the emperor of the persistent vegetative states
2 weeks ago
Friday, March 25, 2005
It's Who You Believe (or, Everything I Ever Needed to Know I Learned in Debate Club, Part I)
by Christopher Dash
The Schiavo case and the media feeding tube frenzy have profound relationships to deep currents in American and western politics and culture. Those who see it in terms of the rise of populism (as in John Lukacs'new book) or as an American analogy to Germany between the world wars, or even as a symptom of the implosion of western civilization in a clearly apocalyptic age, all have good evidence here for how this fits into their theories.
But let's talk for a moment on the level of personal experience, in a way that relates this case to the whole faith-based versus reality-based model of where we in the red and blue states of America are today.
These days I have many occasions to recall my thoughts and feelings as a high school student, when I began getting involved in the theory and practice of debating. U.S. high schools participate in a national system of debate competitions, which pit teams from one school against those of another, in debates on the same topic all year. (In my two years of debating, the topics were trade---the proposition would be today couched as an expanded NAFTA---and universal health care.)
Two person debate teams engage teams from other schools in their district just about every week, with a series of "finals" that lead to the national finals in the spring. At least this is how it was in the 1960s, when I moved up from Extemporaneous Speech ("extemp") competition to debate.
In extemp preparation, we learned about sources and facts, and how to use them in a speech. In debate, our sources and facts as well as our arguments were subject to question by the other team. So you had to examine evidence carefully, as your opponent would as well as how it helped you make your case. Since you debated the same proposition all year, using phony information or even an indefensible interpretation of the information, seldom worked for very long. Word got around, and sooner or later the other team would call you out on it.
The best "evidence" was from sources considered objective, arrived at by a legitimate process you could describe. (A study of x thousand people over x years, etc. by prestigious or at least reputable organization.)
In cross-examination and argument against the opponent's case, one basic debate tactic was to question your opponent's information. Was it someone's opinion only, or was it asserted to be fact? In either case, you questioned the source. "What's your source?" became the standard cross-examination question. You asked it when you suspected they didn't have a specific source, or if you already knew something about that source. How effectively you could describe the bias of the source was a key tactic. Was their self-interest involved? Ideology? A pattern of misstating facts, or giving a biased interpretation of their meaning?
The issue was credibility. If the underlying facts supporting the argument weren't credible, or at least questionable, it weakened the argument, often fatally.
If the source was good, you could argue intepretation or relevance. But credibility of the information was essential.
But there was another feature of this high school debate system that I believe pertains. We were expected to be able to debate on both sides of the debate question. As I recall, we learned which side we were to defend at the same time as we learned who and where we were debating on any given day, perhaps just minutes before the debate would start.
I still remember the blizzard of emotions I felt when I first faced this situation. If I truly believed in universal health care, how could I argue against it? That is, if the facts convinced me, how could I use those or other facts to argue against it? How could I be a convincing hypocrite?
I solved this for myself in various ways, but mostly by using a feature of the debate system: you could attack the opponent's plan for universal health care without attacking the need for universal health care, for example. But I'm bringing this up now because of the feelings all of this created.
Part of the impact of this idea stemmed from the insecurity of opening yourself to be convinced by facts and arguments. As a debater, I could not rely on received opinion. I had to argue the merits of a proposition, to convince someone else. We learned that especially in a democracy, the right to argue your case meant the responsibility to take arguments seriously.
So outside of the debate realm, I was face to face with the insecurity of opening myself to be convinced by facts and arguments. There were times I heard or read arguments that were persuasive, even seductive, and also wrong. The facts were inaccurate, or interpreted inaccurately, or just organized in a seductive way to come to a conclusion I knew was wrong. But sometimes I could not articulate what was wrong with the argument. Perhaps the facts were out of my realm of experience---scientific facts, for example, which I had no way of evaluating.
But what if I was fooled by them into some terrible mistake? What if the arguments convinced me because I wasn't smart enough, or didn't know enough, to see their flaws? Or I was seduced by the arguer, by an attractive, witty, overwhelmingly erudite Satan with the power to assume a pleasing shape?
This was a profound question, especially since I was a student in a Catholic High School. We were always being warned about the temptations to fall into "error," and the insidious methods of unbelievers, Communists, secularists and heretics of other religions. They were "devilishly" clever and knew every human weakness. What if I became convinced of something that ran counter to the accepted truth of my Church, as well as my community?
I was more than a little bit of a rebel, and I despised hypocrisy. Though I still considered myself a Catholic then, I had a fairly sophisticated approach to what that meant. But I felt the basic fears: not only for my immortal soul being in the balance (though I believed in the primacy of conscience), or even of further ostracism, but of being misled, and misleading myself. Since I was already questioning authority as the final basis for belief, I was left only with my own devices. What if I was wrong?
We are dealing with a lot of emotions here. When we are presented with an argument, for or against, of any consequence, they all come into play. Let's start with my bottom line: what if I was wrong?
Haven't you ever experienced that fear, of feeling yourself being convinced by an argument or a person, against judgments and commitments you've made already, perhaps all your life? Haven't you felt a little dissociated, like the ground beneath your feet is moving or has disappeared?
Maybe you've had a "conversion experience": after being raised in a particular religion or with particular beliefs, or with particular racial or class views, something stirred you up, and over time, you changed. Can you recall how difficult that was? How confusing, and how threatening it might have felt at some point in the process?
It is most pronounced in the most important issues, which touch upon a conflict of values. I remember wrestling with my feelings and beliefs on nuclear disarmament. Yes, nuclear weapons must be abolished. But is unilateral disarmament the answer, or is it criminal negligence, inviting the very catastrophe we wanted to avoid?
How do we make these decisions? Often in debate and in life, it is based on "who's your source?" The credibility of sources, of the person you believe.
That credibility is not based solely on credentials. It's based at least partly on feelings, and that seems to me to be universal. Even if the fact that your source is a scientist who uses good scientific standards: if you believe in that kind of knowledge, don't you get a good feeling when you see the method, the evidence and hear it from someone you respect because he or she adheres to those standards? You have confidence in those findings, and there is emotion attached.
If someone is credible on one issue, we feel more confident in listening closely to what they say on others, with a predisposition to believe them. How many people who admire Howard Zinn or Arundhati Roy will fact check everything they say? Who has the time, let alone the inclination? You might check trusted journals or blogsites for a critique, but you already trust those places.
If an organization employs standards we believe lead to good facts and conclusions based on them, we don't necessarily examine their evidence and methodology closely on every case. We tend to believe them, until someone else we consider credible calls their assertions into question. We rely on credibility.
But the feelings of being able to rely on credibility also have to do with our lives. We rely on the credibility of our parents during our childhoods, and much of typical teenage outrage and rebelliousness comes from the sudden realization that just because our parents are right about some things, they aren't necessarily right about everything. We feel betrayed. That feeling gets repeated in different contexts.
We all live in contexts, and we depend on our families, churches, schools, workplaces and communities to support our very existence within this society. If we stray too far outside their purview, we risk becoming nonpersons. Few people, especially in an overcrowded society as competitive as this one, can afford to lose their membership in whatever cultural context they find themselves, certainly by adulthood. The people around us have a powerful credibility, because to not believe them is to put our survival in jeopardy.
There's no big secret as to why people live and work where others are like-minded. If their views are not culturally acceptable and generally held where they are, they tend to go where they and their way of looking at the world is shared. So the red states are getting redder, the blue places bluer. Why? It's not just comfort level. If we stay where we are not accepted, we are in fear of our survival---both as the persons we think ourselves to be, and as legitimate citizens of this society, that is, not homeless hobos. We fear that our lives are meaningless.
Even if we believe what those around us believe,we might fear that we will give in to temptations and pressures, and we will lose everything. All of this makes the people who support us, or who seem to support us, very credible.
Now place all this in our national context. From my point of view, political leadership has ranged from inadequate to quite wrong and even, I would say, effectively evil, for most of my life. There have been bright spots now and again, and I found champions and exemplars of my ideals, principles and commitments, some of whom of course helped form these ideas and commitments. There were people and sources that as far as I was concerned were reliably credible. When something was asserted that surprised me, coming from a source I didn't know, I could wait until it was vetted by people or institutions I trusted.
For most of my life, I felt that the major news organizations were basically committed to objective reporting, if often wrong on particular subjects, and biased in favor of "establishment" points of view. But I had confidence in their responsibility to check facts, question sources, and report fully on both, and eventually to get it right. In many situations, I found them credible.
So there were two major sources of credibility: people or institutions I found credible because of their record but also because they were on the same side of issues as I was; and news organizations, newspaper, magazines, etc. I found credible in certain situations, especially the day-to-day.
So now I come to my simple points, which may not have required all this preliminary.
The reality-based versus faith-based argument is more complicated than this contrast of descriptions expresses. In a sense, those of us who say we are reality-based, are really saying that we have faith in the truthfulness of certain people and institutions, because of their sources and their methodology. We find them credible.
