Digby's Hullabaloo Posts

Here We Are Now. Entertain Us!

by tristero

As I was about to start writing this, I became distracted by the latest atrocity in the Bush/Iraq war, 21 people dying in an attack on a bus, including 12 high school students. It may seem pointless, perhaps to the point of being obscene, to focus instead on an extremely subtle issue of presentation and rhetoric and do so at extreme length. But I’m trying to understand how the US got taken over by such an incompetent band of extremists and I want to find ways to prevent them from retaining power. I have some sort of sensitivity to rhetorical devices and techniques, and since I think that is an important part of the answer and of the solution, I’ll go on and write what I intended to. For I know that if the far right continues to have influence far in excess either to their popular support or their woeful talent, today’s massacre, and our horror-filled reaction to it, will look like the good old days to our kids.

There’s a rather listless article by Elizabeth Drew about the bipartisan alarm over Bush’s signing statements in the current New York Review of Books – dull, because there is nothing added to the story, not that the story itself is anything other than infuriating and ominous (btw, Drew has written extremely well on Bush in the past; this one is an exception among the ones I’ve read). But a striking conjunction of quotes caught my interest towards the end of Drew’s essay:

People with very disparate political views, such as Grover Norquist and Dianne Feinstein, worry about the long-term implications of Bush’s power grab. Norquist said, “These are all the powers that you don’t want Hillary Clinton to have.” Feinstein says, “I think it’s very dangerous because other presidents will come along and this sets a precedent for them.” Therefore, she says, “it’s very important that Congress grapple with and make decisions about what our policies should be on torture, rendition, detainees, and wiretapping lest Bush’s claimed right to set the policies, or his policies themselves, become a precedent for future presidents.”

To cut directly to the point, this is a perfect illustration both of the problem with mainstream Democratic rhetoric, and the dangerous effectiveness of far-right Republican operatives. It’s almost as of they’re speaking two different dialects. I don’t wanna make two much of the dialect conceit, but it may be useful as a rule of thumb to start us off.

Norquist speaks what I’ll call TeeVee, the dialect we hear on television, not only on the news, but in nearly every commercial, every sitcom, the Simpsons, late night comedy shows, and so on. Like everything else you hear in TeeVee, Norquist’s statement is concise and all-but-exclusively monosyllabic: the vocabulary is more restricted than a 6 year-old’s. But that is noted not so much to disparage it as to describe it. Because Norquist’s statement is also crudely witty – it will certainly get an appreciative snort from many Hillary-bashers, a calculated kind of we’re-all-vulgar-together kind of wit. But there’s even more to it than that.

Norquist also uses, and to great effect, two levels of personalization, a prime feature of TeeVee dialect. First of all, the audience is directly addressed – “you” – and almost instinctively you – we – snap to attention. (“You deserve a break to today;” “You-you’re the one -” why, I bet you (heh) can make a whole career in advertising and pop music out of that word…)

And then Clinton’s name is mentioned, personalizing, embodying, and exemplifying the existential alarm triggered by “you don’t want.” Norquist doesn’t bother going into detail about what “all the powers you don’t want Hillary Clinton to have” could be. Why should he? After all, it’s patently obvious that he and his audience want Clinton to have no power at all. Nor is it necessary to go into any kind of detail about what’s the big deal if Clinton has “all the powers.” If someone even dares to ask such a question in an atmosphere so rhetorically slanted, it could easily be sloughed off with a snarky laugh and a snotty joke. For a long time in the MSM, Hillary Clinton has been thoroughly demonized past rational dispute; giving her, of all people, illegal wiretapping powers, is literally unthinkable.

But the personalization serves a much more specific set of purposes for Norquist than simply the present issue of deploring increased presidential power. It is, of course, a highly partisan statement. By implication through omission, Norquist tacitly endorses Bush’s desire to have all the powers. These are powers you don’t want Clinton to have but what about the present day or furture Republican president? Well, that’s easily deflected. It’s simply not the question. The question is what if these awesome powers fell into the hands of a Democrat and not just any Democrat but Hillary Clinton? (And let’s not forget that the Republicans, being the generous, giving souls that they are, have already nominated and selected Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Party’s nominee for president in 2008, saving Democrats an enormous amount of bother deciding for themselves who they want.)

