Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Political Honesty and Guilt by Association

Guilt by association is a seductive, delicious little dirty trick that too many of us on both sides tend to use. Rather than honestly addressing the positions and concerns of someone elsewhere on the political spectrum, it's a lot more fun to grab a quote from some nutcase and condemn your political opponents with it. It's also effective, because it forces your opponents onto the defensive, forcing them to explain away the offensive quotation, defend it by putting it into a broader context, or come up with a similarly offensive quotation from the opposite side of the issue. The result, however, is simple blog onanism, and a deepening of the divide between concerned individuals on the right and the left.

For example, a right-wing blogger recently emailed me about how he and one of his cohorts were eagerly anticipating "the extreme left" blaming Bush for Katrina. (I had jokingly pointed out to him that God directed the hurricane's fury at the red states.) This fellow was looking forward to using such a statement (made seriously by some fringe character) as evidence of just how nutso the far left (which, to him, is probably anybody in favor of personal freedoms other than the right to bear Scud missiles) can be.

But it's not just a right-wing trick. I, the untiring champion of political honesty and integrity, am guilty of it, too. In my correspondence, I pointed out, in response, that it only took until 9/14 for the right to blame 9/11 on liberals. But, if I'm willing to be honest about it, it wasn't "the right", it was Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell - two horribly flawed individuals who probably don't speak for anyone other than a couple other deeply flawed individuals with poor hearing.

Fact is, if you look far enough, I am willing to bet that you will, indeed, find people blaming Bush for the catastrophe of Katrina. Certainly, you will find people blaming him for not having enough national guard troops available, and probably for diverting money to Iraq that may have otherwise been used for levee maintenance, etc. And then you get to go on a rant about how the left is a bunch of insane Bush-haters, and you get to make that national rift a little wider.

Also, you have the spectacle of ethical contortionists like Hannity trying to throw complete nutcases onto the left. Today, he attempted to cast the universally reviled anti-gay Fred Phelps as part of the anti-war left. Umm, no thanks - you can have him, if you're playing that game.

Stupid, and not helpful to anybody. But I bet we'll continue to see frequent displays of this nasty little trick, because it's an easy way for "us" to feel
superior to "them".

Anybody who catches me using this device in the future is welcome to call me a hypocrite in the comments.

Stayton Points Out 8/29-Seattle Connection

Just go read - I can't summarize.

Saturday, August 27, 2005

Tulane - Bound for Party School Greatness

Earlier this week, Tulane was ranked #11 among our nation's party schools by the Princeton Review. This year's class of frosh, however, should be poised to soar to the top of the rankings, since they are going to start out their college career disoriented.

(Due to Hurricane Katrina's impending visit, freshman orientation is cancelled at Tulane. For those who may be concerned, Ali is flying home tonight, to return on Wednesday, or whenever they give the "all clear" sign.)

Friday, August 26, 2005

No Reward - Lucky for Bush

For the last three and a half years, Osama bin Laden has been able to avoid capture or betrayal, despite a reward that has ranged from a few million dollars to around $50,000,000. Those near to him have eschewed an unimaginable amount of money in a third world country.

Can you imagine if a similar bounty were available for the capture of Bush? Can you imagine how quickly he would be sold out by the amoral crew of money-hungry scumbags he has surrounding him? The only question is, who would cash in first? Dick "War is good for Halliburton" Cheney? Donald "Me First" Rumsfeld?

Of course, the correct answer is Karl "Treason for a Reason" Rove. That treacherous weasel would sell his grandmother if he thought it would help him.

Thursday, August 25, 2005

For Just a Minute, I Thought I was Cool

After you reach a certain age, it becomes more and more difficult to avoid letting your musical taste stagnate, and then begin to atrophy. In college days, I seemed to keep up with the latest great music simply through osmosis. After law school, and kids, and middle-agedness, though, the temptation to replay the same Springsteen, Costello, Neil Young, Tom Petty, Joe Jackson, Sting, Bob Marley, Cars, Dylan, Billy Joel (I know, but . . .), Chuck Berry, Talking Heads, Eurythmics, Graham Parker, REM, and Warren Zevon albums - or their CD replacements - becomes overwhelming.

I've fought against it, though. I try to keep up. I check out music blogs, from the local (and aptly named) Extraordinary to the oh-so-hip Fluxblog.

On the way back from New Orleans, Sam dished up a treat. He hooked his iPod into my speakers and fed us some new and dazzling Kanye West, which was nice, but then he hit us with The Hold Steady. Solid rock and lyrics that Dylan would admire.

