rancidbutter

"taking" "responsibility"

2010-01-14T12:48:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to make a brief comment on an aspect of the the whole nut-bomber terrorism thing that I haven't seen elsewhere. I want to talk about something fun, something exciting, something all the kids are raving about these days--yes, I'm referring to responsibility.

Obama, in his review of what happened, outlined "the intelligence and other government failures leading up to the botched December 25 terror bombing" (as summarized by CNN). He also said, "the buck stops with me."

That was him being the leader accepting responsibility. It's what he had to do, what most would insist is proper. And I agree, it is. But, let's be honest, he's not really accepting responsibility. He's dancing a little dance we all agree to ignore. He's simultaneously blaming others, blaming a system, and then playing the martyr in a way he knows no one but his most determined opponents will believe (and they would blame him no matter what he said). He's saying, "Here are the people and structures that caused this, people and structures that are not me or of my making--but I will allow you to blame me, wink-wink." We all know he doesn't mean, "this is my fault," we all know, at some level, he doesn't really expect us to believe it's his fault--and yet we all demand that he says it's his fault.

Just another little game of politics that we don't acknowledge but that we play. I'm not saying Obama should really accept all the blame--after all, the systems that were in place were in place when he took office. And I grant that some of his meaning was that he accepts responsibility for fixing the problems. Still...I think the whole thing is funny. It's a mass self-delusion--probably part of the mass self-delusion that we have that the president can really control many things. Perhaps the "buck stops here" thing is less about appearing a mature leader and more about maintaining the fiction of presidential omnipotence.

Best man for another job

2010-01-08T15:46:00.000-08:00

Ezra Klein has an interesting aside today about elections and the skills of politicians. He tosses it off, probably because he considers it obvious, but I think, like a fibrous grass, it's worth some rumination. Boiled down, he says that we elect people for reasons that don't necessarily have anything to do with the job they're going to do. He takes the example of Chris Dodd, a career politician whose eyebrows never agreed with his hair that he had gotten older. Klein quotes Nick Baumann, who praised potential Dodd replacement Sidney Blumenthal for lacking Dodd's, for Baumann, troubling coziness with obese felines (the banking system). Klein points out that what Dodd did have going for him was a familiarity with Senate procedure and a talent, or at least learned ability, to get things done within that system.

But when do we ever elect people for reasons like that--you know, reasons like they might be good at the job? It's certainly not something that comes up much in campaigns--"Vote Dodd! He Understands Procedural Votes!" More importantly, we--meaning party activists and party officials--don't nominate people for those reasons. They don't sell. We nominate people who connect with voters, who arouse passion. Partly, as Klein says, we nominate ideology. More importantly, though, we nominate charisma. Again, maybe it's an obvious point, but it does seem strange that we don't approach the people that we as a people hire collectively the same way that we approach people that we hire in our jobs.

Then again, as nerds across the world eventually find out, popularity does not cease to matter after high school. Job-specific competence matters in job interviews, but how many times does the more charismatic person get the hire, regardless? Charisma matters in any interpersonal setting--from the job interview to the promotion decision. And charisma matters in job functions, too. In some way, the reasons we elect people--passion and charisma--are actually relevant to the job they will eventually do: a leader who can illicit passionate and positive responses from voters will likely be able to do so from other legislators, a key function in actually doing the job. Obama, for example, dripped charisma like Patrick Ewing dripped sweat, and, conceivably (though not necessarily so far in practice) he can also aim his overactive charisma glands at legislators, to help get things done. But what about organizing a bureaucracy? Delegating authority? Wading through massive amounts of information to extract the meaningful bits necessary for a decision? Choosing the right drapes for the Oval Office? Do we vote on those things? Certainly not directly. Obama did show, in organizing his campaign, many of those skills, but I doubt such considerations were on most people's minds when they voted for him. I think sometimes that we vote for qualified politicians almost in spite of ourselves--which is a scary thought.

Ideological Shorthand

2010-01-06T21:15:00.001-08:00

This is somewhat yesterweek’s news, but I wasn’t keeping a blog then, so suck on it topicality! So…health care reform and the public option. (Right? We all want to hear about that some more, right?) The “Kill the Bill” noise sure has quieted down. Perhaps that’s because the liberals who wanted more progressive legislation have given up—after all, the Senate passed their bill and all that remains is conference between those two groups of mostly white men who talk to the lobbyists. It’s a done deal, so why bother?

