By WILLIAM AYERS Published: December 5, 2008 Chicago
IN the recently concluded presidential race, I was unwillingly thrust upon the stage and asked to play a role in a profoundly dishonest drama. I refused, and here’s why.
Unable to challenge the content of Barack Obama’s campaign, his opponents invented a narrative about a young politician who emerged from nowhere, a man of charm, intelligence and skill, but with an exotic background and a strange name. The refrain was a question: “What do we really know about this man?”
Secondary characters in the narrative included an African-American preacher with a fiery style, a Palestinian scholar and an “unrepentant domestic terrorist.” Linking the candidate with these supposedly shadowy characters, and ferreting out every imagined secret tie and dark affiliation, became big news.
I was cast in the “unrepentant terrorist” role; I felt at times like the enemy projected onto a large screen in the “Two Minutes Hate” scene from George Orwell’s “1984,” when the faithful gathered in a frenzy of fear and loathing.
With the mainstream news media and the blogosphere caught in the pre-election excitement, I saw no viable path to a rational discussion. Rather than step clumsily into the sound-bite culture, I turned away whenever the microphones were thrust into my face. I sat it out.
Now that the election is over, I want to say as plainly as I can that the character invented to serve this drama wasn’t me, not even close. Here are the facts:
I never killed or injured anyone. I did join the civil rights movement in the mid-1960s, and later resisted the draft and was arrested in nonviolent demonstrations. I became a full-time antiwar organizer for Students for a Democratic Society. In 1970, I co-founded the Weather Underground, an organization that was created after an accidental explosion that claimed the lives of three of our comrades in Greenwich Village. The Weather Underground went on to take responsibility for placing several small bombs in empty offices — the ones at the Pentagon and the United States Capitol were the most notorious — as an illegal and unpopular war consumed the nation.
The Weather Underground crossed lines of legality, of propriety and perhaps even of common sense. Our effectiveness can be — and still is being — debated. We did carry out symbolic acts of extreme vandalism directed at monuments to war and racism, and the attacks on property, never on people, were meant to respect human life and convey outrage and determination to end the Vietnam war.
Peaceful protests had failed to stop the war. So we issued a screaming response. But it was not terrorism; we were not engaged in a campaign to kill and injure people indiscriminately, spreading fear and suffering for political ends.
I cannot imagine engaging in actions of that kind today. And for the past 40 years, I’ve been teaching and writing about the unique value and potential of every human life, and the need to realize that potential through education.
I have regrets, of course — including mistakes of excess and failures of imagination, posturing and posing, inflated and heated rhetoric, blind sectarianism and a lot else. No one can reach my age with their eyes even partly open and not have hundreds of regrets. The responsibility for the risks we posed to others in some of our most extreme actions in those underground years never leaves my thoughts for long.
The antiwar movement in all its commitment, all its sacrifice and determination, could not stop the violence unleashed against Vietnam. And therein lies cause for real regret.
We — the broad “we” — wrote letters, marched, talked to young men at induction centers, surrounded the Pentagon and lay down in front of troop trains. Yet we were inadequate to end the killing of three million Vietnamese and almost 60,000 Americans during a 10-year war.
The dishonesty of the narrative about Mr. Obama during the campaign went a step further with its assumption that if you can place two people in the same room at the same time, or if you can show that they held a conversation, shared a cup of coffee, took the bus downtown together or had any of a thousand other associations, then you have demonstrated that they share ideas, policies, outlook, influences and, especially, responsibility for each other’s behavior. There is a long and sad history of guilt by association in our political culture, and at crucial times we’ve been unable to rise above it.
President-elect Obama and I sat on a board together; we lived in the same diverse and yet close-knit community; we sometimes passed in the bookstore. We didn’t pal around, and I had nothing to do with his positions. I knew him as well as thousands of others did, and like millions of others, I wish I knew him better.
Demonization, guilt by association, and the politics of fear did not triumph, not this time. Let’s hope they never will again. And let’s hope we might now assert that in our wildly diverse society, talking and listening to the widest range of people is not a sin, but a virtue.
William Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is the author of “Fugitive Days” and a co-author of the forthcoming “Race Course.”
I realize I haven't posted in a while, but I'm up to my neck in homework this term. I have 50+pages to write in the next 18 days, plus a bunch of reading, so I doubt I'll post any blogs during for a while unless it's one about how miserable I am. Then I'll have my one last final exam on December 8, and then I'll be finished with being an undergraduate college student--unless I fail, but that goes without saying. After that, I'll have to go shopping for a frame to put my fancy diploma in. Hopefully I'll find a job, otherwise I'll be one of those people at the freeway off-ramp holding a sign that says, "Will blog for a student loan payment!"
So what has happened since my last post? Oh yeah, there was an election two weeks ago. Here's the crazy thing: every person and measure I voted for ended up winning! Of course, that automatically made me reconsider everything I voted for. My votes never win! Was I somehow hoodwinked this time? Were things so bad that mediocrity looked appealing this time around? Time will tell.
Nevertheless, I'm cautiously optimistic. Of course, with Joe Lieberman keeping his post as Senate Homeland Security Committee chair, despite not investigating any of the numerous threats to homeland security during the past two years, such as illegal wiretapping, torture, firing judges for political reasons, etc., etc., etc., and with Hillary Clinton being named as a possible Secretary of State, well...let's just say that this isn't the change I hoped for.
Although, I do have to admit that on election night Cathy and I went to the Lane County Fairgrounds to watch the results come in, and the last time I saw so many watery eyes was at a funeral. During Obama's speech--which was broadcast on a large-screen projection TV--I stood next to a seventy-something-year-old man who was bawling his eyes out like nothing I've ever seen before. That's when I realized the historical significance of what was happening both on the screen and around me. It's one moment I'll never forget. So there!
But the worst was what happened in Arkansas. The bigots not only won't let same-sex couples marry, but they won't let same-sex couples adopt or take care of foster children. Not only that, opposite-sex couples who are not married can't adopt, and those non-married couples--gay or otherwise--who have adopted or are taking care of foster kids might lose their kids. So these bigots who voted for this pile of crap measure better get themselves down to the local adoption board and adopt some kids pronto, otherwise they'll prove themselves to be a bunch of hypocritical bigots.
And for those of you who think the word "bigot" is too harsh, if you can think of a better word, please let me know. I'm sorry, but I just can't think of any reason to deny gays rights other than bigotry. If you can think of one, please let me know in the comments. I'm not holding my breath.
Well, anyway, I've wasted valuable time blathering on about stuff my readers know fully well about at this point. But don't worry--I'll be back once finals are done, and with more fart jokes than you can shake a can of baked beans at! That's the kind of change you can believe in!
Just remember that even though our eight years of hell is (probably) about to end, we've still got a big mess to clean up. So don't stop paying attention.
