Procrastinet

Why I Dig Obama - An Allegory

Okay, so imagine you're a freshman in high school. And there's a new required class in poetry, and some kids dig it and some are grumbling about it, but it's basically okay.

And then the popular, charming football coach gets up at a school assembly and says something hilarious and scathing about poetry, and how pointless it is, and how sissified you'd have to be to like it.

It would go something like: "When I played in high school we didn't even wear pads, and I got two concussions and broke my ribs. But it could have been worse. I could have been in poetry class." But, you know, funnier and more scathing.

In any event, it's well said, and everybody laughs.

And just like that, the knife has been put into the poetry class. It is now impossible to take it seriously, at least in public. And every time you hear a new poem, you think about that football coach making fun of it, and you take it less seriously. A couple bookish types try to point out that poetry is actually kind of nice, and they're hooted down.

Okay. So for the purposes of this discussion, that football coach is Ronald Reagan, and the quip in question is "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.'"

Back at Allegory High: the years pass. Sophomore year, there's a new teacher for the poetry class, who's pretty cool and some kids say they once saw him smoking pot, and he tries to deal with everybody thinking poetry is dumb by teaching "the collected works of Eminem," doing translations of poems into plain English, whatever.

And some people dig it. It doesn't challenge the basic premise that poetry is lame. It just points out that some of it is less lame than others, and that anyway it can still be kind of enjoyable in spite of being lame.

Let's not even talk about Junior year. Assistant Coach Jockstrap teaches poetry that year. It's a bad year for poetry.

Then, Senior Year at Allegory High, there's a new poetry teacher. He's young. He's black. He's cool. He's laid back and intense at the same time.

And here's the thing: this motherfather just LOVES poetry. Loves how it uses the language, loves how it demands an active interaction from the reader, loves the way it can express stuff with a specificity that prose can never touch.

And everybody is sitting in his class, and they get all stirred up listening to him - let's call him Mr. O - listening to Mr. O talk about poetry and what it can do.

And Mr. O is so damn cool that all the boys want his approval and all the girls have crushes on him and everybody's talking about poetry class while they're in the lunchroom.

And by jiminy, Allegory High has itself a little poetry renaissance.

So.

If Mr. Leatherhead the football coach stands for Ronald Reagan, then "poetry" stands for the idea that the government can and should actually help people.

The Reagan era caused a shift. Suddenly, believing in the government's ability to help meant you were a rube and a ninny. It took the New Deal/Ask Not paradigm of civic governance and left it bleeding in some busboy's lap.

Bill Clinton is the first President that I cast a vote for, and the first politician that I took personally. But in hindsight, looking at the difference between Clintonian politics and Obamian politics, I see that for all the good he did and even more he tried to do, he didn't shift that paradigm back.

He didn't even try. He made a point of doing exactly what was possible and nothing more. And, in some critical cases, he sold out the principles of a liberal/progressive society entirely (Don't Ask/Don't Tell, welfare "reform," the Defense of Marriage Act, etc.).

"You'll never get these kids to like poetry," say the Clintons (allegorically). "Just give 'em what they want and maybe slip a little poetry in around the edges. If you think you can change their minds, you're a damn fool."

Maybe they were right, at the time.

Barack Obama wants to restore the idea that the purpose of government is not to get out of the way, but to do good. To help. That's the big-C "CHANGE" he wants everybody to believe in. From the Obama website:

Amid the partisanship and bickering of today's public debate, he still believes in the ability to unite people around a politics of purpose - a politics that puts solving the challenges of everyday Americans ahead of partisan calculation and political gain. (emphasis mine)

Mr. O of Allegory High got the kids back into poetry both by what he said and who he was. In Barack Obama, with his incredible reserves of personal charisma, there's a match between the message and the messenger.

Paradigms don't shift easy. Obama's got a big hill to climb, but he's the first guy I've seen who looks like he actually has a chance to climb it.

Ronald Reagan wasn't a demigod, he wasn't the Messiah, he was just the right guy with the right thing to say at the right time. He was the delivery vector for a thought virus, and we're fighting the cognitive infection to this day.

Obama wants to be the cure.

History

Russert and Rove: "NominObama"

I started my birthday by ending my long political withdrawal - just in time to see Tim Russert on MSNBC declare that we now know who the Democratic nominee will be. With mostly superdelegates left to make the difference, as the conventional wisdom goes, so goes reality.

Fingers crossed.

[Update: Karl Rove said the same on Fox. I can't believe I'm happy to agree with Karl Rove.]

Obama - my pitch

Okay. Here's my pitch.

I'm like Fox Mulder - I want to believe.

Not like the banner above asks, in "my" ability to change Washington. Whatever.

I listen to Barack Obama's political speeches (vis: Democratic National Convention '04, South Carolina Victory Speech last week) and I want to believe in the kind of politics that he's talking about.

I don't want to hyperanalyze the platform and policy differences between him and Hillary. I don't want to try to guess who can beat McCain (or Romney or whoever). I don't want to be calculating or cynical at all.

I want to believe that the feeling I get listening to him talk about politics is solid, and legitimate, and real, and transformative.

And the only way - THE ONLY way - that can be true, is if he wins. If he loses, the whole thing unravels. And that would make me very, very sad, because it would mean that our country's politics are no longer reachable by that message.

If you're still wondering who to support in the Democratic primary, do me this one favor. Go to the Obama site and watch the South Carolina speech. If it makes you feel good, double down on that feeling with a vote for Obama.

Happy Jesus' Birthday!

I have done a bad job holding up the Christian end of Max's upbringing, I think. We spent part of Christmas Eve watching Beauty & The Beast, and at the end, when the beast turns back into a human prince, with a strong nose and long light brown hair, Max looked earnestly up at the screen and asked: "Is that... is that Jesus?"

"No, buddy," I said. "That's not Jesus."

Max nodded to himself and said quietly, "I think that's Jesus."

Happy Jesus' Birthday, everybody. Hug your loved ones and be nice to each other.

xoxo
- RJ

God Bless You, Mr. Vonnegut

Kurt Vonnegut died today, at the age of 84. Cory Doctorow at BoingBoing says it best, when he says:

Oh, shit.

Three of my favorite books of all time are Vonnegut books. Cat's Cradle was one of two books I actually read start to finish that were assigned to me in high school (sorry about that, Mr. McDowell, Mom, Dad) and it blew my mind.

Those of you who don't read will remember Vonnegut from his appearance opposite Rodney Dangerfield in "Back To School" (brilliant).

RIP.

[Image ganked from BoingBoing who ganked it from wikipedia, and I also ganked the term "ganked," which has now been used so many times in this sentence as to lose all meaning. Poo-tee-wheet?]

UPDATE: I'm stealing all of my Vonnegut tributes from BoingBoing, but so it goes. They've posted the Bokononist Last Rites, and I'm going to break down and do the same because it has put a lump in my throat that isn't going to go away otherwise:

God made mud.
God got lonesome.
So God said to some of the mud, "Sit up!"
"See all I've made," said God, "the hills, the sea, the sky, the stars."

And I was some of the mud that got to sit up and look around.
Lucky me, lucky mud.
I, mud, sat up and saw what a nice job God had done.
Nice going, God.

In Memoriam - Curt Dempster

Curt Dempster, the indomitable, irascible and inspiring founder and artistic director of Ensemble Studio Theatre -- my boss at the theater where Youngblood resides -- died last Friday morning. It was a great shock to the EST community, and the shockwaves will be felt for a long time to come.

Hopefully, so too will Curt's legacy and mission - to provide a lasting artistic home for theater artists, refreshingly and remarkably free from the hustle of commerciality. Curt was all about the work, and getting it onstage come what may. He did it for over 35 years, often on the back of nothing more than his own willpower (and a formidable willpower it was).

It has been my priviledge to work for Curt for the last four years. He will be deeply missed.

So... Yeah! Look at that!

Um... weird. We seem - we seem to have won.

Let me put a finer point on that.

We seem to have won it all.

The House has fallen, by 25+ seats. The Senate is currently a tie, though we won't have final closure until at *least* November 27, when the state certifies the results and Allen has to figure out whether he's going to ask for a recount. Conventional wisdom at the moment is that he will still be behind by several thousand votes, and should not ask for a recount.

Either way, I think we won the Senate.

So there it is. Fox News and the Right are eating their own in a frenzy of recrimination, Karl Rove's mystique is forever punctured, Rumsfeld is out and the Democrats control both houses. It's like TOPSY TURVY WORLD.

UPDATE:

Senator Tester, meet Senator Webb. Senator Webb, meet Senator Tester. America, meet DEMOCRATIC CONTROL OF BOTH MOTHERFUCKING HOUSES OF CONGRESS.

Karl Rove, meet the business end of a sloppy poo sandwich.

Sham "mainstream" conservatism, meet the end of your god damned era.

Is that bacon? Do I smell bacon?

Class from the Right

I'm going to commit a blog no-no and re-post a blog post in its entirety. I do so because my site is small fish, and I know you suckaz don't usually click through.

Here's John Podhoretz at the Corner:

Happy or suicidal with tonight's results, something colossal and profoundly important has happened in the United States beginning in 2000 — the re-engagement of the American people with politics. We have had four enormously consequential elections in a row now in which voters have cast their ballots in numbers that we were told we'd never see in our lifetimes. I don't see how you can view this as anything but a wondrous development for the United States.

Dems in the House

Time to start draining the swamp - news services are calling the House for the Democrats.

Start watching for the shredding truck to be parked outside the Cheney compound again. And watch for all out, vicious war by the Executive branch against the Legislative.

Scoreboard(s)

TPM Cafe has set up an excellent score board for every contested race.

If you're spectating tonight, this is the place to do it.

UPDATE:

DailyKos has a whole team on it, and fancy pie charts, here.

Midterm Madness

Okay, here we go. I've done very little political blogging since, well, 2004... But here's my personal run down on the midterm elections tomorrow. Most of this is more of a guide to spectation than to activism, as for better or for worse that tends to be how my proclivities run.