Well, for one thing, if they really thought the bill sans-public option was a net negative for the country, then wouldn’t they still be protesting (i.e., angrily blogging)? Once congressmen begin the messy process of merging the two bills (hint, first get the House bill drunk then make sure the Senate bill pays for dinner), FireDogLake and suchlike may well reemerge with voices raised in all-caps righteousness.

I get the impression, though, from the liberal rags I read, that the bill-killing passion has largely waned. Perhaps proponents have realized the shallowness of the position—that it was in large part a political/rhetorical tactic, not a belief they truly held deeply. (Or perhaps I’m just projecting my own shallowness.)

My take is that the public option came to be largely a form of ideological shorthand—it meant “progressive.” With a ridiculously complicated bill with something like five gajabillion pages (rounded up), its “meaning,” to the general public, even to relatively engaged citizens, is kind of fuzzy. I’m guessing not many passionate progressives read the whole thing. For them, “public option” meant “close to single payer” which meant “FDR-style social programs.” It meant progressive. “Public option” is a lot easier to read (you just did it!) than a labyrinthine tangle of clauses, sub-clauses, and dick jokes snuck in by Chris Dodd.

What I noticed was that, for all the sound and fury on Daily Kos and Huffingtonpost about the bill’s failings, those progressives most likely to be policy wonks, i.e. most likely to have read more than the “public option” twitter version of the bill, saw a lot of good things worth passing: I’m talking about dudes like Ezra Klein, Nate Silver, Matt Yglesias, and that little ball of sunshine, Paul Krugman.

Not all of us can muster the sheer nerditude to wade through all that legislative muck, as much as we would like to be engaged, so “public option” became a short hand for the kind of thing we wanted our government to do. Granted, this is not to say that the public option was meaningless—but it somehow came to “mean” everything, which was, at the very least, a distortion.

Lest I become a pot criticizing kettle hues—of course “public option” isn’t the only such shorthand we lazy idealists rely upon. There’re also such things as, I don’t know, “Democratic politician” or “not-George-W-Bush-politician,” or even the term "progressive" itself, and I’m as guilty as anyone of such intellectual laziness. And sometimes it’s not really even laziness—it’s just a consequence of an astonishingly complicated world—ideological shorthand is often necessary to take any position whatsoever. A little awareness, though, is a good thing. Otherwise, you can get attached to a name—or a policy—with little real meaning outside of your emotions.

smoking, not healthcare

2009-09-22T12:58:00.000-07:00

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.

Twittering Iran

2009-06-25T08:32:00.000-07:00

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.

Fuel Standards, Finally

2009-05-18T18:44:00.000-07:00

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.

Catch Me if You Can?

2009-05-15T18:49:00.000-07:00

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.

What this guy said

2009-05-14T16:32:00.000-07:00

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.

"Obama is a war criminal."

2009-05-14T12:36:00.000-07:00

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).

60?

2009-05-01T09:18:00.000-07:00

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.

Obama's Moment

2009-04-22T21:37:00.000-07:00

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.

No Line on the Horizon

2009-03-29T07:42:00.001-07:00

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.

I should probably be watching more TV

2009-03-27T17:58:00.000-07:00

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.

what's the point of short stories?

2009-03-27T17:44:00.000-07:00

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.'

rejection

2009-03-26T07:25:00.000-07:00

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.

Obamuration: Bush as side note

2009-01-20T16:24:00.000-08:00

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.

Nader

2008-11-25T22:31:00.000-08:00

This comment to Eric Alterman's "Altercation" blog expresses pretty well my main problem with Ralph Nader's presidential candidacies--since he puts no effort into getting other third party candidates elected to lower offices, since he puts no effort into building a viable third party, since he does nothing but show up every four years and ask for media attention--since, in other words, he hasn't done anything resembling the kind of genuine, grass roots party building that Howard Dean did after his presidential run--I find it hard to take Ralph Nader's candidacies as much more than ego trips.

http://mediamatters.org/altercation/200811250014#8

Now what?

2008-11-08T09:13:00.000-08:00

So, um...now what?

Seriously, even long before the end of this election, I've wondered this--in various forms:

Now that the Bush era is done, do we stop mistrusting government--or just stop mistrusting it so much? I would vote for the latter. It's important for liberals and progressives (whatever you want to call them) to stay vigilant against a President Obama--perhaps even more so, because the temptation is to let him get away with anything. Does the lefty blogosphere that's popped up during, and arguably due to, the Bush administration disappear now? I think it's very possible it will become less vibrant, less urgent, less angry. I hope it will not go away, however, because it's become a force for progress. What happens to the center-left coalition that swept Obama into office? Does it crack up after his first compromise? Do all the lefties throw up their hands when Obama signs something suspiciously conservative into law or uses military force against Al Quaeda? I hope, as I said, that we will criticize him--but I hope, at the same time, something of this unity remains. We'll see...