The faith-based are saying the same.
It's a question of who you believe, and why. What we must face is that the rabid right has created a new national context. From the perspective often identified as fundamentalist Christian, any source that does not share their beliefs in the authority of their religious leaders, is not credible. From the perspective of the rabid right as a whole, the "liberal media" are not credible.
The image of the common national media they have is that what the news media say constitutes not facts but opinions. And tragically, the media is rapidly remaking itself to fit that proposition, though for very different reasons than those supposed by the rabid right. The media, led by cable news, but affecting almost all news media, is engaged in competition for audience and advertising revenue, using rules than no longer value the old standards of fact-gathering and reporting. They are in fact becoming purveyors of opinion, though hardly liberal opinion.
Even in networks and newspaper conglomerates, news bureaus in place that cover what happens in that place, both overseas and domestically, have diminished to the point of disappearance. The news media have less news to report they've gathered themselves, and the standards of reporting are fading, in favor of infotainment.
Cable news now lives on opinion and emotion. The kinds of emotions constitute a whole other topic, but it's part of this topic as well. That cable news latched onto the Schiavo case, which is propelled by emotion, is all the confirmation we need that there is no news there. But we all tend to find credible those who otherwise support us, or agree with us, or even more importantly, represent the foundation of what we believe. Maybe we even learned to believe that way from them, be it the church or the college where we learned critical thinking.
In a sense, what I learned in high school debate was a major factor in my "salvation." I was saved from certain internal conflicts, though the decisions I then made led to a lifetime of external conflicts. So today I will find credible the front page of major newspapers like the New York Times, especially if what they say checks out with the Los Angeles Times or the San Francisco Chronicle, and then is evaluated positively by columnists, journals and bloggers who I trust, or who make sense to me.
Some people feel the same way about rabid right radio talk shows.
Of course I am not arguing that all facts are opinions, or that getting information from climate scientists is the same as getting it from Rush Limbaugh. What I am saying is that there is no mystery as to why the rabid right believes what they believe is factual. What you believe depends on who you believe.
That's partly why you learn to rely on the credibility of some authority, or institution or people.
And what and who you believe tells you---and everybody else-- who you are. When you lose that certainty, you lose yourself, and you lose your place in your community, which can mean losing your livelihood and family.
It's easy enough to say, if your grasp of reality conflicts with your context, go somewhere else, do something else. That's true, and a lot easier to say than to do, especially if you're of an age or a class or a gender or a race that makes mobility difficult, or without skills, training and experience that will get you a livelihood and a life in some new place, assuming you can find it. If your difference is you're gay, the places you can go are likely known to you. If your differences are harder to define, you could feel between the devil and the deep blue sea.
So what do you do? Apart from learning to write dialogue, so you can argue with yourself. Which is about all I did.
by Christopher Dash
The Schiavo case and the media feeding tube frenzy have profound relationships to deep currents in American and western politics and culture. Those who see it in terms of the rise of populism (as in John Lukacs'new book) or as an American analogy to Germany between the world wars, or even as a symptom of the implosion of western civilization in a clearly apocalyptic age, all have good evidence here for how this fits into their theories.
But let's talk for a moment on the level of personal experience, in a way that relates this case to the whole faith-based versus reality-based model of where we in the red and blue states of America are today.
These days I have many occasions to recall my thoughts and feelings as a high school student, when I began getting involved in the theory and practice of debating. U.S. high schools participate in a national system of debate competitions, which pit teams from one school against those of another, in debates on the same topic all year. (In my two years of debating, the topics were trade---the proposition would be today couched as an expanded NAFTA---and universal health care.)
Two person debate teams engage teams from other schools in their district just about every week, with a series of "finals" that lead to the national finals in the spring. At least this is how it was in the 1960s, when I moved up from Extemporaneous Speech ("extemp") competition to debate.
In extemp preparation, we learned about sources and facts, and how to use them in a speech. In debate, our sources and facts as well as our arguments were subject to question by the other team. So you had to examine evidence carefully, as your opponent would as well as how it helped you make your case. Since you debated the same proposition all year, using phony information or even an indefensible interpretation of the information, seldom worked for very long. Word got around, and sooner or later the other team would call you out on it.
The best "evidence" was from sources considered objective, arrived at by a legitimate process you could describe. (A study of x thousand people over x years, etc. by prestigious or at least reputable organization.)
In cross-examination and argument against the opponent's case, one basic debate tactic was to question your opponent's information. Was it someone's opinion only, or was it asserted to be fact? In either case, you questioned the source. "What's your source?" became the standard cross-examination question. You asked it when you suspected they didn't have a specific source, or if you already knew something about that source. How effectively you could describe the bias of the source was a key tactic. Was their self-interest involved? Ideology? A pattern of misstating facts, or giving a biased interpretation of their meaning?
The issue was credibility. If the underlying facts supporting the argument weren't credible, or at least questionable, it weakened the argument, often fatally.
If the source was good, you could argue intepretation or relevance. But credibility of the information was essential.
But there was another feature of this high school debate system that I believe pertains. We were expected to be able to debate on both sides of the debate question. As I recall, we learned which side we were to defend at the same time as we learned who and where we were debating on any given day, perhaps just minutes before the debate would start.
I still remember the blizzard of emotions I felt when I first faced this situation. If I truly believed in universal health care, how could I argue against it? That is, if the facts convinced me, how could I use those or other facts to argue against it? How could I be a convincing hypocrite?
I solved this for myself in various ways, but mostly by using a feature of the debate system: you could attack the opponent's plan for universal health care without attacking the need for universal health care, for example. But I'm bringing this up now because of the feelings all of this created.
Part of the impact of this idea stemmed from the insecurity of opening yourself to be convinced by facts and arguments. As a debater, I could not rely on received opinion. I had to argue the merits of a proposition, to convince someone else. We learned that especially in a democracy, the right to argue your case meant the responsibility to take arguments seriously.
So outside of the debate realm, I was face to face with the insecurity of opening myself to be convinced by facts and arguments. There were times I heard or read arguments that were persuasive, even seductive, and also wrong. The facts were inaccurate, or interpreted inaccurately, or just organized in a seductive way to come to a conclusion I knew was wrong. But sometimes I could not articulate what was wrong with the argument. Perhaps the facts were out of my realm of experience---scientific facts, for example, which I had no way of evaluating.
But what if I was fooled by them into some terrible mistake? What if the arguments convinced me because I wasn't smart enough, or didn't know enough, to see their flaws? Or I was seduced by the arguer, by an attractive, witty, overwhelmingly erudite Satan with the power to assume a pleasing shape?
This was a profound question, especially since I was a student in a Catholic High School. We were always being warned about the temptations to fall into "error," and the insidious methods of unbelievers, Communists, secularists and heretics of other religions. They were "devilishly" clever and knew every human weakness. What if I became convinced of something that ran counter to the accepted truth of my Church, as well as my community?
I was more than a little bit of a rebel, and I despised hypocrisy. Though I still considered myself a Catholic then, I had a fairly sophisticated approach to what that meant. But I felt the basic fears: not only for my immortal soul being in the balance (though I believed in the primacy of conscience), or even of further ostracism, but of being misled, and misleading myself. Since I was already questioning authority as the final basis for belief, I was left only with my own devices. What if I was wrong?
We are dealing with a lot of emotions here. When we are presented with an argument, for or against, of any consequence, they all come into play. Let's start with my bottom line: what if I was wrong?
Haven't you ever experienced that fear, of feeling yourself being convinced by an argument or a person, against judgments and commitments you've made already, perhaps all your life? Haven't you felt a little dissociated, like the ground beneath your feet is moving or has disappeared?
Maybe you've had a "conversion experience": after being raised in a particular religion or with particular beliefs, or with particular racial or class views, something stirred you up, and over time, you changed. Can you recall how difficult that was? How confusing, and how threatening it might have felt at some point in the process?
It is most pronounced in the most important issues, which touch upon a conflict of values. I remember wrestling with my feelings and beliefs on nuclear disarmament. Yes, nuclear weapons must be abolished. But is unilateral disarmament the answer, or is it criminal negligence, inviting the very catastrophe we wanted to avoid?
How do we make these decisions? Often in debate and in life, it is based on "who's your source?" The credibility of sources, of the person you believe.
That credibility is not based solely on credentials. It's based at least partly on feelings, and that seems to me to be universal. Even if the fact that your source is a scientist who uses good scientific standards: if you believe in that kind of knowledge, don't you get a good feeling when you see the method, the evidence and hear it from someone you respect because he or she adheres to those standards? You have confidence in those findings, and there is emotion attached.
If someone is credible on one issue, we feel more confident in listening closely to what they say on others, with a predisposition to believe them. How many people who admire Howard Zinn or Arundhati Roy will fact check everything they say? Who has the time, let alone the inclination? You might check trusted journals or blogsites for a critique, but you already trust those places.
