A Pilgrim's Digression

Essays on politics and culture

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Work in transition

This may be my last post here at my blogger site. I recently joined a group of friends, acquaintances, and strangers in founding a communal website at sodsbrood.com. It is founded in the spirit of other literary and social communes through history, from the seventeenth century to the modern era. An interest of mine in Graduate school was the radical Christian and political reform movements of seventeenth century England, such as the Diggers and Levelers, with whom the subject of my thesis, John Milton, was in conversation. The Levelers are my particular favorite because of that society's emphasis on the universal equality of man, government by constitution, and the abolition of monarchy and privilege. To say they and their founder, John Lilburne, were in advance of their time is to understate the truth.

Perhaps we at sods brood are not quite so ambitious, or radical. There are, after all, a number of political and religious conservatives among our group. However, the concept itself is radical, since it is based on an idea ungraspable before, say, 1996: the idea of a community of people who never, or rarely, meet; a community which exists in only theoretical, imaginary space. Or I should say, the concept was not entirely ungraspable to us back in the Dark Ages before enlightenment, it was an idea given new meaning by the coming of the Internet. One could say that artists and writers have always existed in a kind of virtual space in which they are in conversation with each other. And that is the tradition we are keeping alive.

Anyhow, to keep the theory behind our new site in the background where it belongs, we are embarking on a venture together, and I am eventually going to abandon this site in favor of my blog at sods brood. The new address will be http://sodsbrood.com/pilgrim. This may well be my last post here, since I do not envision myself keeping both sites live.

The problem I am faced with, however, is transitioning from blogger to my own site. I do not want to merely publish my blogger blog to my own server. I want the flexibility of having my own web space. Thus I am probably going to be doing a whole lot of cutting and pasting over the next few weeks (months?) until I have transferred my archives to sodsbrood. In the meantime, if you visit this site and find me not at home, try sodsbrood.

Saturday, October 23, 2004

Selling the candidate

In the spirit of digression and disjuncture which seems to characterize my posts today, I wish to comment on some of the ads I've seen in these final days of the campaign. Last week I saw one for Kerry that I thought absolutely brilliant. It was not an ad designed by the Kerry campaign; it was designed by Rob Reiner for MoveOn, and it is perhaps the best ad this season. You can download the movie and watch it at Move On.org, but you'll have to register first with an email address. I suggest using a junk email address, a free yahoo! account, to avoid the inevitable spam. Reiner intercuts scenes of President Bush struggling to identify a mistake his adminstration has made with the traditional Democrat mantra of lost jobs, Iraq war dead, and other mistakes. From what I understand, the ad is only showing in Maryland and D.C. right now. I hope it moves into battleground states in the coming week. I think it would be especially effective in Ohio.

The Bush campaign also has a very good ad titled simply Wolves. It depicts terrorists as wolves lying in wait to attack a weakened America. I think the ad is unfair to wolves, since killing is how wolves live; they are not evil creatures. In fact they have a nobiliy about them, if you think about it. I like wolves because rather than being independent, they are creatures of the pack, dependent upon each other, upon community, for survival. However, I understand the power of the Bush ad. No doubt it also is coded to speak to evangelicals, as well, because of the Biblical symbology behind the wolf as a creature that preys on the weak and the stray. And if the terrorists are the wolves, who then is the Good Shepherd?

Other Bush campaign ads are less effective, at least to my mind. I am turned off by the maudlin emotion on display in the whole Ashley campaign, which features a teary eyed Bush looking deeply into the camera while he hugs a little girl named Ashley, who lost her mother in the Trade Center attacks. "He just wants to keep me safe," the girl says in her sooundbite from the advertisement. No, Dear, he just wants to get reelected.

I suppose it is how Bush is looking into the camera that overpowers the effectiveness of the advertisement. It renders the moment inauthentic, though I suppose not everyone has that reaction. Bush looks as if he is reproving us for not believing in him more deeply, as if he is asking, "How could you vote against me? Look how red my eyes are from weeping for this little girl."

Finally, I saw the most recent Swift boat advertisement ("neither swift, nor truthful," as Jon Stewart has described the group as a whole). I saw the They Served ad one can view on the website. I had the thought, watching it, that if one did not know the Swiftees were anti-Kerry, one might think the ad is pro-Kerry. The camera pans across a lineup of geezers as the narrator intones, "They served their country with courage and distinction.  They’re the men who served with John Kerry in Vietnam." And so on. One keeps expecting the narrator to say they are endorsing Kerry for President. About halfway through, he does speak the rather syntactically confusing line, "[They were] tortured for refusing to confess what John Kerry accused them of. . . of being war criminals." Other than that, the ad seems pretty innocuous, even inexpertly put together to me.

Time is moving on, now. Hard to say what another week will hold, but I still have high hopes that Kerry will win. One thing Bush has working in his favor, however, is the inconstancy factor. Or perhaps from his point of view, it is a constancy factor, since Americans are traditionally, perhaps consitutionally unwilling to "change horses in midstream," in clichéd political parlance. From my perspective it is inconstancy, since no doubt people who see problems with the Bush administration and do not dislike Kerry—who perhaps even say they intend to vote for him—will have second thoughts in the poll booth itself. This is the segment of the population the Ashley ads are meant to appeal to, the people who say at the last minute, "Well, he's such a nice guy, and I really like him; he is caring. I think I'll give him another chance." Call it 'battered wife syndrome' if you will. A few tears, a hug (but no real apologies), and the guy is back in her good graces again, for a little while. Long enough.

Winding down: 10 days to go

Despite the frenzy that the candidates themselves feel in the final days of an election, these last two weeks always seem to me to be the quietest. Everyone I meet has already made up their mind and are for the most part tuning out the news and election coverage. Much of the campaigning, and almost all of the reporting, has turned negative anyway, as it aways does this time in the season.

I watched Fox news Wednesday evening, "Special Report" with Brit Hume, which I usually enjoy. I have never seen any egregious examples of bias committed by Fox, other than their polling, which is done by Real Clear Politics and always puts the President ahead by several points. Wednesday evening, though, by my count, Brit Hume and his op-ed contributers, Mort Kondrake, Charles Krauthammer, and Mara Liasson did not make a single positive comment towards the Kerry campaign. Liasson, who I suppose is the "liberal" voice on the panel, coming as she does from NPR, made some attempt to defend Kerry, but it was half-hearted. All I heard was, Kerry is down in every poll; his negative campaigning is failing; Teresa's "real job" comment was outrageously offensive ...

"Special Report" usually ends with a humorus clip from one of the late night programs, either Leno or Letterman. Wednesday night, instead of ending on a light note, Hume showed a clip of Kerry at a rally speaking French with a Haitian immigrant. He and Krauthammer and Kondrake got a good chuckle over that. It was perhaps the most sickeningly biased hour of news and opinion I have ever watched in my life.

There are a couple articles in today's online Washington Post worth reading. The first is Record Numbers Voting Early. The gist of this article is that if, as some say, the election will hinge on voter turnout, the Democrats are already turning out more voters than the Republicans. The article cautions, however, that Republicans are more likely to vote absentee than to vote early, though I'm not sure how the article's authors come by that contention. Early voting is historically in its infancy, so is it really worthwhile at this stage to try to guage how it compares with other types of voting? The real question is, will Republicans vote on election day.

The second article worth reading is No Direct Evidence of Plot to Bomb Around Elections. Back in September, and even before then, the administration had been warning us of an election-related mass-casualty terrorist plot that might be in the offing. The CIA source who originally contributed the lead on that plot has since been discredited, according to this article. Additionally, no other credible information has surfaced that leads to direct, verifiable information that a plot is in the planning, let alone in the offing.

I am not one of those who accuses the President of using the threat of terrorism as a political tool, yet one can easily see how valuable that threat would be to a politician. I often wonder how history will judge our "war" on terrorism. Has the threat been overblown, perhaps not intentionally but out of genuine, if misguided fears? Right now, three years after 9/11, with no more attacks on American soil, it becomes more and more difficult to take the war seriously. To a large extent, as with almost everything in this administration, that we are under constant threat of impending doom must be taken on faith. I remember leading up to the war in Iraq, I buried my own doubts because I trusted the Bush Administration must have good cause to want to invade, reasons they could not disclose, evidence that must be kept secret for security reasons. I put my faith in them that they knew best. In some ways, this whole administration's relation to the American people has been like a parent-child relationship in that when the American people question the administration, the President and his people routinely resort to the age-old tautological dodge of parents the world over: because we say so. How do you know Saddam has WMD? Because we say so. How do you know the invasion was right? Because we say so. I find this all the more ironic because in the nineties, conservatives accused the Clinton administration of playing the role of loving, overindulgent parents to a populace grown weak and lazy with government-distributed wealth. Now the Bush Adminsitration has stepped quite naturally into the role of over-authoritative parent who knows best and keeps the kids in a kind of dependent subjugation.