Lately I've been busy keeping track of all the racism, bigotry, and xenophobia on the part of McCain/Palin supporters during the past few weeks now that Obama has been pulling ahead in the polls. I've theorized that all this could lead to violence, but I figured it would be against Obama himself, not his supporters. Boy was I naive.
Yesterday, someone slashed the tires of over 30 cars parked outside an Obama rally. Two people in Chicago (of all places) have reportedly received death threats the other day for having Obama signs in their yards. And a dead black bear cub was found this morning dumped at a college campus "draped with a pair of Obama campaign signs." Classy, eh?
In my mind the best type of comedy is tragedy. When things are the most uncomfortable, the most pathetic, the saddest, it's a sort of natural instinct for me to laugh. That's always how I got through stressful situations in my life. Even what should be really bad movies can turn into fantastic comedies when the main character is a tragic figure. American Pie is a classic example. Jason Biggs's character is so unlucky, ignorant, and pitiful that when his father catches him having sex with a pie or when he's humiliated in front of the whole school because he's doesn't have a clue how to act with the exchange student, I not only have to laugh at the situation, but also empathize.
Sometimes, however, the tragedy overpowers the humor. When that happens, it's no longer funny--it's just sad. Whenever I see a photo like the one below, my first instinct is to laugh. It's not out of a feeling of superiority or anything like that, but rather because the situation is so sad and so absurd, and laughing is the only way to cope with it.
But then when I read the stories above, I realize this isn't funny. This is a symptom of the pervasive ignorance throughout so much of our country, ignorance that doesn't have to be. Tragedy overpowers humor.
Just When You Thought Things Couldn't Get Even Still More Lowererer...
Hello everyone!
This crap has got to stop. First off, I'm running out of comparatives to add to my titles, but I'm not prepared to switch to superlatives because the cynical part of me knows we haven't bottomed out yet. If you don't know what I'm talking about, just go here and here to get caught up. I'll wait.
Now that you're back, here's the latest. This video features not some kooky tinfoil hat wearing village drunk loudmouth, nor some right-wing radio/Fox News host (although it is a fine line between the two), but United States Representative Michele Bachmann on Hardball. Take a look:
This is what it's come to. Anyone who has a "leftist" or "liberal" political ideology (or ostensibly can be accused of such) hates America. That includes the majority of both houses Congress and a huge segment of the general population. It also includes people such as me, someone who "you'll find on college campuses." (Well, only two, and one is a community college, and I don't teach but tutor and take classes, but you get the point)
So what exactly is your garden-variety, patriotic, average American supposed to do with this information about America haters? If a hypothetical American patriot truly believes that ours is "the greatest country in the world," and if that person truly believes it's his or her duty to defend the country against its enemies, then what should be done? I mean, America haters are clearly America's enemy, right? So, what is our patriotic duty? Should we go shopping? Should we hide under the bed and hope the brave Republicans protect us? Should we vote? Should we write our Congressperson? What if we live in Michele Bachmann's district? Should we blog about it? What's a blog?
Maybe we should just solve the problem ourselves, "southern justice" style, like they did in the "good old days."
Regardless, Michele Bachmann is either starting early with her scary Halloween stories or she's not-so-indirectly inciting violence. She's certainly not criticizing Obama's policies (which should be relatively easy enough to do) or anything civil like that. No, she's using flimsy, circumstantial evidence based on extremely loose connections to some guy she calls a terrorist.
I think it's important to note that Bill Ayers committed some acts that, while very much misguided, killed nobody. So it's quite a stretch to call him a terrorist, but that's essentially what Representative Bachmann has been doing, as have most of the pundits and "media figures." But I guess that makes a better news story than this: "A young activist becomes overzealous and commits a few property crimes out of protest...other activists get assassinated so he hides out for a while...later he turns himself in...the case gets thrown out because the evidence was obtained illegally...he then becomes a model citizen and is now a well-respected educator."
Anyway, I would argue that Congresswoman Bachmann has a low opinion of Americans, and maybe even hates Americans. She seems to be counting on a whole lot of ignorance throughout the our country. Apparently, all we have to do is hear is the word "terrorist," and then we'll all remember that Obama has a scary, foreign-sounding name, which means he also must be a terrorist pal-arounder! 9/11, 9/11!
This is the same old tired act to play on people's fears, prejudices, and xenophobia. "We don't know anything about Obama," essentially means, "He's different." But in reality the average person probably knows more about Obama than John Kerry, George Bush, or Bill Clinton at this time in their respective campaigns. The only difference is that Obama is black and has an African-sounding name, but the others are white and have European-sounding names.
What Representative Bachmann does not only plays on racist, xenophobic fears, but accentuates them. Unfortunately, people respond to fear with violence. So that means that either she's incredibly stupid or she's incredibly cold-hearted.
Luckily, after she appeared there was a rebuttal from The Nation editor and publisher Katrina vanden Heuvel:
Hell, even Pat Buchanan disagreed with Bachmann. It's pretty sad when your right-wing views are too extreme for Pat Freakin' Buchanan.
As for Katrina (the publisher, not the hurricane), I'm going to keep renewing my Nation subscription until she retires just to help make sure she can continue to have a job. We need more people like her on TV news shows and less people like that horrible excuse for a human being, Michele McCarthy Bachmann.
* * *
On a lighter note, I made a relatively important discovery today. I had been preoccupied with this photo for quite some time:
I wasn't sure why, but something about it looked eerily familiar. I mean, sure, it's a photo of Sarah Palin, and everyone who has remotely been paying attention lately has certainly seen plenty of Sarah Palin photos. Well, almost everyone.
Anyway, there was something specifically familiar about this particular shot and I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was. I knew there was something there that I had seen before. Finally, this morning while I was in the middle of my morning constitutional, I realized what the photo reminded me of. This photo:
How do they do that? I tried to make that upside-down smiley face all morning, and I couldn't do it. Between this and John McCain's tongue gyrations, I'm convinced that they're sending secret mouth signals to their alien brothers and sisters from Planet Reagan that Earth is about ready for the invasion.
In case you missed it, here are some photos from last night's debate:
What the hell is the matter with John McCain? Why does he keep sticking his tongue out? I don't get it. He looks like an iguana trying to catch a fly. A really old, wrinkly, grumpy iguana with a white comb-over, my friends. Did I mention that John McCain is really, really old?
Also, here's a shot from last Sunday of Obama and Joe the Plumber:
I hope I never have to hear about Joe or see his shiny, dented head ever again. And please, Obama, stop grovelling for his vote. You're going to win Ohio anyway, unless the Republicans manage to disenfranchise a bunch of voters like they're trying to do.
Just When You Thought Things Couldn't Get Even More Lowerer...
Hello everyone!
Here's an update to my post from yesterday about racism, xenophobia, and ignorance (three characteristics that go together like Snap, Crackle, and Pop). This is from Al Jazeera English, which is rapidly proving itself to be one of the best TV news agencies in the country, strangely enough, in terms of investigative journalism. Anyway, here's the clip:
I've tried to come up with a witty comment about this, but all I can bring myself to do is throw up a little bit in my mouth.
