Here's an interesting take on the health care debate--an interpretation of the current state of affairs that actually employs analysis, study and scientific method.
The long and the short of it--this investigator claims that the relatively low life-expectancy for people in the US (vs other similarly rich countries) results from the lingering effects of our pre-1980s smoking habits. The article is a good example of how statistics can seem to say things they don't really say--and can say many, many, often contradictory, things at once.
I think the article also has an important point that's, unfortunately, buried deep in the science section of today's Times. Will anyone of any influence actually see this information? The previous president, we know, famously didn't read newspapers. Here's an example of why he really should have--and another reason we're better off with the new guy.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Twittering Iran
So, we follow the tweets. We see the pictures and are disturbed, angered, inspired, hopeful, impressed. We make our profile pictures green in "solidarity."
But, what is the real import of all of this? There are some (really, I'm not making a straw man argument) who say that this sort of thing is just done, really, to make us feel good about ourselves, to play pretend protester from behind a computer screen.
Fair enough. And, as Fareed Zakaria argues (h/t Dan) says, twitter won't mean a whole heckuva lot if the Iranian regime decides to go ahead and mow people down.
There is something qualitatively different, however, about oppression and brutality merely performed and oppression and brutality visible to the world. Would Vietnam have ended at the same time without television and photographic images seen by those back home? Maybe. It's hard to say. Some historian or media studies person could make a better argument about that than I. But, is it really so self-serving and naive to believe that social media broadcasts of protests and oppression can help change the course of events? I get the feeling people hate on twitter b/c it's used for such ridiculous personal posts. But, content does not define a medium. A lot of television is crap. A lot of photography is pornography. Images and records of events, on television and in picture, can be powerful catalysts for change.
I know, I know...easy to type. But, tell it to the guy staring down the muzzle of a machine gun.
But, what is the real import of all of this? There are some (really, I'm not making a straw man argument) who say that this sort of thing is just done, really, to make us feel good about ourselves, to play pretend protester from behind a computer screen.
Fair enough. And, as Fareed Zakaria argues (h/t Dan) says, twitter won't mean a whole heckuva lot if the Iranian regime decides to go ahead and mow people down.
There is something qualitatively different, however, about oppression and brutality merely performed and oppression and brutality visible to the world. Would Vietnam have ended at the same time without television and photographic images seen by those back home? Maybe. It's hard to say. Some historian or media studies person could make a better argument about that than I. But, is it really so self-serving and naive to believe that social media broadcasts of protests and oppression can help change the course of events? I get the feeling people hate on twitter b/c it's used for such ridiculous personal posts. But, content does not define a medium. A lot of television is crap. A lot of photography is pornography. Images and records of events, on television and in picture, can be powerful catalysts for change.
I know, I know...easy to type. But, tell it to the guy staring down the muzzle of a machine gun.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Fuel Standards, Finally
This is great news. The Obama administration is tightening national fuel standards, in line with the program California has been trying to enact since 2002.
Money quote:
"...inaction [on fuel standards] has been a factor in the current dire state in which General Motors and Chrysler find themselves. The Japanese automakers are far ahead in developing smaller, more efficient vehicles, although they, too, will have to adjust their product lines."
The article describes how California had applied for a waiver, as far back as 2002, to lax federal fuel standards, but industry and the Bush administration WOULD NOT LET THEM ENFORCE TIGHTER STANDARDS. Get that--industry, and their supposed allies in office, disallowed environmental measures in an attempt to protect industrial profits. And they ended up not only harming the environment, but crippling the US auto industry.
How tragically ironic! If the auto-makers hadn't insisted so vehemently that they be allowed to continue making gas-sucking behemoths, the Japanese wouldn't have run them out of business.
Which leads me to conclude that 1) The US automakers are retarded and/or 2) the actual "industry" opposing those regulations wasn't so much the automakers, but the oil companies. Probably, it's a little of both.
Money quote:
"...inaction [on fuel standards] has been a factor in the current dire state in which General Motors and Chrysler find themselves. The Japanese automakers are far ahead in developing smaller, more efficient vehicles, although they, too, will have to adjust their product lines."
The article describes how California had applied for a waiver, as far back as 2002, to lax federal fuel standards, but industry and the Bush administration WOULD NOT LET THEM ENFORCE TIGHTER STANDARDS. Get that--industry, and their supposed allies in office, disallowed environmental measures in an attempt to protect industrial profits. And they ended up not only harming the environment, but crippling the US auto industry.
How tragically ironic! If the auto-makers hadn't insisted so vehemently that they be allowed to continue making gas-sucking behemoths, the Japanese wouldn't have run them out of business.
Which leads me to conclude that 1) The US automakers are retarded and/or 2) the actual "industry" opposing those regulations wasn't so much the automakers, but the oil companies. Probably, it's a little of both.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Catch Me if You Can?
I'm very upset and worried about this. Obama has hired the lawyer responsible for defending the worst polluters in the world as his "ENFORCER" of environmental regulations.