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Christ's Mouthpiece Speaks!

Pat Robertson was on Paula Zahn's CNN program last night. He had some pretty outrageous things to say, as usual, including the claim that he warned President Bush there would be casualties in the war in Iraq, and that Bush responded with confidence that he did not believe there would be any.
"And I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you had better prepare the American people for casualties.' "

Robertson said the president then told him, "Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties."
Robertson goes on to express again, in case other Christians haven't heard him when he has said it the hundred previous times, that "the blessing of heaven is on Bush."

The unmitigated arrogance of people who claim, without doubt or reservation, to know and understand God's will always astounds me. I think that as individuals, we certainly can come to an understanding of God's will for our own life. However, to claim to know that "God's blessing" is on a political leader, and then to routinely say as much to others of Faith, is an incredible presumption.

Robertson goes on to offer some more choice tid-bits for the damned heathen like myself to get bent about. Robertson says about the Iraq war, for example, "I mean, the Lord told me it was going to be A, a disaster, and B, messy," Robertson said. "I warned him about casualties."

Let me see if I understand this correctly, Robertson, a Christian minister, knew the war was going to be a disaster, and that there would be many casualties. And yet he let Bush go ahead with the war with his tacit approval. And now he still supports Bush? Come on.

One is tempted to go back to the Bible, specifically the Old Testament, and demonstrate to Robertson that when a leader has turned a war into a "messy disaster," it has been because God's blessing has not been upon that leader.

Somehow I don't think Robertson reads his Bible much these days, at least not with the open heart that is necessary for truly hearing God's Word. God's prophets are almost invariably critics of the status quo who speak uncomfortable truth to power, rather than affirmers of the King's will. The United States itself is a country founded on the principle that there is no Divine Right of Kings. Yet here we have a minister claiming that George Bush is indeed divinely appointed. That viewpoint is by no means confined to Robertson, either.

In Ron Suskind's fascinating New York Times article Without A Doubt, he relates how he often heard Christian supporters express the belief that Bush was appointed by God to lead the country. One such supporter at a rally in Poplar Bluffs, Missouri, told Suskind, "I believe he's an instrument of God, but I have to be careful about what I say, you know, in public." Suskind asks, "Is there anyone in America who feels that John Kerry is an instrument of God?"

Tuesday, October 19, 2004

Nobody better say nuttin' bout Ted Koppel

Jon Stewart's Friday appearance on CNN's lame "Crossfire" show has generated lots of mixed press for Stewart. Happily, you, too, can watch the entire segment on-line. Considering that "Crossfire" is broadcast at 4:30 in the afternoon, at a time when only housewives and felons under house arrest are at home, it seems likely most people without TiVo will be viewing the segment online. Stewart's bright moments: he calls Tucker Carlson a "dick" and asks him, "How old are you? And you wear bow ties?"

On last night's show, Novak and Carville both took an opportunity to defend the honor of their beloved, bow-tied colleague, not to mention Ted Koppel, whom I don't think came up in the Friday segment, but of whom Carville is quite protective anyway.
NOVAK: Let me say something about Jon Stewart. I don't think he's funny. And I know he's uninformed.

CARVILLE: Well, I think he's funny. I just think he's a pompous ass attacking Ted Koppel. Why would you want to attack somebody that's been in this business this long? Attack CROSSFIRE, Tucker, me. Who cares?

NOVAK: Because he's uninformed. Because he's uninformed.

CARVILLE: He's funny, but he shouldn't attack Ted Koppel.
One wonders whom Novak would consider funny. Novak does not strike me as the kind of guy who would "get" Da Ali G Show, for example. I'd absolutely love to see Ali G take on Novak, though. Novak seems more of an Abbott and Costello kinda guy.

And what's with Carville's Koppel obsession? Stewart didn't even mention him, as far as I know. The Ragin' Cajun got a hard-on for Ted, I guess.

I used to watch "Crossfire" when it was on later in the evening; since CNN changed its time slot, Stewart is right, it's just pointless bickering for policy wonks home sick in the afternoon. The show puts two partisans in a ring and lets them tear at each other with no resolution or attempt to mediate. And somehow it's all supposed to shake out in the minds of the citizenry? No, it just reinforces division, that's all. Stewart gets it exactly correct.

Slouching towards Bethlehem

Lately, the newspapers are full of frank foreboding about how and when Election 2004 is going to be decided this year. Litigiousness looms as the incalculable determining factor in the election.

Among the pundit class, conservatives seem to be the most worried about a close election and the possibility of a run-off in the courts. For MSNBC today, George Will writes about the Dooomsday Scenario that could seriously damage the legitimacy of whoever wins Election 2004. Interestingly, Will sees the 2000 Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore as the "ticking bomb" at the heart of Election 2004, and he seems to have decided that Election 2000 should have been allowed to play itself out in the Florida courts and legislature (it probably eases the swallowing of this bitter pill for Republicans that Will believes Bush would have won anyway).

What then is the "rough beast" slouching its way towards Bethlehem to be born, this campaign season? A President who might not be inaugurated before all the litigation is finished, sometime in May 2005. A terrible precedent indeed.

Of course it's all those evil Democrats' fault, with their teams of lawyers. Never mind the Republicans are preparing their legal teams, too. I'm sure they view it as only a necessary response to Democratic maneuvering. Neal Boortz today on his radio program said that he thinks John Kerry will win by a slim margin in two weeks for two reasons: voter turnout and vote rigging. Conservative talkers like to point to the recent case of a man arrested for filling out multiple phony voter registration forms for the NAACP in exchange for crack(Officials allege crack-for-registration) as a sign of just how determined the Democrats are to win this election by hook or by crook, preferably by crook. Democrats, meanwhile, have their own concerns over whether provisional and absentee ballots will be counted fairly, or even whether Kerry's name will appear on them at all. In Ohio, John Kerry's name was mistakenly left off absentee ballots sent out to two counties.

This has to be one of the strangest campaigns for the Presidency in history. The "early voting" is something that totally caught me by surprise. I had no clue people were going to be able to vote early, and I am not quite sure how I feel about it. On the one hand, I think Republicans are far too restrictive of who can vote. Boortz likes to spout off about how no one has the right to vote, and one of his pet topics is how the voter rolls need to be culled (he would prevent welfare recipients from voting, for example; "If you depend on government handouts for your survival, at least have the decency to sit back and let the people who are paying your bills make the decisions," he said on his blog today). He would also limit voting to those who can name the people representing them in their state legislatures and in Washington. These are good, homespun ideas that appeal to people who don't think through the consequences. I can name a state legislator, but I have no clue if he is the legislator from my district or not, I am sorry to say. I am much better informed on the national level. Still, I probably would not be able to pass Boortz' voter test to make it into the polls, and how many others would be disenfranchised as well? I regret bringing up Boortz so frequently, but I think it's a good idea to have one eye on the talkers. They speak to millions of Americans. Limbaugh, I think, has lost his touch, so I read Boortz's blog quickly in the morning before work; Boortz is a growing force in this part of the media.

To return to the early voting issue, I try to live up to democratic ideals, to the point that I don't think even convicted felons should forfeit their right to vote. I also think election day ought to be on a Saturday. Yet I like the idea of voting on one day in November, and only on that day. It seems to me early voting leaves open too much time for fraud to occur between the time it begins and "election day," if that phrase has any meaning now. Some articles I have read raise the idea that voting early is like hiring someone without doing a complete background check. A lot can happen in two weeks that could change one's mind. That analogy seems fundamentally flawed, to my mind, because there is no essential difference between voting early and voting absentee, and no one believes voting absentee is some kind of threat to our democracy. Anyway, there are all kinds of situation in which citizens make decisions without knowing all the facts. Good Lord, according to recent studies of voter knowledge, even on election day, fully 70% of voters are so ignorant of basic facts they essentially vote blind, on the basis of appearance or other intangibles. The following disturbing passage comes, once again, from a New Yorker article I read not long ago ("The Unpolitical Animal," Louis Menand, August 30, 2004).
Seventy per cent of Americans cannot name their senators or their congressman. Forty-nine per cent believe that the President has the power to suspend the Constitution. Only about thirty per cent name an issue when they explain why they voted the way they did, and only a fifth hold consistent opinions on issues over time. Rephrasing poll questions reveals that many people don't understand the issues that they have just offered an opinion on. According to polls conducted in 1987 and 1989, for example, between twenty and twenty-five per cent of the public thinks that too little is being spent on welfare, and between sixty-three and sixty-five per cent feels that too little is being spent on assistance to the poor. And voters apparently do punish politicians for acts of God. In a paper written in 2004, the Princeton political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels estimate that "2.8 million people voted against Al Gore in 2000 because their states were too dry or too wet" as a consequence of that year's weather patterns. Achen and Bartels think that these voters cost Gore seven states, any one of which would have given him the election.
I am embarrassed to say, I am in the forty-nine percent who believe the President has the ability to suspend the constitution. Luckily, however, I do not vote for President on the basis of whether my state is too wet or too dry. Ah Ignorance, thou art bliss!

