Oblivious... or EVIL? (Answer: Oblivious AND Evil)

George Bush is more Talking Point than man, now... Twisted, and Evil.

Read Remarks by the President in a Conversation on Strengthening Social Security, February 4, 2005:

Mary is with us. Mary Mornin. How are you, Mary?

MS. MORNIN: I'm fine.

THE PRESIDENT: Good. Okay, Mary, tell us about yourself.

MS. MORNIN: Okay, I'm a divorced, single mother with three grown, adult children. I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters.

THE PRESIDENT: Fantastic. First of all, you've got the hardest job in America, being a single mom.

MS. MORNIN: Thank you. (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: You and I are baby boomers.

MS. MORNIN: Yes, and I am concerned about -- that the system stays the same for me.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

MS. MORNIN: But I do want to see change and reform for my children because I realize that we will be in trouble down the road.

THE PRESIDENT: It's an interesting point, and I hear this a lot -- will the system be the same for me? And the answer is, absolutely. One of the things we have to continue to clarify to people who have retired or near retirement -- you fall in the near retirement.

MS. MORNIN: Yes, unfortunately, yes. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know. I'm not going to tell your age, but you're one year younger than me, and I'm just getting started. (Laughter.)

MS. MORNIN: Okay, okay.

THE PRESIDENT: I feel great, don't you?

MS. MORNIN: Yes, I do. (J: It is unkown if this was in earnest or ironic -- but in my admittedly already anti-Bush opinion -- this was a pretty patronizing exchange on the President's part.)

THE PRESIDENT: I remember when I turned 50, I used to think 50 was really old. Now I think it's young, and getting ready to turn 60 here in a couple of years, and I still feel young. I mean, we are living longer, and people are working longer, and the truth of the matter is, elderly baby boomers have got a lot to offer to our society, and we shouldn't think about giving up our responsibilities in society. (Applause.) Isn't that right?

MS. MORNIN: That's right.
(J: Again, we don't know how much sardonic distance Ms. Mornin was feeling, but surely she realizes what the President is saying here is "Aww, come on now, if things get really bad, you all can just keep working, right?" He's possibly right -- that longer lifespan implies people should have longer working lives -- but it is a poor response in this context and to someone who is clearly already working her heart out.)

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but nevertheless, there's a certain comfort to know that the promises made will be kept by the government.

MS. MORNIN: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: And so thank you for asking that. You don't have to worry.

MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.
(J: is this possibly a response to the Prez saying "we shouldn't think about giving up our responsbilities to society"? Guess she did pick up on the implications.)

THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?

MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)

MS. MORNIN: Not much. Not much.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, hopefully, this will help you get you sleep to know that when we talk about Social Security, nothing changes.

MS. MORNIN: Okay, thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: That's great.

(all emphasis and superemphasis and super super emphasis mine)

Ah. AHHHHHHH. (Long-time friends of J know his propensity to scream in futile rage at stupidity -- apologies.)

Now, it is possible that Bush was simply on auto-pilot and didn't realize he was, in effect, saying "Good job -- you're working enough for 3 people, raising a family, and have a child with a disability, which by the way we haven't really supported Special Education much but that's besides the point, good for you! Your suffering and just scraping by and worrying makes you: Uniquely American!" (Dah dah!) But I think it's equally possible, if not more likely, that he believed what he was saying. That's right! Pay your dues! The American Way! I'm sure that as part of my ownership society, a single, divorced mother of 3 with 3 jobs and a child with a disability has JUST as much opportunity to reach the heights of American democracy and capitalism as, say, I did! Yessir! And if you can't, you can always keep working!"

This horrible exchange should almost stand alone (on the blog, if not in the annals of history), but Explanada also has a bit on this, and of course AAR covered it as well.

Other (bad) news:

From Slate's TP:

The WP fronts a former White House official saying in a published piece that there was "minimal senior White House commitment" to support faith-based programs for the poor. "From tax cuts to Medicare, the White House gets what the White House really wants," he wrote. "It never really wanted the 'poor people stuff.' "

Lastly, also at Explanada, really good examinations of evolutionary biology/evolutionary psychology, in part in response to things written by Mark Kleiman on Harvard Prez Larry Summer's comments on the "possiblity" that differences in science achievement in the sexes are biological in origin. See Explanada posts here, here, and here; see Will Saletan's (incorrect) take on this here, see my indignant response here.

More Slate reposts to come -- there's some of my stuff on there that I think turned out well, so might as well repost here -- working on a thesis doesn't lend much time for duplication of effort (let alone posting in the first place, doh.)

A Post for An Audience of One

Apologies to any who see this who are not among the target audience of one (1).




L--

Happy Valentine's Day, Happy 25th Birthday, Happy Black History Month!

This was the least-cliche way I could think of to wish you a happy V-day.

Let the celebration commence! In 2 weeks.



There's a lot of celebrating to be done.



Just for extra treats: one of the best MLK, Jr. speeches, much overlooked, much more militant, and partial basis of my speech last January: Where do we go from here?

A great book by Edward Ballthat, among other things, implies most white Americans are more African than might be expected (though the Smith history specifically is unknown to us).

Roy Wilkins less well known Civil Rights Leader.


And, to return to the other themes, Happy Valentine's Day, and a conta deste dia de "ficando bebedo/a e então conseguindo etc." pode ser pagado, como sempre 'tavamos dizendo, em pouco tempo.