If an organization employs standards we believe lead to good facts and conclusions based on them, we don't necessarily examine their evidence and methodology closely on every case. We tend to believe them, until someone else we consider credible calls their assertions into question. We rely on credibility.
But the feelings of being able to rely on credibility also have to do with our lives. We rely on the credibility of our parents during our childhoods, and much of typical teenage outrage and rebelliousness comes from the sudden realization that just because our parents are right about some things, they aren't necessarily right about everything. We feel betrayed. That feeling gets repeated in different contexts.
We all live in contexts, and we depend on our families, churches, schools, workplaces and communities to support our very existence within this society. If we stray too far outside their purview, we risk becoming nonpersons. Few people, especially in an overcrowded society as competitive as this one, can afford to lose their membership in whatever cultural context they find themselves, certainly by adulthood. The people around us have a powerful credibility, because to not believe them is to put our survival in jeopardy.
There's no big secret as to why people live and work where others are like-minded. If their views are not culturally acceptable and generally held where they are, they tend to go where they and their way of looking at the world is shared. So the red states are getting redder, the blue places bluer. Why? It's not just comfort level. If we stay where we are not accepted, we are in fear of our survival---both as the persons we think ourselves to be, and as legitimate citizens of this society, that is, not homeless hobos. We fear that our lives are meaningless.
Even if we believe what those around us believe,we might fear that we will give in to temptations and pressures, and we will lose everything. All of this makes the people who support us, or who seem to support us, very credible.
Now place all this in our national context. From my point of view, political leadership has ranged from inadequate to quite wrong and even, I would say, effectively evil, for most of my life. There have been bright spots now and again, and I found champions and exemplars of my ideals, principles and commitments, some of whom of course helped form these ideas and commitments. There were people and sources that as far as I was concerned were reliably credible. When something was asserted that surprised me, coming from a source I didn't know, I could wait until it was vetted by people or institutions I trusted.
For most of my life, I felt that the major news organizations were basically committed to objective reporting, if often wrong on particular subjects, and biased in favor of "establishment" points of view. But I had confidence in their responsibility to check facts, question sources, and report fully on both, and eventually to get it right. In many situations, I found them credible.
So there were two major sources of credibility: people or institutions I found credible because of their record but also because they were on the same side of issues as I was; and news organizations, newspaper, magazines, etc. I found credible in certain situations, especially the day-to-day.
So now I come to my simple points, which may not have required all this preliminary.
The reality-based versus faith-based argument is more complicated than this contrast of descriptions expresses. In a sense, those of us who say we are reality-based, are really saying that we have faith in the truthfulness of certain people and institutions, because of their sources and their methodology. We find them credible.
The faith-based are saying the same.
It's a question of who you believe, and why. What we must face is that the rabid right has created a new national context. From the perspective often identified as fundamentalist Christian, any source that does not share their beliefs in the authority of their religious leaders, is not credible. From the perspective of the rabid right as a whole, the "liberal media" are not credible.
The image of the common national media they have is that what the news media say constitutes not facts but opinions. And tragically, the media is rapidly remaking itself to fit that proposition, though for very different reasons than those supposed by the rabid right. The media, led by cable news, but affecting almost all news media, is engaged in competition for audience and advertising revenue, using rules than no longer value the old standards of fact-gathering and reporting. They are in fact becoming purveyors of opinion, though hardly liberal opinion.
Even in networks and newspaper conglomerates, news bureaus in place that cover what happens in that place, both overseas and domestically, have diminished to the point of disappearance. The news media have less news to report they've gathered themselves, and the standards of reporting are fading, in favor of infotainment.
Cable news now lives on opinion and emotion. The kinds of emotions constitute a whole other topic, but it's part of this topic as well. That cable news latched onto the Schiavo case, which is propelled by emotion, is all the confirmation we need that there is no news there. But we all tend to find credible those who otherwise support us, or agree with us, or even more importantly, represent the foundation of what we believe. Maybe we even learned to believe that way from them, be it the church or the college where we learned critical thinking.
In a sense, what I learned in high school debate was a major factor in my "salvation." I was saved from certain internal conflicts, though the decisions I then made led to a lifetime of external conflicts. So today I will find credible the front page of major newspapers like the New York Times, especially if what they say checks out with the Los Angeles Times or the San Francisco Chronicle, and then is evaluated positively by columnists, journals and bloggers who I trust, or who make sense to me.
Some people feel the same way about rabid right radio talk shows.
Of course I am not arguing that all facts are opinions, or that getting information from climate scientists is the same as getting it from Rush Limbaugh. What I am saying is that there is no mystery as to why the rabid right believes what they believe is factual. What you believe depends on who you believe.
That's partly why you learn to rely on the credibility of some authority, or institution or people.
And what and who you believe tells you---and everybody else-- who you are. When you lose that certainty, you lose yourself, and you lose your place in your community, which can mean losing your livelihood and family.
It's easy enough to say, if your grasp of reality conflicts with your context, go somewhere else, do something else. That's true, and a lot easier to say than to do, especially if you're of an age or a class or a gender or a race that makes mobility difficult, or without skills, training and experience that will get you a livelihood and a life in some new place, assuming you can find it. If your difference is you're gay, the places you can go are likely known to you. If your differences are harder to define, you could feel between the devil and the deep blue sea.
So what do you do? Apart from learning to write dialogue, so you can argue with yourself. Which is about all I did.
Thursday, March 24, 2005
You can't handle the truth!
by Morgan Dash
There's a woman making the rounds of cable TV claiming to have had conversations with Terri Schavio during the time this was allegedly impossible, which is anytime in the past 15 years. Shocking! Learn the full truth at your supermarket checkout. This being America, you have your choice of "truths,": the one in the National Enquirer, or the one in the Weekly World News.
Here's tomorrow's revelation today: When Terri's feeding tube was taken away, the liquid that dribbled out on the floor created a portrait of Jesus on the Cross!
In the meantime, join in the international campaign to petition the Florida legislature to officially adopt as the state motto:
FLORIDA---THE PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE!
by Morgan Dash
There's a woman making the rounds of cable TV claiming to have had conversations with Terri Schavio during the time this was allegedly impossible, which is anytime in the past 15 years. Shocking! Learn the full truth at your supermarket checkout. This being America, you have your choice of "truths,": the one in the National Enquirer, or the one in the Weekly World News.
Here's tomorrow's revelation today: When Terri's feeding tube was taken away, the liquid that dribbled out on the floor created a portrait of Jesus on the Cross!
In the meantime, join in the international campaign to petition the Florida legislature to officially adopt as the state motto:
FLORIDA---THE PERSISTENT VEGETATIVE STATE!
The Mandate
CBS News latest poll confirms what other surveys have found about public reaction to the feeding tube frenzy of last weekend, except the numbers are even more pronounced: 82% say Congress and the prez should stay out of the Schavio case. Asked why Congress got involved, all of 13% said because they cared about the woman in question; 74% said it was to advance a political agenda.
Lest we now push the liberal media reflex button, 44% of respondents were Republican, only 29% Democrat, with 28% Independent. This disfavors Democrats in proportion to registration and voting numbers. The poll is biased, in favor of the GOPers.
The Republican Congress got an overall approval rating of 34% with 49%---a near majority---disapproving. This is a 7% drop in approval, and 5% jump in disapproval, in one month.
President Bush's fictional mandate slips farther into the realm of GOPer fantasy. His approval also dropped 6% in a month, to 43%. His already dismal approval rating on the economy dropped further, from 38% to 36%. But his approval on Iraq, now that the bloom is off the election, dropped 6% to 39%.
CBS News latest poll confirms what other surveys have found about public reaction to the feeding tube frenzy of last weekend, except the numbers are even more pronounced: 82% say Congress and the prez should stay out of the Schavio case. Asked why Congress got involved, all of 13% said because they cared about the woman in question; 74% said it was to advance a political agenda.
Lest we now push the liberal media reflex button, 44% of respondents were Republican, only 29% Democrat, with 28% Independent. This disfavors Democrats in proportion to registration and voting numbers. The poll is biased, in favor of the GOPers.
The Republican Congress got an overall approval rating of 34% with 49%---a near majority---disapproving. This is a 7% drop in approval, and 5% jump in disapproval, in one month.
President Bush's fictional mandate slips farther into the realm of GOPer fantasy. His approval also dropped 6% in a month, to 43%. His already dismal approval rating on the economy dropped further, from 38% to 36%. But his approval on Iraq, now that the bloom is off the election, dropped 6% to 39%.
Tuesday, March 22, 2005
Two Followups
Two followups went into a bar. No, that's not it.
The feeding tube frenzy has lost a lot of hot air very quickly, as polls indicate an overwhelming majority of Americans---yes, even Americans---are opposed to Congressional intervention, and believe it was done for political rather than moral reasons. They also support the court's prior decision to allow the body that once was Terri Schiavo to quietly and painlessly die.