In the midst of all the apocalyptic rhetoric that accompanies the end of a campaign cycle, I would remind my fellow Kerry supporters of one essential fact this campaign season, paraphrasing another all-suffering donkey (from Orwell's Animal Farm): win or lose, the world goes on, much as it always has, that is, badly. I think it will go better if Kerry wins, but if it doesn't happen, go get drunk on November 3rd and then get back to work on November 4th. Don't let an election determine whether you are happy or bitter for more than a few hours.

My wife, she's worried sick about the election. She won't let me talk to her about the news unless I have something good to report. She won't even watch the news herself now. She's just crossing her fingers, closing her eyes, and waiting for election day. She believes in this vast "Silent Majority" of conservative Christians who are going to rise up on election day and provide Bush with a clear victory. She sees the lack of Bush/Cheney signage in our neighborhood, compared to the plethora of Kerry/Edwards signage, as an ominous symbol of this conspiracy of silence. "Republicans are quiet, brooding, backstabbers," she says; "They let you get your hopes up, then they tear you down and say, 'See, I told ya so.'"

I've tried to convince her it's all in her imagination. Not that the polls which say the race is a dead heat can be trusted (I happen to think the margin will in the end be more in Kerry's favor, and he will win decisively, because of voter turnout as Boortz suggests), but there is also no underground swell of support for Bush that is not registering at the polls. This Evangelical voting bloc that Bush is courting in these final days—hell, he's been courting them throughout the campaign— are much like my Grandmother. She's as socially conservative as they come, a regular "gone to church on Wednesday and Sunday" Fundamentalist who watches Benny Henn and sometimes even donates. She told me in a conversation last weekend that she considers herself a Democrat and hasn't voted in an election since the nineteen fifties. If this is the base of support Bush is counting on, the base he lost in 2000 by some four million votes, I think the "silent majority" is going to remain silent this election season, too.

You know I can't sleep, I can't stop my brain

I'm so tired. I slept badly last night. A couple nights a week now, this happens. If it happens on the weekend, it's not so bad because I can stay abed longer, dozing away the morning, or even sleeping deeply if I have finally sunk into somnolence. This morning, however, I gave it up at four-thirty and rose to get ready for work, after a night of wakefulness.

I have blamed my insomnia on biological causes: too much salt in my diet, too much caffeine before bed. But as I lay there last night, and the voices in my head grew louder and louder, I came to believe, no, it's thinking itself that is keeping me awake. Yes, I hear voices, though psychologically this is nothing different than anyone else hears in the cavity of their mind. At least I don't think it's different.

We all have a running monologue in our heads, some of it more or less gibberish or half-thoughts, much of the time. Sometimes at night, mine is amped up, the way that after dusk, you can pick up that AM radio station in Charlotte, North Carolina, four hundred miles away, a clear stream of sound from another world, away down South in Dixie. Nights when I can't sleep, it's because the monologue comes in crystal, clean and ready for the page on which I will likely never put it. I also hear voices of characters in stories I am writing or would like to write. Sometimes whole stories come to me this way, and I write them down in the dark hours of the night, then stick them in a desk drawer, forgotten. Sometimes I try to write the monologue down, too, but I could stay up the whole night—a few times I have stayed up the whole night—and the next day, I am strung out like I'm coming off a real bender. It's better for me the next day if I don't write, if I just lie there and let the voices speak.

Sometimes I can attribute the clarity of the voices to something that happened during the day or just before bed. Last night, I watched Fahrenheit 9/11 for the first time, and then before turning out the light at eleven, I read nearly two hundred pages in The Dark Tower, the final book in Stephen King's "Dark Tower" series.

I am mistrustful of what I felt, watching Moore's movie. I am mistrustful of emotional appeals generally, and F-9/11 is definitely a movie meant to appeal emotionally to people. Moore is a master propagandist. I say that not as a denigration of his point of view, only to point out that in his film Moore is stitching together a narrative, much like a novelist, and the pieces he puts together may be in discord with pieces he leaves out that would contradict the story he is telling. For example, the part of the story about the Bush/House of Saud connections is all well and good, except that since the film came out, one of Moore's chief sources, Richard Clarke, has said that he himself was actually the one responsible for approving the Bin Laden family's hasty departure of the United States.

So as I watch the film, and as I find myself weeping over certain portions of it, for example the audio track-only account of the events of 9/11, I ask myself, am I rationally justified in feeling these emotions? When I watch the scene of American soldiers mocking and abusing the corpse of a dead Iraqi, and I feel anger and a sad pain for how the war has drained the humanity out of these boys, I ask myself, is the emotion I am feeling justified? Can this abuse be seen in another context, one that explains, if not justifies it? Or am I allowing myself to be led along a certain emotional path by Michael Moore? Emotions are dangerous, misleading things, as Yoda would certainly tell us, were he here. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate ... down this path lies the Dark Side.

It's an odd thing to find one's self feeling strong emotion and forcing one's self to doubt the emotion at the same time. Maybe I should just give in to the emotion, but I can't; I am too taken with rationality, which can be a weakness itself I suppose, since it can also mislead and be misled. My reliance on Reason is probably why most of the time, I lie in my bed letting the voices speak but not taking down what they are saying. I need a mental Dictaphone to spin out the pages I write in my head on these nights. I know when I do actually sit up in my insomniac daze and write, what usually comes out is something valuable to me.

So last night I lay there, the voices talking to me, the monologue stringing out like spaghetti, a mixture of literary and film criticism mostly.

Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote a poem in 1795, one of my favorites of his, titled "The Æolian Harp," in which he describes creative inspiration as like the wind playing upon a string instrument. An æolian harp is a small string instrument folks would hang outside their homes, similar to wind chimes which people hang on their porches today, and for the same purpose, because of the natural music made by the wind across the strings. That poem still resonates with me because it describes how the best stuff that I write, rare as it is, is produced like a breath of wind blowing through me, across the strings of my mind.
And what if all of animated nature
Be but organic Harps diversly fram'd,
That tremble into thought, as o'er them sweeps
Plastic and vast, one intellectual breeze,
At once the Soul of each, and God of all?
Coleridge never answers his question. His wife gives him a reproving look which bids him "walk humbly with my God," and so his poem turns to more traditional thoughts of Faith. Women are always getting in the way of male inspiration, it seems!

However, I know what Coleridge felt, because I felt it last night as the voices came to me and spoke of war and the Dark Tower, creativity and death. The Dark Tower, both the final book in the series and the series itself, is a real mind-bender from a writer who traditionally has written only mind-candy. Beginning in the fifth book of the series, Wolves of the Calla, King himself begins
to appear in his own book, not in a Phillip Rothian kind of way, that is, not as a character named Stephen King but as himself, writer of the book in which he is also a character. By the end of the book, his characters have discovered that they are indeed characters written by this Stephen King, and in the sixth book, Song of Susannah, they actually meet their maker. In a long scene of dialogue, King explains to Roland and Eddie, the gunslingers whom he created, how he created them. King leaves it ambiguous that they might be real and he just channeled their story, but he also leaves it ambiguous that he may have actually created them and is narrating their story even as they think they are living it. Ironically, in the
seventh book, in which there are some terrible deaths among the gunslingers, the gunslinger boy, Jake, actually prays to Stephen King to write the story differently so that the deaths don't happen.

A friend of mine, who is working on his Ph.D. in Post-Modern studies, says that King is working through a theme in post-modern literature called "the exhaustion of narrative," in which the writer believes that traditional narrative devices have literally exhausted themselves. The old "suspension of disbelief" (to quote Coleridge again) doesn't work anymore; people see the artifice behind literary
creation, and King is acknowledging that fact, and even playing with the idea.

What I see is also a writer in awe of the act of creation that has sustained him and enriched his life. Are these characters, these voices that speak through creative types actually characters at all, or do they have some kind of reality apart from the creator? And to take the question to another level, we as creations of our God, does
He speak through us and to us, and do we give voice to Him, or in our egotism do we hear the voice and think we are its Creator?