Existential alarm, demonization, personalization, simplification. It’s all there compacted, compressed, and finely tuned in the Norquist quote (there’s more, but that’s enough for now). And that’s TeeVee, the prime candidate, el numero uno (say it in English!) for the defining dialect of US English. It transcends the country’s regions, subcultures, religions, ethnic groups, and class. And political persuasions. Need examples? Look at tv commercials. Need less trivial examples? Look at the evening news, inevitably leading off a story on how Medicare’s drug policy affects a specific family (personalization). Look at how the choices for action and thought are automatically simplified, for which demonization really helps – invade Iraq or you will condone the actions of a monstrous monster!! Further examples?

Nah, you get the idea. Let’s turn to what Feinstein said. She’s not speaking TeeVee or any other dialect. Hell, she’s not even speaking. She’s just talking: no brain is engaged. Hers isn’t the language of persuasion. Nor is it evasive. It’s just rambling, boring, dull, and extremely unpleasant. It’s mediocrity arrogantly worrying over a moral principle – three serious taboos for native TeeVee speakers. Like us.

Consider her immediate resort to a strangled, masturbatory use of personalization. The first word is “I” and she “thinks it’s dangerous.” Yeah, big deal, that’s her (solo, egotistical) opinion, but Norquist speaks for our opinions. Worse, Feinstein sets up an instantly arrogant opposition and a hierarchy – I am the expert, you’re not, I think it’s dangerous, and you’re wrong if you don’t. In contrast, Norquist works the empathy angle – you think Hillary is dangerous.

Feinstein’s use of the first person also admits doubt where Norquist strictly limits doubt in an important way. Only Feinstein thinks it’s dangerous, and let’s face it, that’s just her opinion. But Norquist addresses us, a lot of us, and that many people really can’t be wrong. And for us to be wrong, that wouldn’t feel good, would it? Norquist knows we’re right. Feinstein just knows that she’s right.

Now, look – if you dare, it’s horrible, horrible – at Feinstein’s incoherent use of alliteration. Just thinking about it makes me wince.

Folks, really. If you’re gonna use “president” and “precedent” in the same sentence, you really need to be aware of it. And y’gotta do it with intent. Feinstein is just plain tone deaf. And the effect is revolting. Muffing her chance for a little clever verbal pizzazz, “precedent” becomes just an annoying big word – three whole syllables! – we really gotta struggle to parse. It merely intimidates, harking back to the arrogant “I” from whence she began. And then she repeats it at the end and it’s still not even close to funny, interesting, or illuminating.

Feinstein’s profound indifference to what she is saying – not the meaning, but the actual words and phrases she uses to convey meaning – is everywhere apparent throughout the quote. Yes, indeed, Bush certainly is a bumbling fool whenever he speaks, but even he rarely approaches the transcendent idiocy of calling on Congress to “grapple” with “our policies on torture.”

For crissakes, “grapple”?? Who knew that the legislatures took not only a tortuous route to making our laws, but a torturous one, too? Grapple, shee-it, let’s just use the rack.

And unlike Norquist, who compresses all the evil of the world into one Clinton, Feinstein makes the spectacular mistake of listing all of America’s sins. What on earth wash she thinking??? Y’know, I’ve read a lot about torture, rendition, detainees, and wiretapping since 2000. And every time I start to do so, I have to fight the desire to avoid hearing anymore about this stuff. It’s not fun, it’s a duty, espeically if my taxes are funding it, but don’t think for a second I want to hear about it. No one does (well, except maybe Don Rumsfeld, he’s so weird it just may set his putter straight, as the saying goes).

So If you’re gonna bring all these truly awful things up in this context, where it’s a side issue to the main one – the usurpation of powers by a power-mad executive – you better do it in such a fashion that we want to endure hearing about it. Otherwise, you’ll lose your audience. But for Feinstein, my God, these horrors actually become “our” horrors. Meaning not ony her and the Congress’s, but worse, yours and mine – policies. Wha? Diane, these are Bush’s policies, don’t tell me they’re ours!! I feel guilty enought already just having to pay for him, dig? And I’ve spoken out against them, marched, petioned, etc etc, from day one!

One last thing, no reason to prolong the agony but I can’t resist pointing out this flatulent rhetorical impropriety. Admit it: didn’t you just want to fucking hurl when you read “lest?” Oh, my! No scones for me, Major, I’m off to play the Grand Pee-a-know!.