The media however persists in hyping the story, and using inflammatory and inaccurate vocabulary, like "starved." The woman isn't being starved; it implies she feels starvation. She doesn't, at least in any way it can be measured, as compared with other people. It requires a rudimentary consciousness, which likely expired, along with the person called Terri, more than a decade ago.
But also this weekend, though you might not know it, there were hundreds of peace demonstrations all over the world and across the United States---yes, even the United States. Some activists are scratching their heads at the lack of media coverage, and muttering darkly about conspiracy to displace anti-war in Iraq images with feeding tube related photo ops. Though it's likely this weekend's carefully planned frenzy was timed to coincide with the actual withdrawing of the feeding tube and the absense from Washington of most of Congress, the coincidence with the antiwar weekend could not have displeased our Roving reportmaster.
We marched in a driving rain (well, okay the rain let up by the time the march actually started) with more than a thousand protestors, including entire families, and folks who marched with their bicycles, dogs and goats. Two very nice goats they were too. There were the usual signs, some still thought provoking, but our favorite was a bumper sticker on the side of a truck we saw when we marched past: "Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot."
Some activists have since gone online to suggest that the era of the peace protest is over, it is no longer effective, the media doesn't bother covering them, and there is not enough "message discipline" to make the wingnut-dominated news. Some suggest switching to an emphasis on economic issues.
Well, maybe, but...yes, the war protests were underreported, but they always, always were. More so this time? Yes. Why? Not new. The protests to keep a severly brain damaged woman artificially alive were new, and they had striking images. But for all that those images dominated media, there is still a higher percentage of Americans against the Iraq war than in favor of the action taken in the Schiavo case.
Message discipline? Diversity is part of the message. It's the big progressive tent, and all who are peaceful are welcome. Peace demos, like civil rights, always had several functions: promoting the cause, promoting solidarity among the protestors, building a community, giving people heart because they see others willing to march for what they believe in. This is the support activists were trying to build in the 60s---you know, Another family for peace. These are the constituents, the voters and the contributors. And the Next Generation. On all counts except direct political effect, the peace demos did fine. Frankly after the election we were surprised that so many people turned out.
Do we rely on these demos for political impact? No. Do we switch the emphasis to economics? Maybe, but that's not the whole answer, even though that's becoming conventional progressive wisdom. The rabid right has proven that economics is not always the main concern.
(Wouldn't hurt to check the reviews of a couple of pertinent books over at Books in Heat.)
So what do we do? Add specific protests to the calendar on justice in the economic and social realms. Be creative. But be appropriate. This weekend was the anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, and of the global demonstrations against it, before and during that war. It was appropriate to emphasize anti-war, pro-peace messages.
Sometimes preaching to the congregation is appropriate. It's what preachers do. Most of the people we know of who marched or attended vigils wanted simply to bear witness, to stand for light in a dark time. These were often family oriented events. There's a place for that. And there's a place for more specific political protests designed and carried out by committed activists.
Two followups went into a bar. No, that's not it.
The feeding tube frenzy has lost a lot of hot air very quickly, as polls indicate an overwhelming majority of Americans---yes, even Americans---are opposed to Congressional intervention, and believe it was done for political rather than moral reasons. They also support the court's prior decision to allow the body that once was Terri Schiavo to quietly and painlessly die.
The media however persists in hyping the story, and using inflammatory and inaccurate vocabulary, like "starved." The woman isn't being starved; it implies she feels starvation. She doesn't, at least in any way it can be measured, as compared with other people. It requires a rudimentary consciousness, which likely expired, along with the person called Terri, more than a decade ago.
But also this weekend, though you might not know it, there were hundreds of peace demonstrations all over the world and across the United States---yes, even the United States. Some activists are scratching their heads at the lack of media coverage, and muttering darkly about conspiracy to displace anti-war in Iraq images with feeding tube related photo ops. Though it's likely this weekend's carefully planned frenzy was timed to coincide with the actual withdrawing of the feeding tube and the absense from Washington of most of Congress, the coincidence with the antiwar weekend could not have displeased our Roving reportmaster.
We marched in a driving rain (well, okay the rain let up by the time the march actually started) with more than a thousand protestors, including entire families, and folks who marched with their bicycles, dogs and goats. Two very nice goats they were too. There were the usual signs, some still thought provoking, but our favorite was a bumper sticker on the side of a truck we saw when we marched past: "Somewhere in Texas, a village is missing its idiot."
Some activists have since gone online to suggest that the era of the peace protest is over, it is no longer effective, the media doesn't bother covering them, and there is not enough "message discipline" to make the wingnut-dominated news. Some suggest switching to an emphasis on economic issues.
Well, maybe, but...yes, the war protests were underreported, but they always, always were. More so this time? Yes. Why? Not new. The protests to keep a severly brain damaged woman artificially alive were new, and they had striking images. But for all that those images dominated media, there is still a higher percentage of Americans against the Iraq war than in favor of the action taken in the Schiavo case.
Message discipline? Diversity is part of the message. It's the big progressive tent, and all who are peaceful are welcome. Peace demos, like civil rights, always had several functions: promoting the cause, promoting solidarity among the protestors, building a community, giving people heart because they see others willing to march for what they believe in. This is the support activists were trying to build in the 60s---you know, Another family for peace. These are the constituents, the voters and the contributors. And the Next Generation. On all counts except direct political effect, the peace demos did fine. Frankly after the election we were surprised that so many people turned out.
Do we rely on these demos for political impact? No. Do we switch the emphasis to economics? Maybe, but that's not the whole answer, even though that's becoming conventional progressive wisdom. The rabid right has proven that economics is not always the main concern.
(Wouldn't hurt to check the reviews of a couple of pertinent books over at Books in Heat.)
So what do we do? Add specific protests to the calendar on justice in the economic and social realms. Be creative. But be appropriate. This weekend was the anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, and of the global demonstrations against it, before and during that war. It was appropriate to emphasize anti-war, pro-peace messages.
Sometimes preaching to the congregation is appropriate. It's what preachers do. Most of the people we know of who marched or attended vigils wanted simply to bear witness, to stand for light in a dark time. These were often family oriented events. There's a place for that. And there's a place for more specific political protests designed and carried out by committed activists.
Monday, March 21, 2005
She's Ready for Her Close-up Mr. Demille
by Theron Dash
Thank God we have St. George Bush in the White House to leave orders to be awakened from a sound sleep just so he can sign that bill to save that woman's life! The woman the Democrats wanted to kill! Sayeth the multitude.
Thank God we have that woman in a vegetative state (namely Florida) and all those pious prolife demonstrators on Palm Sunday and above all the spectacle of our elected sheep slinking back to Washington for a dramatic vote to pass an unconstitutional law so we have a story that we can flog for days, sayeth CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. As NBC, CBS and ABC cryeth out, halleluiah!
And sayeth not this woman is but a tragic remnant of a consciousness, of a person, that no longer exists, with profound brain damage for more than a decade, for that would detract from the drama. Nay! Speaketh only of saving her life, sayeth the News Director. And hearing this, the network Executive smiles upon him, and sayeth this is my News Director in whom I am well pleased.
But just to be certain, the Executive from his seat upon the burning Bush pronounces these Commandments unto the media prostrate before him:
Thou shalt not refer to this woman as a political football with eyes that seem to see but seeth not.
Thou shalt not mention that by law passed in the Time of Bush and signed by him, verily just this past week a baby in Texas was torn asunder from his mother and caused to die, while his mother weepeth, because that mother had not the riches nor the health insurance to pay for heroic measures.
Thou shalt not bear true witness that this baby was black, and in the district of the Most Sanctimonious Felon, Tom DeLay. Nor that this child's name was Sun.
Thou shalt not call the Lord thy President obscene.
Thou shalt not bear true witness to the fact that the same Republicans who standeth grand , would slay the the malpractice suits of such kind as the one that is paying for this poor soul's care in Florida.
And pointeth not out that these same righteous also oppose Medicaid to pay for feeding tubes for other really poor souls, and cry out against any sane and humane health care system that profiteth them not, nor their corporate brethren and faithful lobbyists in the land of milk and honey, the land of flowing Campaign Contributions. For these truths helpeth not the ratings, they cause the lords of the ringtones to weep and gnash their portfolios. Neither do they please the priesthood of the Temple on the Hill, where they pay for the sacrifice of heathens to the lord their president and his White House.
And lo the cringing media cry out, thou are most wise! Of all the Executives, thou must be the Chief!
Now let's showeth her photo one more time, the one wherein she seemeth to smile! Heed not the pagan doctors, and their evil anti-life talk of brain damage, and the propensity to project emotion onto the now blank slate. We all love a puppet show! This horrific spectacle in Washington and the dignity of a human being now desecrated is a small price to pay for our demented righteousness, and all the sound and fury and tinkling symbols we can beam around God's sad earth.
by Theron Dash
Thank God we have St. George Bush in the White House to leave orders to be awakened from a sound sleep just so he can sign that bill to save that woman's life! The woman the Democrats wanted to kill! Sayeth the multitude.