Finally, what becomes of what John Stewart has called the "satirical-industrial complex" of Daily Show, Colbert Report, Onion, Bill Maher, etc.? They got us through these last eight, surreal years. Will we still laugh at our own guys? There have been troubling signs all along that we are unable to do so. I would hate to lose that critical, comedic perspective. Hopefully we lefties can actually learn to laugh at ourselves, instead of just the other guy.

An overfull moment

2008-11-05T19:59:00.000-08:00

There are so many things I want to/could say about Barack Obama's election as President. But, this is what I want to say first: That moment, at about 11:10 p.m. Eastern Time, when Keith Olberman announced that Barack Obama would be the next president, was one of the most, if not the most, powerful moments in my life. In one moment, 8 of the darkest years in American politics, especially for liberals, and 200 years of guilty history in a country whose Constitution permitted slavery, turned. Flipped. Changed utterly. Amazing.

excited, nervous, hopeful

2008-11-03T10:26:00.000-08:00

The title sums it up. I'm amped for this thing. Been phonebanking the last few days. As obsessed with the polls and news stories as always.

Nothing more to be said--Let's do this!

GOTMFV!

I can't believe it.

2008-10-10T18:36:00.000-07:00

I haven't been blogging. But, I have definitely been paying attention. (Probably, in terms of my schoolwork and my sanity, too much attention.) I've been obsessing over liberal blogs and news sites, donating, e-mailing others to donate, traveling to Philly to canvas--and being obnoxious about posting things on facebook. I kind of came to the conclusion that I had a better chance of communicating the importance of the election through my facebook contacts. (I mean, who actually reads my blog?)

But, anyway...My point is this. I know what's going on. I know a lot of people are saying Obama will win, that the polls say so. I will not let myself believe it. No. First of all, polls change. These will change. Second, in all of my adult life, I have known only disappointment and exasperation when it comes to Presidential elections. Clinton won when I was an adolescent, and this made me think that--much like Michael Jordan's Bulls--my team would always win. Then, 2000. The first election I could vote in. The first one I got involved in.

Stolen. Let's not mince words. It was stolen. And stolen by possibly the most dishonest, disastrous President in our nation's history.

2004. I was in it. I was ears deep. I invested my heart and soul into that campaign, believing our country could NOT be so dumb as to opt for four more years of incompetence, greed, and religious extremism.

We lost. We lost Iowa. We lost Congress. We lost governorships.

We lost the Presidency because a gay marriage ballot in Ohio got the bigot vote riled up. And I lost any interest or faith in politics. I just gave up on the whole swampland.

It wasn't until Obama amazingly won my lily-white home state this year, setting off his epic battle with another history-making candidate, that I could muster the ability to care again. And now...I'm in over my ears. I'm 10 feet below the surface. I've never cared about an election like I care about this one. We have a chance, I think, in electing Barak Obama, to atone for the sins of 2000 and 2004. I am not prone to exaggeration, but I believe, based on what I have seen of how he's organized his campaign, that Obama is a brilliant man, a natural, a natively talented leader. His election would reverse, in one swoop, a great deal of the hatred and anger the rest of the world feels towards us. I think he could lead the Democrats into an era of dominance we haven't seen since FDR. Circumstances are conspiring to make this possible. By which I mean, we have the closest thing to another Depression--an economy that is begging for another New Deal.

And...he would be the first black president. I did not think I would see this. I still may not. I can't believe it's so close.

Which is why I'm reserving judgment, delaying excitement. It still could be very close. Race could make that happen. I plan to donate at least once more to Obama. I plan to go to Philly (or Ohio, if I can swing a long weekend?) If anyone's reading, I ask you to do the same.

Donate or Volunteer:
http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

The Congressional Dems also need help:

DNC:
http://www.democrats.org/

Daily Kos' "Orange to Blue" tool for supporting close races nationwide:
https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/orangetoblue?refcode=thermometer

What wins elections

2008-09-04T16:04:00.000-07:00

I was thinking, after watching Sarah Palin's sarcastic, snarky, and dismissive speech, about what it would mean if John McCain wins this election. Not in terms of policies or what it will do to America's well-being or place in the world--that's a whole 'nother depressing topic. I mean--what does it mean about politics in America? It will mean, I think, that cynicism, sarcasm, and avoiding the issues wins elections. It will mean that counting on the fact that voters aren't paying attention to your lies, stretched truths, flip-flops, hypocritical statements, and full-of-shit spin wins elections. It will mean that cheap, political stunts win elections.