I’m sorry, one last, last thing, and this is it. “lest[!] Bush’s claimed right to set the policies, or his policies themselves.” What is this, the Marx Brothers crazy legal contract skit? Can we just skip the sanity clause and watch the stateroom scene again? Please?

The point should be obvious but let’s spell it out anyway. Nobody’s saying to imitate Norquist’s style. The guy’s crazy and obnoxious and his style – irrationally hostile and obsessively nasty down to the microlevel – reflects that. But dear friends, you gotta have some rhetorical style. And unfortunately, even top Democratic politicians like Feinstein simply don’t.

Look, we all know what Feinstein is trying to say, at least in part – “Bush is acting like a tinpot tyrannical dictator. for which the only precedent among American presidents is the disgraced and disgraceful Richard Nixon. And there is no reason for this president to set such an awful precedent for America’s future leaders.”

The thing is: that is what she has to say, only better. Because she’s goddamm right. But her rhetorical incompetence tells us we’re gonna learn nothing if we listen to her, and we’re not gonna have fun, either. One or the other, preferably both – that’s TeeVee. That’s not just Teen Spirit anymore, dear Mr. Cobain. That’s America.

[Update: Slightly revised after initial posting.]

Puppies

by digby

There are a bunch of posts today on the subject of media narrative that are very much worth reading as a series. I’m going to link them all below.

This discussion about media narratives is incredibly important. We must not forget that a great many people are infected with these media storylines (although according to this fascinating analysis by Stirling Newberry, they are less infected than we think.) But there is one group that is almost completely controlled by it and that’s the political establishment. The blogosphere and other forms of alternative media provide some other voices, but in the main, the beltway’s relationship to the people is almost entirely constructed by the media narrative. And it’s killing Democrats.

I’m going to excerpt a little piece from each of these pieces:

Jamison Foser from Media Matters:

The recent media treatment of Sen. John P. Murtha (D-PA), Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) illustrate this point: No matter who emerges as a progressive leader, or a high-profile Democrat, they’re in for the same flood of conservative misinformation in the media. Too many people chalk up outrageous media treatment of, say, Al Gore or John Kerry to the men’s own flaws, pretending that if they were better candidates, they’d have gotten better press coverage. That’s naïve. The Democratic Party could nominate Superman to be their next presidential candidate, and two things would happen: conservatives would smear him, and the media would join in. To illustrate this, we look back over the last dozen or so years.

This is very important. It is an American impulse to recoil from losers, but it’s a Democratic weakness that they consistently belittle and degrade their politicians for the sins of the media. Foser’s long post takes you on a trip through time that should convince anyone that there is more at work here than congenitally bad candidates. From Howard Dean to John Murtha to Hillary Clinton to Al Gore and everything in between, there is no such thing as a “normal” Democrat in the eyes of the political media.

Peter Daou, on the WaPo’s revisiting today of Bush’s manly certitude. Steve Benon on the same. Christy too.

Stirling Newberry on the two narrative streams, public and private.

TBOGG on the press’s reluctance to call Republicans liars.

He excerpts this incredible paragraph from Eric Boehlert’s incredible new book Lapdogs:

The MSM’s unique brand of journalism, unveiled just for Bush, represented precisely the kind of clubby, get-along reporting that would have been roundly mocked by journalists themselves just a few years earlier. During the Clinton years, the D.C. newsroom sin was to be seen as soft on Democrats — “a Clinton apologist” — and journalists went to extraordinary lengths to prove their mettle by staying up late chasing Whitewater rumors and trying to prove the White House gave away weapons secrets to the Chinese in exchange for campaign contributions. The phrase “double standard” barely begins to describe the titanic shift that occurred in how Bush and his Republican administration were covered by the suddenly timorous press corps. It’s hard to believe the Bush-era slumbering press was the same one that a decade earlier shifted into overdrive when bogus allegations flew that President Clinton caused commercial airplanes to back up at Los Angeles International Airport while he received a $200 haircut from a celebrity stylist aboard Air Force One in 1993. Federal Aviation Administration records later showed no such delays occurred, but that didn’t stop the Washington Post from referencing the silly incident fifty-plus times in less than thirty days, treating the hoax as a serious political story. (The Post staff managed to squeeze in nearly one hundred Clinton haircut references during the 1993 calendar year.) Then again, just four months into his first term, the Post published a lengthy, mocking feature on Clinton’s soft approval ratings. (“The Failed Clinton Presidency. It has a certain ring to it.”) Yet in 2005 when Bush’s job approval rating plunged into the 30s, the Post refused to print the phrase “failed presidency” to describe Bush’s second term. To do so would simply invite conservative scorn; something the newsroom seemed to go to extraordinarily lengths to avoid.