All I know is, sometimes the voices come to me, too, whether more frequently or less, as I grow older, I don't know. More frequently, I think, considering how many sleepless nights I spend with them these days. Question is, what to do about them? I'm lazy, as Stephen King himself acknowledges he is lazy. It sounds contradictory, coming from a man seemingly quite prolific, but in The Dark Tower he says
that there is a difference between the kind of writing he mostly does, which is safe and shorebound, and The Dark Tower, which is like swimming out into dark, deep water, out of site of the shore. He is definitely afraid of the latter kind of writing, and puts it off as long as possible. It took him over thirty years to write The Dark Tower, compared to the few months it takes him to write most of
his stuff.

I'm lazy, too, a procrastinator extraordinaire, who still hears the voices but mostly ignores them, tucks them away until they come in again clear on that crystal radio set in my mind to keep me awake at night. I think we all hear the voices but ignore them. The hard part is always recording what the Oracle says, and then understanding it correctly; this is the part that can keep us awake all night and disturb our daytime self as well. Most people ignore, ignore, until the voices subside, fade, and the radio set goes dark. I wonder if I will be one of those.

Monday, October 18, 2004

The brave little tailor

At the risk of prolonging a story that, like an obnoxious, drunk party guest, refuses to go away, take a look at what Bush's campaign advisor said yesterday in response to a Tim Russert question about "Bush's bulge."

The exchange is actually a three way between Russert, Ken Mehlman (the Bush advisor), and Bob Shrum, Kerry's campaign advisor.
MR. RUSSERT: Before we go, Mr. Mehlman, clear up this mystery that has been raging on the Internet. This was the first debate, George Bush at the podium, the bulge in the back of the suit. All right. Come clean. What is it?

MR. MEHLMAN: The president, in fact, was receiving secret signals from aliens in outer space. You heard it here on MEET THE PRESS.

MR. SHRUM: You mean you sent Rove into orbit.

MR. RUSSERT: It was not a bulletproof vest or magnets for his back or anything?

MR. MEHLMAN: I'm not sure what it was, but the gentleman responsible for the tailoring of that suit is no longer working for this administration.

MR. SHRUM: Well, wait a minute. Now, the president only wears Oxford clothes. I'll bet that tailor is still there.
The thing that caught my eye was not the way Mehlman didn't answer the question, but the way he insulted the President's tailor. My personal feeling is that a tailor to the President is probably going to be a damned good one, but what do I know?

Well, a couple weeks ago, The New Yorker featured an article in its fashion issue (September 27, 2004) about the President's tailor, one Georges de Paris, "tailor to every American President since Lyndon Johnson." Incidentally, De Paris was not the tailor whom Lyndon Johnson asked to cut his next pair of pants looser in "the crotch, down where your nuts hang." You can read about that, and even listen to Johnson ordering his pants, here.

To return, it seems unlikely that De Paris would have made an ill-fitting suit for President Bush, and indeed he himself has refuted the idea that Bush was wearing an earpiece, though he has not responded to Melman's slander of the quality of his work or the inference that De Paris is now cutting brush on a chain gang of other disloyal Bush Administration officials down at the ranch in Crawford.

What did De Paris have to say about George W. in that New Yorker article three weeks ago? He had nothing but praise for the President, which must make Melhman's scapegoating of him all the more galling to the little tailor. The article reads, "Reagan was very chatty and gave him [de Paris] jelly beans, perhaps as a propitiating gesture, since he was always afraid that de Paris would stick him with pins during a fitting—but George W. Bush (a forty-four long, who favors navy and charcoal) runs a close second. 'So nice! So friendly!' de Paris says of Bush, whom he sees sometimes three times a week, at the White House, for fittings."

Mehlman's use of De Paris as a sacrifical goat in this lingering scandale is all too typical of this Bush Administration. Mehlman makes it sound as if Bush orders his suits from "Latka's Greek Tailoring" down in South East D.C., rather than from the same distinguished French tailor as every President since Johnson. If I were George W., in the future I'd be wary of letting De Paris anywhere near my ass and jewlies with stick pins. Never insult a French tailor.

My vote for the Tin Man

This week's New Yorker is an all-politics issue, so I am in Heaven on my daily commute to and from work. There is an article in it about John Zogby. You may remember last week I wrote here about a question in a recent Zogby poll. For whom would you vote, the Tin Man or the Scarecrow, in an election for the President of Oz?

Several weeks ago, I signed up to take the Zogby on-line polls, and since then I've taken a poll about once a week. This was the first time I had encountered the Oz question, but apparently the question has been asked before, particularly in 2000 about two weeks before the election. Detailing the results of that question, Zogby says:
The next day, I called Utica and said, "Whaddaya got?" They said "Well, we've got Gore—," I said, "I don't care about Gore. What's Oz?" It was 46.2 for the Tin Man and 46.2 for the Scarecrow. It was right there that I knew I wasn't going to know what was going to happen. But I asked this question again two weeks ago and the Tin Man led by ten points.
Obviously, Zogby has asked the question even more recently, since the New Yorker article wasn't written between last week and this week. I wonder what the poll is saying now? Tin Man or Scarecrow?

I suppose it all depends on whether one believes the Tin Man is Kerry and the Scarecrow is Bush, or vice versa. What I found last week, writing about the matter, is that when I really thought about it, the candidates could be either one of the characters. Kerry could be perceived as hollow, or stuffed with straw, and Bush could be seen as stubborn, stiff, oxidized into a belief system that is leading America down the wrong Yellow Brick Road. Perhaps the question is flawed in that respect, since it relies on the assumptions of the person hearing the question. My first assumption is that Kerry is the Tin Man. Maybe others would not come to that same assumption.

Why am I writing about this again? I think the Oz question is a clever question, and apparently Zogby feels so as well, or he wouldn't be trotting it out again this year. Apparently, it predicted the debacle of 2000 pretty accurately. In an interview with a Singapore newspaper, reprinted on the Zogby website, Zogby talks about the Tin Man/Scarecrow contest, and explains why he thinks it predicts a Kerry win on November 2nd. The fact that Zogby admits he wants Kerry to win may give credence to critics who say his polling is biased against President Bush. However,as this election draws to a close, it seems increasingly clear that none of the pollsters are in any better position to provide an unadulterated answer to how the election will come out.

Today, the majority of polls have Bush pulling ahead. Whether as a result of the Bush campaign's capitalization on Kerry's "Mary Cheney" remark, or as a result of the debates generally, no one seems to know. Kerry's comment about the Cheney daughter certainly did provoke widespread negative opinion for Kerry. It mystifies me a little, because supposedly we live in a society where there is no shame in being a homosexual, yet Kerry's mention of a lesbian by name in the debate has resulted in people saying they "cringed" or otherwise felt uncomfortable. The comment passed right by me even as Kerry said it, so again, I am left shaking my head about this controversy. I just don't understand it, except as an effort by the Bush campaign to take advantage of whatever they can in these final days. And Kerry did throw them a lifeline, no doubt; problem is, I don't think he could have foreseen that his comment would be utilized by the GOP in such a way.

A letter to the editor of the New Yorker makes an analogy between Kerry's remark and a hypothetical comment by President Bush on one of the Kerry daughters having an abortion. Again, the premise underlying that analogy is that lesbianism is something shameful or morally frowned upon, like having an abortion. Indeed lesbianism may be frowned upon in some segments of our society, but not the segment I think Kerry wants to appeal to. The segment most likely to be negatively influenced by knowing that Dick Cheney has a gay daughter would not vote for Kerry anyway, and probably will go ahead and vote for President Bush (if they vote at all). Maybe I can't see past my own indifference to homosexuality, which prevents me from understanding why some people would be offended by the mention of someone being a lesbian. But the comment did not seem to me to be anything to get bent out of shape about. In hindsight, it was a political mistake, but could Kerry have foreseen that? And should he be blamed for not foreseeing how provincial people still are on the subject of homosexuality?

To return for a conclusion on the issue of polls, I don't know that any poll taken right now should make either candidate feel good. I'm not just saying that because my candidate is down in the polls. If you look at each one of them, there is a wide and inexplicable gap between CNN, which has Bush up by eight!!! points and Time and a couple others, which have a difference of just two points between the candidates. Is there truth in some kind of median, or average of the polls? I doubt it. For example, if the CNN poll is somehow fatally flawed, averaging the polls or looking for a median won't compensate for that. In some ways, the question of for whom would you vote, Tin Man or Scarecrow, may indeed be just as revealing a question as for whom will you vote, Bush or Kerry?

It's all downhill

The last two weeks of an election cycle always seem to draw out both the best and worst characteristics of candidates for office. Mostly we see only the worst. I don't know if it is because the candidates begin to get a little panicky when they don't have a clear lead in the polls, or if its because their campaign team saves its dirtiest tricks for the bitter end. Maybe it's a little of both.