No intervalo, va praqui: Cute things, pretty things, flowers, and random joke -- without killing any flowers, giving any money (directly to any corporations), and with a certain bit of homemadeness that hopefully avoids cliche.

(Pode ser que esta website nao dará corretamente a primeira vez -- reload umas vezes e deve dar.)

E sim, se pede depois que ver, vou tirar esta "post" do website.

Muitas letras, J

Don't quote them boy, cuz they ain't said shit

The timeless piece that perhaps best describes our times.

This (the article/book reviewed in the article) is a far more succint way of summarizing my previous post.

On Bullshit, by Harry G. Frankfurt, J Continuum Philosopher of the Year (barring further revelation or encountering of another philosopher of the year in the next 10 months).

Bush Plan Make Brain Hurt; Drought of Truly Original Content Continues

I think I'm suffering for GW's sins (well, ok, I KNOW pretty much ALL of us in the less-than-near-infinity income bracket are suffering, most of all the Iraqis, but I have a specific angle, go with me here).

It seems obvious that the Bush Crime Family is completely immune to cognitive dissonance. I think I'm experiencing it ALL for them.

As was said in the Monty Python version of "King Solomon's Wines Mines", "Brain hurts!"

From Al Franken today on AAR has possibly the best brief explanation of Bush's Social Security Plan for private accounts (though maybe this quote is originally from Michael Kinsley, but paraphrased in any case):

"A man dying from thirst asks the President for water.

'I don't have any water,' says the President, 'but I have some lemonade.'

'Oh, okay... that'll be fine,' responds the thirsty man.

The President gives the man some powdered lemonade.

'All you have to do now is to add water.'"

Of course, some MiniTruth apparatchik, basically affirmed this analogy in a less opaque manner some days ago:

From the February 2 White House background briefing:

QUESTION: Can you give us a second ten-year estimate on the revenue effect? Can you tell us how you would pay for that, in the first ten years' revenue loss? And am I right in assuming that in the way you describe this, because it's a wash in terms of the net effect on Social Security from the accounts by themselves, that it would be fair to describe this as having -- the personal accounts by themselves as having no effect whatsoever on the solvency issue?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: On the second point, that's a fair inference.

......

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Do note that this, to my knowledge, is the only place the Administration mentions this. THAT THE PERSONAL INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS BY THEMSELVES HAVE NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER ON THE SOLVENCY ISSUE.

Solvency = the ability to pay all dues and debts, that is to NOT be bankrupt, that is, personal accounts have no effect whatsoever, according to a Senior Administration Official, on the bankruptcy "problem" of Social Security.

Well, some doubting thomas unlikely to be reading my site huffs, you haven't shown that the President has implied the Private Accounts will fix the bankruptcy problem. They're a good idea anyway, so you shouldn't try and pass them off as something they're not.

Let's go to the tape:

(Scott McClellan): ...and so the President is going to continue reaching out to the American people and talking about the problems facing Social Security, and the reason why we need to act now to strengthen it, because it's something that only gets worse over time. In 2018, you're going to have the system paying out more than it's taken in. And each year after that, the shortfall only grows worse. And then in 2042, of course, it becomes bankrupt.

So the President is going to continue emphasizing the problem facing Social Security, he's going to continue to reach out to members of Congress, as well. He's had a number of meetings, he will continue to have a series of meetings to talk about ideas for solving this problem. Part of the solution is personal accounts, so that younger workers can realize a greater rate of return. Everybody is going to have a guaranteed benefit under Social Security. We want them also to have a voluntary option of a new benefit that would help them realize a greater rate of return.

Further:

Q But the personal accounts are not part of solving the solvency problem?

MR. McCLELLAN: They're part of strengthening Social Security, and that's -- the problem facing Social Security right now is that younger workers are facing either massive benefit cuts or massive tax increases if we don't act to address it now. The status quo is massive tax increases or severe benefit cuts. And that's not a solution. So both are part of the solution. Yes, personal accounts in and of themselves do not solve the fiscal problem facing Social Security, but they are part of the solution for strengthening Social Security for our children and grandchildren.

And seniors are not going to see any changes. The President will continue to make that clear, that if you're born before 1950, nothing will change for you.

--February 11, 2005 White House Press Briefing

Arrrgh. Arrgh. Arggh. (These are grunts of dismay, not pirate sounds.)

Of course, there are also numerous analyses saying, in contradiction of the White House, that Social Security is not even in desperate danger -- it needs to be addressed, but the dates waved around by the Bush Crime Family obscure what the timeline actually says. 2014 or so, as I understand it, the program starts paying out more than it takes in -- making this a turning point, but not necessarily a crisis point. Rate of income will now be less than rate of benefits-paying -- a net outflow of money isn't good/sustainable, but with savings it's not insurmountable (the government "IOUs" to itself isn't exactly "savings" but that's a topic for another time). In 2042 (estimate by the Social Security Administration), or in 2052 (the estimate by the Congressional Budget Office), the trust funds will be depleted. However, estimates say that 73-75% of benefits will be payable by the government in 2042/2052, declining to 68% in 2075.

