie throwing from a few days back:
That, friends, is the sort of inside information you just can't fake. Three blocks away, Howard. The Tin Star. No sugar cream pie, but a tenderloin you can't lift.
What I wanna know is, was it a sugar cream pie? Because I haven't seen one since I moved out of state. Also, someone should hit a conservative lecturer with a fresh-from-the-deep-fryer breaded pork tenderloin the size of a dinner plate. Because I miss those, too.
That, friends, is the sort of inside information you just can't fake. Three blocks away, Howard. The Tin Star. No sugar cream pie, but a tenderloin you can't lift.
Monday, April 11
Watch For Falling Objects
George W. Bush (remember him? He's the guy who accompanied Condi Rice to the pope's funeral) has the lowest approval ratings of any president ever at this point in his second term.
Put it another way: Bush is the earliest lame duck ever spotted. Or perhaps the only one ever to be re-elected.
From my perspective, that is, from listening to my Red State neighbors and contrasting that with the bleating of polls and the blathering of pundits, Bush has never been popular. His first election, if we may now be so gracious or resigned to call it that, was the result of an astute counter-marketing campaign cleverly disguised as the evening news. His "popularity", if one could believe in it (uh, 17% negatives after that election?) was clearly on the wane that first summer, and he faced actually coming out and standing for something beyond tax giveaways when Congress returned. It was becoming increasingly difficult to pretend the man had a functioning intellect, and it was about to be tested in the affirmative rather than the specious claim it was an act of reverse psychology aimed at getting liberals to misunderestimate him.
We all know what happened next. When Bush emerged from his hidey-hole after 9/11 and managed to speak through a bullhorn without actually electrocuting himself he was hailed as the straight-shootin' sheriff and the Christian Talisman Against Falling Objects. Panic does that to people. But remind me never to get in a foxhole with any of them if I can help it. It was evident that a sort of Hollywood-inspired hyperreality had set in that nothing was going to shake.
It was evident also that this amounted to a free pass to overreach, something which is never a good idea but particularly dangerous with a gang that had proclaimed a mandate after losing the election. The United States decided it could treat the rest of the world the way it has been treating the rest of the Americas for a century. Even liberal commentators fell under the sway (I still have that list of names, boys). And yet a majority of Americans felt this was a matter for the United Nations. Unfortunately, that particular majority had no representation in Congress.
Some small portion of the obvious has become obvious to many on the right in recent months. It's difficult to credit someone who has just now realized he'll be on the religious radicals' hit list along with the neo-Bolshevist Christmas haters, and this is not an over-reaction to a poll which happens to say something I agree with. The real answer is that what's obvious is obvious regardless of what polls say. In a time of all-out panic George W. Bush was granted moral and leadership qualities he does not possess, and as it has become increasingly difficult to duck those responsibilities or paper them over with brush-clearin' photo-ops, we find ourselves adrift and leaderless. The most we can hope for at this point is a belated recognition of what leadership means.
Put it another way: Bush is the earliest lame duck ever spotted. Or perhaps the only one ever to be re-elected.
From my perspective, that is, from listening to my Red State neighbors and contrasting that with the bleating of polls and the blathering of pundits, Bush has never been popular. His first election, if we may now be so gracious or resigned to call it that, was the result of an astute counter-marketing campaign cleverly disguised as the evening news. His "popularity", if one could believe in it (uh, 17% negatives after that election?) was clearly on the wane that first summer, and he faced actually coming out and standing for something beyond tax giveaways when Congress returned. It was becoming increasingly difficult to pretend the man had a functioning intellect, and it was about to be tested in the affirmative rather than the specious claim it was an act of reverse psychology aimed at getting liberals to misunderestimate him.
We all know what happened next. When Bush emerged from his hidey-hole after 9/11 and managed to speak through a bullhorn without actually electrocuting himself he was hailed as the straight-shootin' sheriff and the Christian Talisman Against Falling Objects. Panic does that to people. But remind me never to get in a foxhole with any of them if I can help it. It was evident that a sort of Hollywood-inspired hyperreality had set in that nothing was going to shake.
It was evident also that this amounted to a free pass to overreach, something which is never a good idea but particularly dangerous with a gang that had proclaimed a mandate after losing the election. The United States decided it could treat the rest of the world the way it has been treating the rest of the Americas for a century. Even liberal commentators fell under the sway (I still have that list of names, boys). And yet a majority of Americans felt this was a matter for the United Nations. Unfortunately, that particular majority had no representation in Congress.
Some small portion of the obvious has become obvious to many on the right in recent months. It's difficult to credit someone who has just now realized he'll be on the religious radicals' hit list along with the neo-Bolshevist Christmas haters, and this is not an over-reaction to a poll which happens to say something I agree with. The real answer is that what's obvious is obvious regardless of what polls say. In a time of all-out panic George W. Bush was granted moral and leadership qualities he does not possess, and as it has become increasingly difficult to duck those responsibilities or paper them over with brush-clearin' photo-ops, we find ourselves adrift and leaderless. The most we can hope for at this point is a belated recognition of what leadership means.
Friday, April 8
Friday Kevin Drum Comments Shuffle
- 1) Raln: When did Washington Monthly become Fark.com? STFU A$$H0LES LOL!!!
2) brb: Lefies: This is what it feels like to be right once. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while.
3) jojo: Its all George Bush's fault.
4) conspiracy nut: You may be right, how about this: get your next candidate to condemn all Catholics. In fact, get them to condemn all Christians. Hell, get them to condemn all religion (except Marxism, you probably want to keep that).
5) PMain: Fllow up:
No conspiracy, fact. It's like whterh or not Terri Schiavo said what she did about being kept alive. No one will ever really know what was there & that is horrible.
6) SavageView: Poor grammar aside, isn't Frank J. ever going to post something that will refute my prior that he's little more than a right-wing troll?
7) Al (The Real One Back From Vacation): Power Line has already refuted the view that he only destroyed copies.
8) Horrabin's Mistakes: MUCKADOO!!
Sandy Burglar is a felon and a traitor. But that's different from Nixon's people, hmm?
Communists.
*spit*
9) mudwall jackson: i liked the old al better.
10) someone: Frist!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)