So, on Monday, I was a proud member of what I thought was a small group of up-to-date music lovers. It felt like college days. I was kind of looking forward to dropping Andrea D an email ("Hey, Andrea - you might want to check out the The Hold Steady. They're good stuff, with a bullet.").

Imagine my horror, then, when I heard NPR do a feature on them yesterday, on All Things Considered, describing their album Separation Sunday as "one of the best-reviewed records of the year". Sigh. I'm at the same level of hipness as Melissa Block, Michele Norris, and Robert Siegel.

Wednesday, August 24, 2005

Another Post on Bolivia - (Please pay attention, for just a moment)

Bolivia is a poor country on a poor continent, and not many Americans claim to be Bolivian-Americans, so nobody really cares what goes on down there. A few of us recall the country as the site of the final gunfight in "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid", but that taps out the knowledge of 99% of Americans.

The 1% of Americans who stand to make huge money in the petrochemical industry, however, and their Halliburton-Bechtel government friends, however, are quite aware of what is going on in Bolivia. You see, after years of being treated as an unwilling lab rat for the free-market pinheads at the World Bank and the IMF, the people in Bolivia are beginning to push back a little. Their push-back matters, because they are sitting on massive amounts of natural gas, and they're not necessarily willing to let foreign corporations steal it from them.

What's the response of OUR elected government, the REPRESENTATIVES OF YOU AND ME? Rumsfeld is pulling a page from the playbook of the 1960s, and blaming Communists for this burst of economic good sense. He is claiming that Cuba and Venezuela (Venezuela being the subject of a radical cleric's recent fatwa - meaning Bush supporter Pat Robertson, of course), are interfering with Bolivian politics.

Of course, it's not unlikely that Rumsfeld has a grain of truth for a change. But, as the invaluable Blog From Bolivia points out in this article, any influence from Venezuela or Cuba pales in comparison to that of Bechtel, Big Oil, the IMF, the World Bank, and our own War on Drugs. At a time when women attempting to buy bleach in a Bolivian grocery store gets carded because of American interference, it takes astonishing chutzpah for Rumsfeld to point his oil-dipped finger at anyone but himself.

Red Like Me

As mentioned in the last post, I spent last weekend, extended by a day each way, driving through the American south. To get to New Orleans from Kansas City, you drive to St. Louis and turn right, tracing the courses of the Missouri and Mississippi rivers. To make certain that we felt the full Republican experience, we left our Volvo behind and rented an SUV. Unfortunately, it did not come with one of those falsely patriotic magnetic ribbons. On the other hand, it did have plates from Johnson County, KS, so my pseudo-Republican disguise was complete.

The first hint that we were descending into a different world (other than the rice paddies and cotton fields of southeast Missouri) came in Blytheville, Arkansas, "where southern hospitality begins." We stopped at a filling station, and, there in the window was a rack of bumper stickers, most of which displayed the rebel flag.

What is it with the rebel flag and rednecks? This place even had a t-shirt that included a rebel flag and the ironic words, "These colors won't run. Never have, never will." Umm, yeah, they certainly did run. They ran and ran and finally surrendered, if I recall history. Where I come from, the Confederacy was led by a guy named Sterling Price, a man who would have been better off coaching a track team. One of my favorite Missourians, Samuel Clemens, joined the Confederates but quit after two weeks, "being incapacitated through continual retreating." I will never understand why rednecks choose to associate themselves with a group of losers that attacked an American fort and then got its ass kicked. They were the Al Qaeda of their time, except that their leader did not dodge Lincoln as effectively as Bin Laden has dodged Bush.

By the time we got to Tennessee, Republican behavior was showing up in the way people drove. Rather than cooperatively merging at construction zones, the drivers around Memphis and points south adopt a "Me first" attitude, rushing past the line of waiting cars and forcing their way in at the barrels, forcing additional delay on everyone but themselves.

Before the trip was over, I found myself listening to AM radio, where I learned that I should refuse to believe all news coverage unless it comes from a Christian broadcasting source, and that the goal of Islam is to kill all Jews and Christians. I could feel the IQ points dripping out of my ears. If you get your news from AM radio, it's no wonder that your world view would be skewed enough to lead you down the republican path.

From some great blues radio on the Jackson, MS, NPR affiliate to the best restaurant I have ever eaten in, there is much to like about the Red states I saw. Tulane is a beautiful place, and I'm confident my daughter will be happy there. That said, though, travelling through Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi and Louisianna in a gas-guzzling SUV gave me a glimpse into the red state south, and made me appreciate living in a swing state.