It is forcing me to question the post I wrote only yesterday deriding people who demand ideological purity from their President.
If I can, I would like to simultaneously defend myself against hypocrisy and define why this is so worrisome.
I am willing to accept compromise. Even on the environment, which I'm realizing is probably my number one issue. For example, Obama seems to have decided that cap-and-trade is the most politically feasible method of addressing climate change. Many argue that a carbon tax would be more effective. But less likely to pass. So, Obama wants cap-and-trade. I understand that.
This appears to be something very different. This appears to be what Reagan did--put people in charge of government agencies whose philosophy was that those agencies should cease to exist. It is not a compromise, it's abandonment. It's sabotage. It's not accepting the less-than-perfect, it is ensuring the frustration of the good.
At least, it appears that way. Perhaps, Obama is playing a "Catch Me if You Can" game. Get the thief to catch other thieves. She knows all their tricks, so she can stop them. I hope that is what happens. However, I fear that Obama is really just caving to industry. He has hired someone who is compromised, who knows that these big corporations, once Obama's terms are over, are ready again to shell out the big bucks for more protection. In other words, it's in this person's professional interest to remain on good terms with, to be nice with, the very corporations she's supposed to be regulating.
To put it more succinctly, she has a vested interest in doing her job poorly. She may have the purest of motives (which I highly doubt) but still, always, in the back of her mind will be the thought--if I really call these guys out on their environmental abuses, if I make them look bad, if I make them lose money, am I screwing my kids out of a bigger inheritance?
I don't want the environmental enforcer having those thoughts.
It is forcing me to question the post I wrote only yesterday deriding people who demand ideological purity from their President.
If I can, I would like to simultaneously defend myself against hypocrisy and define why this is so worrisome.
I am willing to accept compromise. Even on the environment, which I'm realizing is probably my number one issue. For example, Obama seems to have decided that cap-and-trade is the most politically feasible method of addressing climate change. Many argue that a carbon tax would be more effective. But less likely to pass. So, Obama wants cap-and-trade. I understand that.
This appears to be something very different. This appears to be what Reagan did--put people in charge of government agencies whose philosophy was that those agencies should cease to exist. It is not a compromise, it's abandonment. It's sabotage. It's not accepting the less-than-perfect, it is ensuring the frustration of the good.
At least, it appears that way. Perhaps, Obama is playing a "Catch Me if You Can" game. Get the thief to catch other thieves. She knows all their tricks, so she can stop them. I hope that is what happens. However, I fear that Obama is really just caving to industry. He has hired someone who is compromised, who knows that these big corporations, once Obama's terms are over, are ready again to shell out the big bucks for more protection. In other words, it's in this person's professional interest to remain on good terms with, to be nice with, the very corporations she's supposed to be regulating.
To put it more succinctly, she has a vested interest in doing her job poorly. She may have the purest of motives (which I highly doubt) but still, always, in the back of her mind will be the thought--if I really call these guys out on their environmental abuses, if I make them look bad, if I make them lose money, am I screwing my kids out of a bigger inheritance?
I don't want the environmental enforcer having those thoughts.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
What this guy said
Dissent of the day, from Sullivan:
"The prosecutions you are asking for would simply swallow the Obama presidency whole. It is the kind of energy draining, oxygen consuming drama that is the nightmare of every president. It would come to define his presidency in the same way the Hostage Crisis defined Carter’s and there is zero chance he will opt for this.
President Obama is making a realistic, cold, clear-eyed cost-benefit analysis. This is the choice: Does he fix the economy, fix healthcare, get a handle on the two wars he’s dealing with, or does he prosecute Bush era war crimes? He has chosen his agenda and is asking us to choose that to."
I would add, energy and climate change. I trust/hope that Obama truly understands the importance of that issue.
"The prosecutions you are asking for would simply swallow the Obama presidency whole. It is the kind of energy draining, oxygen consuming drama that is the nightmare of every president. It would come to define his presidency in the same way the Hostage Crisis defined Carter’s and there is zero chance he will opt for this.
President Obama is making a realistic, cold, clear-eyed cost-benefit analysis. This is the choice: Does he fix the economy, fix healthcare, get a handle on the two wars he’s dealing with, or does he prosecute Bush era war crimes? He has chosen his agenda and is asking us to choose that to."
I would add, energy and climate change. I trust/hope that Obama truly understands the importance of that issue.
"Obama is a war criminal."
That statement comes from the comments section of Glenn Greenwald's blog/column for Salon about Obama's decision to suppress photos of torture and detainee abuse.
I think it's safe to say that the far left is officially out of love with Obama. That didn't take long. And it's not just about these photos. There's more. The bailouts, for example, struck many lefties as just more corporate prostitution. There's the denial of rights to detainees at Bagram. (See Glenn Greenwald again.) There's the president's failure to do anything about gay rights, including silence when another valuable Arab linguist was fired for being gay. Obama has yet to approach the issue of Don't ask don't tell. Andrew Sullivan, though attempting to be patient about this issue (Obama's only been in office since January, after all) calls it the "fierce urgency of whenever."