After reading all of that the question is — how do we fix this?

.

Horse’s Mouth

Is George W. Bush’s comic book advisor Karl Zinsmeister padding his resume? Say it ain’t so.

.

The Mood of The Country

by digby

I read this series of posts over on TPM and got really depressed. A number of readers wrote in to either agree with or criticize Josh for taking the New Yorker to task for perpetuating the same old creaky political narrative that we’ve been hearing for the last 25 years.

This one, in particular, made me feel very, very tired:

I was holding back, but dude?!?

“The vast majority of Democrats totally understand that Dems running in reddish states can’t have stereotypically liberal positions on hot-button social and cultural issues. I think everybody gets that.”

No, no, no. THEY DON’T GET THAT AT ALL.

“Reddish”? Dems don’t get that notion even when it comes to blood red states.

Come on. If Dems got it, the party would have never nominated Kerry, and Hillary would be consigned to the oblivion of a Senate committee chairmanship, at best.

In fact, I’m trying to conjure up any factual basis for thinking that the majority of Dems get that, let alone a “vast majority.”

I lived in Louisiana when Dukakis ran. I lived in Missouri when Kerry (his fricking lt. gov.!) ran. They were jokes. Not just unelectable. Jokes. Howard Dean? Another joke. Hillary? God help us.

Do you have any idea how demoralizing it is having these folks wrecking the top of the ballot again and again? It not just that those of us in red states have to endure GOP presidencies, just like you blue staters. But we get the shit kicked out of us up and down the ballot. It’s a disaster.

You tell me how it is that Dems managed to nominate two Massachusetts liberals for president during the greatest conservative movement in this country since–I don’t know–prohibition? It sure ain’t because a vast majority decided to accommodate the mood of the country.

With those two nominations as bookends to the last 18 years, I don’t think the problem is that reporters like Goldberg keep repeating the same old tired cliches. So long as the Dems keep living those tired old cliches, you’d have to become a novelist to write a different storyline. Don’t shoot the messenger.

I have heard this shit as long as I can remember. And yet, when moderate centrist southerner Bill Clinton was elected (with a mere plurality in both elections) — and was tortured endlessly by the right wing — I didn’t hear any let-up of the narrative or get any sense that the red states were appeased. Indeed, Clinton was widely portrayed as being the poster boy for alleged blue state values. His crime was that he was a Democrat, period. His southern twang couldn’t save him. And it didn’t save Jimmy Carter either, who was a pillar of moral rectitude. It’s always something.

There is no winning if we continue to play this game. And red state Democrats who have bought into this frame need to step back and consider the fact that this conservative era only exists in electoral politics. In every other way, this is one of the most liberal eras in history. Between the changes in marriage and women’s rights alone, society is undergoing a massive shift. The conservative era he refers to is a piddly ass backlash against forces that are far stronger than anything Judge Roy Moore and James Dobson have put forth. And the agenda that has been enacted under this conservative GOP era has had almost nothing to do with any of those social issues — it’s a radical economic agenda that has hurt working people of all “cultures.”

I’ve lived in both red and blue states for extended periods and frankly, never actually saw much of a difference; in my experience people are pretty much the same everywhere. But I respect the right to love your tribe and there are areas of the country in which regional identity is of paramount importance. It’s part of being human.

That is why I’m getting sick to death of hearing this crap from people like Marshall’s correspondent above. I’m not exactly feeling the same kind of love in return. It’s not enough that I have enthusiastically voted for Carter, Clinton and Gore, all conservative southern Democrats to one degree or another, or that I would have backed Edwards, Clark or any other red state Dem in the last one. (Kerry won the southern Democratic primaries too, btw. He wasn’t just annointed by a bunch of clueless latte sipping San Francisco fags. This guy needs to consult his fellow Democrats and ask why they did that.)