Just When You Thought Things Couldn't Get Any Lower...
Hello everyone!
It's gotten nasty. I'm talking downright, pathetically, disgustingly nasty. The bigots and racists are out in full force, and they're louder and more desperate than ever. Take a look:
Well, now it appears that McCain/Palin are so desperate that they're going for the hate vote, or at least not doing much to reject it. The one time McCain tried, his own crowd booed him.
This kind of crap inevitably ends in violence. We certainly have a history of it, particularly against people who were in favor of minority rights or at least perceived to be (JFK, RFK, MLK, etc.) It's not difficult to imagine some nutcase being convinced that Obama is going to take away his gun and then turn this country into a jihadist, Muslim paradise where people of color enslave white people. It's also not difficult to imagine this same guy being convinced that he needs to do something about it. Maybe Mr. North Vietnamese Prison and Ms. Hunting Wolves from Helicopters think that's the only way they can win, which is why they keep saying Obama "pals around with terrorists."
Well, I watched the VP debate earlier this evening with Cathy and some friends, and I have to say that both candidates were... um, prepared.
First off, America's favorite moose hunter and reader of every single newspaper, Sarah Palin, certainly did a fantastic job regurgitating stock Republican talking points, often with no rhyme or reason whatsoever, and usually about issues that had little or nothing to do with the question asked. At a few points, she basically said that she didn't want to talk about whatever the subject was, but she wanted to talk about something else (something that she was ostensibly more prepared to talk about). However, she smiled a lot and acted "spunky" and "folksy," so of course the knuckle-draggers are already proclaiming that she won. It won't be long before the establishment follows suit because if they don't, Bill O'Reilly might call them "far-left" news sources.
On the other hand, Biden talked about matters of substance and responded to the questions clearly and directly, even though I didn't agree with everything he said (clean coal, WTF?) He obviously was prepared for the debate after spending time rehearsing with Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm ahead of time. Here is an exclusive story about the practice session, complete with photos.
Oh, and Palin kept winking! What was that all about? Maybe she's making up for the fact that John McCain can't.
Did that joke go too far? Sorry, but I'm not myself these days--a year and a half of election season will do that to you when you try to keep up with it all. And although the preceding comment may some day in the future cost me a job somewhere (Google cache never lies), I refuse to censor myself! So if you don't like what I say, go f*@k yourself!
Well, it's official. Our system of electoral politics is officially a joke.
It's not like we haven't seen the signs before. But still, in this age of reality TV and celebrity paparazzi, John McCain had to do something to reclaim the spotlight after Barack Obama's acceptance speech Thursday night. And what better way to do so than to pick a running mate that nobody outside of Alaska has ever heard of? It's that old rule in showbiz: any publicity is good publicity.
I can just imagine what was going through John McCain's head: "I've got to win over some of the Hillary supporters if I stand a chance of winning. I know--I'll choose a chick as a running mate! Hey, who's that hot chick from Alaska, you know, the one who has the whole sexy librarian thing going on? Sarah What's-her-name?"
Unfortunately for McCain, he picked a "chick" who not only is anti-abortion, but is anti-abortion even cases of rape and incest. So if a woman goes for a jog in the park, gets attacked and raped, and winds up knocked up, guess what? Not only does she have to deal with the emotional trauma of the attack, but she also gets to be a mom for the next 18 years, whether she likes it or not. But hey, she was probably asking for it, right?
Also, if some 15-year-old girl gets molested by her sick and creepy father, well, Girl, You'll Be a Woman Soon. And if she's lucky, her inbred kid won't have webbed toes. Have a nice life!
Oh, and if a pregnancy turns out to threaten a woman's life, well, let's hope she's written her Final Will and Testament.
(In all fairness, Palin claims to support an exception when a woman's life is threatened, but she also is a member of Feminists for Life, a group that opposes abortion even to when the mother's life is at risk)
See this is the problem I have with absolutist thinking. People who say, "Abortion is murder, period," either do not or cannot understand that the world is not black and white, but is mostly shades of gray. Instead of trying to reduce abortions by advocating for a social safety net so that young girls who cannot raise a child on their own actually can choose to go ahead with having the baby, they'd rather just outlaw all of it while ignoring this country's history of back-alley coat hanger abortion. Of course, there's also the inherent hypocrisy of people who claim to have all sorts of concern and regard for the welfare of fetuses (all life is sacred) but none for the women in whose uteri the fetuses (feti?) develop (except for the lives of pregnant women). And don't even get me started on those who are against abortion but pro-death penalty.
Anyway, I'm sure that the Hillary supporters will just flock to McCain now. After all, the only thing that's important is that one of the people on the ticket has two X chromosomes, right?
Let's see, what some of Sarah Palin's other positions are, shall we?
She supports creationism in schools, calling it a "healthy debate." Sorry, but unprovable speculation being presented alongside scientific fact is not a "healthy debate." If I believed the Earth's core is made out of marshmallow creme, should Geology classes include my "alternative theory" alongside the "conventional theory" that the Earth's core is made primarily of molten iron and nickel? I mean, no one's actually ever been to the center of the Earth, so my theory should be just as valid, right? Or are fundamentalists the only ones allowed to have their unsubstantiated and unscientific beliefs be taught in science classes?
She's running on a campaign of ending corruption, but she's also currently being investigated by her state's Republican majority legislature for allegedly firing a police commissioner who himself refused to fire a state trooper at the request of Palin's office. "Coincidentally," said state trooper was going through a nasty divorce with Palin's sister. Oh, and the replacement commissioner that she picked? It turns out that he had been investigated and suspended for sexually harassing one of his female workers. Oops. But hey, maybe this was all just one big misunderstanding, like a Three's Company episode or something.
She's also campaigning on ending earmarks, saying that she killed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere" project. But when she originally ran for Governor, she supported it before flip-flopping once she realized that the funding wasn't there and that it was pretty unpopular.
Her solution to the energy crisis is to drill, drill, drill, even though it's common knowledge that drilling won't lower gas prices for at least 10 years, if not more. She fought against adding polar bears to the endangered species list, even though they are clearly endangered and hers is the only state that has polar bears in the wild.
On Iraq, just after she became Governor, she claimed that she hadn't "really focused much on the war in Iraq [and that she] heard on the news about the new deployments."
But aside from the fact that she's either on the wrong side or completely ignorant of nearly every issue, there's the whole "What was John McCain smoking when he chose her?"
One of the strongest arguments McCain had (in terms of effectiveness at convincing undecideds) was that Obama was inexperienced. So he goes and picks Palin? Well, what about her experience?
She became governor by beating the incumbent, Frank Murkowski, who was in the US Senate when he was elected Governor, so he appointed his own daughter to fill his Senate seat. By the time he was up for reelection, he was so unpopular and plagued with scandal that a garden gnome could have beaten him.