But, it seems the decision to suppress these photos is the drop that burst the dam. This is just too much. This makes Obama "just as bad" as Bush and Cheney and, yes, a "war criminal."
Now, hold on. I'm of two, actually several, minds about this. On the one hand, I'm glad to see the lefty blogosphere acting as a valuable critic of Obama's presidency. That must continue to take place. On the other hand--this makes him a war criminal? You've lost all faith in him whatsoever? I get the feeling some people are simply more comfortable distrusting the government. Really, it was weird liking the president. It felt good to be out of power, with Darth Vader ruining the country. All our snark, all our outrage, all our moral clarity was so pure and so cleansing. Remember those days, sitting around the common room in the dorm, understanding so clearly how the world should really be run?
Now, with Obama in office, liberals are faced with two choices: Deal with the inevitable compromises of actually wielding power--or disown the whole deal, call him a war criminal, declare independent, take no responsibility for the man you voted into office and the party you supported.
That's just cowardly and immature. To borrow one of Obama's favorite (and increasingly irritating) phrases--Let me be clear: I support what Glenn Greenwald is doing, holding Obama accountable for his promises regarding state secrecy and torture--and, moreover, holding public officials in general accountable for doing what is morally right. "Dealing with the reality of power" does not mean, to me, becoming sheep. It means continuing to push the president to do what is right. I think the "war criminal" comments, however, are silly.
Look, Obama has banned the use of water boarding and other techniques, labeling them torture. To this bit of, you know, factual information, one of the commenters responded, "Do you really believe that? Just because your government says so?" Oh, give me a fucking break. This is just conspiracy theorizing at its worst. Until there is the smallest shred of evidence that Obama is continuing the torture of detainees, I will believe that, as per his executive order, the procedures have been banned. To accuse someone of committing a crime, you need, what's it called?--evidence. The claim that "the government always lies, so they're lying now, so they're obviously doing the worst things I can imagine" carries no intellectual weight whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned.
Furthermore, Obama released the torture memos. In other words, the information about what was done is out there. Graphic representation is not. So, he is not, at least not entirely, covering up what Bush and Cheney did.
But, as to the release of those photos. Why didn't he do it? (Clearly, as you can see, I am reserving judgment. I am ready to entertain, at least, the notion that Obama based this decision on honorable motives. That's my bias, just so you know.)
I can think of two likely reasons:
1) His stated explanation, that the photos will inflame anti-American violence in the Middle East. Greenwald, and others, object that this makes no sense. The information is already out there that we tortured, as I said. Suppressing photographic evidence only makes it seem that we did far worse. (And maybe we did.) And, they say, anti-Americanism has already been inflamed by what was done. Furthermore, this is the same bankrupt argument that Republicans used to oppose release of the memos.
I think it's not as simple as that. Textual documentation and graphic photography are two very different types of information. The first can be used to make a sophisticated legal indictment and to, historically, document what was done. The second can cause intense emotional reaction. Remember the violence that attended that Dutch cartoon of Mohammed? So, Obama's argument does hold some water.
However, I don't buy it. As Greenwald rightly points out, the public outrage that ultimately led to the banning of these methods would likely not have occurred without the photographic evidence of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. No one wants increased violence against the soldiers, but suppressing evidence is not excusable. He should have released the photos. Their release could be handled so as to minimize adverse reactions--e.g., with accompanying presidential statements condemning the procedures.
2) It's political. It's unfortunate but true: torture and torture prosecution have become political issues. Obama knew that they would. He has to play politics with this, as distasteful as that might be, because those who oppose torture investigations WILL make it political. (See Cheney, Dick.) So, suppressing the photos may be a political stunt, a little concession to the right wing. In which case, I still don't buy it. It's such a small gesture anyway.
However, on the larger point, of the politics of torture evidence and investigations, liberals are faced with another tough choice. Obama, I think rightly, predicts that if he goes after Bush officials now for war crimes, he will lose every last penny of his "political capital." He will spend it all, and more, going after the bastards that preceded him. It will prove incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to push through universal health care, energy reform, economic recovery measures or the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Those things won't happen. They just won't. The morally uncompromising among us (Andrew Sullivan, for one) say that it doesn't matter. We must do what is right, and what the law demands, regardless of its effects on policy.
Perhaps this makes me a bad person, a realpolitik douchebag, a 'war criminal,' but I would rather save human civilization from destroying itself with CO2 than put Bush and Cheney behind bars. I would rather get everyone in the country on health care and back to work than get vengeance on Bush-era assholes. I would rather get out of Iraq without it imploding than punish the people who put us there.
This is tough. But, that is what happens when you, or your party, is actually in power. Reality intrudes upon the purity of your ideals.
That being said, I don't, actually, think it's necessarily such a stark decision. We could, potentially, do both. But, here's the thing: if Obama goes full bore into torture investigations now, those other things, as I said, don't happen, and won't ever happen. A political war the likes of which we have not seen, not even in Clinton's years, would erupt over the prosecution for war crimes by a new president of his predecessors.