A stitch in time saves 9, and all that, and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and so the J Continuum definitely supports addressing Social Security; but with 37 years until the problem reachs any kind of hard wall, and 70 years until the problem leads to a one third reduction in benefits, the problem is serious, but not the same as, say, our soldiers and Iraqi civilians dying each week, to the tune of tens of thousands of Iraqis and some 1 or 2 thousand US troops. Widespread human rights violations, from incarceration without cause to collective punishment to extraordinary rendition to, of course, torture, with those who followed orders going down for those who gave them. Both are guilty -- but logically, one can't solve a problem by picking out, as it were, a couple leaves from a weed -- it has to come up by the roots.

For more on Social Security, see perhaps clearer explanations here (the "net neutral effect" of private accounts will require "borrow[ing] $754 billion (including interest) through 2015 to finance the initial phase-in of the accounts"), here ("Nobody who has read this exchange should fear any longer that Social Security is going 'bankrupt.'", from 1997), here (with others now sadly in the 'pay' category at the NYTimes, though this one isn't yet), and here (good summary by Washington Post).

J Hits the Big Time/J Fails to Cash in on it

*Warning Warning*: Semi-self serving post and references here.

It's with much excitement that we see an actual increase in traffic on the blog of late, in large part due to a link from Slate from a relatively good review of a Slate article by Jack Shaferon Bush's treatment of the media that got linked to on Slate at the bottom of Shafer's column.

Sadly, reviewing the traffic dats makes it appear that clickers from Shafer's article neither stay on the Continuum very long, nor spend much (any) time looking back at previous posts. (This might be in part due to the relatively uncritical first-appraisal of Shafer's article, now partially corrected.)

As a public (self-serving) service, linked here are some of my personal choices as best previous postings, in the hopes someone will click through and, if I'm very, very, lucky, finally post a comment, incite some conversation and debate and, then we're on our way to truly engaging, enlightened blogged exchange of ideas, a colletive Demosthenes and Locke type exchange, a la Ender's Game..

SO, my own hit parade (insert sound of horn tooting here):

From practically moments ago, "Thank Goodness it was only crushing neglect", which has excellent facts even though it is mostly meta analysis (if even that).

A pretty good recent on here: Media BS: Can you spot the media bias? Actual original analysis and commentary included!

A seems-like-it-should-be-controversial, but-no-one-appears-to-have-noticed bit on Yushenko and the Ukrainian elections, "Proxy Servant", which I would say may have proved prescient if I could find any of the articles in prominent news sources referring to growing questions of Yushenko's true democratic questions (if memory serves, that was approximately the name of the article I saw, I thought in NY Times). Instead, follow up here (on Bloomberg news) and here. Though I won't be picking the present post as part of a future best of, I should nonetheless in fairness add dissenting opinions of the Yushchenko gov, as well as other links from less "mainstream" outlets to possible problems (including this doozy). But the point in the original post stands -- where's the two (or more) sided analysis? (And then there's the completely tangential part about female representation in government...)

Quickly now, other favs:

The Moral Bankruptcy of Michael Kinsley & co.

Kerry and JoeMentum

Post Election Analysis: so bad it's good

J Loses his optimism

I didn't like John Kerry

And last for now, my favorites on media (lack of) analysis.

Then again...

Loyal readers may have seen the exultant post of recent about "Bush as Kim Jong-Il". While it seemed to me that this meme itself was hyperbole with a real point, many Slate readers make some good points about some problems with Shafer's article. I still am, essentially, a big fan of it (as poster Joe_JP points out, Shafer pointed out enough lies to earn his keep), but the rebuttals are not wholly without merit -- at least in terms of learning how many of them responded to the tone and content of what I believe is a true message by S.

So to any readers out there like Thrasymachus, I acknowledge that B is no K J-i, of course not, and to say so does bear a resemblance to Bush is Hitler hyperbole. But in this case, I thought it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, and has important points besides the stretched comparison (and yes, I realize "it was only a joke" is the oldest one in the book, but c'mon, irony's got to be ok sometimes, right?)

All other readers, continue preaching the word, if you would (minding your hyperbole, of course).

J

Oh, thank goodness it was only crushing neglect...

Guess where today's news tips come from? (-50 points for guessing anything but Slate's Today's Paper's (TP).)

From the NYT (via TP):

[A] doctor, Maj. David Auch, told us that some of the prisoners at Abu Ghraib were psychotic and out of control. One, he said, would repeatedly strip off his clothes and smash his head against the wall. After handcuffs and a helmet failed to stop him and with straitjackets unavailable, some soldiers suggested the leash. Major Auch granted their request.

The soldiers who snapped and posed for the photos of abuse are being called to account. But the focus on their culpability diverts attention from the causal relationship between the Pentagon's priorities and the hellish conditions that both prisoners and their captors endured. This larger story, of conditions that ensured neglect and invited cruelty, is being ignored.

Aaaaaaah.

TP:

"The hospital lacked basic supplies, according to members of the clinical staff, and at times it maintained a surgical service without surgeons. Sometimes the hospital ran out of chest tubes, intravenous fluids or medicines. Medical staff members improvised, taking tubes from patients when they died and reusing them, without sterilization." The shortages may help explain, though not excuse, that photo of a leashed prisoner...

Favorite "diss" of the day: the NYT apparently calculates, from the (~10%) partial vote returns showing the main Shiite coalition (al-Sistani's I believe, as opposed to Allawi's) with an even larger lead than expected. However, the 10% sample is considered statistically unsound, leading to this great exchange: "Election officials refused to add up the numbers they released. Asked why, an official snorted, 'You mean, why haven't we made it easy for you to do an analysis that we consider unsound?' The other papers heed that advice." (Good catch by TP: the cover story leads with the unsound analysis... a piece inside the paper has the quote saying it's bunk.)