Thank God we have that woman in a vegetative state (namely Florida) and all those pious prolife demonstrators on Palm Sunday and above all the spectacle of our elected sheep slinking back to Washington for a dramatic vote to pass an unconstitutional law so we have a story that we can flog for days, sayeth CNN, Fox News and MSNBC. As NBC, CBS and ABC cryeth out, halleluiah!
And sayeth not this woman is but a tragic remnant of a consciousness, of a person, that no longer exists, with profound brain damage for more than a decade, for that would detract from the drama. Nay! Speaketh only of saving her life, sayeth the News Director. And hearing this, the network Executive smiles upon him, and sayeth this is my News Director in whom I am well pleased.
But just to be certain, the Executive from his seat upon the burning Bush pronounces these Commandments unto the media prostrate before him:
Thou shalt not refer to this woman as a political football with eyes that seem to see but seeth not.
Thou shalt not mention that by law passed in the Time of Bush and signed by him, verily just this past week a baby in Texas was torn asunder from his mother and caused to die, while his mother weepeth, because that mother had not the riches nor the health insurance to pay for heroic measures.
Thou shalt not bear true witness that this baby was black, and in the district of the Most Sanctimonious Felon, Tom DeLay. Nor that this child's name was Sun.
Thou shalt not call the Lord thy President obscene.
Thou shalt not bear true witness to the fact that the same Republicans who standeth grand , would slay the the malpractice suits of such kind as the one that is paying for this poor soul's care in Florida.
And pointeth not out that these same righteous also oppose Medicaid to pay for feeding tubes for other really poor souls, and cry out against any sane and humane health care system that profiteth them not, nor their corporate brethren and faithful lobbyists in the land of milk and honey, the land of flowing Campaign Contributions. For these truths helpeth not the ratings, they cause the lords of the ringtones to weep and gnash their portfolios. Neither do they please the priesthood of the Temple on the Hill, where they pay for the sacrifice of heathens to the lord their president and his White House.
And lo the cringing media cry out, thou are most wise! Of all the Executives, thou must be the Chief!
Now let's showeth her photo one more time, the one wherein she seemeth to smile! Heed not the pagan doctors, and their evil anti-life talk of brain damage, and the propensity to project emotion onto the now blank slate. We all love a puppet show! This horrific spectacle in Washington and the dignity of a human being now desecrated is a small price to pay for our demented righteousness, and all the sound and fury and tinkling symbols we can beam around God's sad earth.
Saturday, March 19, 2005
Get It While It's Hot
Another couple of studies support those issued in the past month or so, concluding that global heating is underway, it will be consequential, and it cannot be stopped, possibly for a century.
At the risk of remaining too far ahead on this subject, I see a new political danger. Until now, the GOPers have refused the validity of the evidence, deny the climate crisis will happen, and refuse to take steps to control greenhouse gases, let alone convert to sustainable non-harmful energy.
But now scientists are beating the drum of an oncoming crisis that can't be stopped, but must be dealt with. The emphasis is on preparing, mitigating, preventing the most harmful consequences. This is a huge change of emphasis and a huge danger.
Of course this needs to be done, as I've written earlier. But the danger is that the efforts to control emissions and switch to sustainable energy will be abandoned, because they will only make things better beyond the end of this century.
As it stands now, things will be bad. If nothing is done to stop the source of harm, in the future things are likely to be much worse. A sane policy would be to do both, and I've outlined how to approach it. For example, here. But progressives better wake up to this rapidly changing situations before GOPers realize what an opportunity they've got.
Because right now, there is an enormous opportunity for Republicans to suddenly adopt a global heating crisis is here mentality, in order to fund dikes, pipelines, chemicals and other emergency and mitigation projects, which will require even more fossil fuel energy. They will give the job to their energy corporation buddies, along with Halliburton. In a war on climate change. And we can forget about the future, and the health benefits as well as many other benefits of clean sustainable energy.
At the moment, progressives and environmentalists are stuck wholly in the mode of Kyoto greenhouse gases treaties and warning of the crisis that is already here. It's much too tempting a situation for GOPers, especially if Democrats, still in denial, are caught flatfooted.
Global warming inevitable, stopping gas emission won?t help
Another couple of studies support those issued in the past month or so, concluding that global heating is underway, it will be consequential, and it cannot be stopped, possibly for a century.
At the risk of remaining too far ahead on this subject, I see a new political danger. Until now, the GOPers have refused the validity of the evidence, deny the climate crisis will happen, and refuse to take steps to control greenhouse gases, let alone convert to sustainable non-harmful energy.
But now scientists are beating the drum of an oncoming crisis that can't be stopped, but must be dealt with. The emphasis is on preparing, mitigating, preventing the most harmful consequences. This is a huge change of emphasis and a huge danger.
Of course this needs to be done, as I've written earlier. But the danger is that the efforts to control emissions and switch to sustainable energy will be abandoned, because they will only make things better beyond the end of this century.
As it stands now, things will be bad. If nothing is done to stop the source of harm, in the future things are likely to be much worse. A sane policy would be to do both, and I've outlined how to approach it. For example, here. But progressives better wake up to this rapidly changing situations before GOPers realize what an opportunity they've got.
Because right now, there is an enormous opportunity for Republicans to suddenly adopt a global heating crisis is here mentality, in order to fund dikes, pipelines, chemicals and other emergency and mitigation projects, which will require even more fossil fuel energy. They will give the job to their energy corporation buddies, along with Halliburton. In a war on climate change. And we can forget about the future, and the health benefits as well as many other benefits of clean sustainable energy.
At the moment, progressives and environmentalists are stuck wholly in the mode of Kyoto greenhouse gases treaties and warning of the crisis that is already here. It's much too tempting a situation for GOPers, especially if Democrats, still in denial, are caught flatfooted.
Global warming inevitable, stopping gas emission won?t help
Friday, March 18, 2005
Comedy is Too Easy
Jon Stewart is a smart and talented guy, but his job is way too easy. Make fun of the news? How do you avoid it?
For comedians every news day is a holiday, but some are more St. Patricks than others. Thursday gave us the 51-49 Senate vote in favor of drilling for oil in the Alaska wilderness preserve. Besides the expected gaggle of GOPers, the measure passed thanks to two Democrats: both Senators from that other state of wilderness and beauty and non-continguity: Hawaii. Can you even imagine the outrage of a proposal for off-shore drilling in Hawaii? But it might be worth it, just for those two guys.
It also gave us a provocative new study purporting to figure that all these obese kids aren't going to live so long, and therefore the U.S. life expectancy will decline for the first time since, maybe, Fox News. But the way that some papers slugged this story was as the solution to the Social Security crisis. Because people will die five years earlier, think of all the money Social Security will save. Oh happy day! (For a more balanced view, the link below.)
Jon?
Obesity will cut American life span by 2 to 5 years: report
Jon Stewart is a smart and talented guy, but his job is way too easy. Make fun of the news? How do you avoid it?
For comedians every news day is a holiday, but some are more St. Patricks than others. Thursday gave us the 51-49 Senate vote in favor of drilling for oil in the Alaska wilderness preserve. Besides the expected gaggle of GOPers, the measure passed thanks to two Democrats: both Senators from that other state of wilderness and beauty and non-continguity: Hawaii. Can you even imagine the outrage of a proposal for off-shore drilling in Hawaii? But it might be worth it, just for those two guys.
It also gave us a provocative new study purporting to figure that all these obese kids aren't going to live so long, and therefore the U.S. life expectancy will decline for the first time since, maybe, Fox News. But the way that some papers slugged this story was as the solution to the Social Security crisis. Because people will die five years earlier, think of all the money Social Security will save. Oh happy day! (For a more balanced view, the link below.)
Jon?
Obesity will cut American life span by 2 to 5 years: report
In other New...
A review of Democracy and Populism by John Lukacs at Books in Heat.
"Heroes" behind Trek at Soul of Star Trek.
A review of Democracy and Populism by John Lukacs at Books in Heat.
"Heroes" behind Trek at Soul of Star Trek.
Monday, March 14, 2005
Weekend for Peace
It's not too late to plan to attend--- or even to plan to hold---a peace vigil or demonstration next weekend, March 18-20, which marks the beginning of the third year of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, begun with an unprovoked bombing attack two years ago. (You can find information on scheduled events plus tips on how to organize your own vigil here:
Sojourners : Meet-ups.)
One of the more insidious attacks by the cynical right has been on the very concept of peace vigils or peaceful demonstrations for human rights, civil rights and racial justice. These rich and pretend- rich yuppie GOPers like to swill their cocktails in their Washington hotel lobbies and make fun of those liberal fools who "sit around in circles holding candles and singing Kumbaya." They've been pretty successful in making the Kumbaya line a standard part of their repertoire, to show how impractical and out of touch these dopey hippie liberals are, with the additional touch of insulting the feminine, African culture and the African American religious roots of the non-violent civil rights movement.