Whatever the reason, fearmongering is in fashion this campaign season. John Kerry has suggested that President Bush is going to bring back the draft and privatize Social Security if reelected. As pure demagoguery, these allegations are not too far-fetched. Everyone knows or suspects that Bush does want to in some way privatize Social Security. Calling it Bush's "January surprise", Kerry has documentation to back up his assertion, a New York Times Magazine article in which the President is quoted as giving an unambiguous picture of his first priorities upon regaining office, "I'm going to come out strong after my swearing in ... with fundamental tax reform, tort reform, privatizing of Social Security." The President's own words make the Bush Campaign's scream of "dirty trick" seem rather lame. However, in their defense, President Bush said in the final debate last week that no Senior would ever see a cut in Social Security benefits. The checks will keep coming. Whether that is a promise he can keep, when his privatization plan would take so many younger workers' money out of the Social Security system, is another story.

The draft allegation, on the other hand, is factually groundless. The irony is that indeed recently there was a bill before Congress to reinstate the draft, but it was sponsored by two Democrats. When a "no hope" vote on that bill was forced, the only two "yes" votes for the draft were the two Democrats who sponsored it. Barring North Korea crossing the 38th Parallel, there is no need for a draft no matter how overextended our forces are in Iraq; and there is certainly no political viability in the idea. Would Bush be more likely to reinstate the draft than Kerry? Unlikely, again for political reasons. After such a long period of having a volunteer-only army, calling for a reinstatement of the draft without the impetus of a military threat would be suicide for the party sponsoring the idea.

For his part, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney have adopted a fearmongering tactic of their own, not seen since President Johnson insinuated that a vote for Goldwater was a vote for nuclear annihilation. Essentially, the message of the Bush campaign in these final days is that a vote for Kerry is a vote for one's own murder by Muslim fanatics. Cheney's remark that if Americans make the "wrong choice" on November 2nd, another terrorist attack is inevitable, is only the most remarked upon example of this peculiarly bold brand of demagoguery. Many independently funded groups are taking President Bush's message of imminent doom directly to the people in the form of visually provocative advertisements. One called "Progress For America" is airing an ad showing pictures of Osama and his cohorts with the catchy slogan, intoned by one of those announcers who sound like the Voice of God (or Darth Vader), "These people want to kill us. Would you trust Kerry against these fanatic killers?" Considering that Kerry has actually shot someone dead in combat,"Yes Sir, I would."

Scare tactics are ever a part of politics as practiced in the United States. However, I cannot remember a time when such tactics were used so broadly and repeatedly, and without censure from either the media or the citizenry. At a time in the campaign when voters seem already locked into their choices, and the undecided voter is harder and harder to come by, the campaigns seem to be showing some desperation. How else does one explain explicit threats that a vote for the "other" guy will result in the voter either being murdered, drafted, or made poorer?

Thursday, October 14, 2004

Final ramblings about the debate

After the debate last night, my wife said, "I sort of feel sorry for Bush." I said, "Don't feel sorry for him until November 3rd."

My wife said she felt that at the end of the debate, after Bush had calmed the almost manic disposition he had displayed all night, he finally came across as at ease and likable. His sense of humor is self-deprecating, which makes it hard to blame him for faults he clearly recognizes and tries to make light of.

Kerry was his calm, "funereal" self (to use Oliver Stone's word for Kerry). His acknowledgement of how well Bush handled events immediately following 9/11 was an unexpected bit of graciousness. The favor was not returned, that I noticed. Throughout the day, the Insta-polls I've seen and the post-debate analysis I've read indicate that Kerry probably did the better job. I felt that Kerry had won soon after the debate was over. I don't know how Republicans are feeling about it in their heart of hearts, but it must be a little disappointing that Bush never scored the knock out punch.

At least one Bush supporter, a Libertarian radio talk show host Neal Boortz, has declared Kerry the winner. If you aren't too repulsed by AM radio rhetoric, check out it out at Why I think that John Kerry
won the debate
. Of course, Boortz awards this victory to Kerry with a good backhand slap, declaring that a majority of the American people are lazy and expect Government to step in and take over every aspect of their worthless lives, and this is exactly the kind of voter Kerry appealed to last night. That is why Kerry won, in Boortz's opinion. I don't know the extent to which Boortz is a reflection of
the rest of the conservative punditry, but I found it interesting that while other Bush folks are putting on a happy face, Boortz seems pessimistic.

Like Al Gore in 2000, in these three debates Bush has displayed three distinct personalities, each time trying to compensate for the last faltering performance. The only ones who can walk away from these debates fully satisfied that George Bush did a good job are the die-hard partisans. Bush threw them some red meat last night with his wisecracks about Ted Kennedy being the conservative Senator from
Massachusetts and how Kerry resides on the "left bank" of the mainstream, a comment that confused me at first because I misheard it and thought he said "West Bank."

These jokes fell flat with me, as did Kerry's reference to the Sopranos. The jokes were thought up in advance, and they did not work.

On the subject of Kerry's mention of Dick Cheney's daughter, I tend to agree with Andrew Sullivan, who says " The only way you can believe that citing Mary Cheney amounts to "victimization" is if you believe someone's sexual orientation is something shameful." Besides, this story has led to far too many journalists titling their pieces, "There's something about Mary." Kinda reminds me of a few weeks back,
during the battle for Samara, when it seemed like every journalist simultaneously rediscovered John O'Hara's forgotten novel Appointment in Samarra. Do you think any of them had read it? Maybe if they had, they would have realized it was set in America, and had nothing to do with Iraq.

Salon is trying to keep the "Bush's Bulge" story going a little while longer with this picture. Every time I read a story with the title "Bush's Bulge," I think, "What, did he have an erection during the debate and I missed it? What?" Byron York has reported in an article titled Media Miscues Seem Bulging With Left-Wing Bias that the originator of the story at
Salon, a fellow named Lindorff, is a long-time Bush hater who has
frequently made comparisons between W. and Adolf Hitler.

And while we're dabbling in pseudo-science and conspiracy theory, Washington University has published an article on its website (The eyes have it) in which one of its professors of psychology, John Stern, is quoted as saying
In the first presidential debate in Miami on Sept. 30, President Bush, in addition to exhibiting well documented physical mannerisms such as grimacing, frowning, smirking, and pursing his lips, also rapidly blinked throughout the debate.
Why is blinking important? Because, according to Stern, "there is solid evidence that people blink frequently at points in time when they momentarily stop taking in and processing information." People also blink more rapidly at moments when they are more apprehensive. President Bush sure did blink a lot last night, didn't he? Stern at least admits his bias, saying that he is a supporter of Kerry.

I wonder if there has ever been a President whose blinks, the spittle in the corner of his mouth, his facial expressions and other mannerisms, have been subjected to as much scrutiny as George W. Bush? I rather feel sorry for Bush, too.

The religion question

Finally last night, John Kerry had a few words to say about his religious faith.

To millions of Americans like myself who have made the decision to vote for John Kerry, or are leaning that way, there is no more important issue than the question of John Kerry's faith and what it means to him. It has increased in importance in my mind as Kerry has remained resolutely silent on the matter. Indeed, he rather frightened me last Friday, when on the question of environmental policy, he said, "I'm going to be a President who believes in science." If President Bush often uses coded language to speak to evangelicals, to whom was Kerry speaking? Atheists?

I am a Catholic, too, and like probably half or more of the Catholic faithful in America (including John Kerry), I am not in total agreement with Church orthodoxy on certain articles of faith such as abortion, the death penalty, and stem cell research. In a recent memo to U.S. Bishops, instructing them in how to advise Catholics in their decision to vote, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger lists four issues which are deal breakers for whether a Catholic can vote for a candidate for office: abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and stem cell research. If a candidate like John Kerry is on the wrong side of any one of these issues, a Catholic cannot vote for him in good conscience. Interestingly, Ratzinger leaves off "waging an unjust war" as an issue of ethical importance, even though the Catholic church opposed the war in Iraq. It seems to me that someone who engages in a war the Church deems unjust ought to not to receive a Catholic's vote either, if the standard Ratzinger proposes is going to be so strict.

John Kerry was asked last night about priests and bishops advising parishioners not to vote for him because of his stands on certain issues. Kerry's answer was not entirely satisfying.

Before stating that he disagreed, he said three times that he "respects" the views of these bishops. What Ratzinger and other conservative Catholics have said is that if I vote for Kerry on November 2nd, I must confess it as a grievous sin before I can receive communion again. And Kerry "respects" this view? Earlier in the summer, a Cathlic bishop in California tried to have Kerry excommunicated from the church and denied communion. Kerry has said little about the matter, only to now say that he "respects" the views of these Bishops. Is it any wonder that every poll indicates Kerry has lost the Catholic vote?