Other TP rehashes: "...a day after President Bush said the U.S. is "working with European allies" to keep Iran nukes-free, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the U.S. won't work with European allies on their plan to offer carrots to Teheran. She also described Iran's human-rights record as 'something to be loathed,' apparently the kind of rhetoric Europeans don't find helpful." (In fact, those who DO expect the Spanish Inquisition, don't, in fact, expect the Spanish Inquisition...)

Lastly, oy vey: "The papers go inside with an internal EPA report saying the agency, as the Post puts it, 'ignored scientific evidence and agency protocols' in order to come up with a mercury proposal to the White House's liking. The administration accused the author, an apparent Democrat, of being partisan. But the Post gets corroboration from a few EPA employees. 'Everything about this rule was decided at a political level,' said one."

Sorry for the recent lack of original content and instead mostly meta-analysis or links to Slate. I'd encourage everyone to read Today's Papers every day, except then there'd be no reason to come here first...

Know it, Love it, Use it

Today's meme (the J-Quivalent of the Unfiltered talking point): Bush as Kim Jong-il.

Wait for it, wait for it, ok, here it is:

Jack Shafer, gumshoe Slate media critic, takes on Bush, or more to the point, develops a cogent indictment of the Bush secrecy anti-media "pro-freedom" anti-freedom faith-based Machine. To whit, Shafer lists the numerous ways the Prez has tried to keep us from knowing what the Prez and crüe are doing. (Homework: Use Prez and Crüe the next time you write anything about the Bush Administration.) His strictures on FOIA, browbeating of the press, and use of Scott McClellan (illegal sidetracking, five yard penalty) are breathtaking, to me, in their horribleness. This is one of the Bush legacies no one's talking about -- perhaps because he's doing a good enough job that no one knows about it.

Anyway, go to Shafer, know the Bush-Jong-il meme, love it, use it, spread it.

(Extra credit: Start refering to the Prez & Crüe only as the Bush Crime Family, a la angry, angry Mike Malloy.)

SOTU by the Liar in Chief

Sorry for the terribly unoriginal title -- all I have for you tonight is a link to a site doing what I don't have time for; debunking Pres. Bush's speech line by line (or maybe lie by lie). Thinkprogress.org, a new blog, kept real-time track of his speech and rebutted it (didn't catch the Dem. rebuttal from down here in Brasil, or the SOTU for that matter, but dimes'll get you dollars that it wasn't very good -- or at least not as complete and unequivocal as I'd like).

I don't really see the point in watching the SOTU, anyway -- it's not that it's unimportant, it's that the most important real-life part of it are the analyses of it. The SOTU bears so little relation to reality -- what happened to going to Mars? To steroids in baseball? To the Niger uranium? etc. -- that paying attention to it itself is practically an exercise in futility. The Cliffs Notes is usually more than sufficient, and what is usually more important is the meta-news that is generated -- that is, when the news story BECOMES the story. When "the news" says he did a good job, this becomes the news, if they say his approval went up or down, this story (in my opinion) is as or more likely to continue that trend as the speech itself. (Though the "Axis of Evil" portion of the 2002 SOTU was definitely news in itself -- but nonetheless, the reactions of allies and opponents was far more important than anything he said, as everyone noted that the 3 "axes" were non-aligned, and he doesn't seem to have a plan for North Korea).

Alright. I'm out.

This Just In:

Robert Fisk, reporter for The London Independent, reports on Air America Radio points out that, from his personal observations in Iraq, most Iraqis thought they were voting for an end to US occupation! I haven't heard this reported elsewhere, and so don't fully believe it until I see more sources, but as Mr. Fisk puts it, the general Sunni attitude is to resist US occupation by insurrection, the general Shi'ite is to end it by going to the voting booth and voting us out.

Perhaps I'm missing something here, or Mr. Fisk is not entirely accurate, but this is a dramatic statement, especially considering the recent US tongue-twisting:

"The New York Times leads with a newsless sitdown with President Bush, who said the U.S. would pull out of Iraq if the new government asks, which he said it won't. (And he's probably right.) Former Secretary of State Powell made the same semi-offer a few months ago, as did former Iraq boss Paul Bremer. Anyway, Bush "appeared more relaxed than he was in August, when he was last interviewed by the Times, in a changing area off a men's room.""

(Today's Paper's, Slate.com, Jan. 28 2005)

Oh, yeah, this is bad too...

The Bush Regime (as Mike Malloy aptly calls it) has found a NEW way to be thoughtless. Priceless in its horribleness.

From last week's Today's Papers on Slate

"Auschwitz, Lambeau Field, same deal... Vice President Cheney was at Auschwitz to mark the 60th anniversary of its liberation. "He was dressed in the kind of attire one typically wears to operate a snow blower," says Post fashionista Robin Givhan. "Like other attendees, the vice president was wearing a hat. But it was not a fedora or a Stetson or a fur hat or any kind of hat that one might wear to a memorial service as the representative of one's country. Instead, it was a knit ski cap. It is also worth mentioning that Cheney was wearing hiking boots -- thick, brown, lace-up ones. [See the] Requisite, pricless photo."