The idea is that these phony folk singing liberals are too soft and too wimpy, not like these steely warmongers who bravely send the sons and daughters of Latinos, American Indians, African Americans and poor people in general to fight and die for their simplistic self-serving theories and grand delusions. You'll never catch one of these chicken hawks at a peace demo, nor will you find one on the front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan. They do their fighting by intimidating voters here at home, or launching guerilla warfare on the truth.
But we can't let them intimidate us, and separate us from an important and powerful expression. The peace vigil is a strong statement, because it enacts in a symbolic way the peace that it advocates. The candles and the singing are part of that symbolism and a great part of that power.
Here in the midst of a growing Dark Age, each of us holding that sliver of light and warmth is an individual statement for the future. Singing together and marching together is our collective statement for the future.
The power of these acts may not be felt immediately, as they manifestly were not when millions upon millions of people around the world demonstrated for peace and against Bushwhacker aggression before the first bombs fell two years ago. No, the circles and the candles and the singing and the marching did not prevent those bombs from falling. It may be a long while before they do. That doesn't make it as useless gesture. It works on different levels, and in different ways at different historical moments.
Even if no one sees or hears or feels the power of these acts except the children who will come together and light these lights when we are gone, then we are doing our job. We stand together for all to see, for all to hear. At the very least, we're saying we're still here.
No, peace vigils alone will not change the world. But they can help, and they help change us. People who have participated in a peace vigil do not automatically create peace, nor do they even become automatically peaceful, but they are never the same. We all need to take more steps. But we must not abandon this one.
Don't let this cynical age stop you. Maybe some people did this sort of thing in the past because it was fashionable. People do all kinds of things for all kinds of crazy reasons. But that doesn't detract from the power in this ritual, in these symbols, that we share. They may laugh at us. But these are our lights, and our songs, and this our circle, and we believe in what it says.
It's not too late to plan to attend--- or even to plan to hold---a peace vigil or demonstration next weekend, March 18-20, which marks the beginning of the third year of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, begun with an unprovoked bombing attack two years ago. (You can find information on scheduled events plus tips on how to organize your own vigil here:
Sojourners : Meet-ups.)
One of the more insidious attacks by the cynical right has been on the very concept of peace vigils or peaceful demonstrations for human rights, civil rights and racial justice. These rich and pretend- rich yuppie GOPers like to swill their cocktails in their Washington hotel lobbies and make fun of those liberal fools who "sit around in circles holding candles and singing Kumbaya." They've been pretty successful in making the Kumbaya line a standard part of their repertoire, to show how impractical and out of touch these dopey hippie liberals are, with the additional touch of insulting the feminine, African culture and the African American religious roots of the non-violent civil rights movement.
The idea is that these phony folk singing liberals are too soft and too wimpy, not like these steely warmongers who bravely send the sons and daughters of Latinos, American Indians, African Americans and poor people in general to fight and die for their simplistic self-serving theories and grand delusions. You'll never catch one of these chicken hawks at a peace demo, nor will you find one on the front lines in Iraq or Afghanistan. They do their fighting by intimidating voters here at home, or launching guerilla warfare on the truth.
But we can't let them intimidate us, and separate us from an important and powerful expression. The peace vigil is a strong statement, because it enacts in a symbolic way the peace that it advocates. The candles and the singing are part of that symbolism and a great part of that power.
Here in the midst of a growing Dark Age, each of us holding that sliver of light and warmth is an individual statement for the future. Singing together and marching together is our collective statement for the future.
The power of these acts may not be felt immediately, as they manifestly were not when millions upon millions of people around the world demonstrated for peace and against Bushwhacker aggression before the first bombs fell two years ago. No, the circles and the candles and the singing and the marching did not prevent those bombs from falling. It may be a long while before they do. That doesn't make it as useless gesture. It works on different levels, and in different ways at different historical moments.
Even if no one sees or hears or feels the power of these acts except the children who will come together and light these lights when we are gone, then we are doing our job. We stand together for all to see, for all to hear. At the very least, we're saying we're still here.
No, peace vigils alone will not change the world. But they can help, and they help change us. People who have participated in a peace vigil do not automatically create peace, nor do they even become automatically peaceful, but they are never the same. We all need to take more steps. But we must not abandon this one.
Don't let this cynical age stop you. Maybe some people did this sort of thing in the past because it was fashionable. People do all kinds of things for all kinds of crazy reasons. But that doesn't detract from the power in this ritual, in these symbols, that we share. They may laugh at us. But these are our lights, and our songs, and this our circle, and we believe in what it says.
Sunday, March 13, 2005
The Dan Rather Story
Dan Rather' s retirement from the big news show was a big news story. Part of the big news story was about the big news story he got wrong. But nearly all of those big news story about the big news story he got wrong were themselves wrong.
Bad news all around.
Dan Rather and CBS did not broadcast a false story about GW Bush's National Guard non-service. They made a technical error in one part of the story, by accepting the authenticity of a piece of paper. It was the wrong piece of paper, evidently. But what was written on the piece of paper, as far as it said anything about Bush's service, was correct and factual. The same woman who said she didn't type that particular piece of paper said she typed a piece of paper that said essentially the same thing.
The facts are correct. The story is not false. And so this become yet another politically motivated lie which the news media perpetuates until it becomes the conventional wisdom.
So the lie becomes the accepted truth. Really bad news.
Now the rightist liars have succeeded in creating contempt for the name of Dan Rather. I'm not a fan, I haven't watched the CBS Evening News for years, nor do I watch 60 Minutes. But I hope that when this subject comes up he insistently corrects the record.
Al Gore's name became a one liner of contempt, thanks to such often repeated lies as his claim that he invented the Internet. He did not ever make that claim. Have you ever seen a piece of tape of him saying it? Seen it in print? It doesn't exist. But such is politics today that even Gore jokes about this, as if he had made that claim. This is wrong. It is playing into the conscious strategy of the rabid right to create contempt for everyone and everything they oppose.
Stand your ground, Dan. Courage.
Dan Rather' s retirement from the big news show was a big news story. Part of the big news story was about the big news story he got wrong. But nearly all of those big news story about the big news story he got wrong were themselves wrong.
Bad news all around.
Dan Rather and CBS did not broadcast a false story about GW Bush's National Guard non-service. They made a technical error in one part of the story, by accepting the authenticity of a piece of paper. It was the wrong piece of paper, evidently. But what was written on the piece of paper, as far as it said anything about Bush's service, was correct and factual. The same woman who said she didn't type that particular piece of paper said she typed a piece of paper that said essentially the same thing.
The facts are correct. The story is not false. And so this become yet another politically motivated lie which the news media perpetuates until it becomes the conventional wisdom.
So the lie becomes the accepted truth. Really bad news.
Now the rightist liars have succeeded in creating contempt for the name of Dan Rather. I'm not a fan, I haven't watched the CBS Evening News for years, nor do I watch 60 Minutes. But I hope that when this subject comes up he insistently corrects the record.
Al Gore's name became a one liner of contempt, thanks to such often repeated lies as his claim that he invented the Internet. He did not ever make that claim. Have you ever seen a piece of tape of him saying it? Seen it in print? It doesn't exist. But such is politics today that even Gore jokes about this, as if he had made that claim. This is wrong. It is playing into the conscious strategy of the rabid right to create contempt for everyone and everything they oppose.
Stand your ground, Dan. Courage.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
In Other New...
There's a new series of old previously web- unavailable articles, where you can stroll down the memory lane of the arts in the 1980s (Dash Brothers hint: it's still the 1980s) over at kowincidence.
There's a new series of old previously web- unavailable articles, where you can stroll down the memory lane of the arts in the 1980s (Dash Brothers hint: it's still the 1980s) over at kowincidence.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Blood
So bloodthirsty are our appalling leaders in Washington that the Bushworlders have taken this entire country out of International Court agreements because groups here opposed to the death penalty are using these agreements against it, since few other civilized countries on the face of the planet still insist on legal killing.
The death penalty matters more to them than international relatons and international justice, which protects Americans abroad and the rights of foreigners here. They are scared to death of actual justice for their atrocities on foreign soil, and so willing to let the atrocities of others continue without international standards or sanctions. Another predictably shameless and shameful day for the rich thugs that run our government.
Top News Article Reuters.com
So bloodthirsty are our appalling leaders in Washington that the Bushworlders have taken this entire country out of International Court agreements because groups here opposed to the death penalty are using these agreements against it, since few other civilized countries on the face of the planet still insist on legal killing.
The death penalty matters more to them than international relatons and international justice, which protects Americans abroad and the rights of foreigners here. They are scared to death of actual justice for their atrocities on foreign soil, and so willing to let the atrocities of others continue without international standards or sanctions. Another predictably shameless and shameful day for the rich thugs that run our government.