But...Obama can accomplish those big goals this year, or soon thereafter. He really can. And, the while, set the groundwork for truth commissions, investigations, or, at least, the judgment of history. A truth commission is a step he could take now, without going full bore after the previous president. It might be a good step.
Do I think this will happen? To be honest, no. There will likely always be "more important" goals "looking forward" than going after Bush. But, if the evidence continues to come out, and the time away from Bush gets long enough, it may be possible to bring the authors of torture to justice. I don't know if Obama will do it, or if he plans to do it, but I just don't think we can stand to make the sacrifices necessary to do it now.
I am, of course, open to other opinions (if anyone is reading this).
I think it's safe to say that the far left is officially out of love with Obama. That didn't take long. And it's not just about these photos. There's more. The bailouts, for example, struck many lefties as just more corporate prostitution. There's the denial of rights to detainees at Bagram. (See Glenn Greenwald again.) There's the president's failure to do anything about gay rights, including silence when another valuable Arab linguist was fired for being gay. Obama has yet to approach the issue of Don't ask don't tell. Andrew Sullivan, though attempting to be patient about this issue (Obama's only been in office since January, after all) calls it the "fierce urgency of whenever."
But, it seems the decision to suppress these photos is the drop that burst the dam. This is just too much. This makes Obama "just as bad" as Bush and Cheney and, yes, a "war criminal."
Now, hold on. I'm of two, actually several, minds about this. On the one hand, I'm glad to see the lefty blogosphere acting as a valuable critic of Obama's presidency. That must continue to take place. On the other hand--this makes him a war criminal? You've lost all faith in him whatsoever? I get the feeling some people are simply more comfortable distrusting the government. Really, it was weird liking the president. It felt good to be out of power, with Darth Vader ruining the country. All our snark, all our outrage, all our moral clarity was so pure and so cleansing. Remember those days, sitting around the common room in the dorm, understanding so clearly how the world should really be run?
Now, with Obama in office, liberals are faced with two choices: Deal with the inevitable compromises of actually wielding power--or disown the whole deal, call him a war criminal, declare independent, take no responsibility for the man you voted into office and the party you supported.
That's just cowardly and immature. To borrow one of Obama's favorite (and increasingly irritating) phrases--Let me be clear: I support what Glenn Greenwald is doing, holding Obama accountable for his promises regarding state secrecy and torture--and, moreover, holding public officials in general accountable for doing what is morally right. "Dealing with the reality of power" does not mean, to me, becoming sheep. It means continuing to push the president to do what is right. I think the "war criminal" comments, however, are silly.
Look, Obama has banned the use of water boarding and other techniques, labeling them torture. To this bit of, you know, factual information, one of the commenters responded, "Do you really believe that? Just because your government says so?" Oh, give me a fucking break. This is just conspiracy theorizing at its worst. Until there is the smallest shred of evidence that Obama is continuing the torture of detainees, I will believe that, as per his executive order, the procedures have been banned. To accuse someone of committing a crime, you need, what's it called?--evidence. The claim that "the government always lies, so they're lying now, so they're obviously doing the worst things I can imagine" carries no intellectual weight whatsoever, as far as I'm concerned.
Furthermore, Obama released the torture memos. In other words, the information about what was done is out there. Graphic representation is not. So, he is not, at least not entirely, covering up what Bush and Cheney did.
But, as to the release of those photos. Why didn't he do it? (Clearly, as you can see, I am reserving judgment. I am ready to entertain, at least, the notion that Obama based this decision on honorable motives. That's my bias, just so you know.)
I can think of two likely reasons:
1) His stated explanation, that the photos will inflame anti-American violence in the Middle East. Greenwald, and others, object that this makes no sense. The information is already out there that we tortured, as I said. Suppressing photographic evidence only makes it seem that we did far worse. (And maybe we did.) And, they say, anti-Americanism has already been inflamed by what was done. Furthermore, this is the same bankrupt argument that Republicans used to oppose release of the memos.
I think it's not as simple as that. Textual documentation and graphic photography are two very different types of information. The first can be used to make a sophisticated legal indictment and to, historically, document what was done. The second can cause intense emotional reaction. Remember the violence that attended that Dutch cartoon of Mohammed? So, Obama's argument does hold some water.
However, I don't buy it. As Greenwald rightly points out, the public outrage that ultimately led to the banning of these methods would likely not have occurred without the photographic evidence of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. No one wants increased violence against the soldiers, but suppressing evidence is not excusable. He should have released the photos. Their release could be handled so as to minimize adverse reactions--e.g., with accompanying presidential statements condemning the procedures.
2) It's political. It's unfortunate but true: torture and torture prosecution have become political issues. Obama knew that they would. He has to play politics with this, as distasteful as that might be, because those who oppose torture investigations WILL make it political. (See Cheney, Dick.) So, suppressing the photos may be a political stunt, a little concession to the right wing. In which case, I still don't buy it. It's such a small gesture anyway.