(bangs head against keyboard again)

Media BS: Can you spot the Media Bias?

Hey all, this is still a busy year for J, trying to catch up on things that should've been done last year, so sorry for the lackluster (er, nonexistent) updates. Maybe this has just given all of my many, many (let's see, one, two, er, three...) fans time to catch up on their J Back-Issues.

Any case, today's ever so brief taste of J's return is to be found here. Can you detect the subtlely hidden CNN bias? Eh? Eeeeeh?

1) Identify the bias. Is it liberal? Is it conservative? Is it sensationalist? Is is Kiss-Ass?

2) Did you answer Conservative/Kiss-Ass? No? Be sure to show your work.

3) The answer is Conservative Kiss-Ass Bias. This is true.

Answers:

1) "Since the 2001 attacks, the staunchly conservative Ashcroft has been vilified by political opponents, civil liberties groups and privacy advocates for pushing controversial counterterrorism policies, which critics say undermine freedoms."

Vilified? Perhaps, perhaps not -- but isn't this a, say, purely subjective judgement? Granted, anyone who knows J knows that I don't believe in purely "objective" news (as in, it doesn't exist and instead of trying the News Media should collect the best information available, and make as best they can conclusions to the public, showing the process of getting there -- classic examples include Global Climate Change -- He Said She Said "fair" coverage of "both sides" obscures the fact that a vast majority of scientists credit that the evidence for GCC is solid, including conservative DoD consultants, report here).

What was I talking about -- oh, yes, so, "vilified" is not something that is easily defended as some kind of objective judgement. They continue to say: "which critics say undermine freedoms. They include the Patriot Act, which bolstered FBI surveillance and law enforcement powers in terror cases; increased use of material witness warrants to hold suspects incommunicado for months; and secret proceedings in immigration cases. Ashcroft made no apology for his actions, saying he has enjoyed full support from President Bush."

2) Surely, you say, these statements are ok. Well, maybe -- but to be even marginally low-CNN-standards-meeting, they should, you know, mention why Ashie's opponents, you know, oppose him, cuz you know, maybe, just *maybe* they have a point (or points).

3) "The president understands that this is almost mission impossible, to keep winning every day," he said."
Nov. 9, 2004: "The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." (free subscription required) (also: "I have handwritten this letter so its confidentiality can be maintained until the appropriate arrangements mentioned above can be made." huh? As Lizz Winstead of AARadio asked, "He does realize that we can photocopy things now, doesn't he?" -- however it happened, handwriting didn't stop the release of his letter very promptly...)

Sigh. The whole thing is Crap-Tastic. It goes on ""Rights have not been infringed. Human dignity has not suffered. It's been enhanced and it has not carried a cost or toll on the civil liberties of America," Ashcroft said." It hasn't carried *any* cost or toll? That's AMAZING! There IS a free lunch!!!!

"More than 375 people have been charged in terror-related prosecutions in the United States since the 2001 attacks, with 195 either convicted or entering guilty pleas." Heaven forbid we mention, say, the 0 (zero) convictions for terrorist *acts*, but rather "some convictions under a questionable new law prohibiting Americans from offering 'material support' to foreign based terrorists", and in fact "as David Cole points out here, Ashcroft is now zero for 5,000, in that the Justice Department has detained 5,000 people on grounds that they are somehow connected to terrorism—and convicted none."

4) Does anyone else count detaining 5,000 people without any convictions, in many cases without charges or on marginal, misdemeanor-type immigration or material witness charges, as perhaps an "infringement" of "rights" or that perhaps it has caused "human dignity" to "suffer"?

5) (bangs head against keyboard)

6) Air America's Unfiltered is reporting that apparently Condi Rice and Sen. Biden had a meeting, a luncheon, to talk about poverty in, I think, the Islamic World that featured Wine and Shellfish -- apparently, most all of the food had to be taken back off the table and all of the US diplomatic staff "smacked upside the head". (I may have made that last part up.)

Until later meninos,

J

Blood yet runs in my veins

Angry, sarcastic, biting, and perhaps a bit debonair blood. Blood that has been traveling through many lands and working on many things.

In other words, stay tuned, keep clicking to the blog and I'll try and make it worth the energy of briefly tensing those muscles and tendons in your fingers that rest atop your keyboard.

Many things are afoot, and many words will soon hopefully be afoot to make fun of, laud, or criticize some of these things.

J

Intelligent Attraction of Mass

Ahhhhhhh... Today's thing driving J crazy is the further attempts to bring Intelligent Design into school curriculums (apparently the anti-evolution forces have a majority on the Kansas schoolboard again... so look for more ridicule-inducing cringe-worthy news from there soon). Today's NY Times (reg. required) has the latest on this.

Now, you can maintain, like one dude in the article, that the reason the ACLU, and, well, me, and others get so upset about this is that, apparently, sound science filling in the "gaps" in evolution is actually what's at issue, and that this so-called sound science then leads to the possiblity of a Creator, and we just don't like religion, and that's why we have a problem with all of this. Yeah, sure, that's the ticket.