House of Representatives:

By all the measures that I trust, the Democrats are going to re-take the House. This will mean lots of very good things, like an end to the rubber-stamping of Bush/Rove legislation, and at least a beginning of the restoration of oversight by the legislative branch over the executive. It will also trigger, I'm sure, a new level of contempt from the Bush/Cheney executive branch towards the legislative.

Also, remember that the GOP is exceedingly effective at pre-smearing potential threats, so that they are rendered dead on arrival. Notice that they have been doing this about investigations/impeachment. The noise machine is in overdrive, screaming "gratuitous" and "political" and "out-of-control" and "bogging down the government during wartime" and "persecution." This, in a breathtaking display of chutzpa, from the party who brought us Whitewater/Lewinsky.

MAKE NO MISTAKE and REMEMBER THIS: they are spending this effort damning the investigations in advance as partisan hack jobs because and ONLY because the investigations WILL reveal systemic malfeasance, probably rising to the level of outright criminality. The more you hear the GOP pooh-poohing the idea of impeachment, the more you will know that there are impeachable offenses waiting to be uncovered. This is inoculation, pure and simple.

Senate:

Oh boy-o, is this a horse race. Here's a viewer's guide, for those who haven't been following along:

MISSOURI - this has been a statistical tie between McCaskill (D) and Talent (R) for weeks. No poll has had them more than three points apart, if I recall correctly.

VIRGINIA - even the Right is admitting that George "Macaca" Allen (R) has run the worst campaign in recent memory. But he's an incumbent Republican in the Old Dominion, so he has yet to poll consistently behind his opponent, Jim Webb (D). Has tightened steadily to a statistical tie, with recent polls showing Webb edging ahead. This will be a nail-biter.

MONTANA - John Tester (D) is a big, flat-topped, doofy-lookin' fellah with a desire to "make the senate look more like Montana." One of the real successes of the netroots, and the most appealing candidate I've seen all year. Even his commercials are fun to watch. Has been leading incumbent Conrad Burns (R) who has been repeatedly singed in the Abramoff scandal. The GOP is resorting to screaming "He'll RAISE your TAXES!" in a tv spot called "Brokebank Democrats." Let's make this simple: Tester is the good guy. Burns is the bad guy.

RHODE ISLAND - moderate incumbent Lincoln Chafee (R) is known to the GOP as "Weak Linc." Has polled consistently behind Whitehouse (D), with recent tightening. Probably safe D pick-up, but one to keep a wary eye on.

TENNESSEE - the lefty blogosphere is in flames over this one. Ford (D) polling behind Corker (R) despite the latter's disgusting ad campaigns. Report from P'net regular perj after seeing Ford on tv: "Jesus, I can't stand listening to this guy talk." Many are pessimistic about the chances of what once seemed like a fertile D pick-up. Keep your fingers crossed for a rally.

CONNECTICUT - fuck you Joe Lieberman. That is all.

***********

I had written much more of this at around 4pm today when I lost contact with my web host... so it's all gone. Here's the too-late-to-be-read-before-people-vote update:

ROBOCALLS:

There is a dirty trick afoot - repeat (up to dozens a day) phone calls that sound pro-Democrat at first, assuming that people will hang up. Then the calls come again and again, hopefully annoying the people enough to turn them against voting for the Democrat. It's the RNC running the calls. More later - but please spread the word: anyone getting harassed with multiple identical calls is getting harassed by the Republicans.

WORKING FAMILIES PARTY:

If you're in New York, where the major races are all a given, consider voting for the Democratic candidate on the Working Families Party line. It still counts for the Democrat, but sends the message that your support for them is based on their support for the WFP platform: funding public education, universal health care, affordable housing and ending the war (I'm almost sorry to see that as 25% of their platform, as it dilutes their core message, but their point is that the resources spent on the war could make a huge difference at home).

Anyway, if it's not too late, think about voting for Clinton/Spitzer et. al. on the WFP line. More about the party here.

Late update: last polls have McCaskill (D) in Missou running 5-6 points ahead of Talent (R) for the first time. Fingers crossed.

Vote, folks. If you know anybody in MO, TN, VA, MO or MT (or even CT FUJOE!) consider dropping them a line.

And away we go...

The YouTube Challenge, Part II

So first was the challenge to watch Tickle Me Elmo Extreme without laughing.

Now, I dare you - double dast dare you - to watch the video below without crying. Not possible. Can't be done.

Backstory: Rick Hoyt was born with CP. When he was young, he told his father he wanted to run in a 5 mile race. His father, Dick, was not a runner, but he pushed Rick in his wheelchair for the race, and Rick said it was the first time he didn't feel disabled. Now Rick is in his 40s and Dick is in his 60s, and they run marathons, triathalons, and have trekked across the country, with Dick pushing Rick's wheelchair, dragging him behind him in an inflatable boat, or propped in a special seat on the front of his bike.

Now, you may be a cynic. And it may run afoul of your sense of irony or decorum that the song playing is about Jesus. But I defy you not to choke up like a drunken college girl at a Steel Magnolias party when you watch this astonishing video:

Resurrection

I'm flying out of Newark tonight, so this morning I drove there and parked the car, then took the AirTrain/NJ Transit/PATH to work, coming in at WTC station.

I've passed Ground Zero a number of times in the last four years, but only peripherally. I've still got a vague, irrational distaste for the tourist element of it, and have never wanted to join in the gawking.

The PATH train left Exchange Place, went what felt like a fairly short distance through a tunnel, and then emerged into the light. I looked out the window, and was dumbfounded to see the slurry wall looming above us. It was a moment I hadn't braced myself for, to be down in the bottom of The Pit.

It felt claustrophobic, like being underwater, as the train crawled around the periphery of the smoothed, cemented basin. Standing on the escalator, rising towards streets that I haven't seen from that direction in over four years, I was keenly aware of the thousands who never got to make that walk, who never got to rise out of that pit.

And strangest of all - it's already a daily place again, in the mundane use of tens or hundreds of thousands of commuters who pass through twice a day.

I know Easter is the holiday dedicated to resurrection, but Christmas is also about the faith that in the cold of winter life and hope will come around again - not yet, but some time.

Stay warm, hug your loved ones, and have a Merry Christmas and happy, happy holidays.

Hiatus for Katrina

I'm suspending posting for now. There's something about the boomerang disaster that Katrina has become, where most of the country wrote it off as a near miss on Monday and has only slowly caught up since, that is freaking me out.

There's a catastrophic human cost being paid right now - infants airlifted to medical facilities without their parents; elderly parents dying in their childrens' arms, too weak to evacuate; hospitals beseiged by armed gangs - that needs to supplant the rest of the country's discourse for a while but somehow hasn't yet.

So for now, my tiny corner of that discourse is going off the air.

Please find a way to help - donations, prayers, whatever.

If you've got the heart for it and need to know the scope of the disaster:

Link

UPDATE:

As the Mayor of NOLA has to resort to going on national television to BEG for help, I wonder what the f*** is going on out there. Why can someone not do something. Give an order, put someone in charge, and go. Get those people food and water and get them the hell out of there. We can airlift MREs into Afghanistan as PR before we bomb the shit out of them, but we can't feed refugees in downtown New Orleans?

If you haven't given yet, fer chrissakes give. Everything you can. If you want to put your political spin on it (and if your political spin is progressive/liberal) then give through this, which will go straight to the Red Cross tagged as being from the "Liberal Blogosphere." Let's show we can do more than blather around online.

Liberal Blogosphere for Hurricane Relief



"There's nothing wrong with America that can't be fixed by what's right with America." - Bill Clinton.

Hurricane Katrina destroyed thousands of lives. Together, we're raising $1 million for the Red Cross and prove that the liberal blogosphere can help our fellow citizens.

Please donate now.

Katrina

You know what to do.

I think from here on out, every time there's a well publicised mass tragedy, there will be a web-driven push to cough up support. This risks tragedy donation fatigue. But it also means a global mobilization of support is available which was never available before. So we gave to 9/11, we gave to the Tsunami. Now we'll give to Katrina, and the next one, and the next one. It'll be nice, like paying membership dues for Civilization.

If you want something with a more personal, less institutional touch, my friend Claudio - who just moved home from New Orleans three weeks ago - is taking donations from friends and family to send to his friends down there:

I know people and families personally that this could help immensly. One friend in particular Rita lived on the first floor on her complex, her car which only had liability, her whole apartment with everything in it. Gone just like that. She didnt have renters insurance so it is def sadd. I am trying to help out with whatever I can.

If you want to donate to Claudio's fund, email me and I'll let you know how.

UPDATE:

Um... they're evacuating New Orleans. Everybody. They're abandoning the city. They're estimating 12 weeks *minimum* before anyone can go back in. For all intents and purposes, the city of New Orleans is gone, and we have a several hundred thousand person refugee crisis in the American south.

On Monday, it seemed like we'd dodged the nightmare scenario. It looks like we didn't. Thoughts and prayers, and do what you can.

Goddamnit

I was all set to finally post today, but got a call from my mother that my cousin died. I never knew him that well - he was older and generally lived far from us. But we're very close with his mother and sister, and I'm heartbroken for them.

Anyway. The messages from a couple months ago about hugging your loved ones stand.

In place of today's scheduled eccentric musings, please enjoy this picture of Max and our new guinea pig, Kashi, whom he adores.

Memorial Messages

Today marks a week since the bike accident that killed Elizabeth Padilla on 5th Avenue in Brooklyn. A few people who knew her or her family have written comments to my first post about the accident. They too feel that the New York Daily News' coverage of the accident was slanted against Ms. Padilla.

In the interest of redressing that imbalance, I wanted to reprint here two of those testimonials. I know people are finding these posts through Google, and I'd like as many of them as possible to hear perspectives on Ms. Padilla's life from those who were touched by it.

First, from Beth:

I went to high school with Liz and am attending the funeral services today... Sometimes it's hard to make sense of such a tragedy to such a young life. Liz was truly a remarkable person...one of the nicest and sweetest people I've ever known.

And from BT:

Liz was one of the strongest, smartest, healthiest and most beautiful people that I've ever met. In fact, almost all superlatives describe her. Her life was based entirely on helping people.