However, on the larger point, of the politics of torture evidence and investigations, liberals are faced with another tough choice. Obama, I think rightly, predicts that if he goes after Bush officials now for war crimes, he will lose every last penny of his "political capital." He will spend it all, and more, going after the bastards that preceded him. It will prove incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to push through universal health care, energy reform, economic recovery measures or the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.
Those things won't happen. They just won't. The morally uncompromising among us (Andrew Sullivan, for one) say that it doesn't matter. We must do what is right, and what the law demands, regardless of its effects on policy.
Perhaps this makes me a bad person, a realpolitik douchebag, a 'war criminal,' but I would rather save human civilization from destroying itself with CO2 than put Bush and Cheney behind bars. I would rather get everyone in the country on health care and back to work than get vengeance on Bush-era assholes. I would rather get out of Iraq without it imploding than punish the people who put us there.
This is tough. But, that is what happens when you, or your party, is actually in power. Reality intrudes upon the purity of your ideals.
That being said, I don't, actually, think it's necessarily such a stark decision. We could, potentially, do both. But, here's the thing: if Obama goes full bore into torture investigations now, those other things, as I said, don't happen, and won't ever happen. A political war the likes of which we have not seen, not even in Clinton's years, would erupt over the prosecution for war crimes by a new president of his predecessors.
But...Obama can accomplish those big goals this year, or soon thereafter. He really can. And, the while, set the groundwork for truth commissions, investigations, or, at least, the judgment of history. A truth commission is a step he could take now, without going full bore after the previous president. It might be a good step.
Do I think this will happen? To be honest, no. There will likely always be "more important" goals "looking forward" than going after Bush. But, if the evidence continues to come out, and the time away from Bush gets long enough, it may be possible to bring the authors of torture to justice. I don't know if Obama will do it, or if he plans to do it, but I just don't think we can stand to make the sacrifices necessary to do it now.
I am, of course, open to other opinions (if anyone is reading this).
Friday, May 1, 2009
60?
So, Arlen Specter is now a Democrat. (I know, this is old news by now, but finals torpedoed my recent vow to blog more regularly. As did laziness.)
Anywhoo...I see Democrats and progressives hooting about getting to the filibuster-retardant 60. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but...does this really change anything? I mean, Specter was a moderate Republican who could be expected to vote with the Democrats sometimes. Thus, they would make it to 60 sometimes. Now, he is a moderate Democrat who will likely vote with the Republicans a lot of the time. So, the Democrats will make it to 60 sometimes. Am I missing something here?
I don't mean this to be the standard "there's no difference between the two parties/kick all the bums out" argument. I mostly don't subscribe to that theory and find it pretty facile. But, in this case, I think people are getting caught up in labels. Now he's a Democrat, so Democrats have 60 votes! I just don't see his voting patterns changing much--which, yes, does give some support to the Naderite no-diff-b/t-Dem-Rep view. The point, however, is that he's a moderate. And for moderates, party really is just a convenience thing, a support system. A meaningless label. In the broad view, the two parties do stand for different things, and you can definitely see that in their respective bases. This is why Specter got pushed out of the GOP--his party's base got too extreme. Now he's just a moderate with a different colored tie.
Where I do think this matters is in the comment I just made about the Republican base. They're getting more and more distant from where independent and moderate voters are--i.e., the majority of the country. This is amazing to me. Can the country's political make-up change that quickly? I remember not 3 years ago when it was still political death to be called a liberal, when Republicans could jam through any measures they wanted. Has it really all changed so much? Perhaps I've now been alive long enough to see a political shift--from Reaganism to (bestill my heart!) Obamaism? If that's the case, the next shift won't be for a while. Interesting times. And Specter's defection is just a sign of them--but, really, let's all stop obsessing over 60.
Anywhoo...I see Democrats and progressives hooting about getting to the filibuster-retardant 60. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but...does this really change anything? I mean, Specter was a moderate Republican who could be expected to vote with the Democrats sometimes. Thus, they would make it to 60 sometimes. Now, he is a moderate Democrat who will likely vote with the Republicans a lot of the time. So, the Democrats will make it to 60 sometimes. Am I missing something here?
I don't mean this to be the standard "there's no difference between the two parties/kick all the bums out" argument. I mostly don't subscribe to that theory and find it pretty facile. But, in this case, I think people are getting caught up in labels. Now he's a Democrat, so Democrats have 60 votes! I just don't see his voting patterns changing much--which, yes, does give some support to the Naderite no-diff-b/t-Dem-Rep view. The point, however, is that he's a moderate. And for moderates, party really is just a convenience thing, a support system. A meaningless label. In the broad view, the two parties do stand for different things, and you can definitely see that in their respective bases. This is why Specter got pushed out of the GOP--his party's base got too extreme. Now he's just a moderate with a different colored tie.