Top News Article Reuters.com
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
Progressively Lost
From "No More Mr. Nice Blog":
"We simply don't have the Right's message machine. A bit of what happens on the Right is purely grassroots -- I'm thinking of the work of Christian conservatives -- but right-wing activism packs a punch only because of big money, from self-interested corporations and scheming think-tank-funding billionaires. Big money shapes the message and gets it out there. That, in turn, keeps a much larger percentage of ordinary conservative Americans pumped up and versed on talking points than we can muster on the other side."
But it's more than this. The Reds have access to more money, but there is money on the Blue side as well---it just isn't being spent in the same way. The rabid right recruits early and keeps people on their payroll. Kids with talent get scholarships, fellowships, jobs with real influence, and access to the right's political leaders. They take care of their own.
But it's one of the unpleasant ironies that while the rightists carry on about individualism, they are better at supporting each other, while the left with all its solidarity rhetoric, has little or no consciousness about making sure its people are supported, and that means with jobs, fellowships, institutes, etc. Even the rightist bloggers are better at supporting each other.
Back when they were big enough to do so, labor unions performed this function of spotting talent and finding a place for it for the Democratic party. But it seems that left leaning think tanks etc. have remained exclusive and elitist. The left would rather discuss their minute differences and plug their narrow issues than take care of their own.
When told that a program under consideration for the New Deal would benefit people in the long term, FDR advisor Harry Hopkins retorted, "People don't eat in the long term. They eat every day." While we work for a better future for all, we had better be aware of what's needed in the present.
From "No More Mr. Nice Blog":
"We simply don't have the Right's message machine. A bit of what happens on the Right is purely grassroots -- I'm thinking of the work of Christian conservatives -- but right-wing activism packs a punch only because of big money, from self-interested corporations and scheming think-tank-funding billionaires. Big money shapes the message and gets it out there. That, in turn, keeps a much larger percentage of ordinary conservative Americans pumped up and versed on talking points than we can muster on the other side."
But it's more than this. The Reds have access to more money, but there is money on the Blue side as well---it just isn't being spent in the same way. The rabid right recruits early and keeps people on their payroll. Kids with talent get scholarships, fellowships, jobs with real influence, and access to the right's political leaders. They take care of their own.
But it's one of the unpleasant ironies that while the rightists carry on about individualism, they are better at supporting each other, while the left with all its solidarity rhetoric, has little or no consciousness about making sure its people are supported, and that means with jobs, fellowships, institutes, etc. Even the rightist bloggers are better at supporting each other.
Back when they were big enough to do so, labor unions performed this function of spotting talent and finding a place for it for the Democratic party. But it seems that left leaning think tanks etc. have remained exclusive and elitist. The left would rather discuss their minute differences and plug their narrow issues than take care of their own.
When told that a program under consideration for the New Deal would benefit people in the long term, FDR advisor Harry Hopkins retorted, "People don't eat in the long term. They eat every day." While we work for a better future for all, we had better be aware of what's needed in the present.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Faith Based Minimum Wage
More people with more money to spend creates more economic activity. But enough of that reality based nonsense. Listen to the faith-based answer:
"When you raise the minimum wage, you price workers out of the market," said Senator John E. Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican. "That's the economic reality."
You need to have faith in this economic reality because Republicans have been saying it at least since they opposed raising the minimum wage to $1.25 in 1961, and they have always been wrong.
But to believe that providing a floor of seven bucks an hour instead of five for the people who do the shit work nobody else wants to do will ruin the economy requires a lot less faith than what is needed to give huge tax cuts to the extremely wealthy, believing it will benefit the economy even as it raises the deficit beyond the stratosphere, thus already impoverishing the grandchildren some of you youngins have faith you'll have.
Read it and weep: the Dark Lord Santorum leads the sanctimonius GOPers in maintaining virtual slavery.
Boston.com / News / Nation / Washington / Minimum wage hikes die in Senate
More people with more money to spend creates more economic activity. But enough of that reality based nonsense. Listen to the faith-based answer:
"When you raise the minimum wage, you price workers out of the market," said Senator John E. Sununu, a New Hampshire Republican. "That's the economic reality."
You need to have faith in this economic reality because Republicans have been saying it at least since they opposed raising the minimum wage to $1.25 in 1961, and they have always been wrong.
But to believe that providing a floor of seven bucks an hour instead of five for the people who do the shit work nobody else wants to do will ruin the economy requires a lot less faith than what is needed to give huge tax cuts to the extremely wealthy, believing it will benefit the economy even as it raises the deficit beyond the stratosphere, thus already impoverishing the grandchildren some of you youngins have faith you'll have.
Read it and weep: the Dark Lord Santorum leads the sanctimonius GOPers in maintaining virtual slavery.
Boston.com / News / Nation / Washington / Minimum wage hikes die in Senate
Monday, March 07, 2005
In other new...
"Sell the Children" at Shopopolis. A review of Homeland , a portrait of post-9/11 America by Dale Maharidge at Books in Heat.
Photo portfolio on North Coast arts at North Coast Texts.
And today's outrage, while some want to push the definition of human life back to the pre-embryonic, there seems to be a whole lot of difficulty taking care of millions of children already born, even when it could be done at a fraction of the cost of their political action committees' budgets...
New Scientist Breaking News - Push to save three million babies every year
"Sell the Children" at Shopopolis. A review of Homeland , a portrait of post-9/11 America by Dale Maharidge at Books in Heat.
Photo portfolio on North Coast arts at North Coast Texts.
And today's outrage, while some want to push the definition of human life back to the pre-embryonic, there seems to be a whole lot of difficulty taking care of millions of children already born, even when it could be done at a fraction of the cost of their political action committees' budgets...
New Scientist Breaking News - Push to save three million babies every year
Wednesday, March 02, 2005
Reframing the Climate Crisis 1: Don't Call It Global Warming
Since this is now an archival matter, I've changed the order of the three parts of this series as it initially appeared. Now it follows one, two, three, from the top down.
The climate changed dramatically last week.
While most nations solemnly bound themselves to the Kyoto Accords, scientists announced the most definitive proof yet that global heating is well underway, caused by human-sent CO2. "The debate is over," said one scientist, "at least for rational people."
It is now clearer than ever that the climate crisis has begun. Eventually it will dominate world politics for the next fifty years. It is already moving quickly to the forefront of European concerns. Two-thirds of British Parliament members polled believe it is more important than terrorism.
But though Americans are more conscious of it than politicians seem to realize, there is no national sense of urgency. Now is the time to think very carefully about how to frame the issue constructively. This is the first in a short series exploring approaches to that question.
Doubters say the world isn't heating up significantly, and even if it is, it's a transitory natural phenomenon, and the models predicting climate change because of fossil fuels are alarmist speculation.
But evidence was piled upon evidence at the American Association of Scientists annual meeting last week that global heating is having alarming effects on ocean water temperature, vegetation and wildlife, and human life.
And then the final word: a study of ocean temperatures in the last 40 years showed a rise that only greenhouse gas emissions can explain.
"We were stunned by the similarities between the observations that have been recorded at sea worldwide and the models that climatologists made," said Tim Barnett of the University of California's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. "The debate is over, at least for rational people."
Of course, the debate is not over politically. In many ways it has not really begun. But the problem of how to move this issue up on the list of political priorities has also changed. It's gotten more complicated.
Until recently, the idea was to get people motivated to demand change that would lessen the probability that the climate crisis would cause serious problems in the future. But now we are pretty sure they are going to be serious problems in the near future, no matter what we do to try and stop them. For example, those same scientists from Scripps said last week that no matter what we do, some parts of the world---including the western U.S., China and South America---will experience water shortages and other crises over the next 20 years.
So now there are two sets of actions that need to be taken simultaneously. One is to prepare for dealing with crises that result from global heating. The other is to create change that will lessen the impact of global heating in the future---a future that few of us will see, but our children and grandchildren may.
Still, the first task remains: generating a sense of urgency, especially among Americans and their political representatives. How the issue is framed must reflect the twin nature of the necessary actions, of anticipating emergencies in the near future, and of preventive action for the farther future.
Most polls have consistently shown that around two-thirds of Americans believe in "global warming" and support efforts to address it. Why is this then not an issue every ambitious politician seizes?
I'd love to hear Al Gore answer that question, even on deep background. It's clear from past experience that leadership is essential. But because the necessary actions involve a different way of thinking, and some apparent sacrifice, it is difficult to sustain leadership when opponents can exploit yearnings for the ecological free lunch. During the energy crisis of the 1970s, President Jimmy Carter was successful in urging Americans to cut back on wasteful uses of energy, and the growth in CO2 levels actually declined for years afterwards. But high inflation and the Iran hostages added to his woes, and Republicans under Reagan were able to offer a more self-indulgent vision, which it took eight years of a Democrat in the White House to pay for.
Americans are willing to pay for what they consider an urgent threat. Violent threat countered by warfare is the easiest to understand, hence the budget-busting wars on terror and in Iraq. They are however accompanied by the illusion of no new taxes, and therefore no apparent sacrifice.
So the first task in reframing I believe is still to encourage a sense of urgency, of what someone called an "emotional consensus" on the climate crisis.