The daily news article angered me. If they wanted to write something interesting, instead of the inflammatory article, they could discuss her work with those with HIV/AIDS, the time she spent helping the blind (3 blind people were at her memorial service), her work as a volunteer firefighter in high school, college and law school, her tutoring of high school students, and on and on and on. You get the point. The world lost a great asset on Thursday...

* * *

About ten years ago, a colleague of mine died in a car accident. Those of us who had worked with him had mostly thought of him only carelessly - he was an odd duck, a touch buffoonish, a bit dense sometimes, and could be quite frustrating in day-to-day interactions.

When he died, we were all thunderstruck by how much we missed him, by how suddenly all we could remember about him was his almost supernatural good cheer, which we had taken for granted - his guileless kindness and warmth. I was immediately ashamed of the slight regard in which I'd held him, and it's a shame that sticks with me to this day.

We shouldn't need death to remind us to value life, but somehow we seem to. If you're so inclined, take a moment to appreciate the people in your life, be they saints or clowns. You would miss them if they were gone - try not to miss them while they're here.

Mortality

I've been riding my bike a lot in the last four or five weeks - out for rides in the morning with Max, to and from work, to and from the theater, dropping Max at daycare in the morning. I've really enjoyed it - not only the feeling of finally, finally getting some exercise, but the efficiency of getting around the city (faster than subway over almost any distance) and the sheer joy of moving quickly under your own power.

This morning, I was riding down 5th Ave. in Brooklyn, when I heard an ambulance coming up behind me. After several blocks it overtook me and sped ahead. A couple blocks later, I saw that 5th Ave. was blocked with police cars, and that a fire truck and a couple other ambulances were parked at angles across the road.

They were taping off the road and sidewalk, so I had to detour down a side street to 4th Ave. As I turned, I saw that at the center of all the police attention there was a P.C. Richards delivery truck, and a bike lying in the middle of an intersection.

When I got to 4th Ave. I went down one block and doubled back up to 5th. God knows why. Maybe because, in my resurgence of biking, I've spent some time contemplating the dangerous "what ifs" and trying to figure out, if things went hairy, just how bad it would be. I guess I wanted to see what a fellow biker who ended up on the wrong side of luck and traffic was going through, how it was being dealt with, what one could expect in that kind of situation.

I got back to 5th Ave. at the intersection where the accident had happened. I got off my bike and walked it up the sidewalk, through the crowds of gawkers. Before I even looked back at the scene, the faces of the people on the sidewalk told me what I was going to see.

Next to the bike, next to the truck, there was a blue tarp in the road. None of the medical personnel standing around were doing anything. Nobody was moving quickly.

I looked back at the bystanders, and heard a middle aged woman mutter to someone next to her: "muerte."

I looked back at the scene. Sticking out from the far side of the tarp was a leg with a running shoe.

Something went wrong for somebody on a bike. And it didn't make for a bad day, or a bad month, or a bad year of hospital and recovery and physical therapy. It was all over and done. She was just dead, right there on the street.

There's a lot more I thought I wanted to say but won't.

Hug your loved ones, folks, and be careful. And spare some thoughts and prayers for her friends and family.

**UPDATE**: I bought a Daily News today to see if there was anything about this - it turns out the victim was a 28 year old attorney named Elizabeth Padilla. She was alongside the PC Richards truck when its door opened. As she swerved around the door, she hit the side of a moving ice cream delivery truck on her left, and fell under the wheels. She was killed instantly.

It's the kind of thing that could happen to anybody. Exactly the wrong place, exactly the wrong time, falling exactly the wrong way.

I usually don't revise entries, but I've corrected the pronoun gender in the story above, because it felt disrespectful to leave it wrong.

Here's the story. Incidentally, I have a huge axe to grind with the Daily News over their handling of this. Here's their lead paragraph:

A bicyclist who tried to squeeze between two trucks on a bustling Brooklyn street was crushed to death yesterday after she fell underneath one of the rigs, police said.

Makes it sound like she was pushing her luck, trying to get away with something, right? Wrong. She happened to pass a parked truck as a moving truck passed her. She probably didn't even know the moving truck was there. It happens all the time. To say she "tried to squeeze between two trucks" is offensive in its implications.

They also add a gruesome detail, "Padilla's shoes were torn from her feet during the 9 a.m. collision and remained clipped into the pedals of her high end aluminum bike hours after the wreck." I'm sure that has caused many a shiver of horror among the News' readers.

Problem is, it's not true. Her shoe was still on her foot, and in the News' own picture, it's clear that her pedal clips are empty - you can't see it in the small online picture, but in the print edition it's clearly visible. Meaninglessly shoddy reporting like that seems disrespectful of the victim and her family.

One Year of Procrastinet

Happy Blogiversary, Dear Procrastinet...

One year ago today, I published my first "post" on Procrastinet. It was just a test run to make sure I understood the program, but still.

Since then there have been 325 posts and 240 comments, and visits in the tens of thousands. Readership is still... um... select but extremely loyal. Thank you to everyone who has kept tuning in enough to make sure that P'net is one of the very few things I've stuck with for longer than a week or two, let alone a full year.

To celebrate the site's first birthday, here are a couple of my personal favorite posts/features:

The Basement Chronicles, which some day I'll actually finish (since the basement itself has been more or less done for six months or so...).

My first attempt at coining an obscure bit of slang.

The revelation of the second coming.

Interesting poetry translations via babelfish.

Max's first haircut - my favorite bit of photoblogging so far (click the links to see all the pictures).

The introduction of barfblogging.

One of Procrastinet's only scoops: the guy selling his neuroprosthetic implant on Craigslist (with part II).

Mo' Band.

The Peter O'Toole Flame War.

A huge shout out to all the guests of Procrastinet, especially Despatcher Extraordinaire Nick Seeley (highlights include his Election Day diatribe, and "Bread"). Nick's Despatches remain the only part of Procrastinet to receive national press, with a mention on NPR a few months ago.

Honorable Guest Mentions to:

Ross Maxwell, for his brief and underappreciated "Gobo" comix.

Edith Freni, for her deconstructed court sketches (including Robert Blake and Jacko).

And of course perpetual beloved thorn in Procrastinet's side Big John Devore, for his continued... um, let's call it support... but especially his futureblogging of Max's relationship with his "Uncle Mister Devore" (along with his vital advice of a couple months ago - "More Maxblogging. Less blogblogging.")

I've enjoyed this year and hope you have too.

-RJ

Karol Wojtyla

Reports are conflicted, but it sounds like the pope may have died.

Looking at the coverage, this picture jumped out:

That nice looking, respectful young man the pope is shaking hands with?

Mehmet Ali Agca, the man who shot and nearly killed him. According to MSNBC, "the pope says the teachings of Christ instructed him to forgive Agca."

If one can judge anything about the transformational power of compassion and forgiveness by the look on Agca's face in this picture, it seems that Christ guy just might have been onto something. Well done, Pope.

I hope he's at peace.

The Podoscope

I've discovered a new use for the iPod: The Daily Podoscope.

It's very simple - you put the iPod in shuffle (which is where it lives most of the time for me anyway), and pay attention to the first three songs it plays in the morning. Like a horoscope, those songs become your themes for the day.

Today, for instance, I got the Beastie Boys' Bodhisattva Vow, Sinead O'Connor's Just Like U Said it Would B and Sum 41's Heart Attack (the refrain of which is "Waking up is hard to do..."). So today, my iPod tells me that it is important for me to:

- attempt to be mindful, patient, tolerant, and detached from outcome;

- remember that negative personal narratives are often a self-fulfilling prophecy; and

- remember that change, from passivity to activity, is difficult.

Works for me!

I figure: horoscopes, or the I Ching, or tea leaves, or animal entrails, or whatever form of divination you prefer, have no inherent meaning. They are, as far as the mumbo-jumbo behind them, full of shit. All they do is provide us a point of reference which we can use to orient ourselves. In navigation, having one known reference point does you no good as far as finding your location or your way. Once you have a second known point, you can triangulate.

In life, we usually have only one known reference point - how we're feeling. Once we add another point, even if we do so arbitrarily, we start to get a sense of where we're actually at, and how to get where we think we want to be going. The glory of it is that it doesn't have to be not full of shit in order to be useful.

If you're in a rush, feel free to use only the first song each day. Yesterday's, for me, was Jesus Jones' Who, Where, Why?, the refrain of which is "Who am I? Where am I? Why do I feel this way?"

You think my iPod is trying to tell me something?

Nicole duFresne Scholarship Fund

Our faithful Despatcher, Nick Seeley, sent an email to his friends today addressing the murder of Nicole duFresne and the scholarship fund that has been set up in her name at Emerson College, her alma mater. I asked Nick for permission to reprint it here.

Friends,

Well, after major hacker attacks, Procrastinet is back up; there's a new despatch from me, plus all sorts of other cool stuff, like how you can get your very own neuroprosthetic implant scavenged from a cadaver.

That's the good news.

I'm sad to have to add a depressing note to preface what was supposed to be a light and funny column, but the world is not known for cooperating with the plans we make. By now, I'm sure many of you know about the murder of Nicole DuFresne last Thursday. For those who don't, there is plenty of information available on the web, and I don't really have the heart to go into the details further.

She was an amazing artist, and a really remarkable person. It's not often you meet someone as smart, determined, and electric as Nicole was.

Now, according to the papers, the police have caught and charged the people who shot her. The oldest charged was 19 years old, the youngest, 14. I suppose I really ought to hate them, but all I can feel is sad and disgusted. We've all seen too much of how tragedy will follow on tragedy.

I guess I hope that Nicole's tragedy, and that of the stupid fools who killed her, will encourage you all to go out and do something nice for someone. Not someone you know, or a friend, but someone who really needs it.

Also, we know my prayers aren't much use to anyone - cause, hey, atheist - but for those of you who believe there is someone watching, I hope you can spare a few words for Nicole, her family and friends - particularly for Jeff.

I am including at the bottom of this e-mail some information from Liz Blocker about the fund being set up in Nicole's honor. Thanks for everything you've done, Liz. While a reward fund for Nicole with Crime Stoppers in New York is no longer necessary, I'd also encourage you all to find out something about your local Crime Stoppers, Neighborhood Watch, and other civic crime-fighting organizations.