Where I do think this matters is in the comment I just made about the Republican base. They're getting more and more distant from where independent and moderate voters are--i.e., the majority of the country. This is amazing to me. Can the country's political make-up change that quickly? I remember not 3 years ago when it was still political death to be called a liberal, when Republicans could jam through any measures they wanted. Has it really all changed so much? Perhaps I've now been alive long enough to see a political shift--from Reaganism to (bestill my heart!) Obamaism? If that's the case, the next shift won't be for a while. Interesting times. And Specter's defection is just a sign of them--but, really, let's all stop obsessing over 60.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Obama's Moment
Andrew Sullivan on the
torture story:
"This is not a policy difference. It is a foundational element of Western civilization. The way Cheney constructed it, it was not even a mere war-power. Since the war had no geographical boundaries, since an enemy combatant could be an American citizen or resident, since the enemy could never surrender, and since the war could never end, the dictatorial powers, allied with the power to torture, destroyed the balance of the American constitution. Until this is fully accounted for and the law-breakers brought to justice, that constitution remains with a massive breach below its waterline. It may not sink immediately; but its fate is sealed unless this precedent is not just moved on from, but erased.
The best one can say of president Bush is that he is a deeply ignorant man, unaware of the history of the country he was leading and the civilization he probably thought he was defending. But Cheney knew what he was doing."
**
I keep thinking--it's eerie how suited Obama is to to this moment, specifically, that of cleaning up Bush's mess. In addition to the racial/multi-cultural aspect which makes him, without any effort, a symbol for the rest of the world, whose good graces we lost during Bush's terms--there's this: put Bush's supreme ignorance of (among MANY other things) the Constitution--a man who genuinely thought the election was the only 'check' he should face--in contrast to Obama's past job as a FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR! And, contra Cheney, our most blackest of presidents has the respect for the Constitution that comes with a constitutional law professing pedigree. That we should be so lucky as to have that intellectual background inside the skull of a preternaturally politically talented man is amazing. That the skin around that skull should be black and yet make its way into the White House is ridiculous. Once in a while in history, breathtaking congruences occur.
torture story:
"This is not a policy difference. It is a foundational element of Western civilization. The way Cheney constructed it, it was not even a mere war-power. Since the war had no geographical boundaries, since an enemy combatant could be an American citizen or resident, since the enemy could never surrender, and since the war could never end, the dictatorial powers, allied with the power to torture, destroyed the balance of the American constitution. Until this is fully accounted for and the law-breakers brought to justice, that constitution remains with a massive breach below its waterline. It may not sink immediately; but its fate is sealed unless this precedent is not just moved on from, but erased.
The best one can say of president Bush is that he is a deeply ignorant man, unaware of the history of the country he was leading and the civilization he probably thought he was defending. But Cheney knew what he was doing."
**
I keep thinking--it's eerie how suited Obama is to to this moment, specifically, that of cleaning up Bush's mess. In addition to the racial/multi-cultural aspect which makes him, without any effort, a symbol for the rest of the world, whose good graces we lost during Bush's terms--there's this: put Bush's supreme ignorance of (among MANY other things) the Constitution--a man who genuinely thought the election was the only 'check' he should face--in contrast to Obama's past job as a FUCKING CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR! And, contra Cheney, our most blackest of presidents has the respect for the Constitution that comes with a constitutional law professing pedigree. That we should be so lucky as to have that intellectual background inside the skull of a preternaturally politically talented man is amazing. That the skin around that skull should be black and yet make its way into the White House is ridiculous. Once in a while in history, breathtaking congruences occur.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
No Line on the Horizon
I recently downloaded U2's latest album, 'No Line on the Horizon.' I'm not sure what convinced me to do it. Based on the initial single, 'Get on Your Boots', and my overall disappointment with their last two albums, I was not too excited about this one.
But, I got it. And, I think it's good. Really good. The best thing they've done in years. I like it far better than their last two. The songs stick with me. The sound is rich and interesting. I felt like the last two albums were considered 'good' (or even 'great') based too much on nostalgia. "Wow, the guitars chime again! Wow, Bono is yearning again instead of being ironic! Wow, I remember 1989!" No one wanted to talk about how the songs themselves just didn't have nearly the emotional or aesthetic force of anything from 'Joshua Tree' or 'Achtung Baby.' Put more simply, where were the pretty melodies to go with all that pretty U2 chiming and Bono yearning? Just...not quite there.
Now, this is one man's opinion. I think many people genuinely loved those albums. So, maybe it is a matter of taste. But, I also think that the overall sound of the latest album is a marked improvement. There's interesting, satisfying, 'meaty' things going on. 'All That You Can't Leave Behind,' I finally realized, just always struck me as artificial sounding. And not in the good 'Achtung Baby' or 'Zooropa' sort of artificiality, where it was intended, where they were creating this bizarre carnival world. More like the artificiality of vending machine food for dinner. It was a shell, a casing. The sound was just flat. Same, or similar, problem with 'How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb.' Don't get me wrong, stripped down can sound great. There's nothing like the acoustic guitars on 'The Bends' for instance. But, ATYCLB was stripped down not to the nourishing core of a song--real, acoustic sounds and raw voices--but to a few electronic tinklings lacking texture. I'm putting it harshly. But, that encapsulates my problem with the record.