Before that, Palin was mayor and city council member for six and four years, respectively, of Wasilla, Alaska. Have you ever heard of it? I have. In fact, I've been there--my sister-in-law lives there--and it's a nice town. Coincidentally, I'll be there next week. Even more coincidentally, Palin was also born in Sandpoint, ID, a town in which I lived for almost eight years and where most of my family lives. But I don't see how any of this qualifies someone to be Vice President.
The above sums up her entire political experience. Unless you count her time on the local PTA, her stint as Miss Wasilla and runner-up status in the Miss Alaska beauty queen pageant, being captain of the girl's basketball team in high school, or being a local sports reporter.
So how do the McCain/Palin supporters justify the fact that she's the least qualified Vice Presidential candidate at least in recent history, if not ever? How do the McCainiacs defend this pick, especially since they've been criticizing Obama of being inexperienced? Easy. They claim she actually has more experience than Obama. They claim that she's battle-tested and Obama is a big unknown.
Now, you may be wondering how so many people can completely ignore something the rest of us call "reality." But really, has this ever stopped right-wingers before?
See, they refer to her "executive experience." See, her "executive position" as Governor of Alaska, the state with the second-lowest population in the nation, a state with less people than the city of Charlotte, NC, for less than two years qualifies her to be Vice President, while Obama's almost four years of experience in the Senate doesn't. In fact, she has more "executive experience" than Obama and Biden combined, both of whom have only served in legislative branches, and therefore are unfit to be president. I mean, history has shown that presidents with only legislative experience, such as Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy, and presidents with no prior executive experience at all, such as George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower have turned out to be horrible presidents, while our most celebrated ones were ones who actually did have prior executive experience, greats such as William Henry Harrison, Millard Fillmore, Rutherford B. Hayes, and Andrew Johnson.
What else? Well, apparently being mayor and city council member of a town of about 8,500 people (closer to 5,000 while she was there) is more appropriate experience than being in the Illinois State Senate for seven years in the wacky world of "Rightyland". Hey, I was vice president of my eighth grade class. I'm qualified to be Vice President of the US, but only as a Republican, apparently.
Also, being a self-styled "hockey mom" is ostensibly a better qualification than being a professor of constitutional law. See, she's a "regular person," the kind you'd want to have a beer with, but she's definitely not an "elitist."
Furthermore, conventional wisdom would point to her as being completely inexperienced with foreign policy. But conventional wisdom doesn't apply to McCain supporters. As Fox News helpfully points out, she has foreign policy experience because "Alaska is near Russia." I kid you not.
Now, a cynic might say I'm unfairly attacking Sarah Palin. But I think it's important to know who we're getting to fill the second most powerful position in the world, particularly when John McCain is 72-years-old and has had melanoma cancer four times. And by the way, pointing out that someone is at a higher risk of dying in the next four years is not the same as wishing it to happen. What is messed up, however, is that I have to point this out, lest someone accuses me of wanting John McCain to die. But that's where the political discourse is at these days.
I have no problem voting for a person who doesn't have a lot of political experience. Hell, the mess we're in right now was created by people who had a lot of experience. But I have a huge problem with hypocrisy. I'm also insulted that John McCain thinks that he can win over Hillary's supporters by nominating a woman. I'd be even more insulted if the voters were stupid enough to buy it. They might.
Anyway, I'm sure all of Palin's downfalls will be spun as assets by the pundits and talking heads. And when she comes across as out of her league when she debates Biden, the meme will be that Biden is a big meanie jerk who picks on poor, defenseless women. Whatever it takes to keep up the appearance of a close race, I guess.
In the meantime, I'm off to Alaska for a much-needed vacation. I wonder if this qualifies me for a cabinet position?
A statement from Detroit Pistons general manager Joe Dumars:
I wanted to say a few words about the Michigan Solution. No, not thattravesty of justice. I'm talking about a fair, common-sense resolution of the Eastern Conference Finals.
Some in the media are declaring the series over because the Boston Celtics have won four of the six games played so far. But I don’t understand why, with a series this close and hotly contested, anyone would want to shut it down before we play a seventh game and have all the results in. As anybody who follows the NBA knows, a seven-game series would be good for the league, and the added competition would make the eventual victor, whomever it might be, a stronger opponent against the Los Angeles Lakers in the Finals.
It’s no great surprise that some are trying to push us out of this series. From the beginning, it’s been clear that the media and league elites have been looking for an exciting new face, instead of a team, like ours, that has proven its mettle by making it to the Conference Finals six years in a row. We saw it in the Western Conference as well, where officials and news outlets made clear they were sick to death of the reigning champion San Antonio Spurs and behaved like cheerleaders for the media-darling Lakers. Heck, they almost managed to persuade fans that a hokey, small-town act like the New Orleans Hornets was a legitimate contender. It is safe to say that this has been the most rigged coverage in modern sports history.
But back to the series in question. Yes, Boston has won four games and Detroit only two. But it's hard to imagine a more arbitrary and undemocratic way to determine this series’s outcome than "games won." It is, after all, a bedrock value of the game of basketball that all points must be counted. But how can that be the case when every point beyond the winning point is ignored? There are literally dozens of layups, jumpers, free throws, and (yes, even) dunks that our opponents want to say don't count for anything at all. We call on the NBA to do the right thing and fully count all of the baskets that were made throughout the course of this series.
Once you abandon the artificial four-games-to-two framework that the media has tried to impose on the series, a very different picture emerges, with the Celtics leading by a mere 549 points to 539. Yes that’s right, the margin between the two teams is less than one percent—a tie, for all intents and purposes. This is probably the closest Conference Finals in NBA history, though I will thank you not to check on that.
How do we determine a winner in a series so historically close? First off, let's look at these so-called "free" throws, which are anything but. Who decides when these are to be awarded? Hard-working working-people like you and me? No, it's the officials, the league bosses, the elites. So no counting the free throws--unless and until (and I sincerely hope you guys are listening) the refs start breaking our way again. (By the way, you guys do know that Celts star Paul Pierce was involved in a stabbing a few years back, right? I only mention it because Phil Jackson is obviously going to bring it up in the Finals.)
If you take out free throws, Boston's ten-point margin in the series is whittled down to a single-digit, all-but-meaningless nine points. But this is still misleading. Let's be honest: We all know that some baskets count for more than others. (Yes, I know I was arguing for equal representation two seconds ago. What are you, Encyclopedia Brown? Chill out and try to stay current.) Take layups, for example: If you wander naively into the Finals thinking you’re going to win with layups, well don’t come crying to me when Kobe Bryant swats that lameass shit right back in your face. I know. I've been there.
So let's get right down to it: Big shots matter. It makes no difference when they happen, or who's leading at the time, or whether you're likely to make them against the Lakers, or any of that complicated nonsense. And we all know that the only real big shot is a three-pointer. So sure, Boston won more games than us, and scored more points, and made more baskets, and hit more free throws, and never tried to rewrite the rules after the fact. But we dominated them in three-point shooting, hitting 29 long ones to their 26 over the course of the series. Take this into account and it becomes apparent that we are by far the strongest competitor the Eastern Conference can field against the Lakers.