Obama has tried to run a different kind of campaign, in a lot of ways. (He is still a politician, of course, but a far less cynical one than we've become accustomed to.) Obama has tried to criticize John McCain without demeaning him. He has always insisted on honoring McCain's military service, while pointing out the truth of what he stands for politically. He has insisted that Sarah Palin's family is not up for criticism, despite the other side's unfair and demonizing criticism of Obama's wife. He has tried to run a campaign that involves the input and energy of thousands of every day people. He has spoken seriously about topics of great importance to the country--energy independence, war and peace, job losses, and the failure of modern politics and politicians.

John McCain's campaign has been about sarcasm and belittling its opponent. Instead of touting any realistic proposals for the economy or the war, they spend obscene amounts of money on advertisements saying Obama is like Paris Hilton. I mean, come on! They lie and say that Obama will raise taxes on the middle class (he will return tax levels to pre-Bush levels on the very wealthy--in other words, repeal the irresponsible tax cuts McCain himself originally opposed, until it became politically expedient to support them, which he now does.) Then, McCain pulls a political stunt and puts a laughably unqualified evangelical woman on his ticket in a transparent attempt to get some Clinton and Bush voters in one swipe. Who cares if her experience is far less than the man they said was too inexperienced to be president? Then, she gets up on stage and spews lies and sarcasm, belittling the work of community organizers, falsely claiming that Obama has never authored legislation (in fact, he's authored important legislation on securing nuclear weapons and ethics reform, among others). She lies and says she opposed government pork, when she in fact supported ridiculous earmarks for her town and state, including the "bridge to nowhere." And, instead of talking about real political issues, or revealing that she knows or thinks ANYTHING about national or international affairs, she makes fun of Obama's stage, his speeches, and his time helping poor people in South Side Chicago find work.

If THAT'S what the American people vote for, then it means Bush and Rove were right: Politics is about appealing to the worst in people. A lot of us were hoping Obama could prove them wrong. He still might, but the fact that it's even close is downright depressing.

Experience

2008-08-31T11:29:00.000-07:00

Did John McCain choose Sarah Palin as his running mate in order to create some kind of false equivalence between her paltry experience and Obama's (relatively) brief, but exceptional experience?

Perhaps.

It's a ridiculous equivalence to make, however. Look, Obama served for eight years in the Illinois Senate, representing a diverse, heavily populated region that encompassed rural areas, rust-belt regions, and the third-most populous city in the United States. He has served four years in the United States Senate, again representing the complex and diverse entity of Chicago and its environs. He passed legislation securing nuclear weapons across the globe and enforcing ethics reform for the nation's most powerful elected officials. He has thought about and made sophisticated policy statements and proposals about international affairs--beginning with his strong condemnation of the Iraq war before it began, when it was a very popular notion. He studied and taught Constiutional Law, studied at Harvard Law School, and worked as a community organizer in poverty-stricken South Side Chicago. He has shown remarkable grasp of the difficult topics necessary for the leader of the free world.

Sarah Palin has served as governor for about a year-and-a-half for one of the least populated, least diverse (racially and economically) states in the Union, one lacking any large urban center. Before that, she was the mayor of a town with a population of about 6,000 (which she saddled with $20 million in debt). I grew up in a town of about the size. I do not believe the mayor of Iowa Falls should be next in line for the most powerful political position in the world, in the history of the world, behind a 72 year old man with a history of cancer. I don't think Sarah Palin should either. In terms of knowledge, she has a bachelors degree in journalism. She has never made any pronouncements about national or international affairs, stating that she hadn't really thought about Iraq because she was focussed on Alaska's affairs. Good thinking. She should have stayed focussed on those issues and turned down John McCain's reckless and ill-considered offer of the Vice Presidency. What does she believe? What does she know about national and international issues? What does she know about the rest of the country and world? Obama has answered these questions in countless speeches, debates, interviews, and policy proposals. Palin is quite simply in over her head. Hopefully, the Republicans are not able to shield her from the tough questions she should have to answer. But, I fear they will, and she will simply hide behind her mildly interesting personal story.