Kerry went on to say what he said in the second debate, that he cannot "legislate" what is for him an article of faith to someone else who might not hold that article of faith. This is disingenuous, leaving the impression that Kerry is Pro-Life, which is the "article of faith" in question. Then imediately afterward Kerry says that he is for a woman's choice. This is a classic example of Kerry trying to have it both ways on the abortion issue. And he did not answer the question that weighs so heavily on Catholic minds: What does Kerry say to Catholics who might be fearful of committing a sin by voting for Kerry? I am not one of those, but I'd like to hear a real answer nonetheless.

Later in the debate, Kerry had the opportunity to speak of his faith more personally. President Bush was first asked the question of how his faith interacted with his decision-making. Bush was quite inarticulate on the matter, which surprised me. He started clumsily, saying, "First, my faith plays a lot—a big part in my life. And that's, when I answering that question, what I was really saying to the person was that I pray a lot. And I do." Then in one of those oddly hyper moments that occurred throughout the night, Bush became impassioned, thumping the podium and thrusting himself forward as if he had to make this especially plain, "But I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an almighty and if you choose not to. If you're a Christian, Jew or Muslim, you're equally an American. That's the great thing about America, is the right to worship the way you see fit."

Kerry wasn't much more eloquent, somewhat needlessly correcting the President by saying, "I think that he just said that freedom is a gift from the Almighty. Everything is a gift from the Almighty." Then he went into his long digression on "measuring" scripture, whether one be Christian, Muslim, Jew, Zoarastrian, etc., etc.—the typical and necessary pæon to the diversity of faiths. Then, "I was taught—I went to a church school and I was taught that the two greatest commandments are: Love the Lord, your God, with all your mind, your body and your soul, and love your neighbor as yourself. And frankly, I think we have a lot more loving of our neighbor to do in this country and on this planet." So just when I thought Kerry was going to get to the heart of the question, he took the opportunity to suggest that the Bush Administration had not honored the commandment to "love thy neighbor as thyself." This prefaced a Kerry diatribe against the Bush education plan.

For someone looking for clues into the spiritual heart of these two men, the debate was dissatisfying. Kerry took the first step last night to redressing the spiritual gap that exists between him and President Bush, but the gap is still there, though not as wide. President Bush is known as a believer, a faithful man. Religious people, particularly Protestants, have other suspicions about John Kerry. In his response to one question, he mentioned that faith without works is dead, a classic tenet of Catholicism. This may help him woo back some Catholics who have doubts about him; it is certainly aimed at doing just that. It won't help him with the Protestant vote, however, because Protestants can point to any number of passages, particularly in the writings of Paul, in which the Bible says we are justified by faith, not by works. I can't tell you how many Protestant services I have attended in my life at which such passages have been trotted out as a way of indicting Catholics as heathen.

The hour grows late for any change in direction that won't be seen as opportunism, or "shifting with the wind," to quote the line from the infamous Bush ad that features a windsurfing John Kerry. Yet there is still time for at least one major address on Faith issues, and I believe Kerry needs to make it. Last night Kerry referred to John Kennedy on the question of religion and politics.

John Kennedy, in his important 1960 Address to Southern Baptist Leaders, was able to effectively eliminate much of the concern over his own Catholicism. Kerry would do well to use that speech as a touchstone for an address he might himself give. Surely Kerry could get himself invited to speak before at least one religious congregation in the next couple weeks.

Rather than just echoing Kennedy, though, Kerry must himself address the religion question. Perhaps Kerry could at once delineate a real difference between himself and Bush, and assuage somewhat the Pro-Life Catholics who worry about his stand on abortion, by adopting a proposal a friend of mine has suggested for a national referendum on when life begins. Let's put the question underlying the abortion issue to a vote by the American people. Let democracy decide and, hopefully, lay the abortion issue to rest. For more information he could check out my friend's blog, The Anti-Manicheist. On abortion, Kerry is indecipherable, as Mr. Bush correctly pegged him in the second debate last Friday. Having a concrete proposal might help him overcome that handicap.

Let's have some straight talk about faith, Mr. Kerry. This is what I would like to hear between now and election day.

Wednesday, October 13, 2004

Defending "Alexander"

Oliver Stone has done an interview with Playboy in which he defends his newest film from charges that the gay sex in it is too explicit. He also has a few words to say about the election.
The highly political Stone also discusses the presidential candidates in the interview, which hits newsstands later this week. Speaking of John Kerry, who was a senior at Yale when he was a freshman, Stone says: “He had a funereal groove about him, like some Dickensian character. He was always too old for his years.” Of George W. Bush, he says: “He’s worse than Nixon in his vulgarity. He looks like he shops at Wal-Mart. That’s not what the president is supposed to be. He has no intellectual curiosity and is proud of it.”
Someone needs to tell Stone he is doing Kerry no favors. "A funereal groove?" What is that? How do the words "funereal" and "groove" fit together, other than at a Goth flavored nightclub?

"Vulgar": defined as, "Deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement; boorish." I shop at Wal-Mart, so I guess I am vulgar as well.

Kerry ought to have one campaign advisor whose sole job is to pay film profesionals and rock stars to take a year off work and visit Easter Island.

Kerry's October beginning to look like August

Queen Elizabeth the First is reputed to have said that the past cannot be cured; and like some terrible disease, John Kerry's past keeps relapsing at the most inopportune times. There seems no cure for it.

Last night, I was watching Special Report with Brit Hume and his clan of Talking Heads on Fox, and the subject on the table was John Kerry's anti-war actions following his return from Vietnam. The topic was occasioned by reports that a broadcasting company, owner of 62 TV stations around the country, is going to air an hour-long piece of anti-Kerry propaganda claiming that the captors of American POWs in Vietnam tortured American prisoners in response to Kerry's testimony before the Senate in 1972.

To his credit, Hume cast doubt on the charges made by the program and called it for what it is, partisan propaganda, but as he and his panel also acknowledged, there seems no way to stop the program from airing without violating the first amendment. How did we come to such a pass that independent, partisan collectives are effectively doing the dirty work for candidates for office? The President would not dare associate himself with an effort to tar his opponent with such charges as Kerry has faced; yet he doesn't have to, because there are so many acolytes willing to do the smearing (and willing to be smeared in return) for his sake.

Should this program be aired and the subject of Vietnam return to the forefront of the campaign once again, what I'd like to see is John McCain finally break with the President and say enough is enough. I am thinking of writing McCain a letter asking him how he can be so passive as Kerry is destroyed. Is loyalty to Party and one's own political ambition really so important to him? If so, that is not the John McCain I know. The John McCain I voted for in 2000 was a man who rose up in righteous indignation when the Bush people attacked him for supposedly giving in to torture by his Vietnamese captors and helping to create propaganda for them. That John McCain is the one I want to see now, the one who would not allow his own service to be denigrated by someone who himself escaped the draft and probably has never even fired a BB gun at another human being.

Ultimately, however, it is not John McCain who can pull Kerry's chestnuts out of the fire; it is John Kerry who has to save himself. And I do not know that Kerry can do it.

Last month I saw a John Kerry who was a real fighter, someone who put the President to shame in the first debate and more than held his own in the second. Sticking to the Clinton campaign doctrine that the candidate does not go to bed at night with a charge unanswered, Kerry and his team responded quickly to every charge the Bush administration threw at them. Now, it seems like the campaign is floundering again, unsure how to respond to the latest nonsense charges. What has been Kerry's response to his "terrorism is a nuisance" quote? Has there been any real response to this program by Sinclair Broadcasting, other than legal challenges?

I read in the Washington Post today in an article titled, not too confidence-inspiringly, "A Lurching, Chaotic Style" and subtitled, "Lifelong Collector of Data Can Bog Down His Staff," that according to staff member David Wade, "He's never going to be someone who wants a Karl Rove pulling all the strings." Well damnit, he needs a Karl Rove. Does he really have so much confidence in the American people that they are going to be able to piece together all the different fragments of his world view, reconcile all the contradictions in his philosophy and outlook, and come to the decision that John Kerry ought to be President? I know I don't have that kind of confidence. If there is one thing a Karl Rove does well (besides tarring and feathering an opponent with irrelevant, but inflammatory charges), it is that he keeps the message simple and consistent.

Maybe I am anti-democratic, but I have no confidence in the American people. I would describe the American people as a rabble of impulsive, simple-minded, irrational, complaisant, eminently fleeceable sheep. Kerry seems to have a higher opinion of us, which I suppose is why he is running for President and I could never win election to a county Board of Supervisors.

Is his confidence well-founded and practical, though? I don't think so. Last night, on Chris Matthews' Hardball, Matthews did very short on-the-spot interviews with college students at the Arizona university where the debate will be held tonight. He asked one young female Bush supporter, "What is the one issue that this election is all about in your mind?" She was wearing a tee-shirt that said "Flip Flops Should Be Just a Fashion Accessory"; the tee shirt was stretched tight across a really nice set of ta-tas, too. I noticed because she seemed to thrust them out at the camera as a purposeful distraction from her absolute insipidity. She answered, "Abortion." And Chris Matthews followed up with, "Pro-life or Pro-choice?" "Oh, Pro-Life, Pro-Life," she said. Matthews asked, "What should happen to a woman who has an abortion? Should she go to jail?"