We again ask the league to consider all these facts and come to a fair solution. I’ll be holding a press conference at the Palace tonight, to which I’m inviting all Pistons season-ticket holders. I may announce our intention to drop out of the Eastern Conference Finals. Or I may not. But know one thing: If the media and league elites put the Celtics up against LA, they will lose, and we’ll be the first to say I told you so.
See you next season,
Joe Dumars (as told to Christopher Orr)
Oh well, I guess it's all a moot point anyway. I'm just glad we're finally done with this crap. Onward to stage 2: kicking some Maverick ass!
These days, it's really easy to compile a list of reasons to vote for someone. It's also easy to compile a list of reasons to not vote for someone. But I've discovered it's a bit challenging to compile a list of stupid reasons to not vote for someone! Yet that's what I did. So without any further ado, here is my list of 10 stupid reasons to not vote for Barack Obama:
Reason #1: He's a Muslim!
No he's not. But the bigger question is "So what if he was?" The assumption here is that Muslim=evil or Islam=terrorist.
I won't even get into whether or not Islam is evil because it's a stupid argument. If you think the whole religion is any more evil than any other religion, or that its followers are inherently evil, then you're blinded by your beliefs and are incapable of rational thought, and you might as well stop reading this. I'm sorry, but this whole "My God is better than yours argument" is idiotic, and it only leads to lots of dead people. You can believe all you want, but you don't know, and so it's stupid to argue about it. Even stupider is to make blanket statements about all the followers of a particular religion, especially when your religion has no shortage of skeletons in its closet. This is why I'm fanatically agnostic.
As far as equating Islam to terrorism, that's a fair comparison, but only if you ignore all the non-Muslim terrorists in recent history, such as the IRA, abortion clinic bombers, Timothy McVeigh, so-called eco-terrorists, Ted Kaczynski, the CIA, the Chinese government, the Soviets, etc.
But then there's the whole illogic of equating the actions of a few to an entire religion.
I know some people would say that there are more than a few. Well, think about this for a moment. There are about 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide, give or take a few hundred million. That's 1,500,000,000 people. Compare that with the population of Phoenix, AZ, which is about 1.5 million, or 1,500,000 people. If there were 1.5 million Muslim terrorists worldwide (there is no way to come up with a number, but still, this is an insanely huge number, and I really doubt it's anywhere near this high under most definitions), that would still only be 1 of every 1,000 Muslims, or less than 0.1%. Put it this way: it's about 1,000 miles from Chicago to Denver. Only one mile would be the "terrorist mile". So it's hardly fair to assume every follower of Islam is a terrorist, unless you're an ignorant, reactionary idiot.
Now, that's not to say that 1.5 million terrorists couldn't cause a whole lot of damage (and they aren't, which is why I think this number is way too high). But if you had to fight them, wouldn't you rather have the other 1,498,500,000 on your side?
Moreover, the definition of terrorist is so vague that anyone can be called a terrorist. I'm sure I could be called one simply for writing this blog. But don't worry, you're reading it, so that makes you a terrorist, too.
Regardless, none of this has anything to do with Barack Obama, so let's move on.
Reason #2: He was raised in a Muslim terrorist madrassa!
Wrong again. I've already talked about the Muslim-terrorist claim. As for the bogus madrassa claim, my guess is that a vast majority of people who keep repeating this have no idea what a madrassa is. I didn't until I first heard this.
I suppose "madrassa" is a scary foreign-sounding word to some. But really, madrassa (madrasah) is simply the Arabic word for school. But I could see how people who are afraid of foreign-sounding words that they don't understand would also be afraid of school, or at least education.
But I guess if you're a complete moron, you can buy the line of reasoning that forty years ago, some grade school teachers somewhere in Indonesia concocted this great plan to select one of their students to be a sort of Manchurian Candidate who would one day become President of the United States so that he could singlehandedly destroy the whole country and convert us, as well as the whole Western World, into a bunch of freedom-hating Muslims. You'd also have to believe that they then thought, "You know, this plan is too easy. Instead of having a white guy with a name like John Smith, let's choose a black man named Barack Hussein Obama! They'll never suspect him!"
Of course, this also supposes that our country is so fragile that one guy can tear it all apart without any trouble. I guess if you have a low enough opinion of this country, you might think that. But that would mean you hate America.
Now I know some people might ask, "Hey, isn't one guy singlehandedly destroying this country right now?" No, he isn't. He hashadlotsof help.
Anyway, let's move on to reason #3.
Reason #3a: But he's Muslim! Look at his middle name: Hussein! What does that tell you?
...and...
Reason #3b: But he's Muslim! Look at his last name: Obama! You know, it sounds like Osama! What does that tell you?
Nothing. Neither tells me anything. And it shouldn't tell anyone else anything, either. Shall we play, "What's in a name?"
Joseph Lieberman and Joseph Biden would be horrible choices for president because their name is Joseph, and we all know Joseph Stalin was one of the most brutal dictators in history. Therefore, Lieberman and Biden would become dictators if elected president.
John McCain, John F. Kennedy, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, John Tyler, John Edwards, John Kerry, John Negroponte, Andrew Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson, John Lennon, Johnny Carson, Johnny Cash, Johnny Rotten, Johnny Walker, John Deere, Elton John, Johnson & Johnson, Trapper John, MD, Johns Hopkins, and Olivia Newton-John are all unqualified to be president because they all have "John" as part of their name. Who can forget another "John", John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated Abraham Lincoln. You wouldn't want to vote for someone with connections to a notorious assassin, would you?
Hillary Clinton is out of the question, too. Look at her initials: H.C. You know who else had H.C. in his initials? H.C.M., aka Ho Chi Minh, that's who. And Rodham? That's like Rodman, as in Dennis Rodman, the cross-dressing basketball player. And if that weren't enough, "Hillary" starts with an "H", and so does "Hitler". That would make her a cross-dressing, VietCong, Nazi secret agent! Well, your secret is out, Hitlery Nguyen Rodman Clinton!
Reason #4: Obama associates with people who hate America! That means he hates America!
Oh, brother. I have friends who used to do a lot of meth. Does that mean I used to do a lot of meth? I have friends who are gay. Does that mean I'm gay? I have friends who have been in jail. Does that make me a criminal? I associate with many women. Does that make me a woman?
Note: I'm not equating being gay and/or being a woman to doing a lot of meth and/or being a criminal. They're just all things I can't say about myself.
Then there's the whole exaggeration or complete misrepresentation of what was said in the first place. Here's a good comparison of the sound bites and the context of what Jeremiah Wright said. I mean really, he never said anything that was untrue. But I guess a loud, angry black man is too scary to some people. We can also get into whether or not the guy truly hates America, but then we'd have to look at his military service history in Vietnam and how he attended to Lyndon B. Johnson after the president had surgery, and that wouldn't make for a good sound clip.