Don't Call It Global Warming
The simplest way to begin this reframing is with nomenclature. It has been driven by the vocabulary of science, which was initially appropriate, because scientists have been working on the problem since some first anticipated the effects of fossil fuels on our atmosphere back at least as far as the 1960s.
At first it was called "the Greenhouse Effect," which is the kind of metaphor scientists employ: familiar and relatively accurate to what they theorize is happening. Later the description "global warming" became the media term. More recently, "climate change" has joined or replaced this term in the media. All of these terms are reasonably descriptive, while they reflect the precision of science. But none of them expresses urgency.
Not only are these words non-threatening, they have comforting connotations.W arming conveys really nice things. It's warm and cuddly. Happiness is a warm puppy. Listen to the warm. Can I warm up that coffee? Let's give a warm welcome to...
It is counter-intuitive to think of "warming" as a bad thing. Even as a negative it is, at best, lukewarm. So who can afraid of global warming?
Nothing about it is urgent. You may urgently desire a warm coat on a cold day, but people don't feel too warm. They feel too hot. Then it's urgent.
In fact all of the terms commonly used have more good connotations than bad. "Climate change" is neutral: change can be good or bad. When you're cold or it's stormy, a change in the climate is welcome. People get on airplanes to go find climate change.
The greenhouse effect was scientifically elegant, but again it is at best abstract and definitely not scary. To most people, greenhouses are good. Flowers grow in them. Flowers are pretty. The greenhouse effect sounds like it could make the world prettier.
It is time to turn up the heat on the terminology. Instead of "climate change," it would be helpful to refer to it as THE CLIMATE CRISIS. Ross Gelbspan used it as the subtitle of his book, "The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, the Cover-up, the Prescription. Crisis projects urgency.
Gelbspan also uses "heat" rather than "warming." Don't say global warming, say GLOBAL HEATING. As a word, heating is at least potentially threatening in a way that warming isn't.
These may not be the best terms, but they seem to be the easiest, since they are variations on terms that everyone already knows. They will gain power only by repetition. They carry more of a sense of urgency, and that is a necessary precondition to other reframing. The first task is to get attention and focus.
I don't want to oversell this suggestion. It isn't a panacea. It is a possible beginning. It may turn out to be important, because politicians may try to isolate catastrophes and threats that are products of the climate crisis, and so the greater problem is not addressed with the necessary comprehensiveness and urgency. The recent scary weather in Los Angeles can be positioned as Mother Nature acting up again, or God's wrath on Hollywood, but think of the difference in response if it is said to be a result of global heating, versus global warming.
Polls show that Americans are disposed to believe that weather phenomenon they can't help but notice are products of the climate crisis. But the nomenclature gives them no sense of urgency. It's not that these small changes in nomenclature are absolutely necessary. But they could be powerful.
Since this is now an archival matter, I've changed the order of the three parts of this series as it initially appeared. Now it follows one, two, three, from the top down.
The climate changed dramatically last week.
While most nations solemnly bound themselves to the Kyoto Accords, scientists announced the most definitive proof yet that global heating is well underway, caused by human-sent CO2. "The debate is over," said one scientist, "at least for rational people."
It is now clearer than ever that the climate crisis has begun. Eventually it will dominate world politics for the next fifty years. It is already moving quickly to the forefront of European concerns. Two-thirds of British Parliament members polled believe it is more important than terrorism.
But though Americans are more conscious of it than politicians seem to realize, there is no national sense of urgency. Now is the time to think very carefully about how to frame the issue constructively. This is the first in a short series exploring approaches to that question.
Doubters say the world isn't heating up significantly, and even if it is, it's a transitory natural phenomenon, and the models predicting climate change because of fossil fuels are alarmist speculation.
But evidence was piled upon evidence at the American Association of Scientists annual meeting last week that global heating is having alarming effects on ocean water temperature, vegetation and wildlife, and human life.
And then the final word: a study of ocean temperatures in the last 40 years showed a rise that only greenhouse gas emissions can explain.
"We were stunned by the similarities between the observations that have been recorded at sea worldwide and the models that climatologists made," said Tim Barnett of the University of California's Scripps Institution of Oceanography. "The debate is over, at least for rational people."
Of course, the debate is not over politically. In many ways it has not really begun. But the problem of how to move this issue up on the list of political priorities has also changed. It's gotten more complicated.
Until recently, the idea was to get people motivated to demand change that would lessen the probability that the climate crisis would cause serious problems in the future. But now we are pretty sure they are going to be serious problems in the near future, no matter what we do to try and stop them. For example, those same scientists from Scripps said last week that no matter what we do, some parts of the world---including the western U.S., China and South America---will experience water shortages and other crises over the next 20 years.
So now there are two sets of actions that need to be taken simultaneously. One is to prepare for dealing with crises that result from global heating. The other is to create change that will lessen the impact of global heating in the future---a future that few of us will see, but our children and grandchildren may.
Still, the first task remains: generating a sense of urgency, especially among Americans and their political representatives. How the issue is framed must reflect the twin nature of the necessary actions, of anticipating emergencies in the near future, and of preventive action for the farther future.
Most polls have consistently shown that around two-thirds of Americans believe in "global warming" and support efforts to address it. Why is this then not an issue every ambitious politician seizes?
I'd love to hear Al Gore answer that question, even on deep background. It's clear from past experience that leadership is essential. But because the necessary actions involve a different way of thinking, and some apparent sacrifice, it is difficult to sustain leadership when opponents can exploit yearnings for the ecological free lunch. During the energy crisis of the 1970s, President Jimmy Carter was successful in urging Americans to cut back on wasteful uses of energy, and the growth in CO2 levels actually declined for years afterwards. But high inflation and the Iran hostages added to his woes, and Republicans under Reagan were able to offer a more self-indulgent vision, which it took eight years of a Democrat in the White House to pay for.
Americans are willing to pay for what they consider an urgent threat. Violent threat countered by warfare is the easiest to understand, hence the budget-busting wars on terror and in Iraq. They are however accompanied by the illusion of no new taxes, and therefore no apparent sacrifice.
So the first task in reframing I believe is still to encourage a sense of urgency, of what someone called an "emotional consensus" on the climate crisis.
Don't Call It Global Warming
The simplest way to begin this reframing is with nomenclature. It has been driven by the vocabulary of science, which was initially appropriate, because scientists have been working on the problem since some first anticipated the effects of fossil fuels on our atmosphere back at least as far as the 1960s.
At first it was called "the Greenhouse Effect," which is the kind of metaphor scientists employ: familiar and relatively accurate to what they theorize is happening. Later the description "global warming" became the media term. More recently, "climate change" has joined or replaced this term in the media. All of these terms are reasonably descriptive, while they reflect the precision of science. But none of them expresses urgency.
Not only are these words non-threatening, they have comforting connotations.W arming conveys really nice things. It's warm and cuddly. Happiness is a warm puppy. Listen to the warm. Can I warm up that coffee? Let's give a warm welcome to...
It is counter-intuitive to think of "warming" as a bad thing. Even as a negative it is, at best, lukewarm. So who can afraid of global warming?
Nothing about it is urgent. You may urgently desire a warm coat on a cold day, but people don't feel too warm. They feel too hot. Then it's urgent.
In fact all of the terms commonly used have more good connotations than bad. "Climate change" is neutral: change can be good or bad. When you're cold or it's stormy, a change in the climate is welcome. People get on airplanes to go find climate change.
The greenhouse effect was scientifically elegant, but again it is at best abstract and definitely not scary. To most people, greenhouses are good. Flowers grow in them. Flowers are pretty. The greenhouse effect sounds like it could make the world prettier.
It is time to turn up the heat on the terminology. Instead of "climate change," it would be helpful to refer to it as THE CLIMATE CRISIS. Ross Gelbspan used it as the subtitle of his book, "The Heat Is On: The Climate Crisis, the Cover-up, the Prescription. Crisis projects urgency.
Gelbspan also uses "heat" rather than "warming." Don't say global warming, say GLOBAL HEATING. As a word, heating is at least potentially threatening in a way that warming isn't.
These may not be the best terms, but they seem to be the easiest, since they are variations on terms that everyone already knows. They will gain power only by repetition. They carry more of a sense of urgency, and that is a necessary precondition to other reframing. The first task is to get attention and focus.
I don't want to oversell this suggestion. It isn't a panacea. It is a possible beginning. It may turn out to be important, because politicians may try to isolate catastrophes and threats that are products of the climate crisis, and so the greater problem is not addressed with the necessary comprehensiveness and urgency. The recent scary weather in Los Angeles can be positioned as Mother Nature acting up again, or God's wrath on Hollywood, but think of the difference in response if it is said to be a result of global heating, versus global warming.
Polls show that Americans are disposed to believe that weather phenomenon they can't help but notice are products of the climate crisis. But the nomenclature gives them no sense of urgency. It's not that these small changes in nomenclature are absolutely necessary. But they could be powerful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