Thursday, August 18, 2005

On the Road Again

Off to N'Awlins to drop Ali off at Tulane. Many mixed emotions.

Thursday, August 11, 2005

This One Gets My Goat

I know, there are more important issues out there. In a world where a president lied to send ill-equipped troops to invade a country that posed no threat to ours, why should I worry about a parade? In a world where our ambassador to the United Nations has the delicacy and tact (but not the humor) of The Rude Pundit, why should I focus on Clint Black? In a world where Bush's tax policies are helping the rich get richer and while the poor are getting poorer, why should I complain about a free concert?

I guess it's just a matter of taste. On September 11, 2005, Rumsfeld has announced that some of our military dollars will be diverted from the Struggle Against Terror Program Related Activities (or whatever they're calling it now) to the also-awkwardly named "America Supports You Freedom Walk" (not "your" freedom, mind you). The walk will go from the Pentagon to the National Mall. When they get to the National Mall, the crowd will be treated to a concert by Clint Black.

Clint Black. Now, why in the world would we have a country music performer for what is supposed to be "that allows citizens the opportunity to remember the victims of September 11, honor our veterans past and present, and celebrate our freedom." Why Country music??

Despite what Rumsfeld, Bush, and other old Texans may believe, Country music is simply not popular. According to the charts, Country accounts for only 10.4% of music sales, down by a third since 1993. Rock accounts for 25.2%, so why can't we have Bruce Springsteen, a performer with credibility in New York, grab the microphone? (I think we know why, though this isn't supposed to be a partisan event.) Rap/Hip-Hop has 13.3% of the market, followed by "R&B/Urban" at 10.6%. I'm not sure where the bright line is that separates these genres, but, either way, the black audience has two categories that beat the Country genre, and the troops we are supposedly supporting are disproportionately black. So, let's replace Clint Black with a little black - maybe Usher will be available, or Dr. Dre.

But, no, the real America is not what Bush wants to see on his lawn. Instead, he wants to see a narrow demographic of white, rural, lower middle class red-staters. While I am not implying that all Country music lovers are rednecks (even I have some Dwight Yoakam, Willie Nelson and Jimmy Dale Gilmore on my iPod), but you can be pretty sure that 99% of rednecks are Country music lovers. And that's the group that Bush is inviting to DC on the anniversary of the day that New York and Washington were attacked.

Saturday, August 06, 2005

Jan Helder - Sympathy for the Devil?

I've been struggling with how and whether to address Jan Helder's case on my blog. Jan has wound up as a locally and now nationally infamous person, because of a criminal case against him. He was charged with criminal enticement of a 14 year-old girl, and a jury convicted him of that charge on Tuesday. Judge Whipple, though, threw out the case on what many would consider a technicality - the defense argument that the law requires that the person entice a minor, not an adult male deputy pretending to be a minor. Yesterday, however, a state prosecutor filed charges arising out of the same matter.

The problem arises from the fact that I know and kind of like Jan. I've known him for probably 10 years or more now, and he's smart, funny, and likeable in an obnoxious way. When I first knew him, he was a Rush Limbaugh-type republican, always willing to engage in political conversation, and he provided a witty, well-informed opponent. Jan has always been a bit full of himself, and capable of being a bit of an asshole. Prior to the past few months, the Jan Helder anecdote I would have called to mind first was the story about him mouthing off to a redneck in a traffic tie-up, and the guy getting out of his car, approaching Jan's massive BMW, and punching him in the face (I have no idea if this story is true or not, but it's an anecdote someone told me a few years ago). That's classic Jan - big mouth, ability to piss people off, but, at the same time, kind of vulnerable. At heart, though, I've always liked the guy.

So part of me hasn't wanted to post because I hate to add to the attention paid to him. Given the fact that he's been the subject of a segment on Bill O'Reilly, and of countless news articles, I suppose that excuse has evaporated.

First off, let's look at the law. Frankly, as I understand it, I think Judge Whipple is right. If the law says you can be found guilty for enticing a 14 year-old, and you entice a 40 year old deputy, you're not guilty of enticing a 14 year-old. I admit that I am no scholar of criminal law, but that seems pretty cut and dried. I believe that Jan was charged under 18 USC Sec. 2422(b):
Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title and imprisoned not less than 5 years and not more than 30 years.
If that's the charge, it seems to me he's not guilty.