It could be disastrous for this country if Sary Palin is dumped into the role of President, which could very likely happen. I never wanted John McCain to get elected, but now I'm pretty scared about what could happen if he was--and about how poor his leadership and decision-making skills must be.

This whole argument is made much better here:
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/08/the-shock-of-pa.html#more

Why Wesley Clark's getting tarred

2008-07-01T18:47:00.000-07:00

It's been really ridiculous the way the right wing has responded to Wesley Clark's comments. To summarize, he basically said that John McCain's military service, and being taken prisoner of war, does not qualify as foreign policy expertise or executive command experience. Both these statements are unquestionably true. Foreign policy experience is political. It has little to do with piloting jet planes, as difficult and dangerous as that job might be.

Clark is being attacked for something he DIDN'T say. Republicans are claiming that the general "attacked" McCain's military service. No, he did not attack it. He simply said that people should feel free to admire it, but not misconstrue it as something it is not. In effect, the (feigned) outrage amounts to this: you are not allowed to say that John McCain's military service is NOT something, if that something is good. You can't say "John McCain's military experience is NOT as tasty as chocolate ice cream," even though that's probably true. That would be an "attack." If I were to say, for instance, that John McCain's military service does not necessarily make him the most handsome man in the country, that would be an attack. Or, if I were to say that John McCain's time as a prisoner of war doesn't necessarily mean he has an enormous penis, and that experience doesn't really have any relationship to the size of his penis, or his sexual prowess in any respect whatsoever, that would be an attack. However, if I said John McCain's military service means he's the just the bestest damned awesome ass kicker who ever laid boot to butt, then I just might be a redneck...sorry, I mean, then I'm a Patriot.

In any event, what's going on here, I think, is that the right sees a guy who could be a great surrogate, or VP candidate, for Obama, and they see a chance to discredit him. I've long thought that Clark would be an ideal Obama VP, actually--good command of military topics, real executive experience (unlike McCain, he commanded others as head of NATO in Bosnia), southerner, smart--Rhodes scholar, close to the Clintons, and an early and intelligent opponent of the Iraq war. The right wants to make sure Obama doesn't have access to those strengths. I still think Obama should pick him. At least consider it. Never mind all this sound and fury.

Obama makes smart people dumb

2008-06-25T12:44:00.000-07:00

Or, to put it more precisely, his candidacy seems to bring out some idiotic comments about race from seemingly intelligent people, cf Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton. The latest is Ralph Nader, who has accused Obama of "trying to talk white." Yeesh. Ok, granted, what he was really saying was that, by not talking enough (according to Nader's standards) about inner city poverty, etc., Obama was trying to "talk white." That's still pretty dumb. Yes, there is some truth to the idea that Obama doesn't want white voters to think of him as the "black" candidate only concerned about issues pertinent to black people. Can you blame him? Does Nader understand what campaigning for president really means? It means attracting a broad coalition that will give you the votes to get in office, and get some good things accomplished. Talking up inner city issues now would do no one any good--it would marginalize Obama and rob him of the power to actually do anything about those issues. On the other hand, once elected, Obama could use the bully pulpit to give a lot more attention to inner city issues that have been ignored by previous presidents.

What does Nader think Obama would accomplish by focusing on these issues during the general election? Does he really think it would lead to anything getting done about them? Of course it wouldn't. My point is, even if you give Nader the benefit of the doubt, his comment not only sounds stupid, his broader point doesn't even hold water.

clearly...

2008-06-18T07:36:00.000-07:00

I know nothing about basketball (see my previous post). But, I'm glad the Celtics won, anyway. Good series, great team play, great to see so many different members of the team play well in different games. The comeback game was a lot of fun to watch, and it was really great to see Paul Pierce exceed expectations so thoroughly. I get it that sports is overdramatized and made to seem more important than it really is--but, still, it's pretty great when you get to see someone perform much better than anyone ever thought him capable of, when someone who was always just pretty good becomes unexpectedly great right before your eyes.

Celtics-Lakers

2008-06-01T15:29:00.001-07:00

So, I was thinking I was going to make this a political blog. But, basketball has become much more interesting than the Democratic primary of late, so I'm going to talk NBA.

In a hyphenated word: Celtics-Lakers. I am actually kind of embarrassed at how excited I am about this. This is going to be awesome--but one thing could ruin it: The Lakers could sweep Boston. It could happen. This LA team is ridiculous. They have a ton of talent, they have great coaching, they have a solid bench. And they have a guy with a pathological need to win and amazing skills (Kobe). The Celtics, on the other hand, have kind of stumbled their way to the Finals. I hope it goes 7, and I'd really like to see the Celtics win (partly because I always root for the Eastern Conference teams--look, sports allegiances are ridiculous no matter what, this one no less; but also because I like this particular team and the players--esp. KG and Pierce.)