The newest album does not suffer from that. The fills, the flourishes, the textures are great and actually stick with you as much as anything in the songs. The melodies are good, too. The title track alone has a catchier melody, in my opinion, than anything in the last two albums.
This is not a great album like 'Joshua Tree' or 'Achtung Baby.' I realize that. But...it's much closer than this great band has been in a long time. And I'm happy to see them back near the summit.
But, I got it. And, I think it's good. Really good. The best thing they've done in years. I like it far better than their last two. The songs stick with me. The sound is rich and interesting. I felt like the last two albums were considered 'good' (or even 'great') based too much on nostalgia. "Wow, the guitars chime again! Wow, Bono is yearning again instead of being ironic! Wow, I remember 1989!" No one wanted to talk about how the songs themselves just didn't have nearly the emotional or aesthetic force of anything from 'Joshua Tree' or 'Achtung Baby.' Put more simply, where were the pretty melodies to go with all that pretty U2 chiming and Bono yearning? Just...not quite there.
Now, this is one man's opinion. I think many people genuinely loved those albums. So, maybe it is a matter of taste. But, I also think that the overall sound of the latest album is a marked improvement. There's interesting, satisfying, 'meaty' things going on. 'All That You Can't Leave Behind,' I finally realized, just always struck me as artificial sounding. And not in the good 'Achtung Baby' or 'Zooropa' sort of artificiality, where it was intended, where they were creating this bizarre carnival world. More like the artificiality of vending machine food for dinner. It was a shell, a casing. The sound was just flat. Same, or similar, problem with 'How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb.' Don't get me wrong, stripped down can sound great. There's nothing like the acoustic guitars on 'The Bends' for instance. But, ATYCLB was stripped down not to the nourishing core of a song--real, acoustic sounds and raw voices--but to a few electronic tinklings lacking texture. I'm putting it harshly. But, that encapsulates my problem with the record.
The newest album does not suffer from that. The fills, the flourishes, the textures are great and actually stick with you as much as anything in the songs. The melodies are good, too. The title track alone has a catchier melody, in my opinion, than anything in the last two albums.
This is not a great album like 'Joshua Tree' or 'Achtung Baby.' I realize that. But...it's much closer than this great band has been in a long time. And I'm happy to see them back near the summit.
Friday, March 27, 2009
I should probably be watching more TV
When's the last time you heard someone say that? But, it's true. There are so many good shows I hear about, but I only really watch a few comedies. For starters, I don't get HBO. Or any cable channels. I could netflix, though. (Which is another cultural phenomenon I'm missing out on.)
It's not just cable, though. There's a lot of good, creative work going on out there. Or, so I surmise from other people's conversation. One of these days, I need to do a 'Sopranos' marathon or something. Er, maybe something that had a shorter run. Deadwood, perhaps? I do like Ian McShane in 'Kings' (a network show I only ended up watching b/c a friend of a friend worked on it. Too bad it's likely not to survive.)
But, yeah. I watched way too much TV as a kid. Then, I mostly gave it up after college. Then, TV went and got good. The good thing now, though, is that the internet and netflix allow you to more carefully pick and choose what you watch. I appreciate that.
It's not just cable, though. There's a lot of good, creative work going on out there. Or, so I surmise from other people's conversation. One of these days, I need to do a 'Sopranos' marathon or something. Er, maybe something that had a shorter run. Deadwood, perhaps? I do like Ian McShane in 'Kings' (a network show I only ended up watching b/c a friend of a friend worked on it. Too bad it's likely not to survive.)
But, yeah. I watched way too much TV as a kid. Then, I mostly gave it up after college. Then, TV went and got good. The good thing now, though, is that the internet and netflix allow you to more carefully pick and choose what you watch. I appreciate that.
what's the point of short stories?
I wonder this more and more. I grew up writing them--spontaneously. I just sort of expressed myself that way. These were mostly adventure tales then. In college, I took writing classes. At Iowa, no less. (I grew up in Iowa, that's why I went there. It also happens to have one of the most mythologized MFA programs in the country). They teach you to write short stories there.
So...I have a bunch of stories I've written. Some are, in my opinion, not bad. Even good. I have recently, finally put some effort into trying to publish these. The results so far are not encouraging.
But...a bigger question. What's the point? Who reads short stories? Who reads these literary journals aside from people who also want to get published in them, because they also went to a school like Iowa for undergrad or for their MFA? If the stories I'd written were good enough to publish, then why not? But...it's clear I'd have to put a lot more work into getting better at this genre. Is it worth the labor? Might I be better off writing something easier, that more people would appreciate? Like...stand-up? Like, TV comedy (if I could get into it). Songs? Plays? Novels? Comic books? And, yes, blogs. That's partially why I'm writing this blog entry.
I don't know. Maybe I just need to keep trying to get hired at 'The Onion.'
So...I have a bunch of stories I've written. Some are, in my opinion, not bad. Even good. I have recently, finally put some effort into trying to publish these. The results so far are not encouraging.