My supposition that he is not guilty is bolstered by the arguments made by those upset by Judge Whipple's decision. They are all attacking the effect of the decision, but I haven't seen them attacking its logic. They're blaming Judge Whipple (not my favorite judge by a long shot) for reading a statute the way it was written. They're wrong, he's right, and he's doing his job. If the legislature had done a better job of writing the law, Judge Whipple wouldn't have had to set Jan free. But, under the law as written, he nobly refused to hold a man in jail for a crime he didn't commit.

Regardless, though, Jan's life has taken a radical downward turn. So far, as I understand it, his wife has stayed with him. But his reputation is deservedly shot, he's now facing charges in state court (how is that not double jeopardy, I wonder?), and his federal case is almost certainly going to attract additional attention, even if he ultimately prevails. His firm, Helder Law Firm, is going to be destroyed. (He's apparently lost his seat on the Board of Directors for Kansas City Young Audiences, and maybe even been kicked out of that "Who's Who of Kansas City Nutcases", the Indian Hills Country Club.) Until now, the only criminal records I could find on the guy are one parking and and one speeding ticket, both from 1998.

I guess my biggest problem with all this is that, in many ways, he's a kind, caring, decent human being. I have laughed with him, and drank beer with him - I can't hate him. He's not a monster. Yet, what he apparently was attempting to do was monstrous.

While the media and the rest of Kansas City are full of hatred for Jan Helder, I guess I'm just out of step. I'm full of sadness, though glad he was stopped before actually harming anyone.

Wednesday, August 03, 2005

Christians Bearing False Witness

The fringe elements are in a tizzy about "children being banned from reading the Bible" (caution: WorldNutDaily link - may cause loss of intellect) at Karns Elementary School in Tennessee. This is one of those cases that the right-wing Christians like to use as an example of how they are persecuted, and how the crazy liberals have ruined our nation. This manufactured controversy is even being pushed on the front page of the "Presidential Prayer Team", which includes a poll on "Does Bible reading on the playground threaten the separation of church and state?" (I wonder how the site will react if their survey reaches a result they don't expect? Not that I would encourage people to visit the site and vote that way, of course . . .)

Not surprisingly, the version they are pushing is a twisted misrepresentation of what is really going on. With parental involvement (surprise), a few 10 year-olds wanted to forfeit recess in favor of a Bible Study. The school does not allow Bible Study Groups during recess, which they don't consider to be free time. They do, however, allow students to read the Bible during free time.

The principal at the center of this flap is hardly a poster child for anti-Christian bias. She defends the right of children to read the Bible, and she has a Bible in her own office. That has not prevented "good Christians" from calling her a "fascist and a communist" (comparative political theory not being a strong suit of her accusers, I suppose), and at least one call that she "be flogged for her stupidity".

If flogging becomes accepted punishment for stupidity . . .

Tuesday, August 02, 2005

Wrong Job, Wrong Man, Wrong Way to Do It

I wish I had gone to elementary school with Bush - I'm sure he would have been exactly the sort of kid who would have made golden memories - easily manipulable by dares and forbidding. "George, I dare you to stick these tweezers in the electrical outlet." "George, Mrs. Smith says we can't mix baking soda and vinegar in a sealed mason jar." Evidence suggests he is exactly the type of person who can't handle being told "no", even where pushing back will force self-destructive behavior.

Unfortunately, 51% of us have chosen to give him the opportunity to damage the whole world when he is reacting badly to limits.

Yesterday, we learned that he is recess-appointing John Bolton, the lying, abusive, self-righteous asshole that even the lying, abusive, self-righteous republicans don't like, to the UN ambassadorship.

I guess he's showing us who's boss.

Unfortunately for no-limit twits like Bush, though, sometimes you have to play within the limits to accomplish what you want, whether that is to retain recess privileges or to accomplish reform within the UN.

Kos's summation of the situation is dead-on:
Bush claims that Bolton will be a force for reform at the UN. Problem is, Bolton has been foisted upon the UN without any consensus in the Senate. He has only a shred of legal authority to the post, and no moral authority. His tenure is necessarily limited to a year.

So how can he effectively push for reform when the UN bureaucracy can simply run out the clock on him? And how will such delaying tactics blow back on the UN when Bolton couldn't even garner the support of his own countrymen in the U.S. Senate? And how could anyone take Bolton seriously given the number and severity of the allegations against him?

Bush thinks he's flashing the middle finger at Democrats, but in reality he's setting back his own cause for reform at the United Nations. As for U.S. diplomacy, it's yet another setback. But this administration has done nothing but give F.U.s to the world community for five years running. This is simply par for the course.