I'm sorry, but people -- PEOPLE -- listen to me -- a theory saying that some parts of the world are unexplainable and attempts to prove that they are, by definition, unexplainable and therefore made by a Creator are *simply* *unscientific*. To make the conclusion of a Creator based on a lack of ability to explain phenomena is NOT a valid deductive chain -- it is fallacious! Why can't you see that? It may or may not be true, but our present inability to explain something does NOT logically lead to the idea that it must have been created by means beyond the view of observable reality. Occam's Razor would imply that we SIMPLY DON'T HAVE A COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHENOMENA. By the same reasoning as Intelligent Design, Phlogiston was COMPLETELY reasonable -- phlogiston being the concept that, since burned objects were noticeably, well, different than the same object before it was burned, that they contained an odorless, colorless, tasteless, weightless substance called phlogiston -- and when you "burned" something -- that is, dephlogisticated it -- you were releasing the phlogiston and what remained was the true material the object was made of. Er, yeah. But given a certain set of information, it can be seen as reasonable, no? Logical, no, reasonable, perhaps. Or what of the flat earth? Certainly, as far as any one person standing on the surface of the earth without advanced observation equipment (or simply a very tall building), it is PERFECTLY REASONABLE to deduce the earth is flat -- this is only disprovable once equipment and/or information previously undiscovered or unrealized is used. The earth-centered solar system? Very possible -- though that explanation of retrogression gets tough -- probably just God moving around those lights fixed in the black cloth of the firmament.

Ok, here's the brass tacks kids -- next time anyone gives you some Intelligent Design claptrap, point out that evolution is better understood in many ways than gravity -- that is, we have stronger evidence confirming our understanding of evolution than the universal theory of gravitation -- BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHY GRAVITY WORKS. Einstein's brilliant insights about time-space being all very well and good, the idea of gravity being "wells" in the "fabric" of space-time is a great metaphor, but the actual explanation of WHY things act like this is, well, lacking. We KNOW the details of evolutionary theory -- though we can't explain all observed cases. We know the mathematical rules governing gravity -- except for the expanding, accelerating universe (dark energy) and the details of explaining how it propagates faster than light (seemingly instantaneously).

Must be God pushing the elements of the universe apart -- yeah, that's it. Intelligent Pulling and Pushing Things Together and Apart -- that's a much better explanation than the universal theory of gravitation.

Seriously kids. Gravity. Less understood. Than evolution. In many ways.

Though I'm sure SOME people SOMEwhere wouldn't be opposed to Intelligent Gravitation, can the rest of us see now how baaaaaaaaaaaad intelligent design is?

Please. Now. Go forth and tell people that gravity is a less complete theory than evolution. Seriously. And please. Tell a lot of people in Kansas.

Please Throw Eggs at Dinesh D'Souza

Or anyone else who ever proposes Two Cheers for Colonialism.


aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhh.

Also, read an interesting article in Slate by Tim Noah on D'Souza's antimaterialism (ha!)

J

....?

I should be working, really, serious, but I can't resist.

USA Today leads with word that the Dept. of Homeland Security's effort to create a list of potential terrorist targets, such as dams, nuke plants, and skyscrapers, is way behind schedule and kind of whacked. Apparently, it includes water parks and miniature golf course, but not some major sites.

"Their list is a joke," said one Republican congressman.

--Eric Umansky, J-Fave Today's Paper's on Slate

Proxy Servant

Hey one and all, latest fall-down bad job by the much-maligned (by me, at least) US media.

I've been slightly suspicous of our Ukraine election coverage, particularly because Yushchenko's better-for-democracy-ness has been chiefly "proven" in the media with simple mention of the fact that he is more "pro-western". I haven't heard anything like "and he supports more transparency and politics responsive to the average and less well-off citizens" or, I don't know, he insists on a larger role of women in Ukrainian politics (this is a random example of something I would consider "pro-democracy", though for all I know, the Ukriane could have amazing gender equity). The point here is that the story crafted by our media was already somewhat suspect to me -- if nothing else, it was ever-so-superficial; can any of you tell me WHY Yushchenko is better for democracy than Yanukovich? No? You, in the back there, with your hand up? Oh, you were stretching? What about proof of election fraud? Yes, over there -- no? No clue?

What this is leading up to is this article recommended by J-friend and advisor John. Don't let the fact that it's on Al-Jazeera frighten you. Not that I expect anyone reading my page to be uncritical enough to dismiss something simply cuz it's on Al-Jazeera (see: Control Room. No seriously, see it. It's really good. Much better, convincing movie than Fahrenheit 9/11, in my opinion). Basically, one guy seems more under Putin's thumb, one more under our thumb -- and guess which one our unbiased media portrays as the democratic underdog? (Though I have to admit, the possibility that Yushchenko was possibly poisoned with dioxin does compel some sympathy -- though perhaps it should be no more sympathy than would be due your average Roman Senate-esque wheeler/dealer.) Nonetheless, the point isn't whether or not Yush is the great, er, whiter hope, but rather what the real political landscape is. Who wants to bet that what we're going is a good, sophisticated analysis of that? (Though to be fair, NYT did have the conventional "on the other hand" article a little while ago.)

In other news, speaking of gender equity in government (a paragraph or two ago), check out the Human Development report from this year. US: 14% women in "parliament" (congress); around 30% in Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada, and Australia; 36% in Cuba; 10% in Brasil; 20% in Nicaragua, to go through some other countries I'm familiar with. So, we're not on the bottom at all -- but let's see, women are only about 14% of the populace right now, right? Riiiiiight. Sexism. Thing of the past. Well, that's a relief.)