(In all my posts on this subject, this is, of course, the point where I dig out an obligatory excerpt of Lincoln’s Cooper Union speech from an earlier post of mine and recycle it once more.) I think that until we grapple with the fact that this is the real nub of the problem we will get nowhere.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas’ new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

So too, today, we must ask the question, “what will satisfy them?” Will it be to ban gay marriage? Outlaw abortion? Destroy the public schools? Institute mandatory prayer? Deport all non-English speakers?

I don’t think so. It certainly will not be enough to nominate a conservative, born again southern Democrat. We did that. His name was Jimmy Carter. Here’s what they are still doing to him even 25 years later. We nominated a son of the “New South,” modern, moderate and pro-business. They impeached his ass.

No, what must happen is that Democrats everywhere must place themselves avowedly with the most conservative red states in every way. They must openly reject their own tribal identity (whatever that may be) and become them. Nothing less will do.

“The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of [liberalism], before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.”

We are not going to win conservative red states simply by respecting the culture. There is no evidence that it will work. Carter almost lost to the guy who pardoned Nixon. Clinton never won a majority. Gore came the closest and they just cranked up the GOP machine in Florida and DC and stole it from him. A quirk of the constitution, the electoral college, forged in compromise over this very issue, means that this is going to be with us as long as we don’t confront it head-on and stop thinking that we can appease this faction simply with pork rinds and country music. Republicans like Bush Sr. can do that because the GOP is the tribe’s official party. Democrats can’t. If we are to win some conservative red states we must find a persuasive argument and argue it. Short of a major catastrophe, I don’t know if it will work. But it’s obvious to me that these style points don’t mean shit when it comes from a Dem. The red state cultural conservative insists that everyone, everywhere agrees with him.

But we aren’t cultural conservatives! We can nominate nothing but born-again good old boys and girls for the rest of my life and that’s ok with me. But we cannot be all things to all people. I will never be “avowedly with” red state cultural conservatism. It’s on the wrong side of history and always has been. I can’t become it. I don’t believe in it. If I did, I would be a Republican.

I concluded that stale Lincoln post of mine with this:

Lincoln concluded the speech at the Cooper Union with this and I think it’s relevant today to those of us who believe that our side is, as Lincoln thought then, the side of enlightened, moral progress:

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.

This fight for the soul of America has been going on since the very beginning and it isn’t over yet. We can take heart in the fact that in every great battle thus far, the forces of equality and moral progress have won the day. It’s never been easy.

Marshall’s emailer says that the Democrats have been fools for not “accomodating the mood of the country.” I say that’s bullshit. The “mood of the country” is an extremely complex, ephemeral thing with many permutations, not all of them political. But if the the elite press and its GOP string pullers have decided that the political mood is conservative, the last thing I want to do is accomodate it. I want to change it.

Disclaimer: I am not talking about the vast majority of the 40+ of liberal red state voters. I feel nothing but solidarity with you, my friends, and I’m sorry that it’s hard for you to be associated with me. Perhaps together we can begin to change that.

And I use the “red state/blue state” signifier as a simple shorthand. I realize that on a block by block basis or whatever, that we are all just one big purple family. But if you look at the election results of the last few elections, you will see that there is a solid block of states that votes for the Republican party. And it is regionally distinct. That is a simple reality whether we like it or not.

Salon Looks At the Kennedy Voter Fraud Article

by tristero

Without letting Kenneth Blackwell off the hook for major league unethical partisan behavior, Farhad Manjoo examines key points of the Kennedy voter fraud article in Rolling Stone mentioned here. He goes into detail as to why he thinks Kennedy failed to make a convincing case that Ohio ’04 was stolen.

If you’re willing to read Manjoo’s article, I’d be curious to know what you folks think. It seems as if many of his points are quite valid regarding selective quoting of facts by Kennedy, etc.

Assuming Manjoo is, himself, quoting fairly, it doesn’t exonerate the ugly behavior of Blackwell, or call into question the crucial necessity of election reforms in the US. But it would mean that RFKjr has been less than honest in presenting all the facts and in the drawing of conclusions.

If that is the case, that RFKjr was wrong or seriously misleading, then naturally I will withdraw my assertion in the previous post that Ohio ’04 was stolen. Manjoo’s objections to Kennedy seem substantive and require a response from those who are knowlegeable about this issue at a granular level. Kennedy himself should respond, of course.