I've had enough of cops who can't offer us anything but more bullets. And for Michal Goodwin, of the New York Daily News, and anyone else who would like to use Nicole's murder to encourage cops to shoot teenagers: (Link)

...and anyone else who feels like dragging out this particular ugly crime for their neoconservative cause of choice, I have this to add: There are times when being an atheist really bugs me. It would be a great comfort to me to believe there was a Hell for you, Mr. Goodwin - though not nearly as much as it would to believe there was a heaven.

This is from Liz Blocker (thanks Liz, and Julie, for everything you've done):

"We no longer need to collect donations for a Crime Stoppers reward fund, as was previously stated. Instead, by the wishes of Jeffrey and Nicole's family, we have set up a scholarship in Nicole's name at her alma mater, Emerson College.

For those wishing to make donations, checks or money orders should be made out to Emerson College, with the memo line reading 'Nicole duFresne Scholarship', and sent to:

Nicole duFresne Scholarship
Emerson College
120 Boylston Street, 7th floor
Boston, MA 02116-4624
Att: Amy Meyers

It is also possible to make a donation with a credit card online.

I don't think that the College has finished setting up that link, so if you would like to make a donation online, please give it a day or two. I will speak with Ms. Meyers and make sure that is working as soon as possible.

This information has been - or will shortly be - released to the press, so please, please, spread it far and wide. Post the link on websites, send the information to anyone you would like; we hope that we can raise a substantial amount of money, and thus enable this scholarship to be a real and lasting honor to Nicole's name."

Thank you all for reading.

Nick

Amazon/Red Cross Tsunami Relief

Do what you can.

UPDATE:

If you're confused about why the badge says "Fully Refundable" (I was) - it's because Amazon is using a different payment system than their usual - it's called "Honor System" and it's built to be used by website owners to collect payments for their personal sites. It gives you a 30 day grace period in which to change your mind and get your money back. I sure hope that doesn't mean it takes 30 days for the Red Cross to actually get the money, because they need it capital-N Now.

If you want to look into other ways to give to the Tsunami relief efforts, check out this clearing house site for charity and relief information [via BoingBoing - also a good resource for keeping tabs on the efforts of the online community who are, as they put it, "rolling up their geek sleeves to assist," which actually kinda chokes me up just thinking about it.]

Merry Christmas

O Holy night
The stars are brightly shining
It is the night of our dear Savior's birth

Long lay the world
In sin and error pining
'Til he appeared
and the soul felt its worth

A thrill of hope
The weary world rejoices
For yonder breaks
A new and glorious morn

Fall on your knees
O hear the angel voices

O Night Divine
O Night when Christ was born

O Night, O Night
O Night
O Night Divine

Merry Christmas everyone. And a safe and healthy 2005.

-RJ

Get Your War On Takes on the Election

As you'd expect from someone like David Rees (whose "Get Your War On" I've previously extolled here, here and here), he doesn't intend to take 11/2/2004 lying down. Nor does he expect us to. From his inspirational front page:

CHIN UP.
We're smarter than those motherfuckers.
We can learn more quickly than those motherfuckers.
We can be more ruthless than those motherfuckers.
We can be some six-million-dollar motherfuckers ourselves.

There's more, including links to further inspirational reading. Definitely go check it out.

Purple Mountains' Majesty

Brad DeLong and pretty much every else have posted this, so what the heck. It's nice to look at.

Here is the binary red/blue breakdown county by county:

Depressing, right?

Well here is each country colored on a purple spectrum between red and blue based on the porporionate vote share (black counties had missing or contradictory info, the ironic symbolism of which I will leave alone) - click for full size:

This is from the website of one Robert Vanderbei, apparently. Well a tip of the hat to Robert for making me feel slightly less alone.

51% - Part III

There's a lot of worry going around that Bush II will kickstart a new theocracy, and a newly vicious culture war. Because, the thinking goes, 51% of the electorate already has chosen to support it.

I don't think this is quite right. I don't think 51% of the population supports, or even fully understands, Bush's far-right agenda. I think there were two things that gave Bush the victory yesterday: wingnut Right-wingism was one of them, but the other was the GOP's control of The Story.

Many in that 51% voted for Bush because they bought into The Story: that Bush is steadfast, courageous and sure, and that Kerry is squishy, and weak, and French. Bush made them feel that they would be safer with him.

Sure, he pumped up his evangelical base, and got great turnout over the culture wars. But then, we got great turnout over his incipient theocratic fascism. I call that a wash. I think the tie-breaker was those who felt, in their gut, that he was a more solid bet, who bought into "well, he is decisive and I feel like we need that."

These are not GOP far right wingnut true believers. These are just scared people who don't know much beyond what they see on the news. We get better at controlling The Story, the collectively accepted narrative, and the right candidate to sell it with at the right time, and we'll peel them back over to our side.

51% - Part II

It was a long-held fear of mine, in this election, that a Kerry win would, long-term, be problematic for the Left. Kerry, if he had won in a squeaker, would have run the risk of quick Carterization, leaving us hugely vulnerable to a quick return to revivified Bushism in 2008.

That didn't outweigh my fears of the damage that a second Bush administration will do to this country. But it does provide a handy sourgrapesification of yesterday's results.

To wit: several destructive and dangerous forms of right wing extremism have had their day in America, most especially McCarthyism and Nixon's abuses of executive power. Both festered, grew, caused great damage, ran their course, and were eventually soundly rejected by the American people because they had time to expose themselves as the abominations that they were.

Clearly, 51% of the electorate does not consider the Bush administration, and with it "Bushism" (since it's not really Republicanism and it's not really conservativism), to be exposed as failures. 48% does.

I believe that this administration is doing great harm to the country and the world. I believe that they are perverting the system and, in many cases, breaking the law. Nixon was brought down by an arrogant conviction of the force of his own rightness. I believe they risk the same fate. I do not believe that they have adequately covered their tracks in all of their shady dealings - they're too damned cocky for that.

Someone has left a blue dress somewhere.

In a while, when the "Bush Triumphant" story has become boring, the press will be looking for a new feeding frenzy. Bereft of the crucial question of "will John Kerry overcome his pussy frenchman liberal reputation?!" they will be casting about desperately for something else over which to drum up some drama.

The Bushists have no one to hide behind, nobody else to throw to the lions when the public gets hungry again for red meat. This infection will run its course.

51% - Part I

There are so many responses to the Bush victory that it's hard to know where to start. I'll lay them out in individual posts.

An analogy:

A five year old child's grandmother is sick. The child overhears a doctor telling his father that the grandmother may die. The child, being five, only barely understands the concept of death.

The child goes to his father and says "Daddy, is Grandma going to die?"

The father says "Well, son, we hope not. Grandma is going to get all the best medicine and care, and we think she'll get better. What I need from you is to be a big boy, and be strong."

The child says "Daddy, what does 'death' mean?"

The father says "Well, son, death is something that you hopefully don't have to worry about for a long, long time. But it's part of life and at some point everyone has to learn how to deal with that."

This conversation, obviously, leaves the child feeling fairly funky. It relies on a capacity for adult understanding that the child may or may not possess. But it sets the stage for a healthy integration of a very difficult concept, and it can absorb reality as it happens.

Here's another father dealing with his son in the same scenario:

The child goes to the father and says "Daddy, is Grandma going to die?"

The father says, "Son, don't be silly, of course Grandma's not going to die. Grandma's a good woman."

The son says "Daddy, what does 'death' mean?"

The father says "What the heck are you doing talking about death? Did that nasty old Doctor scare you? You don't have to worry about death because you're a good boy. Now here's some candy - run along now and play."

There's no question that the second kid leaves the conversation feeling way better than the first kid did.

Problem is - what if Grandma dies?

So Dad #1 is the Kerry campaign, Dad #2 is the Bush campaign. And 51% of America chose to be Kid #2, feeling better about themselves and Grandma's health.

But the problem is, Grandma really is sick. And not only is "Dad" blowing smoke up the kid's ass about it, but he's not even making sure Grandma gets her medicine. He's checked her out of the hospital and has her on the back porch, pumping her full of vitamins and making her run on a treadmill, because "hey, that's healthy stuff, so that'll help!"

If Grandma dies, there's no pretending she's fine any more. And at some point, Kid #2 is going to look at Dad and go "Dude... what the fuck is WRONG with you?!"

All Right, Listen...

It's almost 2:00 am. The race is not over... but Kerry faces a wicked uphill battle, based mostly on that last 8% in Ohio breaking WAY in his favor, and a pile of provisional ballots doing likewise. Can that happen? Sure. Will that happen? Who the frig knows. Probably not.

So let's for the moment stare right into the eyes of defeat. It's possible that tomorrow morning, or 11 days from now when Ohio counts all absentee and provisional ballots, that George W. Bush will have won four more years and that the GOP will have solidified their control over both houses of congress.

It's tempting, as a democrat and member of the "reality based community," to despair in the face of that. I spent several hours this evening in that state of despair. But it's abated now, and I'll tell you why.

If we lose, we will have lost by 2%. People on both sides were so passionate this time around that it's fair to say that 48% or so of the country will be absolutely devastated by this loss. Which pretty much puts the lie to all those self-flagellating cries that it would be far too easy for Democrats and progressives to start uttering: "we're all alone! We'll never prevail! The country has gone evil and stupid! There's no hope for humankind in democracy!"

None of this is true. Many, many states will be decided by less than 5%. Most of the contentious senate races were decided by less than 10%. This is not a devastating, backbreaking defeat by the numbers, no matter what it feels like emotionally.

This country is exceptionally and passionately divided. We spent the years from 2000-2004 living in a country rent painfully down the middle. We're going to spend 2004-2008 that way, too.

If the GOP ends up in decisive control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives between now and the mid-term elections in 2006... well they'd better do more good than harm or that 2% will slip away from them.

Chin up.

[UPDATE: Okay, make that 3%. The main point stands.]

My Endorsement

Show me what democracy looks like?

This is what democracy looks like.