Here's my thoughts on 'strategy': Rivers should give his regular starting lineup a shot in the first game. See how it goes. Based on that, he should consider benching Ray Allen and relegating him to free-throw/three-point shooting help. Kobe will devour him, at both ends. Bring in another big and put either Pierce or Posey on Bryant. It's their only chance. KG will more than handle Odom or Gasol. Perkins can take the other one reasonably well. Allen's already playing poorly. Against Kobe, it could get ugly. And it could mean the series.

yay, fourth parties!

2008-05-12T18:21:00.000-07:00

I admit it, I'm one of those square killjoys who "blames" Ralph Nader for George W Bush's "election" in 2000. I know, I know--it was Gore's fault, really, for running a poor campaign. It was Florida's fault, for fucking everything up. Third parties are necessary for a healthy democracy, of which, this country of ours is not the most shining specimen. I've heard it all before. The points have some validity. But, if there had been no Nader, it would have been President Gore--a man who went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Instead, we got a likeable guy who mispronounces things amusingly. But, I digress...my point is here, that I have no problem with challenging the two party system--in principle. But, in practice, it fucks things (things meaning the country, the world, the economy, things like that) over royally when it's one sided. Look, Ralph Nader wasn't really running as an alternative to the two parties--i.e., someone with moderate compromises or new solutions to old gridlock. He was running as a "pure" liberal, someone who appealed to the far left of the Democratic base. He wasn't a third party, he was an extra Democrat. To avoid simply skewing the election results, you need something more balanced. You need a genuine third party that appeals to people from both sides--or, two extra parties who appeal to the "purists" from either side. (Or, all three, wouldn't that be lovely?)

Weeeellll...looks like we might just have something workable this year. Nader is running again. But...so is this guy, and it has Republicans worried. Good. Karma for all of their cheering on (and, sometimes, it's rumored, outright assistance) for Ralph Nader's runs.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24582429/

Four parties is great. I love four parties. It's three that gets me down. See, I'm not square--I'm just anti-triangle.

boo

2008-05-10T15:39:00.000-07:00

So, now Hillary's argument boils down to this: don't vote for Obama, because there are a lot of white people out there who won't vote for a black guy. Echh...You know, a few months ago, I went to watch one of the debates on TV with the Obama people. A lot of them, when Clinton was introduced, booed. I thought it was obnoxious and immature. Really, her positions are pretty mainstream Democrat--except for the Iraq vote. Were they booing over that? I doubt it. They were booing, I felt, because she was opposing their guy. But now...I was thinking, what's the reaction going to be at the convention when Hillary gets up to speak? (I would be shocked if she didn't get a speaking spot, and a prominent one at that.) Will there be people who boo? I hate to say it, but I think she might actually deserve it now. Based on those comments, I might do it myself.

2008-03-30T14:34:00.000-07:00

i doubt...

2008-03-25T21:03:00.000-07:00

...that Hillary Clinton is losing much sleep over the possibility she'll damage the likely Democratic nominee enough that the Republicans hold onto the White House and she gets to run again in four years...I just really doubt that keeps her awake at night for too many 3 a.m. phone calls. But that's just me.

blog

2008-03-22T17:21:00.000-07:00

I signed up for this blog a while ago and then forgot. I never wrote anything for it. Lately, I've been thinking about blogging again to talk about the election, and possibly other news items. They (whoever they are) say you should write about what interests you, so this seems a good idea.

Ironically, here's what's on my mind now: disinterest. For a while there I was very into the Democrats' nomination process. Kind of obsessively so. It had lost its spark, though, recently. Nothing new is coming out except the minor scandals of whose surrogate said what stupid thing. (About that, Geraldine Ferraro may or may not be racist--I think most of us are, at least a little bit, so it wouldn't be a shock--but she certainly doesn't seem very bright.) The two candidates are winning the states they are "supposed" to win based on past performance. They have no significant differences on the issues--aside from disagreeing about how much of a mistake Hillary's vote for Iraq was. But...after a little post-February 5th exhaustion has worn off, I'm getting back into it. It'll be over soon. It'll be Obama. Then the really nasty stuff begins. I just hope they can't tear him to pieces like they did Kerry. Anyway, they will try.