[UPDATE: Outside The Beltway , after initially posting a purely ad hominem attack on Kennedy, updated his post to include a highly detailed rebuttal of many of Kennedy’s points, including the problem with trusting exit polls, mentioned by Manjoo, et al. Again, either a substantive counter-response or an admission of error on Kennedy’s part really is appropriate. ]

The Insanity-Based Community

by tristero

The Times, in a review of a new documentary, “The War Tapes,” describes one of the subjects:

Specialist Mike Moriarty, at 34 the oldest of them, describes himself as a super-patriot and says he was eager to go to Iraq to exact some payback for the 9/11 attacks.

Back from Iraq, Specialist Mike Moriarty signed up with FEMA. He was last seen wading into the Gulf of Mexico, shooting the waves in retaliation for Katrina.

Kenneth Blackwell Brings To Mind An All-But-Forgotten 70’s Sci Fi Classic

by tristero

[Update 2: The Poor Man Institute is underwhelmed by the RFKJr article (in particular the accuracy of exit polls) and recc’ds this pdf instead.]

[Update: Kennedy’s article is now online. Read it. Rolling Stone also has links to additional documentation. Kennedy’s article makes serious charges in a deeply serious fashion. The ad hominem attacks from the rightwing trackbacks this post has received just ain’t gonna cut it. The specifics have to be engaged.]

It’s not online yet but Robert Kennedy, Jr. has a blistering article in the current Rolling Stone on what happened in Ohio in 2004. Plain and simple, the Republicans stole the presidential election and Kenneth Blackwell, who seems to be up to his eyeballs in the shenanigans, is quite an accomplished liar. (Confession: I have not been following this issue closely – no particular reason other than it’s impossible to follow everything. The article may be old news for some of you, but it does collect a lot of creepy stuff in one place.)

The real question, of course, is what will be done about it and NO! I refuse to give into fashionable cyncism! So yes, dear friends, I really do believe the country will focus like a laserbeam on our corrupt election practices. I have no doubt the moment there’s a squeaker and the Republicans lose a big one by 2% or less, the MSM will ensure that election reform becomes the only subject worth talking about, even more than the civil rights of 1 day-old fertilized eggs! (Unless there’s a missing young white woman that week, but that goes without saying.)

In an editorial, Rolling Stone calls for an investigation of Diebold. Well, yes. And yes to a paper record of all ballots. And yes to open source software for the machines. But actually, I always thought that Canada’s voting technology, as described by Robert Cringely made the most sense:

Forget touch screens and electronic voting. In Canadian Federal elections, two barely-paid representatives of each party, known as “scrutineers,” are present all day at the voting place. If there are more political parties, there are more scrutineers. To vote, you write an “X” with a pencil in a one centimeter circle beside the candidate’s name, fold the ballot up and stuff it into a box. Later, the scrutineers AND ANY VOTER WHO WANTS TO WATCH all sit at a table for about half an hour and count every ballot, keeping a tally for each candidate. If the counts agree at the end of the process, the results are phoned-in and everyone goes home. If they don’t, you do it again. Fairness is achieved by balanced self-interest, not by technology. The population of Canada is about the same as California, so the elections are of comparable scale. In the last Canadian Federal election the entire vote was counted in four hours. Why does it take us 30 days or more?

The 2002-2003 budget for Elections Canada is just over $57 million U.S. dollars, or $1.81 per Canadian citizen. It is extremely hard to get an equivalent per-citizen figure for U.S. elections, but trust me, it is a LOT higher. This week [December 11, 2003], San Francisco held a runoff mayoral election that cost $2.5 million, or $3.27 per citizen of the city. And this was for just one election, not a whole year of them.

We are spending $3.9 billion or $10 per citizen for new voting machines. Canada just prints ballots.

No voting system is perfect. Elections have been stolen and voters disenfranchised with paper ballots, too. But our approach of throwing technology at a problem with a result that election reliability is not improved, that it may well be compromised in new and even scarier ways, and that this all costs billions that could be put to better use makes no sense at all.

On second thought, never mind. Looks like Canada’s going Diebold as well:

A 2000 year-end report from Global Election Systems (now owned by US company Diebold and called Diebold Election Systems) states “Global reports add-on sales of 60 AccuVote systems to the City of Ottawa and 70 to the City of Hamilton as well as first-time sales of 60 AccuVote-TS systems to the City of Barrie”.

Oh, well. There’s no reason to think Diebold would purposely rig their own machines. That’s silly. Let’s go to the movies!