At the same time as all of this, John McCain was endorsed by John Hagee, a guy who essentially said that New Orleans got what it deserved in Hurricane Katrina because of gays. I guess "God damn New Orleans" is OK, but "God damn America" is not. Either way, hardly anyone is saying McCain is unfit to be president because he sought out Hagee's endorsement, though that could be because there are plenty of other reasons McCain is unfit to be president.
Or there's Pat Robertson, a guy who agreed with another nutcase, Jerry Falwell, when two days after 9/11 he said, "I really believe that the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way, all of them who try to secularize America...I point the thing in their face and say you helped this happen." Robertson also called for Hugo Chavez's assassination. He endorsed Rudy Giuliani, but nobody blamed Giuliani for it.
These televangelist types are doing a great job at arguing for a separation of church and state, though I doubt that's what they have in mind.
Reason #5: But Rev. Wright is his "spiritual adviser"!
In order to believe this means anything, one must first have to be so ignorant to not know what the word "adviser" means. The word adviser means, "One who advises, or one who gives advice." It does not mean, "One who brainwashes." I can understand why there would be a mix up since it does involve religion, an institution whose leaders have been known from time to time to try to brainwash its followers.
Nevertheless, the idea that Obama naturally agrees with everything Jeremiah Wright says is bunk, especially given that Obama has clearly on a number of occasions come out and said he disagreed with many of the things Wright said.
None of this matters anymore, anyhow, since Obama left his church this weekend.
Reason #6: Obama doesn't put his hand on his heart during the National Anthem and refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance!
Sigh.
This is based on one photo that appeared in Time magazine. Here's video of the "offending" incident:
So instead of putting his hand on his heart, he sings along. What an America-hater! Too bad he didn't sing louder in order to drown out that awful-sounding woman with a microphone.
Was he "supposed to" put his hand over his heart? According to USflag.org (yes, there is such a site):
During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Men not in uniform should remove their headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, the hand being over the heart.
Well, there you go. Since they didn't remove their "headdress", I say they're all guilty of hating America. Except Hillary and that other woman as the rule apparently only applies to men.
Oh, and here's some video that I copied and pasted from snopes.com of Obama leading the Pledge of Allegiance in the Senate. Notice the hand over heart:
Ah, but who cares about the truth when there are plenty of half-truths to go around?
Reason #7: Obama clearly hates America. This is why he refuses to wear a flag pin!
Good! The flag pin was most likely made in China!
Frankly, I think we've had way too much of this bogus, superficial patriotism and not enough real concern and care for this country. Anyone can wear a pin or put a magnetic ribbon on an SUV (one of the most unintentionally ironic statements a person can make), but instead of hollow gestures, maybe we should try doing something that actually helps the country, such as providing health care, working to pay off our national debt, or simply not fighting unnecessary wars.
Reason #8: Michelle Obama clearly hates America. She said she was proud of America "for the first time." I've always been proud of America!
Really? You've always been proud of America? Were you proud when we were committing genocide against native people? Were you proud when slavery was legal and blacks were considered 3/5 of a person for congressional representational purposes? Were you proud when we had segregation? How about when we passed the Chinese Exclusion Act? Or when we interned Japanese-Americans during World War II? What about when we dropped two nuclear bombs (the only country to ever do so) on Japan, or when we firebombed and leveled German cities? Were you proud of that? Or does that not count because it was a long time ago?
How about more recently? Are you proud that we started detaining prisoners Soviet-style: overseas, indefinitely, and without charging them with a crime? Are you proud when thousands of people were dying in New Orleans during Katrina while the president laughed and strummed a guitar? How about when the previous president was impeached because he lied about having receiving sex? Or how about when the two presidents before him authorized arming Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?
Mentioning any of this does not mean a person hates the America. Nor does it mean that a person is not proud. But if we ever want this country to get better, we first have to come to terms with the fact that we're not perfect. If this country were a person, it would be a John Wayne-type character, strutting around completely oblivious to its faults, which everyone else can clearly see.
No, it's not hate if you believe the country can do better and expect it to do so.
Reason #9: He has no foreign policy experience!
Well, how well do people with foreign policy experience stack up?
Dick Cheney: Assistant to the President and then White House Chief of Staff under Ford, five terms as US Representative At-Large from Wyoming, House Minority Whip, Secretary of Defense under Bush I, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Halliburton, Vice President under Bush II, shot a guy in the face.
Donald Rumsfeld: Four terms as US Representative from Illinois's 13th district, Director of the United States Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, White House Chief of Staff and then US Secretary of Defense under Ford, Special Envoy to the Middle East under Reagan, Secretary of Defense again under Bush II, Architect of the Iraq Quagmire, used a machine to sign letters of condolences to families of soldiers killed in said quagmire, resigned in disgrace in 2006.
Hillary Clinton: Former First Lady, twice elected as US Senator from New York, imagined gunfire during visit to Bosnia. Oh wait, maybe she didn't imagine it:
Anyway, with these kinds of results from experienced people, I'll think I'll take my chances with the new guy.
Reason #10: We don't know anything about him!
Two words: Goo-gle!
Well, I hope you find this list of reasons not to vote for Obama useful in your voting decisions. Vote early and often!
Have you ever heard of Liz Trotta? If you're reading this within a few minutes of me posting it, probably not. But I predict everyone will know who she is soon. Why? Only because of this:
Wow. Joking about assassinating Obama? Aren't jokes supposed to be funny?
It was bad enough when Hillary Clinton brought up the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, a young, charismatic presidential candidate who had locked up the Democratic Party nomination just before being shot--and whose similarly young and charismatic brother John was also shot a few years earlier after actually being elected president--oh, and whose other brother was diagnosed with a potentially life-threatening ailment the same week she made the comment--not to mention Obama himself, who had secret service protection earlier than any other presidential candidate due to death threats beginning the day he announced his candidacy almost a year and a half ago.
Wait, where was I?
Oh yeah, some Fox News host made a joke about assassinating Obama. That's messed up! What did she say? According to the Daily Kos:
"and now we have what ... uh...some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama ...uh..um..Obama [after being prompted by the FNC anchor]....well both if we could [laughing]"
Ha-ha! Somebody should "knock off" Osama and Obama! I mean, their names sound the same, am I right? But only "if we could!" Hardy-hardy-har-har-har!
Sheesh, that's messed up. Let's watch the video:
Hmm. Did I hear that right? I don't know about you, but it sounded like she said, "well both, which we could."
Well that doesn't matter--"if" and "which" mean the same thing, right? Well, "if" is a subordinating conjunction and "which" is a relative pronoun (Who says you can't learn anything from my blog?). But that's just a bunch of stupid grammar talk, isn't it? Really, Liz Trotta, an experienced journalist who was apparently one of the first women to cover the Vietnam War, just decided to go batshit on national TV and make a joke about the assassination of a US Presidential candidate.