Food for Thought in the Darndest Places

I recently discovered that P'net had been linked to by someone who disagrees with me politically but liked my tagline, having seen it on the "Truth Laid Bear Ecosystem" of blog rankings. Inspired, I went poking around looking for interestingly-titled blogs to read. I followed a link to a site called "Bald Man Blogging."

The Bald Man in question is a devout Christian and most of his blogging is based on that. The first couple posts I skimmed seemed thoughtful, searching, and utterly devoid of the excesses that make us Coastal Lib'ruls twitchy about zealous religiosity.

I believe in listening to people of good will, whether you agree with them or not. This is not an easy belief to put into practice. We gravitate naturally towards people and influences who reinforce our priorities, prejudices and predilections.

But there's another community to be found, based on another kind of commonality: those who are interested in talking respectfully and listening without prejudgment, interested in the exchange of ideas. Members of this community exist all over the ideological spectrum.

The Bald Man's most recent post deals with whether or not he has a Christian duty to vote, asking for input from his readers. One comment struck me particularly as a useful meditation on this election, despite being couched in language which I usually find off-putting:

Would God vote if he were a flesh and blood citizen in the form of Jesus on November 2, 2004? It seems a little silly to ask, since He’s known the winner of every election in our past, present, and future since the beginning of time, not to mention the fact that He’s quite capable of influencing candidates and outcomes supernaturally, if he so desires. Even so, I don’t think this means that all is deterministic, and that we have no room or responsibility to exercise our freedom by voting—quite the contrary. There’s room for both God and us to act in our political system, and in every other system in our universe. This is why I say you should pray, and you should vote.

If God—or any other part of the Trinity—did vote, I’m sure that He would also choose the candidates or measures that best expressed His values and His priorities. Since those values and priorities are so imperfectly expressed in the candidates and measures, God might have a difficult time making such an imperfect choice. But, then again, nothing is difficult for God. Maybe the whole point is not for Him to decide—or for us to have a clear choice—but for us to spend some time thinking about God’s values, as well as His prioritization of those values, and then acting on our beliefs by voting. [Emphasis added]

My values are not based explicitly on my understanding of God, but on my understanding of a more generalized human morality that should guide our interactions in the tricky game of living in big groups of other humans. But the point stands: meditate on whatever set of values you hold dear, prioritize them, and vote accordingly.

The most important skill Americans can foster in the coming years will be the ability to find agreement in the midst of discord and build from there. However tomorrow's election turns out, we're going to need it more than ever.

ADDENDUM: Tim Worstall, the gentleman I first reference above, has coincidentally just now posted a perfect example of the kind of intellectual honesty that we should hope for from both sides of any ideological divide: "I stand by my contention that there is something fishy about this study... yet have to admit that I have not found it, leaving me with nothing but personal prejudice upon which to stand my argument."

My hat is off.

Bush, God and Certainty

I have long believed Robert Wright to be one of the Smartest M*****f***ers on the Planet (trademark pending). Via Obsidian Wings (which, if you're not reading, you should be - excellent, multi-partisan debate from bloggers and an active readership who are no slouches in the brain department themselves, whichever side of the aisle they tend towards) comes an excellent analysis of Wright's excellent NYTimes analysis (are you with me?) of the role that faith may play in Bush's decisions.

Key grafs from Wright:

People unfamiliar with a certain strain in evangelical tradition may have trouble seeing the point of Chambers's emphasis on utter surrender. But in the Baptist churches of my youth, it went without saying (though it was often said) that surrender was in no small part about self-control. Because human nature is subtly corrupt, with every temptation concealing a slippery slope, complete commitment was the only path to virtue. Chambers stresses this binary nature of devotion more than some contemporary evangelicals, and that may explain his appeal for Mr. Bush, who became a born-again Christian when he quit drinking and has stayed off the bottle ever since.

Some people who find moderation easy can't understand why for others abstinence is necessary - and still less why it would demand a spiritual framework. I don't find moderation easy, and, even leaving that issue aside, I find being human so deeply challenging that I can't imagine it without an anchoring spirituality in some sense of the word. So I respect Mr. Bush's religious impulse, and I even find Chambers's Scottish austerity true and appealing in a generic way.

Still, it's another question whether Chambers's worldview, as mediated by Mr. Bush, should help shape the world's future. People who take drastic action based on divine-feeling feelings, and view ensuing death and destruction with equanimity, have in recent years tended to be the problem, not the solution. [Emphasis mine]

The ObsWi piece also quotes one of my lifelong favorite jokes, about the man in the flood. My version:

A devoutly religious man lives in a flood zone and the river is rising. The water comes up to his front porch, where he sits. A National Guard truck drives by and they tell him to jump on. "No," he says, "I have faith. God will save me."

The water rises, driving the man inside and up to his second floor. He's sitting in the window when some firemen come by in a boat and tell him to climb aboard. "No," he says, "God will save me."

The water rises yet further, driving the man up onto his roof. A rescue helicopter comes by and they beg the man to climb up the ladder. "I have faith," he replies, "and I know that God will save me."

The water rises higher, and the man drowns.

In heaven, the man barges to the front of the line to confront St. Peter. "This is outrageous!" he cries. "I've been a good faithful man all my life and in my need, when I trusted in God to save me, he did NOTHING!"

"Hm..." says St. Peter, looking in his book. "By our records, we sent a truck, a boat and a helicopter..."

The Reality-Based Community

What's been most amazing and frustrating about amateur political blogging is watching the constant interplay between reality and reality-as-received-by-the-public. Because never the twain shall meet.

I'm not even going to post links to supporting materials here, so this is less blogging and more ranting and/or cleaning house in the muddled confines of my brain.

Here are some things that are true: the administration used 9/11 as an excuse to wage a war of choice which has been a pet idea of the neoconservative movement for a long time. WMDs were the most publicly palatable rationalization, and the easiest scare tactic. We are a nation massively in debt with no sign of improvement but instead a steepening slope. We are not safe from terrorism, and the odds of a nuclear terrorist attack, while still probably pretty long, are better than they were three years ago.

The guiding principle of the current administration is as simple as this: weaken or eliminate the government's ability to cost Businesses money in any way or for any purpose; when possible, create new opportunities for Businesses to profit. This is done not purely out of greed, but out of a soul-deep belief that this represents the Dream of America properly realized.

There is a concerted, national effort afoot to pervert the electoral process by suppressing voter turnout, jerrymandering congressional districts, keeping democratic/minority/urban voters off the rolls and away from the polls, and possibly outright fraud with an insecure, unverifiable electronic ballot (see: Deibold) and rabid partisans holding the reins of oversight in key states (see: Florida).

The news media is an entertainment industry.

The vast majority of the country (myself sporadically included) lives in a mass media created bubble which bears little or no resemblence to reality as it is actually lived and experienced. The force of psychological inertia is so massive that it took an event like 9/11 to get the vast complacent horde to briefly reconsidering the paradigm, only to relapse into semi-catatonia (myself included).

Electoral politics has become indistinguishable from mass marketing.

We are used to believing that history is something that happened, not something that's happening. McCarthyism, fascism, massive political upheaval, the perversion of entire systems of governance - all things that once happened and that we now safely reflect on. Meanwhile, history of a kind that will be discussed for the remainder of the life of America is happening all around us.

The race for the Presidency remains too close to call.

All of these things are true.

None of the above is written from a position of despair. I'm just trying to catalog and sort and process. And since I'm trying to get a glimpse of a larger, vital reality but I'm doing it 99% through the screen of a computer, I've got some wicked cognitive dissonance going on.

Thanks for listening.

One of Those Ex-a-gger-a-shuns

Third time's a charm: "This is IT this is IT."

This clip is priceless. If you didn't see the President's attempt to rebut the "not concerned about Osama" line, check this out. If you did see it, go see it again.

This is one hell of a gaff.

A) He tries to laugh off an accusation that he said he wasn't concerned about Osama bin Laden. The "laugh it off" doesn't work at all, and he just looks like an ass. An unpresidential ass.

B) Not only that, it's a lie. The footage of him saying "I don't know where he is... honestly, as I said before, I'm not that concerned about him" is ALREADY on the Internets.

And as we found out with Cheney's "I never met you" riff, the video means everything to the mainstream media.

C) This should get the "not concerned" thing SERIOUS national play, breaking it out of the left-leaning blogosphere and onto every tv in the country.

D) Who the hell makes fun of the pronounciation of "exaggeration"?

Send this clip around. This will do some real damage if it takes hold.

Drag not to be able to liveblog tonight - was fun to read Olbermann, and see that he awards a substantial (if uninspiring) Kerry win - third in a row.

Truthblogging the Debate

There's been lots of discussion, since the Presidential/Vice Presidential debates began, over the liberties that the candidates are taking with the truth. Almost all the coverage mentions that both sides are distorting the facts to suit their political aims.

There's also been a kerfuffle over a memo from ABC News' Mark Halperin, instructing his people not to feel obliged to portray the deceptions as equal in quantity and quality on both sides, since they're pretty clearly not. This has been spun by the Right, of course, as evidence of the media's leftward bias.

Inspired by Kevin Drum's analysis of the factcheckers on the 2nd Presidential Debate at Washington Monthly, I set out to quantify the untruths, as they have been currently debunked. I examined the fact check articles and transcript annotations of the Washington Post, the LA Times, www.factcheck.org and CNN (all as linked from the Washington Monthly post).

I broke down the distortions into 5 different kinds of factual impairment that the candidates' statements suffer from:

Cherrypicking: Other data is available which weakens/contradicts the impression made by the statement.

Context Violation: Proper context for the quote or figure cited weakens/contradicts the impression made by the statement.

Deliberate Misinterpretation: The quote or figure cited is deliberately misinterpreted so as to give an impression which the original quote or figure does not support.

Factual Untruth: The statement is objectively, factually untrue.

Misleading: The statement is intentionally misleading.

I then further broke it down into 1st Degree and 2nd Degree. A violation is rated 1st Degree if the full truth or data contradicts the impression made by the statement, and 2nd Degree if the full truth or data counterbalances or weakens the statement, but the impression made by the statement is basically accurate.

The final score?

Kerry committed 12 truth violations. Of those, 3 were 1st degree, 9 were 2nd degree.