There’s a sci-fi flick from the seventies called Logan’s Run starring Michael York. In the 23rd Century, you’re not allowed to live past 30, but you enter Carousel (misspelled on the site, nobody’s purrfect) and try to fly to the top where, if you make it there, your body will be Renewed. People root for their pals to go the distance, but their friends fail and die. Strange…no one can actually remember anyone ever succeeding in getting Renewed. Very odd. But y’never know. Next time someone really could beat Carousel and live!

Pass the popcorn, friends.

Yea!

by digby

Blogger is back. Sort of. I think. If I can get this to actually publish I will be back in business today. Thanks for hanging in.

Sadly, I have to go out for a bit. Until I get back, I thought I’d update you on the blue state country song comments from over the week-end. A lot of people suggested Springsteen or Dylan, which makes sense. There were also a number of commenters and emailers who suggested “The Man In Black” by Johnny Cash — and Cash is always transcendently cool. Most impressively, there were a bunch of songs written by readers themselves that were great.

But I particularly liked this one, written by reader MJS:

Listen to the Wind

I’m living in the blue states
I’m living in the red
Somebody took the common man
And filled his common head
And poisoned all our brothers
And all our sisters too
Only one kind of person is happy
When I start to hate on you

I’m working in the factory
Working on the big combine
I can’t afford a doctor
And the baby won’t stop crying
Our sons and daughters fight a war
Our sons and daughters die
They want us blue and red ones
To never hear each other’s cries

(chorus)
Listen to me brothers
Listen sisters too
Listen to the melody
That plays inside of you
Listen to the silence
And listen to your heart
Who gets to making money
Whenever fighting starts?
Listen to the wind
It carries all our songs
Listen to the wind
Everybody join along

I’m searching for the Jesus
Who aimed to help the sick
Who gave solace to the poor of us
Who knew love was not a trick
I’m searching for the Jesus
The man, the Prince of Peace
Teach me not to cast stones
Teach me to slay that beast

I’m searching for some honor
I’m searching for a life
Where I can feel compassion
Put an end to needless strife
I’m hoping that I’ll find it
Right here inside of me
Forget about red and blue states
My country ’tis of thee
Sing it like you mean it
Turn a them into a we

(chorus)
Listen to me brothers
Listen sisters too
Listen to the melody
That plays inside of you
Listen to the silence
And listen to your heart
Who gets to making money
Whenever fighting starts?
Listen to the wind
It carries all our songs
Listen to the wind
Everybody join along
Sing it like you mean it
Everybody join along

I’m living in the blue states
I’m living in the red
Somebody took the common man
And filled his common head
And poisoned all our brothers
And all our sisters too
Only one kind of person is happy
When I start to hate on you

I’m working in the factory
Working on the big combine
I can’t afford a doctor
And the baby won’t stop crying
Our sons and daughters fight a war
Our sons and daughters die
They want us blue and red ones
To never hear each other’s cries

(chorus)
Listen to me brothers
Listen sisters too
Listen to the melody
That plays inside of you
Listen to the silence
And listen to your heart
Who gets to making money
Whenever fighting starts?
Listen to the wind
It carries all our songs
Listen to the wind
Everybody join along

Poor Joe Klein’s head will explode if populist sentiment like that catches on.

.

Grandpa’s Good Little Boy

by digby

I notice that everyone’s on the case of the latest Ben Domenechist hire, Karl Zinsmeister. He’s quite the guy. A liar, of course, and completely full of shit but he’s perfect to replace the person who was arrested for shoplifting toiletries from Target. In an administration that cares nothing for policy, these jobs are all just patronage gigs. And old Karl has been a good little wingnut. He deserves a nice Whitehouse gig on his resume.

John Amato has all the dirt on this fine fellow, but he leaves out what I think is the most impressive item on Karl’s list of accomplishment. It seems he writes comic books too:

Longtime embedded journalist Karl Zinsmeister (Boots on the Ground: A Month with the 82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq) and penciler Dan Jurgens (Thor, Superman) chronicle three months in the lives of the 82nd Airborne in the Battle for Iraq in this groundbreaking series. Collects Combat Zone: True Tales of GI’s In Iraq #1-5.

Some people love it for its classic “Sgt Rock” quality. Others, not so much:

I bought this because of the positive reviews and because it sounded like it might be pretty good. It’s not. The drawings are well-done. Beyond that, this could easily have been written during the WWII Africa campaign with a few updates on weapons and jargon.