At first, I was cynical enough to believe it, particularly since it was Fox News. Yes, this is how bad our government and news media has gotten--that it's completely believable that someone would go on national TV and joke about killing someone, especially a Democratic candidate who is inspiring record turnout.
But then there was the grammar tutor section of my brain that kept going back and forth:
If.
Which.
If.
Which.
And I couldn't stop going back to that quote and thinking, "Both, which we could."
Wait, does that mean they could assassinate both Obama and Osama? Who does this lady work for? Who the hell is "we"?
None of this made any sense.
Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are organizations that could assassinate both of them within a few hours notice if they wanted. But I doubt some has-been journalist working on Fox Cable News during Memorial Day weekend is part of any of those. And if she was, I'm sure she'd know well enough to shut up about it.
Let's look at the whole quote again, this time with "which" instead of "if":
"and now we have what ... uh...some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama ...uh..um..Obama ....well both, which we could."
"We could" what? Where else is there a "we" in that quote?
"we have what ... uh...some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama ...uh..um..Obama"
Hmm.
How about this. Perhaps she's suggesting that "we could have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off both." But I have no idea what that means. It's too convoluted.
What else is it that "we could" do?
Maybe we could read what Hillary said as "a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama ...uh..um..Obama."
Let me repeat that without the name screw up: We could read what Hillary said as "a suggestion that somebody knock off Obama."
Here's the quote one more time with "which":
"and now we have what ... uh...some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama ...uh..um..Obama ....well both, which we could."
Maybe she just felt like an idiot for confusing "Obama" with "Osama," and so she tried to cover but only made things worse. It would be nice if we had the full segment to get a bit of context. Hey, look:
What do you know, she's being very critical of Hillary, especially for her even bringing up RFK's assassination. In fact, besides the name screw-up, she didn't even mention Obama at all other than in the context of what Clinton said.
After the fact, the other guy, whatever his name is, says, "Talk about how you really feel." This could be because he thinks she wants Obama to be assassinated. Or perhaps, maybe he was simply referring to how critical of Clinton Trotta was. But we don't get to see that in the short clip, do we?
Look, I'm the last person to defend Fox News, but I think this thing is blown completely out of proportion. As of 1:19 am PST (wow, I need to get to sleep) there were 1337 comments on the original Daily Kos post about this. I didn't read them all, but there was no sign of anyone saying, "Settle down, everyone." So I'll say it here, "Settle down, everyone!"
After seeing both clips multiple times, I am convinced that this woman was not advocating, nor was she even joking about the assassination of Barack Obama. Yet I have not come across another single person on the Internet during the past six hours who is saying that. That scares the crap out of me. Is there something wrong with my hearing, or is everyone else hearing what they want to hear?
Our country has a nasty history of assassination, yet we bury our collective heads in the sand, saying, "It can't happen here." Think about this: there are piddly ass countries, such as ones in Africa, where there are no natural resources to speak of, where it's almost impossible to grow crops because each year it rains for three months straight and then doesn't rain again for nine months, where AIDS and starvation run rampant, but people are still willing to kill each other in order to take charge of that shithole. Yet somehow we think it's impossible that someone might entertain the notion of committing murder in order to take charge of the most powerful country on Earth? Hell, there are some neighborhoods where people are willing to kill you for the rims on your car. There are even areas will people will kill you because you're gay. So really, is it that much of a stretch to think someone would kill (or hire someone to kill) in order to become President of the United States?
It's natural to get emotionally charged whenever someone brings up assassination, particularly when it's directed toward someone we're rooting for. But when we start seeing things that aren't there and we get all wound up over it--well, that's dangerous. We become hysterical and reactionary.
Of course, that's the whole point, isn't it? That's when you get people posting this reporter's home phone number and address on the YouTube message boards, and well-meaning people suddenly look like crazed lunatics to those who don't share their beliefs. If you can blame a candidate for his pastor's words, surely you can blame a candidate for his supporters' actions.
I'm not offended by what Liz Trotta said--I'm offended that a news show dedicated a whole segment to discuss the implication of one presidential candidate insinuating that she should stay in the race in the event that the other candidate is assassinated. No, actually, I'm offended that one candidate even mentioned the word "assassinated" in the first place.
I don't blame Liz Trotta for this. I don't even blame Fox News for this. There's only one person I blame for starting this whole conversation. One person who needs to do a whole lot of repenting or she will never, ever get my vote for anything, ever:
Barack Obama came back to Eugene last Friday. He did an outdoor gig at UO. Before they started letting people into the gated off speech area, I spent my time talking to people in line about Steve Novick while my friend Kate held a spot for me.
Eventually, they started letting people inside and we found a great spot off to the side on a little hill where we could see the stage just fine.
The problem with having a good spot, however, is that everyone else thinks it's a good spot.
It still wasn't that bad, though. When the picture taking, hat-wearing ponytail lady didn't have her hands in the air, I could see just fine between her and leather jacket dude. That is, until hat guy moved in.
What is it with people wearing hats? They always want to stand right in front of me--the bigger the hat, the more in my way they like to be.
But even hat guy ain't got nothin' compared to hoodie-boy and Ohio Buckeye head who decided at the last minute to squeeze between hat-wearing ponytail lady and leather jacket dude and me.
Incidentally, there was no room between hat-wearing ponytail lady and leather jacket dude and me to fit any more people. But that didn't stop them from trying.
Eventually, it got dark and some of the people in front of me either left or found another short person to stand in front of. But then it was dark, so I still couldn't see much. Anyhow, there's Obama:
I'm sure nobody tuned in to look at the back of people's heads, so here's a video clip of the speech. And if you look closely at about 0:58 remaining, you might see my friend Silver in the crowd. He's the one wearing a UO cap.
Well, that's about it. He came, he said some inspirational stuff, and then he left. If he comes to your town, do yourself a favor. Go hear him speak. He's definitely worth having one of your friends wait in line for three hours so you can get in.
I'm going to be busy up through the May 20 primaries, and then I'll have 3 papers due the Tuesday after Memorial Day. So I might not be blogging very much for the next couple of weeks. But that's a good thing, though. You should go outside and enjoy the nice weather we're supposed to be having. I'll be back soon enough, and I'm planning a posting about men with large trucks and small penises.
It's time to play your favorite game, The Fox is Wrong!
It's not that I'm surprised that TV news talking heads are full of bullshit. What surprises me is how full of bullshit they are. How do they cram so much utter bullshit into one business suit and then coat it with hairspray and makeup before it's time to go on the air? Do the talking heads gobble the bullshit, or do the news execs cram it down their throats? Wonders never cease.
Whichever the case, there's no bullshit shortage, and so they can spew it all over the place once they go on TV. Which is why I don't watch them. It's too bad there are those who do and actually think they're informed.
Even worse are the fanatics. These people remind me of the hanger-ons who would follow around the high school bully, laugh at every stupid thing he said, and pretend to like him so he wouldn't pick on them. They think politics and public policy is a sport, and they think the loud, ex-football player has a better shot at winning against those smart types.