Bush committed 26 truth violations. Of those, 21 were 1st degree, 5 were 2nd degree.

More detail after the break (click below)...

[UPDATE: I emailed my chart to Kevin Drum, who replied:

Heh heh.  You're reading my mind.   Or my blog, anyway.  I've done the same thing, although in more mind numbing detail than you did, complete with a numerical ranking of each lie.  It's kind of a silly thing to do in a way, but it was also interesting to force myself to analyze all this stuff.   I'll put it up later today.  My overall results will come as no surprise.....

The fact that he went into MORE mind numbing detail... well... numbs my mind. This is why he's the professional. When he posts his analysis, I'll link to it here.]

[UPDATE UPDATE: True to his word, Kevin Drum has posted his analysis of the untruths in the debate. Also true to his word, his approach was even more intensive than mine (following the equation: (Inaccuracy + Intent to Deceive)*Importance for a total of 1 to 18 points of fibbery). His results: Bush 18 lies for 118 points, Kerry 10 lies for 60 points.

I haven't had a chance to sit down with his analysis and figure out the 7 places I thought Bush was lying and 2 places I thought Kerry was lying that he didn't include.

His conclusion: "...As Halperin said, deception seems to be central to George Bush's campaign while it's basically peripheral to John Kerry's." I concur.]

Kerry committed 1 instance of Cherrypicking in the first degree, when he claimed that the Medicare/Drug Benefit bill was a $139B windfall to big drug companies. He also committed five instances of Cherrypicking in the second degree.

Kerry committed 2 instances of Misleading in the first degree: when he claimed that he was part of the Senate that "fixed Medicare"; and when he claimed in his closing statement that his Health Plan would cover "all Americans." He also committed three instances of Misleading in the second degree.

Kerry committed 1 instance of Deliberate Misinterpretation in the second degree (claiming the Duelfer Report proved sanctions were working - the Duelfer report is neutral on the issue of sanctions).

Bush committed a stunning 7 instances of Cherrypicking in the first degree, another 7 instances of Misleading in the first degree, 2 instances of Context Violation in the first degree, 4 instances of Deliberate Misinterpretation in the first degree and one first degree Factual Untruth (claiming Kerry's Health Plan called for government control over health decisions).

Neither side has a claim to total intellectual honesty and purity. Every politician chooses data that support their side, chooses readings of the opponent's statements which are detrimental to their opponent.

But not only does Bush get caught distorting the truth more than twice as much as Kerry, but almost all of his distortions are "first degree": i.e., without the distortion, the entire point he's making falls apart.

Here's a pdf of the table which includes each statement which has been fact checked, along with the violation that I awarded.

"You Need Some Wood?"

"This is IT this is IT..."

Remember that weird moment over the "timber industry" when you couldn't really tell what Kerry was accusing Bush of, and Bush was all confused? He said "Wait... I own a timber industry? It's news to me." And then he landed a good joke, with "Need some wood?" to an audience member.

Well, ho-lee shit. Turns out (according to factcheck.org, remember them?) that he claimed $84 in income from part-ownership of a timber company, which qualifies him, under GOP-enforced tax standards, as a "small business owner."

So: Bush is a tax cheat, who exploits a loophole. Bush is so rich he doesn't have any knowledge of the schemes his accountants get up to. Bush doesn't even know what businesses he "owns" as a tax shelter. Bush doesn't know what's happening with his OWN money.

Go see Brad DeLong for all the details I'm too excited to keep straight.

If it's pushed right, this is small enough and easy enough that it can become the "yeah, but didya hear" around the watercooler from this debate. It's just like Cheney's "we've never met" crack. BUT - people won't be paying as close attention to this one, because unlike Cheney's fib, this wasn't in the middle of a zinger. So the blogosphere needs to jump all over it. Letters to the Editor, online buzz, etc.

Oh, and talk about it around the watercooler.

Call to Action: Bush Says We Can't Afford Homeland Security

In the words of the inimitable Michelle Rodriguez in Blue Crush, "This is IT this is IT!"

If you've never written a letter to the editor before, do it now. I never have. This will be my first. If you need some ideas for phrasing and structure, check out this thread at Daily Kos.

Here's my letter:

Last night in the presidential debate, President George Bush made an astonishing statement: he believes that we can not afford basic homeland security.

Senator Kerry outlined six basic, vital areas in which our national security has been underfunded or completely ignored under President Bush and which need to be strengthened immediately: Police and Fire first responders; bridges, tunnels and subways; port security and container screening; airline security and cargo screening; nuclear and chemical plants; and loose nuclear materials worldwide.

The President’s response? “I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises. It's like a huge tax gap.”

Today I sit in my office and look out over New York harbor, full of container ships, 90% of which have not been screened for security. I contemplate my commute home on the subway, and my wife’s, and my child’s. And it strikes fear into my heart that our President doesn’t believe we should do the most basic things to make us safer, because we don’t have the money.

This can become the take-away story from this debate. It was a moment that was easily missed, so it's perfect for the day-later, "yeah, but did ya notice" that the GOP machine sprung on Gore in 2000. Since the President's smirking, sighing, and whining is already being well covered, let's follow up with this bit of substance.

Repeat after me: "Yeah, but did you notice that when Kerry talked about some pretty basic homeland security, Bush said we couldn't afford it? We can't afford to secure our nuclear plants and subways because we don't have enough tax revenue? What's up with that?"

Bang it long, bang it loud. Say it to everyone who will listen. If they already agree with you, say it anyway, so they can say it to everyone they know.

UPDATE: Atrios is on it.

As is Brad DeLong.

Procrastinet Takes up Liveblogging, Kicks it Like it's 2003

I figured it was time to jump on the liveblogging bandwagon. After all, one of the great contests of our time is at a crucial juncture - though, really, as we all know, they're ALL crucial, aren't they?

So, without further ado: Mia and one of the Johns were both voted off of Survivor.

Okay so no, not really. First debate. Here we go.

First, at 8:59pm, Emma Thompson shilling for Sesame Street. Yep - watching on PBS.

AND THEN, at 8:59:30, the PBS host announces that the focus will be on Iraq, as Bush tries to defend his actions and Kerry "to explain his shifting positions." SONOFAGUN. GOP talking points in the first 30 seconds of the coverage. On PBS.

9:01 - Lehrer looks a bit like a polliwog. That is all.

9:03 - There is a backup buzzer, IF ONE IS NEEDED. That's tellin' 'em, Jim!

9:03 - Kerry steps WAY in on George, for the height advantage. And cracks him a joke. Nice start.

9:04 - "Yes, I believe I can do better at preventing another 9/11. Then again, so could the kind of polliwog that you resemble. Let me pause to kiss up to Florida before I answer further." - Sen. Kerry

9:05 - "I'll never give a veto." Took that off the table, but also stated a GOP talking point. Hm.

9:06 - Mr. President - "Our prayers are with the good people of this state. My opponent didn't mention prayers. I let you draw your own conclusions."

9:06 - 10M people registered to vote in Afghanistan. True?

9:07 - The what network? Is he talking about the Pakistani nuke doctor?

9:08 - Nice grammatical error - "I know everyone doesn't agree with the decisions I've made." Truer than he intended?

9:09 - "It's a phenomenal statistic..." about the 10M in Afghanistan. Is it truer now than it was three minutes ago?

9:09 - Can you say "vociferously" about fighting? That they are "fighting so vociferously"?

9:10 - There it is. Kerry: "The REAL war on terror." WOW. "This president has made a colossal error of judgment."

9:10 - the naming of the generals. Good card to play. "I would not take my eye off of the goal. Osama bin Laden."

9:11 - "The President relied on Afghan warlords, and he outsourced that job too."

9:12 - "The President changed his mind... and his campaign has a term for that..." and the LOOK on George's face was PRICELESS.

Okay, so it's only 9:12, and I already have to say it, though it scares the crap out of me to write it down. Kerry is beating the CRAP out of this guy.

9:13 - Bush is mad. Kerry drew blood, and now Bush is mad. He's angrily, madly... changing the subject.

9:14 - Saddam was deceiving the inspectors. About the weapons that he didn't have. "The world is safer without Saddam Hussein," AGAIN. Second time in 90 seconds.

9:16 - THERE IT IS. "We have a plan to win in Iraq." -Richard Nixon. Erm, no, sorry. I mean George W. Bush.

9:17 - Kerry goes for the body armor first. Will Bush remember to hit him for voting against the $87? If he does, will Kerry jiu jitsu it back on him?

Bush's face is priceless. He looks petulant and spoiled.

9:19 - Well, he got him on the war vote, but not on the $87 million. Missed opportunity?

Kerry keeps hammering on the "why Iraq and not Osama." Good man.

9:20 - "This president thought it was more important to give the wealthiest people in America before investing in homeland security. That's not the kind of priority I've got."

So far, Bush isn't losing his devout people. But I will eat my leg if he's swaying whatever "undecideds" are out there.

Plus, he's taking a tone which is intended to convey "let me tell it to you straight, because my opponent is running around all fancy with big words." Problem is, Kerry is NOT running around all fancy with big words. He's concise, he sounds strong.

NO, you do NOT have 100,000 Iraqi troops trained, Mr. President. If I know that, why don't you?

9:26 - George says "we're waiting for the Iraqi people to step up and do their part to keep security." Or words to that effect. When many if not most of the terrorist killings have been of those signing up to serve because it's the only job, even though it will probably get you killed.

9:29 - There's the $87M, let's see what Kerry does.

9:29 - "I made a mistake in how I talk about the war. The President made a mistake in invading Iraq." Hm. Not the death blow I hoped for. A good point, but a bit... something.

9:31 - it seems like George's outrage over "that's not how a CinC talks with men in harm's way" isn't going to land. Kerry doesn't sound squishy enough.

9:32 - Nice point for George. "What's the message going to be - come join us for a grand diversion? Come join us for the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time?"

9:33 - "You forgot Poland." Begs a joke. But won't get one.

W got some of his groove back on that one.

At some point in these debates, Kerry has to take away the "my opponent changes based on politics" card, since W does it as much or more.