The woman looked stunned by this thought. With a pained expression (one could almost hear her rusty mind grinding as she tried to actually use it for thinking), she said, "Well, no, I respect a woman's decision and she shouldn't be punished for it." This is the kind of voter Kerry has lost and could never hope to appeal to, one who would not understand, even if someone explained it, the contradictions in what she says she believes and the anti-contradiction message stretched across her very nice bosom.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Bush forgets he owns a tree growing company

FactCheck.org Distortions galore at second Presidential debate

Apparently, Bush does indeed own a timber company.
Kerry: The president got $84 from a timber company that he owns, and he's counted as a small business. Dick Cheney's counted as a small business. That's how they do things. That's just not right.

Bush: I own a timber company? That's news to me.

(LAUGHTER)

Bush's Timber-Growing Company

Bush got a laugh when he scoffed at Kerry's contention that he had received $84 from "a timber company." Said Bush, "I own a timber company? That's news to me."

In fact, according to his 2003 financial disclosure form, Bush does own part interest in "LSTF, LLC", a limited-liability company organized "for the purpose of the production of trees for commercial sales."

So Bush was wrong to suggest that he doesn't have ownership of a timber company. And Kerry was correct in saying that Bush's definition of "small business" is so broad that Bush himself would have qualified as a "small business" in 2001 by virtue of the $84 in business income.
Both candidates took some real liberties with truth at the second debate, according to FactCheck.org. For example, Kerry repeated his charge that General Shinseki was "forced" to retire by the Bush Administration for casting doubt on claims that the Iraq War could be won with less than several hundred thousand troops. In fact, Shinseki had announced his retirement a year before; and we did indeed win the war quickly and with fewer troops than Shinseki said we needed. It hasn't been the war itself, that is, the invasion of Iraq and the conquering of the Iraqi Army, that has given us problems; it has been the occupation and the guerilla war that has accompanied it that has stretched our troops thin.

I expect the third debate to be even more distorted, since it is the last opportunity for these men to state their case before a television audience. Both men need a strong win, or at least a strong loss by their opponent, coming out of tomorrow night's debate.

Kerry is looking at a rough three weeks leading up to the election. His protest of the Vietnam War is going to come back to bite him one last time, if this anti-Kerry documentary airs. Also, he has his "terrorism should be a nuisance" statement to overcome. I may write about that subject in more detail, if the story breaks out of talk radio and more into the mainstream press. This morning I heard Rush Limbaugh on AM radio delivering his early morning soundbite, the subject of which was this magazine interview by Kerry, in which Kerry simply speaks the plain truth about the war on terrorism. (Paraphrasing) "So Kerry wants to reduce terrorism to a "nuisance" level, where only a few Americans are killed by terrorists," Limbaugh mocked. There is much to discuss in that New York Times Magazine article. It is definitely worth a read, and I hope to write more about it myself, because I think, contrary to what Conservatives are going to say, it provides excellent insight into why John Kerry will make a better President than George Bush. It's a long article, but you should give it a read.

At this point, to keep my comments on that article brief, the war on terrorism is not a war that can ever be won by conventional means, that is by killing all the terrorists or defeating them militarily. Bush himself said as much not so long ago, though of course chances that Bush's own words will be recalled as this story takes off are slim to none. Bush, too, had to retract his truthful statement, because no one in this country wants to hear plain truth. People only want the fable of American strength and righteousness.

A question from the most recent Zogby poll

For whom would you more likely vote for president - the Tin Man, who is all brains and no heart or the Scarecrow, who is all heart and no brain?

I voted for the Tin Man. But what about the Cowardly Lion, who was all fear and no courage? Or even the Wicked Witch of the West, who was, well, wicked? Surely she has some redeeming feature, even if it be only her crystal ball in which she might foresee future terroist acts. So why should this be a two-man race?

The more I think about it, this question is actually quite profound. Clearly, John Kerry is our "tin man," all brain and no heart; and just as clearly, George Bush is our straw man, all heart and no brain. These are caricatures of these men, but caricatures that, in the case of Bush at least, the candidates have partially embraced. No doubt Bush portrays himself as a kind of melding of the two characters' best qualities, the Tin Man's armored rigidity, the Scarecrow's ebuliance.

Kerry, too, tries to be the personable scarecrow as well as the cerebral Tin Man, but like the stuffed man he has difficulty expressing the kind of terrible conviction that scares away our own particular crows, whether they be terrorists or budget deficits.

At the heart of this question is whether a caricature such as the Tin Man or Scarecrow would either one make a good President. Like real elections, in this fictional face-off between the Tin Man and the Scarecrow, voters are unfortunately forced to choose between candidates neither of whom seem well-balanced by both good and bad qualities. Mostly, their qualities are bad. The Tin Man is rigid, unbending, though not incapable of emotion (he does cry in the film, which results in his rusting up at least once and becoming therefore even more rigid). The scarecrow is a rather silly, comedic figure, empty of substance, a "headpiece filled with straw" as T.S. Eliot might put it.

When voters are forced to choose between such oppositional types, is it any wonder that elections deadlock? Candidates and voters are expected to view the world in black and white, either one way or the other (and the other is always wrong, always on the side of evil and wrongdoing), and anything less than this Manicheist world view is considered indecisive, weak, and worse—un-Patriotic, un-Christian, and no doubt several more "un"'s that I cannot think of at the moment.

Just one time in my life, rather than a robot or straw man, it would be a relief to see a real human run for office; a human being of contradictions in no need of reconciliation, of both real faults and real merits in equal measure, in short a human with both heart and brain, and one who knows both and how to listen to each of them in turn very well. I do not hope to ever see such a day. Simple caricatures are easier to understand, and easier to promote, than complex human beings.

Monday, October 11, 2004

War of words

I sometimes wonder how and why a story enters the news cycle. CNN.com is reporting a story about a Bush campaign ad that has not aired yet, but which is based on a Kerry quote (perhaps taken out of context) from a New York Times Magazine interview.

What exactly is newsworthy about this? Is it newsworthy because it is so egregious an example of demagoguery? Or is it newsworthy because CNN wants to help dilute the impact of the ad, which may indeed damage Kerry? Follwing is the quote from kerry which the Bush folks are criticizing:
Bush campaign to base ad on Kerry terror quote
In the magazine article, a largely analytical cover story by Matt Bai, Kerry is asked "what it would take for Americans to feel safe again."

"We have to get back to the place we were, where terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance,'' the article states as the Massachusetts senator's reply.

"As a former law enforcement person, I know we're never going to end prostitution. We're never going to end illegal gambling. But we're going to reduce it, organized crime, to a level where it isn't on the rise. It isn't threatening people's lives every day, and fundamentally, it's something that you continue to fight, but it's not threatening the fabric of your life."
First of all, what's wrong with what Kerry says here? I understand it highlights a difference between Kerry and Bush, in that (to oversimplify dramatically) Bush believes in a "war" on terror and Kerry believes in treating terrorism as more of a law enforcement problem. Kerry does not in fact believe that, at least not entirely, but that is the charge Bush makes against him.

However that may be, does Bush not want us to return to a time when terrorism was not the focus of our lives? When it was a nuisance, like the city dweller's fear of being robbed or mugged or car jacked? Sometimes I wonder if Bush really does not want to end a war that has been enormously successful in cementing the political fortunes of himself and the Republican party. I sometimes think that with the end of the Cold War, Republicans simply needed another enemy to fight for forty or fifty years, so that any kind of leftism or liberalism could be more easily made to look weak and defeatist. And Al Qaeda happily obliged our Republican leadership.

Late, but not too late

Today is Columbus Day, if that matters to anyone who is not a Federal employee. My son is in school, my wife at work, as I suspect every other adult is as well. I am surprised some upstart crow of a congressman has not proposed doing away with this racist, colonialist holiday as a way of promoting himself.

We went away for the weekend, so I did not have a chance to comment on the second debate. I suppose I ought to hang up my amateur commentator's cap. But I will offer a few general comments anyhow.

Bush was both better prepared and more at ease Friday night. On Saturday Night Live the next evening, the actor portraying Bush amplified Bush's eagerness to answer questions. That was the only stylistic oddity of the evening.

Bush did have the highlight moment of the night when he ignored Charlie Gibson and spoke over him in order to respond to a point Kerry had made. He is the President, after all, and rather like the Pope, one does not tell him to wait or be patient. It was a good moment for Bush, at least in the eyes of his supporters, but if Kerry had been so pushy I guarantee we would be hearing about it from the Republicans and commentariat as a singularly bad moment for the Senator.