Speaking of smart types, have you seen Steve Novick's new ad? Well, here it is:
Here are his others if you haven't seen them:
If you live in Oregon, you have until April 29 to register as a Democrat to vote for Steve!
OK, I swear this is the last time I'm going to do this. Unless, I decide to do this again, of course.
Once again, Hunter at the Daily Kos hit one out of the park with his latest blog posting. It's like I'm beginning to develop a man-crush on this blogger, to the point that I'm creeping myself out a bit. Still, his (her?) postings kick several different types of ass, so here they are. The latest is about the sham of a debate that aired last night, which if you haven't heard, consisted of questions about Rev. Wright, flag pins, and other bogus non-issues while really, really, reallyimportantstuff was ignored. Anyway, here's the posting:
After the first forty minutes of last night's Democratic debate, it was clear we were watching something historic. Not historic in a good way, mind you, but historic in the sense of being something so deeply embarrassing to the nation that it will be pointed to, in future books and documentary works, as a prime example of the collapse of the American media into utter and complete substanceless, into self-celebrated vapidity, and into a now-complete inability or unwillingness to cover the most important affairs of the nation to any but the most shallow of depths.
Congratulations are clearly in order. ABC had two hours of access to two of the three remaining candidates vying to lead the most powerful nation in the world, and spent the decided majority of that time mining what the press considers the true issues facing the republic. Bittergate; Rev. Wright; Bosnia; American flag lapel pins. That's what's important to the future of the country.
What a contrast. Only a few weeks ago, we were presented with what was considered by many to be a historic speech by a presidential candidate on race in America -- historic for its substance, tone, delivery, and stark candor. Last night, we had an opposing, equally historic example -- and I sincerely mean that, I consider it to be every bit as significant as that word implies -- of the collapse of the political press into self-willed incompetence. You might as well pull any half-intelligent person off the street, and they would unquestionably have more difficult and significant questions for the two candidates. It was not merely a momentarily bad performance, by ABC, it was a debate explicitly designed to be what it was, which is far more telling.
It is certainly true that a case could be made that the moderators explicitly set out to frame even the supposedly "substantive" questions according to GOP designs. The implicit presumption of success in Iraq when, nearly an hour into the debate, the moderators finally deigned to mention the defining current event of this campaign. Gibson, as moderator, lied outright about the supposed effects of capital gains tax cuts, and dogged the candidates over it to a greater extent than any other economic issue: does he really believe that of all the economic challenges facing this nation, the most pressing of them is supplication towards a decade-long Republican bugaboo? Gun control? Affirmative action? These are the issues that are most compellingly on the minds of Democratic primary voters, in 2008? Or were the questions taken from a 1992 time capsule, insightful probes gathering dust for a decade and a half until they could find network moderators desperate enough to dig them up again?
But even slanted questions could be forgiven, of the press; what was more inexplicable was the intentional wallowing in substanceless, meaningless "gaffe" politics. It says something truly impressive about the press that a few statements by a presidential candidate's preacher bear far more weight to the future of our nation than the challenges of terrorism or war. It is truly a celebration of our own national collapse into idiocracy that we can furrow our brows and question the patriotism of a candidate, deeply probe their patriotism based on whether or not they regularly don a made-in-China American flag pin, but a substantive discussion of energy policy, or healthcare, or the deficit, or the housing crisis, or global climate change, or the government approval of torture, or trade issues, or the plight of one-industry small American towns, or the fight over domestic espionage and FISA, or the makeup of the Supreme Court -- those were of no significance, in comparison.
If a media organization set out to intentionally demonstrate themselves to be self absorbed and ignorant, they could not have accomplished it better. It was not just a tabloid debate, but the tittering of political kindergardeners making and lobbing mud pies. It was politics as game show. The moderators demonstrated that to them and their supposed "news" organization, the presidency of the United States of America is about the trivialities of_politics_, which were obsessed over ravenously, not about the challenges of American governance, which were fully ignored.
Certainly, as mere citizens we could ask little of the network that unapologetically brought us The Path to 9/11, a fabricated conservative pseudo-documentary laying the blame for terrorism at the feet of everyone loathed by the far right. But it is not simply ABC that bears the blame: surely, one could expect similar drivel from any of the other networks or cable channels who have so successfully and self-importantly dimmed the national discourse, these past ten years. For his part, the chairman of the written intellectual wisp, the New York Times' David Brooks, marveled at the "excellent" questions:
We may not like it, but issues like Jeremiah Wright, flag lapels and the Tuzla airport will be important in the fall. Remember how George H.W. Bush toured flag factories to expose Michael Dukakis. It’s legitimate to see how the candidates will respond to these sorts of symbolic issues.
Indeed, how dare his peon readers whine about these things: this is how the political game is expected to be played by the grand masters of our discourse. Symbolic tours of flag factories! Checkmate! That is the elite idea of "issues" in our national debate. Piss on the war, and screw the economy -- somebody find a goddamn flag factory to tour! That is how our most elite media figures like to see political opponents "exposed" as... well, what exactly? What does touring a flag factory prove, other than the media in this country is so astonishingly gullible, tin-headed and shallow that you can actually tour a damn flag factory and get praised for it by our idiot press as being a bold, disarming move against your opponent?
Truly, we have become a nation led by the most lazy and ignorant. It seems impossible to mock or satirize just how shallowly the media considers the actual world ramifications of each election, how glancingly they explore the actual truth behind political assertion or rhetoric, or how gleefully they molest our discourse while praising themselves for those selfsame acts. And that, in turn, is precisely how we elected our current Idiot Boy King, a man who has the eloquent demeanor of a month-old Christmas tree and the nuance of a Saturday morning cartoon.
It seems impossible, but we may yet have an election season in which we can be in a slogging, five-year-long war, and mention the fact only in glancing asides. We may yet have a series of Republican-Democratic debates in which the most pressing issues of the economy are entirely ignored, so that we can more adequately explore the "patriotism" of the candidates as expressed by their clothing. We may have yet another campaign season carefully orchestrated to leave all but the most glancing and hollow of themes untouched, while our press achieves multiple orgasms at every botched line, every refused cup of coffee, every peddled character assassination or character assassination-by-proxy peddled by the sleaziest of paid dregs. A campaign, in other words, perfectly suited to the bereft, rudderless, and substanceless self-pronounced guardians of our democracy.
Perhaps, if nothing else, it is time to take back the debate process and insist once again on moderators chosen for competence, expertise and neutrality, rather than network or cable network fame. The elites of our press have managed to botch the task time and time again; perhaps it should be left to someone with an actual interest in doing the job.
There you go. When we vote for people based on something their pastor said or based on whether or not they wear flag pins or whether they drink orange juice instead of coffee, we're screwed. Without the right kind of information and knowledge, our democracy can't work. And that's why I blog. Fortunately, stealing from others is one way to blog.