But...a bigger question. What's the point? Who reads short stories? Who reads these literary journals aside from people who also want to get published in them, because they also went to a school like Iowa for undergrad or for their MFA? If the stories I'd written were good enough to publish, then why not? But...it's clear I'd have to put a lot more work into getting better at this genre. Is it worth the labor? Might I be better off writing something easier, that more people would appreciate? Like...stand-up? Like, TV comedy (if I could get into it). Songs? Plays? Novels? Comic books? And, yes, blogs. That's partially why I'm writing this blog entry.
I don't know. Maybe I just need to keep trying to get hired at 'The Onion.'
Thursday, March 26, 2009
rejection
Rejection hurts. Everyone knows this, but I don't think we're really prepared for it until it happens. It always comes with a lot of force. You can tell yourself over and over before you get socked in the gut, "This is going to hurt, this is going to hurt, but it's not going to kill you," but when the hit comes, it always surprises you.
Personal rejection is like this, of course. Professional. Romantic. That one, perhaps, hurts the most. Except, if you have any such inclinations, artistic rejection. That affects your whole, carefully guarded identity. Well...that's what rejection does in general: it defines you. It takes away your identity from you. I think what you learn to do, hopefully, with maturity, is to minimize that period. Maybe more mature people than me make it go away entirely, I don't know. I'm certainly not a paragon of maturity.
So, here's the prompt for the foregoing: I've finally started putting some effort into getting a story published. In all these years that I've been (sporadically) writing stories, I thought it was my best. Well...if it's not good enough...Ok, I won't elide the depressing thought. If it's not good enough, then I'm fooling myself about being 'a writer.' I never have been one. So, what have I been doing all these years? Pretending? Yikes. What a lot of wasted time.
But, that's the depressing thought. The redemption--rejection is the stony path to success. Maybe not even that. Getting rejected is what writers, what artists, what human beings, what men do. At least, perhaps, it will stop me from deluding myself that my half-assed efforts are good enough. Because they haven't been.
Personal rejection is like this, of course. Professional. Romantic. That one, perhaps, hurts the most. Except, if you have any such inclinations, artistic rejection. That affects your whole, carefully guarded identity. Well...that's what rejection does in general: it defines you. It takes away your identity from you. I think what you learn to do, hopefully, with maturity, is to minimize that period. Maybe more mature people than me make it go away entirely, I don't know. I'm certainly not a paragon of maturity.
So, here's the prompt for the foregoing: I've finally started putting some effort into getting a story published. In all these years that I've been (sporadically) writing stories, I thought it was my best. Well...if it's not good enough...Ok, I won't elide the depressing thought. If it's not good enough, then I'm fooling myself about being 'a writer.' I never have been one. So, what have I been doing all these years? Pretending? Yikes. What a lot of wasted time.
But, that's the depressing thought. The redemption--rejection is the stony path to success. Maybe not even that. Getting rejected is what writers, what artists, what human beings, what men do. At least, perhaps, it will stop me from deluding myself that my half-assed efforts are good enough. Because they haven't been.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Obamuration: Bush as side note
A lot's being said about Obama's inauguration. For the moment, I just want to add this: I was surprised, taking stock of my reaction, to be so much more excited about the new president than relieved that the old one was leaving. This is not what I would have expected just a year ago. My attitude would have been, "Just get rid of this guy, however you do it." I would have felt vengeful towards Bush, and the inauguration would fundamentally, for me, be about repudiating him. But, that's not at all what I felt today. What I felt was pride and excitement about what this new guy represents and what he might be able to do.
This tells me that Obama's campaign themes of hope and change were far more than simple voting slogans. They changed people's focus--away from a president who most historians view as one of the worst in our history, whose approval rating is somewhere in the 20s, who has committed outrage after outrage and blunder after blunder--to something more fascinating: the beauty of America and the opportunity for renewal. In other words, Obama was able to make the repudiation of Bush irrelevant, even for a lifelong Democrat, liberal like myself. I just didn't care about Bush anymore. When he flew off in that helicopter, I was like, "Oh, yeah. Wow. There's the added benefit that we get rid of that guy, too."
Maybe it's because Bush's been so unpopular, and thus irrelevant, for so long. But, still...it's a testament to the real power of what Obama has harnessed that he's made Bush's departure a side note.
This tells me that Obama's campaign themes of hope and change were far more than simple voting slogans. They changed people's focus--away from a president who most historians view as one of the worst in our history, whose approval rating is somewhere in the 20s, who has committed outrage after outrage and blunder after blunder--to something more fascinating: the beauty of America and the opportunity for renewal. In other words, Obama was able to make the repudiation of Bush irrelevant, even for a lifelong Democrat, liberal like myself. I just didn't care about Bush anymore. When he flew off in that helicopter, I was like, "Oh, yeah. Wow. There's the added benefit that we get rid of that guy, too."
Maybe it's because Bush's been so unpopular, and thus irrelevant, for so long. But, still...it's a testament to the real power of what Obama has harnessed that he's made Bush's departure a side note.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)