That's all folks,

J

New Meme: The Bush Administration Is Awesome!

No, I haven't gone crazy. I've just become desperate/bored enough to think of a useless silly subversive tactic.

You realize, of course, that even among Bush supporters, expectations aren't very high? (Disclosure: More than half of US citizens think he's mishandling Iraq, won't help the economy, the tax cuts shouldn't be permanent, and that he will fuck up social security; more than half do think he's doing right in general on the war on terror.)

And of course, as we all know, with low expectations, it's harder to be disappointed.

That's right, you see it, don't you? That's right.

We must TALK UP THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION. Maybe if we liberals and progressives wage a constant, non-stop positive PR campaign about how good Bush's crony-Cabinet is going to in its second term, then its failures will be all the more dramatic! Bwa hah hah!

It's just crazy enough... not to work.

In other news... anyone besides me remember the earlier critiques of the Department of Homeland Security? (Seems not -- Slate had some great stuff that appears to have gone down the Memory Hole, annd not the ironic, good kind).

I mention this, because the "Intelligence Reform" flap had a similar background that has also disappeared. Hey, I realize it's important to reform intelligence -- everyone, everyone agrees there was some major fucking up (remember SecState-to-be's description of "Bin Laden to attack inside US" as historical information?), but the sometimes-mentioned point that THIS reform might not be efficacious, in that, it may not, you know, help fix things seems COMPLETELY GONE.


AHHHHHHHHHH.


Just to refresh or introduce you to the critiques, the DHS and the "Intelligence Czar" have the similar critiques that creating new bureaucracy may not help increase the efficiency of information flow, especially without large (painful) reorganizations (which seem unlikely to be done); the DHS united (what was it? 22?) many disparate departments with varying degrees of connection to "homeland security" without (seemingly) creating an appropriate administrative structure to handle it. And as Fred Kaplan has pointed out on Slate, if the problem in the 9/11 mishandling was that information wasn't properly flowing through the different organizations, i.e. it was "over-centralized" in that the Washington hierarchy supposedly wasn't keyed in enough to the branch offices, and there was "groupthink", how does having one new guy (or in an unlikely case gal) at the top of it all fight groupthink, lack of cooperation between competing intelligence organizations, and over-centralization?

Now, I don't know -- maybe the 9/11 Panel's suggestions are great, and actually answer all concerns. BUT MAYBE WE SHOULD STILL BE TALKING ABOUT IT. I defy you, DEFY YOU, to find critiques of the intelligence proposals and the DHS: 2 Years Later, or even a systematic analysis of what's gone right, rather than simply "process" stories on Bush vs. Congress vs. Hastert vs. DonRum vs. etc. Shouldn't we not only know about the progress of reform, but WHETHER OR NOT IT WILL BE EFFECTIVE? Surely, not everyone in the entire US is convinced this bill will work, or that DHS is working just fine?

You wouldn't know it from reading the "news".

Sigh.

Today's News... not really (...spoliers! a J-Continuum first)

No current events stuff for the people today... just two random entertainment/enlightenment recommendations...

On the entertainment front, finally saw one of the last Angel episodes... had a marathon on today here in Brasil. BOY. A very sad ending to the series -- sad, emotionally, not quality-wise.

Though I had some qualms about the quality of the last season, these last episodes did imply there was some method to the madness that had been missing, in my opinion, since the end of the Jasmine saga and a little before that, even. (I think Angel got a lot rockier after Connor buried Angel at the bottom of the sea... though the beginning of the next season was still relatively tight, with "evil" Wes a cool move... but I digress.) I was trying to think of why the (synopses -- still haven't caught the actual last eps) last eps got me so sad, and I think it's cuz, despite the weakened (imho) writing behind their characters, I really miss them. I miss the more "happy go lucky" days of the apocalypse, with Lorne still in Caritas (I think he lost a lot of direction, not just as a character but in the writing for him as a character, after he lost his club), with Gunn still a little more "street" (again a loss of depth in his character as he became Scooby-ized), with Cordy still in the SHOW! (and not completely turned into a nice, 3-dimensional, caring person), and Wes -- Wes actually stayed the most true to his character, throughout I think, though he moved from comic to tragicomic to just tragic... Whereas Spike was moving through this progression the opposite direction, in a way...

Anyway, I was going to say, I think I miss them more than many characters from series because they're *dead* -- some of them -- or just (apparently) *gone*. Fred's dead, seemingly *forever* -- destroyed to the essence (though of course, so was Elektra in Marvel and now she's got her own fucking series, no?). THAT's tragic. Wes' dead. Cordy's dead. (Though at least not dead down to her soul being destroyed). In many series, i.e., Buffy, you can go on to imagine the life their characters might lead (though Buffy did its closure so well, it would've been hard to imagine without Angel's clues to their life continuing, and possibly even being - gasp -- fun!), but in Angel, well not only are the living characters fighting the Apocalypse, but several are dead and gone beyond (easily) conceivable return. And their last few years were not happy ones. I miss them... like friends that are dead. Their deaths were so tragic, and moving (to me, at least), watching old episodes won't cut it -- they're *dead*. They're gone, and memories of them are just that... wow. What good tv.