9:35 - "I read the casualty reports. I see on the tv screens how hard it is." I find that deeply unsettling. Does George get his info from Fox News? That would explain a lot.

Kerry - "Truth is what good policy is based on." Wow. What a radical this guy is.

9:38 - "Talk about mixed messages? North Korea has GOT nuclear weapons." Oof.

9:39 - "I have not used the harshest word, as you just did... But I have said that the President has not been candid." Ooo, so manly, you.

It's telling that when Kerry stumbles, at ALL, in his smoothness, it sticks out. Whereas Bush is one big pause. That's where Bush's - um - dearth of mental acuity - comes in handy.

9:41 - "As the politics change, his positions change." There it is again. Kill this like a roach, John.

Why hasn't Kerry brought up the "they could attack us in 45 minutes"? Why hasn't he brought up "we know where the weapons are"? Aren't those the big "misleading" issues?

9:42 - The roach is back. Scuttle scuttle. "You can't change positions."

9:44 - The Missy Johnson riff is an effective one. "After we teared up, and prayed, and laughed a bit." Practiced, but effective. W is saying that "if you believe me, this man's death was meaningful. If you believe my opponent, this man died in vain." That's an exceptionally good tactic.

9:45 - in response, Kerry goes to Vietnam. Hm. "Don't confuse the war with the warriors." NICE. "I want to make sure the outcome honors that nobility."

Missed a beat - "The President is not getting the job done." Needed to say "the troops, ARE. The President is not."

Four words: "more of the same." Nice.

And we're back to "wrong war, wrong place." And scuttle scuttle, "changing positions." "Grand Diversion." That line of commentary has officially jumped the shark.

"If you break it, you fix it." No, that's not what he said, John, but keep going. You're on a roll.

Boy, John's going after the Neocon heart. "The United States has no long term designs on staying in Iraq." Oh, but Johnny, that's the beachhead! Didn't you get the memo?

9:51 - here are the 100k troops trained again. Any truer yet?

9:51 - whups - Bush scoops up the "Allawi is a puppet" meme. A Dem slip up.

9:52 - Here's the straw man again - "I disagree with those who say that Muslims can't be free." Who has EVER said that Muslims can't be free?

That's going to be a sticky meme: the terrorists are flocking to Iraq because they are terrified that we will establish freedom, which would be a devastating defeat to them.

"The enemy attacked us, Jim, and I have a solemn duty to the American people." Beat the CRAP out of him for that. Please. Please.

Now Bush is beating on the inspectors. Gets all whiny, "oh, let's let the inspectors work..." Stupid UN, says Bush. Foreigners. Stupid foreign UN.

9:55 - "will enforce doctrine?" What the fugg does "Will enforce doctrine" mean?!!!

9:55 - HERE IT IS: "The enemy attacked us. Saddam Hussein didn't attack us. Osama Bin Laden attacked us. Al Qaeda attacked us." "We didn't use the best trained troops in the world to go get the number one threat to the world." "That's the enemy that attacked us, that's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains, that's the enemy that is recruiting in 60 countries."

Then he gives it away with the "another round of resolutions" riff. Damnit.

Good follow, though, re: "North Korea has weapons and the world is less safe."

NICE riff about DeGaulle - "the word of the President is enough for me. How many would say that now?"

NO, god damnit, John - when you've got the treaties on the table, talk about the nuclear proliferation treaties, not Kyoto, god damnit!

Ooo, nice one George. "I don't understand what he means by 'Pass the Global Test.'" Damn. Point for him.

Uh-oh. International Criminal Court. "Unaccountable Judges could pull our troops up for trial." "a FOREIGN court..." Those damn judges. Enemies of liberty EVERYWHERE.

Mr. President: China has more influence over North Korea than we do, does he?

The Iranian MOO-LAHS?! The MOO-LAHS? Oh well fer crissakes.

10:04 - "On North Korea - the REAL story. We had televisions, we knew where the fuel rods were."

Okay, pausing to eat ice cream and drink whiskey. We'll see if I make it back.

10:13 - Nice fatherly sharing between the men. Good job, boys.

10:13 - Please John, please stomp the roach. Please stomp it. "Learn new facts, and then take those new facts and use them to do it right." "Certainty sometimes will get you in trouble." Good. Not muscular.

But here comes the roach. "Flip flopping means he has no core values, he's a namby pamby French surrender monkey."

"I have no intention of wilting. I've never wilted in my life." THERE, finally, somewhat weakly - "I have never wavered in my position." Not strong enough, but it'll do.

Two words: Nuclear Proliferation. Thank you from the people of NYC, John.

NICE SHOT: "This President, and I regret to say it, has secured less nuclear material in the two years SINCE 9/11 than we did in the 2 years before 9/11."

"Not this President," says Kerry, pointing to himself. Nice, nice. "We're going to get that nuclear material in Russia secured in four years."

"We've increased funding by 35%, for preventing newcuelar profileration, since my presidency began..." Is this true?

There it is, the "AQ Khan network." Busted 'em, did we? And the fact that he was an official in a government that we are still blindly supporting doesn't bug you, George? Since the system around him is still in place? Well, that's probably fine, then, thanks for busting that one guy.

"The president has had four years to do something about it. And North Korea has nuclear weapons. Iran is moving towards having nuclear weapons."

Boy, is George confident about the bilateral talks with North Korea.

DAMN - I just lost a bunch of good stuff. If you're missing brilliance here, it's because I just erased it.

George just DODGED the Korea issue and awkwardly restated his talking points.

"That's not even the ISSUE," says Kerry, incredulous.

Kerry summing up. "I'm not talking about leaving. I'm talking about winning." "I believe America's best days are ahead of us, because I believe that the future belongs to freedom, and not to fear. I ask you to give me the opportunity to make you proud." "To have the responsible leadership that we deserve."

Bush: "If America shows uncertainty or weakness, the world will drift towards tragedy. And that's not going to happen while I'm the President."

WOW - Bush just promised no draft. "It will continue to be a volunteer army." "We've done a lot of hard work together." "We've climbed a mighty mountain, and we see the valley below, and it's a valley of peace." Well done summation from Bush.

Well, for the first half hour or so, it was impossible to spin for Bush. Impossible. He got the shit beat out of him. After that, the substance was still clearly on Kerry's side, but Bush got his wind back and gave his people enough to work with. Now we'll see. I especially want the to see what the fact-checking on each side will be like.

Oh, and there's Young Barbara. Whatta cutie.

"Bush held his own on factual grounds, which was a challenge for him," says David Brooks. "And Kerry held his own on human grounds." Hm.

Shields: the things that Reagan and Clinton won re-election on were missing. 7 times the Prez talked about "sending mixed messages."

Gwen: "For Kerry to say that consistency is the problem here."

Brooks: "More summits, more alliances doesn't get people to change minds."

Shields: the DeGaulle anecdote. Yes, please keep that out of the memory hole. The credibility issue is what Kerry raised - "the President could not admit the mistakes that he has made."

Gwen: "Did you think he was purposely laying it on thick tonight" re: the commander in chief mantle.

Brooks: Kerry missed opportunity on management of the war - let that theme drift away and got into the alliances. Hm.

Shields: 16 permanent bases in Iraq. Another save from the memory hole. Mismanagement of defending the oil ministry only. "The President's argument that the war on Iraq is central to the war on terror, or Senator Kerry's argument that it's a distraction."

Brooks: "A tie" re: who made the best case on Iraq being the war on terror.

Shields: "No nervousness, no condescension" from Kerry. "The president clearly tired at the end."

Partisan check:

C. Boyden Gray, Donna Brazile

Brazile: He had to come across as a credible challenger, and he did that. Comfortable in delivering his answers to the questions. Bush had an advantage, had to put Kerry on the defensive, and he didn't do that. He had to defend against Kerry's charges.

Gray: As a Harvard guy, I thought the two Yalies did great. President more direct, more decisive and more fluent, which was a surprise, as he's not known to be as articulate as the senator. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON WITH THIS GUY'S SUIT?!

New GOP meme: the war was won TOO FAST. All those pesky Baathists were supposed to be killed in the war, and now they're around making trouble.

All right, enough. I'm going to bed. My score:

Kerry: Strong, certain, eloquent, presidential. Didn't deliver a couple of put-away opportunities, but he sounded, looked, FELT great.

Bush: When he was good, he was good. When he was bad, he was as bad as we all, including his supporters, already know he can be. Hammered the "certainty" meme, scored some good points, handled himself well. I find myself wondering if the first 1/2 hour was rope-a-dope, though probably not. But when the pressure poured on, he got it back.

My personal judgement: victory Kerry, handily.

My guess as to public judgement: a tie, and everyone looking excitedly to the next debate. But if someone seemed like he could score a knockout tonight, it was Kerry. He didn't, but at times he looked like it was possible. For Bush, it wasn't. Bush only has what we all KNOW he has. Kerry still has the possibility of surprise.

Go John.

A Visit From My Blog Idol

So I posted yesterday about the new Shrill Blog, which I had originally discovered through Brad DeLong's continuing ability to write almost exclusively about things and insights that I find so brilliant, trenchant, amusing and timely that I report on a disporportionate number of them here (specifically, here, here, here and, oh why not, here).

So imagine my joy when I return this morning to a comment on the Shrill Blog post from Professor DeLong his own self, encouraging the contribution of nominees to the Order of the Shrill. My blog idol, a renowned economist and member of Clinton's economic team, has paid a visit to Procrastinet.

I'm glad he didn't stay long enough to see just how much stuff I boost from his page. Er... I mean... how much traffic I drive his way.

Seriously, though, I'll say it again for luck. If you are reading this site and are not yet reading DeLong's, you're missing out. He's one of the smartest m***** f*****s on the planet.

The Gas House

Posting has been sparse for the last week as we're heading into crunch time on a new show that opens next week: The Gas House, by William Donnelly.

Once upon a time, Don Berlin was the King of Shock Talk Radio. He took his show straight to number one by tearing people up, grossing them out and dressing them down. Once upon a time is over.

Berlin has lost his job. He’s lost his wife. And he’s lost a lot of money to his bookie. But man, he can still talk. Except nowadays the only person he’s tearing into is himself.