Substantively, the debate over Iraq and Terrorism was a recap of the debate the previous week. To my mind, the really interesting questions of the debate were posed at the end. Someone asked Kerry about abortion. His response was, as Bush did not fail to point out, indecipherable. Liberals trying to get elected are unintelligble on the abortion issue. They seem constitutionally unable to say what they believe in a simple, coherent way. Conservatives have the advantage because their position is exactly that, simple and coherent, even if wrong in the eyes of many. Good thing abortion is not much of an issue in this campaign; I don't expect the subject to come up again.

Bush danced his own peculiar jig around the request to identify three mistakes he has made in his administration. On the one hand, it is a bit unfair to ask someone, in what is essentially a job performance review, to identify mistakes they have made. One probably should not expect an honest, unambiguous answer. However, Bush's response seemed to suggest the only mistakes he has made have been in some of his appointments, whom he refused to identify. To my mind, this question of "mistakes" is akin to the old job interview question, "Describe one of your faults?" The question is unfair, but you'd better have a good answer for it. Bush still doesn't have a proper answer for that question.

My summary judgement on the debate is that Kerry won on substance, Bush on style and wisecracks. I'm still not sure I understand how Bush came to own a lumber yard; Kerry never explained that comment, and it gave Bush an opportunity to make a joke of Kerry's substantive point. The debate was a tie rather than a clear win for either man. The next debate may be more unambiguous a win for one or the other. Wednesday, we return to the format of the first debate, which was not conducive to a good performance by Bush. The topic is domestic issues, as well, on which Bush is less knowledgable and less able to score points on Kerry's statements about Iraq and Terror.

That final debate may be important, especially if Kery can pull off another decisive win, denying the President any clear debate victory. Polls this morning offer conflicting views of the election so far. Zogby has Kerry up by three; The Washington Post has Bush up by five. A CNN article I read yesterday has Bush ahead in electoral votes. This election looks so much like 2000, it's scary.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Is Bush Wired?: The Voice in Bush's Ear

Is Bush Wired?: The Voice in Bush's Ear

Conspiracy theories abound on-line. I read in the Washington Post this morning a story about a flash video popular on the Internet that supposedly illustrates the contention that the strike on the Pentagon on 9/11 was not a strike by terrorists, but by our own government. The article is titled Conspiracy Theories Flourish on the Internet. The theory's contention is that if a commercial airliner had struck the building, it would have caused more damage and left airplane debris. The video also shows a picture supposedly of the "entrance wound" at the Pentagon, a hole roughly twenty feet in diameter and close to the ground, too small and too low for American Airlines Flight 77 to have made. Thus the United States government itself must have fired a missle into the building, or else flown a smaller military jet into the building.

You can see the video at this website, if you really want: Pentagon Strike Video. At the very least you can enjoy the sinister rock music that provides the soundtrack. And is that Adolf Hitler speaking at the beginning of the video? Well, it's certainly some Kraut of other.

Meanwhile, a co-worker pointed me to the site in the title line of this blog entry. (Hey, we index/archive stuff like this, so it is work-related. Marginally.) This is the first time I've ever considered the contention that George Bush uses some sort of audioprompter when he speaks in public. I admit its plausible. It would at least explain those excruciating pauses of several seconds. Someone on the "Is Bush Wired?" site pointed out that at one point, Bush requests a 30 second rebuttal, then pauses for several seconds before attempting an answer. Was he waiting to be fed his response? If you suspend disbelief, one can almost believe ...

And yet, there is one big problem. If George Bush was wired in his debate with Kerry last week, who the hell was feeding him his answers? Bobcat Goldthwaite?

I read all through the site and the comments on it, expecting that someone would have asked my question, and someone would have posted an answer to it. No, there is all sorts of speculation about what kind of receiver Bush wears, what frequency it is tuned to, whether it is perhaps some sort of device that does not use an earpiece but transmits information telepathically through the skin ... but no one asks the simple, important question: if Bush was wired, why did he blow that debate so badly?

Conspiracy theorists never seem to ask the simple questions, or think of the simple answers that are the most logical. If the answer is complicated, ergo it must be true.

Robert Novak: No victory in Iraq

Robert Novak: No victory in Iraq

Despite being a Republican Party lapdog, Robert Novak has twice now puked on the GOP rug in two columns in about as many weeks. Presuming Novak is correct in this article and his previous article of September 20, the Bush Administration plans to cut our losses and exit Iraq after the elections in January.

I think that is exactly what we need to do, but it rather makes the Bush campaign rhetoric about "staying the course" and "finishing the job" in Iraq ring rather hollow. I am sure that if the Administration does pull out, it will claim that the job is finished, we've done all we can, and as far as I am concerned that will be true. However, in the meantime, the Administration is fooling the American people into believing that Bush is the strong leader who does not change his mind and leaves no difficult job undone, while John Kerry is a defeatist who will beat it out of Iraq within six months of entering office.

Novak only further eases my mind about my vote for John Kerry. If President Bush secretly plans a quick withdraw from Iraq early next year, Kerry's own plans to draw down the troops within his first term (not six months, as Bush said in his debate with Kerry) seem rather methodical and even conservative. The whole issue of "staying the course" in Iraq now appears exactly as it is: a moot point. Both candidates intend to get us out of that country as quickly as possible before the insurgents can kill another thousand American boys.

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Report Discounts Iraqi Arms Threat (washingtonpost.com)

Report Discounts Iraqi Arms Threat (washingtonpost.com)

One has to ask, is there a point at which the bad news for the Bush Administration actually starts to affect the President's approval ratings and reelect numbers? Or conversely, is there a point at which the news is so consistently bad that people just shrug and stubbornly refuse to acknowledge it, rather like the President himself?

The important things to extract from this story are:

1.Saddam "did not possess, or have concrete plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons." The contention that Saddam was a "diminishing" threat will be controversial, and anyway it is the less important (because more subjective) assessment. Whether he was diminishing or not, he was not an immediate threat, which was a central contention of the Bush administration leading up to the war.

2. The report says that Hussein "had the desire, but not the means" to produce unconventional weapons, but that he would have tried to acquire the means should sanctions ever have been lifted. This both contradicts and supports the latest administration claims. It contradicts the administration claim that Hussein had the means, the facilities and materials, to begin producing WMD almost immediately. It supports the administration in that clearly Saddam desired WMD and would have tried to acquire them again, given opportunity. However, again, where was the immediate threat, or even the "gathering danger" of Iraq? The President still contends in his stump speech that Iraq was a "gathering danger."

3. The report explains why Hussein would bluff the world on the issue of possessing WMD. Hussein has told his interrogators that he believes the reason the U.S. did not invade in '91 was that we feared his WMD. Clearly, Hussein saw the mere threat of WMD as a powerful weapon to keep his enemies at bay.

4. Now according to the article, some in the administration have begun arguing that Hussein and Iraq were a "long-term threat" (can you say "flip-flop"; long-term threats don't require immediate invasion) while official spokesperson Scott McClellan says, "... I think the report will continue to show that he was a gathering threat that needed to be taken seriously, that it was a matter of time before he was going to begin pursuing those weapons of mass destruction."

A matter of time? How long? It is important, Mr. McClellan, since you can hardly call something a "gathering threat" that may not occur for another decade. There all sorts of long-term threats facing us every day that we seem paralyzed or uninterested in doing anything about. I think if I had been John Edwards last night, I would have praised Dick Cheney for his "let's not be hasty" attitude towards North Korea and Iran. Would that he and Bush had shown restraint and a desire to let diplomacy run its course in Iraq. There might be over a thousand Americans still alive today.

Of course, the Administration's trump card in dismissing allegations that the stated reasons for going to war were flimsy is to change the subject to Saddam's mass graves, "rape rooms" and torture chambers.

The argument usually ends there. Who can be against removing the Stalin of the Mid-East? Who cares about the reasons we went to Iraq? What matters is that we have freed millions of people, who will soon go to the polls and choose their first truly representative government, etc., etc. Why, anyone who dares question the justness of our actions denigrates the Iraqi people and would have left Saddam free to murder and rob his own countrymen.

How does one answer this argument? One can call it logically fallacious for one thing, since it is basically a red herring from the issue at hand, which is why did we go to Iraq in the first place? The reason we went to Iraq was always, first and foremost, the "grave and gathering danger" posed by Saddam. It wasn't the only reason we went, but it was the primary reason. Self-interest trumps all.

That argument is now broken on the ground by today's report. How can anyone still maintain, with so many dead, so much treasure spent, and no danger found, that invading Iraq was in our self-interest? If we wanted to create a demo