In other news, hopefully those intellectual elites among you sniffing in disdain about TV and/or Angel specifically made it this far, because YOU MUST READ CORNEL WEST. I'm reading "Democracy Matters" and it is EXCELLENT. It is very refreshing to hear a black voice in the US railing against EMPIRE -- when was the last time you heard Kwesi Mfume and the NAACP talking about Empire? They're been pretty DNC-ized (maybe why their membership is flagging...) The radical strain of American thought is dying, and the NAACP is complicit in this... like West's heroes James Baldwin, W.E.B. DuBois, Ralph Waldo Emerson, and many others -- a deep radicalism is needed these days, in my opinion, to reinvigorate the entire left. But perhaps, most especially, the African American Left. We can't play the DNC/Clinton games like the NAACP has been doing and win... we cannot, as it has been said, seek approval from the same system we wish to overturn or reform. Come with me my Democratic friends... the African American community can no longer afford to be Center Left!!!

The Unbearable Moral Bankruptcy of Being Center-Left

Michael Kinsley, on Al Franken this week (or was it Morning Sedition? Whatever) proved the ABSOLUTE idiocy of the erstwhile Kerry Platform/Centrist Democrat approach to Iraq.

As usual, the nonsense began with something making sense...

"Has there ever before been a war that so many people disapproved of but so few wanted to stop? Have the reasons for starting a war ever been so thoroughly discredited without turning into reasons for ending it? " Kinsley asks in a recent (21 November 2004 LA Times) article.

"What seems to be today's antiwar position — it was a terrible mistake and it's a terrible mess, but we can't just walk away from it — was actually the pro-war position during Vietnam. In fact, it was close to official government policy for more than half the length of that war.

Today's antiwar cause doesn't even have a movement, to speak of, let alone an agenda. It consists of perhaps 47% of the citizenry — the ones who voted for John Kerry — who are in some kind of existential opposition to the war but don't know what they want to do about it."

Thank goodness he represented this as the 47% of the citizenry that voted for JK -- I'd hate to be confused with having an existential* opposition to the war. I have a very DEFINITIVE opposition -- we were wrong, and we should come home now. After all, the earlier worry for why we SHOULDN'T come home is we could leave a civil war in our wake, right? WHAT THE BLOODY HELL IS GOING ON NOW, EH?

Just in case you think that there lay some kind of logic or reason left unvoiced by Kinsley, some deep motivation that stands up to examination that he forgot to mention -- an answer to the implied question of what sense this existential opposition makes -- nope, he cleared that up on old standby Air America Radio. He's just whistling into the wind.

I can't find a transcript... but more or less, he said the only reason to stay IN Iraq is the belief that things will get better if we stay there: that in the next couple years, our presence will finally help restore a stable society. He WENT ON to say that he saw no particular reason to believe this, he just supposed he hoped that it wasn't the case the it would continue as it was now. He didn't have a reason for such beleifs, but, he said, he wasn't ready to say that the US should pull out.

GREAT. What a towering intellect you're showing Mike; a) the only rational reason to not advocate for a pull out is if the US will help stabilize Iraq in the next couple years, b) that's not happening now (stabilizing influence), c) there's no particular reason to believe it will happen in the future, d) but what the hey, just cuz it's logically inconsistent, let's continue our existential opposition.

THIS is (was) the case for Kerry? EXISTENTIAL OPPOSITION? Hope for something you don't think is likely? WOW, the military-industrial complex, worried after Viet Nam that the US' citizenry's irrational confidence that using US power to kill other people (and to have our own soldiers killed) in service of our myopic economic interests, appears to have had a tremendous victory. Kinsley, the token-Leftist Talking Head, has confidence in our use of the military's force as a force for good, DESPITE the already serious problems doing so (between 20,000 and 100,000 civilians dead, the use of napalm, torture in Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and recent reports from the Red Cross "alleging" continued torture (see earlier Red Cross report at The Smoking Gun).

Can all of you see this? How morally repugnant and weak this is? THIS is the Kerry legacy -- opposition equivalent to support from the Viet Nam era.

There is, in my opinion, LITTLE REASON to think that we will be a force for good in Iraq in the short or long term, with our troops on the ground there (see: Haiti, Nicaragua, Grenada, Viet Nam, Korea, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq Part I...). Therefore, pulling out is the only, rational, opposition stance to have. Further, if one is to believe in democracy and/or Tariq Ali, Iraq should, Iraq must be allowed to develop their own government, their own way -- to say that we must stay there to create a democratic utopia for them is anti-democratic and simply intellectually incoherent... not to mention ignorant of our incontrovertible history of only supporting and implanting puppet or semi-puppet governments. (Yow! Haven't read this yet, but check out the transcript of Mr. Ali v. Chris Hitchens... if there aren't some sparks here, we deserve our money back...)

Chalk another one up to the failure of today's so-called liberals...




*J-Friend Sarah points out that she doesn't believe existentialism has ever been used correctly, and indeed may not have a coherent meaning. She tems some razão (to use super-portuglish, after J-Sister's super-spanglish "I gotta voy") -- that is, she's got a point. "Existential" means both "grounded in existence or the experience of existence : EMPIRICAL b : having being in time and space" -- in other words, something solid and perceivable in a mundane day-to-day way, and also means related to existentialism, " chiefly 20th century philosophical movement embracing diverse doctrines but centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for his acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad", in other words, something uncertain grounded in a universe that is inherently thus. As Sarah points out, there's little better than those english words that mean both something and a concept almost exactly the opposite of that something.

And that's... one to grow on.