Faced with a bottle of pills, a good bet gone bad and his wife’s unexpected return, Berlin has to figure out how to keep going when talking isn’t enough.

To see the flyer (.pdf - about 1MB) click here.

The Ancient And Hermetic Order

I'm not sure who started it - I first read the phrase "The Ancient and Hermetic Order of the Shrill" on Brad DeLong, referring to previously reasonable people who have been driven to rhetorical pyrotechnics by their outrage at the actions of the administration.

A few weeks ago, The Shrill Blog was started, to catalogue statements that earn folks membership in the Order of the Shrill. I've added it to my blogroll on the right as it seems worth a daily check out.

A good example: this entry, where Anthony Zinni calls the Iraq War a "brain fart of an idea of a strategy that isn't thought out."

Or this one: General Tommy Franks saying of Defense Undersecretary Doug Feith "I have to deal with the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth almost every day."

Gorgeous.

Or this one: Garrison Keillor (Prairie Home Companion) says:

Our beloved land has been fogged with fear—fear, the greatest political strategy ever. An ominous silence, distant sirens, a drumbeat of whispered warnings and alarms to keep the public uneasy and silence the opposition. And in a time of vague fear, you can appoint bullet-brained judges, strip the bark off the Constitution, eviscerate federal regulatory agencies, bring public education to a standstill, stupefy the press, lavish gorgeous tax breaks on the rich.

There is a stink drifting through this election year. It isn’t the Florida recount or the Supreme Court decision. No, it’s 9/11 that we keep coming back to. It wasn’t the “end of innocence,” or a turning point in our history, or a cosmic occurrence, it was an event, a lapse of security. And patriotism shouldn’t prevent people from asking hard questions of the man who was purportedly in charge of national security at the time.

Oh the hits just keep on coming.

SHGb02+14a... WHAT?!

So CNN.com is reporting (from Reuters) that a signal picked up by a radio telescope MIGHT BE FIRST CONTACT FROM ALIENS.

Here is the source article, at New Scientist Magazine (UK).

A pinch of salt: the head scientist of the SETI@Home project, which discovered and recently reconfirmed the signal, says “We’re not jumping up and down, but we are continuing to observe it.”

Accentuate the Positive

I'm not sure the issue of "who's more negative" is actually going to get any traction. It's a prime target for the GOP's "sayin' it makes it so" approach to spin: they'll accuse Dems in general and America in particular of all sort of heinous, charicatured misdeeds (does anyone with 2/3 of a brain actually BELIEVE that John Kerry would not commit the US Military without the approval of the French?), then go on the talk shows and say "we ran a positive campaign with an optimistic vision," the news reports will say "Dems accuse GOP of going Negative, GOP denies it" and everyone will tune out.

But for what it's worth, let's go to some graphic evidence. Old news, but here are the candidates' pages from a few weeks ago (thanks to Daily Kos, where these were posted then and now):

For those keeping score at home (or those for whom the above bitmaps won't display), the Bush/Cheney website has five major graphical elements. Four of them are attacks on John Kerry, and the only one that has anything to do with President Bush is a campaign logo. The Kerry site doesn't mention Bush once.

And just for fun, let's examine the creepiness factor of last night's RNC speakers (also from Daily Kos, plus Eschaton and, oh, everyone else):

Click to experience the antipathy full-size.

BigThink at the Tank

For a couple hours now I've been trying to write a post that capture the bigness of Ezra Klein's line of commentary yesterday, and its importance to the political life of the country.

So far, I have failed.

So just read Klein's guest post at Washington Monthly. It's excellent. Here's the key paragraph, to me:

Further, the media works better on this level of storylines and examples (Dole's fall, Dean's scream, Bush's trouble with the grocery scanner) and is thus easy prey for the GOP's deception. Reporting the guts of issues is a tough business and rarely riveting television, networks that attempt to engage health care lose out to rivals proffering easy to understand character questions.

Here's my rough draft attempt to synthesize his commentary on "heuristic signposts" and "low-information rationality" (really, go read his first, this will make way more sense that way and it's not at all as dense as it sounds) with my own theory of politics and the news media as a collective narrative much akin to vast folk theatre:

Broadcast news (and its online adjuncts) is no longer (if it ever was) a journalistic form. The news media is not primarily in the business of investigating and discovering truth and delivering it to the public. They are an entertainment media - infotainment, certainly, but fundamentally their mission has less to do with what information they are delivering to you and more to do with how that information makes you feel.

In turn, how that information makes you feel is woven into our collective narrative - the "story" that we perceive ourselves individually, our communities, and our country to be embroiled in. Stories fall into a few broad narrative categories:

-stories that confirm our worst fears about the world (wars, death, murder, crime, starvation, corruption)

-stories that confirm our greatest hopes for humanity ("human interest" stories, good deeds, profiles in courage)

-stories that tell us things are worse than we have believed them to be ("We've just learned of this TERRIBLE RISK to you and your family...")

-stories that tell us things are better than we have believed them to be (promising medical research, future technology, etc.)

Information for information's sake is pretty dry toast. What makes us tune in every night is a narrative that we can feel we have a stake in, and we feel we have a stake when our standing assumptions about the world are either confirmed or challenged. What's important to the delivery of news is that moment of interaction with the audience, when the viewer goes "Oh!" to themselves.

So the news media spends their time looking for bits of information that will create that "Oh!" moment. The simpler the better - those moments that pack a great deal of import into a tiny, easily grasped concept are ideal: i.e., "The stain on the blue dress contains the President's DNA." From that one simple fact, a vast and clearly drawn narrative emerges, complete with infidelity, deception, and pornographically hot sex.

The Republican Party has grasped this for a long time. They have embraced the divide between what the actual workings of government and "Politics" as it is broadcast to the people, and concentrated their public efforts on delivering those little thought bullets that make people go "Oh!" and at the same time push them towards a collective narrative that supports the GOP electorally.

The Democratic Party is not nearly as good at that tactic. They seem to cling to a wishful belief that the news media will become questers after truth, and they seem a little self-conscious about the spoonfeeding of spin and talking points.

This is why I continue to urge the DNC to seek out the services of someone like Aaron Sorkin - someone who understands how to sell principled, policy-based politics as an exciting, empowering narrative. Until that happens, we will be vulnerable to the hijacking of the collective narrative by Karl Rove and the Jedi Master marketers of the RNC.

"Show me what DEMOCRACY looks like!"

THIS is what democracy looks like.

Best graf from the Daily News coverage:

Pro-Bush hecklers standing behind the police barricades near W. 33rd tried to drown out the anti-Bush chants by yelling "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" But when the protesters joined in their chant, the hecklers were stumped for what to do next.

Even "official" estimates, which are always egregiously lowballed, put the crowd at 120,000. So the organizers' claims of 400k-500k seem pretty credible.

By the time we got to Midtown/We were half a million strong...

Job Report: Now, watch this spin

We have today an excellent chance to study the Administration Machine at work. They received a body blow today: a jobs report well below all projections. By "well below," I mean economists were expecting 215,000 and got 32,000. At the same time, the reports for May and June were retroactively revised downwards by a total of 61k jobs. From MSN:

The stock market reacted immediately and decisively, selling off 85 points within minutes of the open.

“It’s a disaster all around if you think about it,” Jack Bouroudjian, principal at Brewer Investment Company, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box.”

This report is so bad it's the lead on all the news websites and on the home page of msn.com (Okay, not *all* the websites: Foxnews buries it at the bottom of the page under the laughably understated "July Job Growth Slows." Sigh.)

Now, I am NOT saying this jobs report is the Administration's "fault." The concept that the White House, under any President, has *direct* control over the economy in general and jobs in particular is an election-year myth. This is something Brad DeLong has posted about at length, including today's must-read post on the poor report. Here's the key paragraph:

And somebody else should ask Bush today why he adopted a "jobs and growth" program of shifting taxes from the present into the future that got us only about half the bang per buck of deficit that we would have received from a normal Keynesian fiscal stimulus program. He didn't make the lousy labor market. But he and his team sure did pass up a lot of chances to buy insurance against the bizarrely weak job market we now find ourselves in.

Here's my over-simplified understanding of it: let's say the economy = bowling. The President can't control where the ball goes or how many pins it hits. What he *can* do is, say, put up the bumpers so at least you can't roll a gutter ball. Or wax the lane so the ball moves faster. Or coach the bowler on proper technique. After that, it's up to forces more complex than the Prez can control.

So the criticism of Bush shouldn't be the low score. It should be that, trusted with the responsibility to try to raise the score, he has ignored the methods listed above, which might have actually helped, and instead has invested in "better bowling" by putting new carpet in the lobby, better liquor at the bar, and a jacuzzi in the owners' suite.

And he's done it all on credit cards. Which we will, eventually, have to repay.

Anyway - none of this is really my main point. My main point isn't about the economic situation we find ourselves in. It's about how this Administration handles problems like the one they find themselves in today. Just last week, Bush claimed that we had "turned a corner" in the economy. This report makes him look like a deluded ass.

So let's keep an eye out for the spin. Let's keep an eye out for the sleight of hand, for the shell game. Let's keep an eye out for statements being issued that simply have nothing to do with the facts, but sure do sound real good. And if the tinfoil hat brigade are right (and they've been right with unsettling frequency), let's keep an eye out for Tom Ridge.

I'll report back with what I find.

Here's a disturbing graph (posted by user "jfern" on this thread at Daily Kos) that really tells the story of the Administration simply saying whatever the f*** they think people want to hear. The gray bars are Administration Projections, the black bars are reality. You can almost hear them saying "This time, jobs will pick up! Okay... THIS time jobs will pick up! Okay... um... THIS TIME..." (click for full size):

UPDATE: So far, Bush is choosing the "what are you bitching about? We added jobs, right?" approach. From CNN:

Bush had a different view. "I say we have a strong economy, and it's getting stronger," he told supporters in Stratham, New Hampshire.

And then there are statements that defy parody:

"We've seen nine months of growth," Labor Secretary Elaine Chao told CNNfn on Friday.

"Not consecutive, but nine months in employment growth in the manufacturing sector in the last 12 months."