All the sterotypes are here. There’s Duhon, the dumb but friendly Southerner, Kulzinski, the brawny Pole, Dean, the third-generation Army brat, Marco, the tough Texan, Gordon, the wet-behind-the-ears Lieutenant, and Brown, the token black. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen all these guys in a John Wayne movie or three. Oh, right, Wayne’s there too, playing the cowboy sharpshooter.

The dialogue is wordy, freighted with needless backfill, and just plain corny. Here are a couple of example quotes:

Lt. Gordon: “I know we’re still in shock over losing Sgt. Kramer. But we’ve got a job to do. Now I know I’m just a kid out of college, and that my joining the Army to try to make the world safer may seem a little goofy to you. But we all agree we have to succeed here.”

Capt. Kirkwood: “There’s a good chance one of those cavalry gun trucks could get ambushed and pinned down. If that happens, I want you to treat it like a downed helicopter, understand? We are not going to lose another one of those men. You drop everything until those soldiers are saved. That’s what we do for other Americans who risk their lives with us.”

These wingnut guys are all living out their Hollywood war fantasies. It’s pathetic.

Here’s the story told in a more relevant way:

The documentary [Soundtrack To War]is simply a series of interviews with soldiers about the CDs they’ve brought with them to Iraq and which ones they prefer to play when they roll out on a mission. Turns out, every Humvee, Bradley fighting vehicle, and Abrams tank is wired in such a way that it’s easy to hook a CD Walkman up to the internal sound system that each soldier hears in his or her headphones. And though it’s an open secret that the military’s own psy-ops folks are partial to AC/DC as a means to psych up their troops for battle, there don’t appear to be any official regulations regarding what a tank commander can and can’t play. Both 50 Cent and Jay-Z turned out to be popular among rap-loving crews; here the filmmakers might have asked how the military brass feels about the message of some of 50’s rougher raps. Among those in the know, Mystikal was a favorite because he himself is a former military man. One white private turned out to be a big fan of Jay-Z because he’s from the same part of Brooklyn and The Black Album reminds him of home. (I did find myself wondering whether psy-ops distinguish between pre– and post–Bon Scott AC/DC: though Scott’s “Highway to Hell” would have to be high on anyone’s list of kick-ass rock and roll, the post-Scott albums Back in Black and For Those About To Rock are more explosive. I’m sure they’ll be convening a committee to recommend regulations on the use of AC/DC any day now.)

More typical are the tank crews who blast new metal by the likes of Drowning Pool with lyrics like “Let the bodies hit the floor,” drums that sound like artillery explosions, and shrapnel-spraying guitars set to hard-hitting martial rhythms.

[…]

The most disturbing part of Soundtrack to War is the revelation of how closely rolling out into a tank battle resembles playing a tank-battle video game. With Drowning Pool blasting through the headphones, the gunner targeting the enemy with a joystick on a digital computer screen, and “smart” ammo directing the shell to its target before the enemy even knows he’s under attack, you get a real sense of how life imitates art in the confines of an Abrams tank. The experience is depersonalizing in a way that doesn’t prepare the average soldier to deal with the reality of blown-apart bodies once he or she emerges from the tank.

Now that’s interesting. Retread comic book dialog from episodes of “Combat” in 1963 isn’t interesting. It’s so typical of conservatives to be culturally stuck in their grandparents era. It’s always been like that. When I was a kid they were talking about getting a malted down at the olde soda shoppe while the rest of us were getting stoned. (Not that we wouldn’t have greatly enjoyed a malted down at the soda shop under those circumstances, but you get the picture.)

This guy has gone on to advise the president of the United States about domestic policy, which he seems highly qualified to do. He’s a comic book writer for a cartoon administration.

None of this should be construed as a put down of comics or graphic novels in general. It’s this comic I’m dissing.

Hat tip to a reader. You know who you are. I lost your email.

.

Erosion Of Powers

by digby

This dailyKos diary by Captain Doug linking to to my earlier post led me to an interesting document that I haven’t come across before.

As we contemplate why Joe Klein the DLCers and the rest of the Democratic establishment are stuck in 1972 mode, petrified of the “angry left” and worried sick that we are going to scare away the real Americans, take a look at this FBI report:

May 9, 1968

Our Nation is undergoing an era of disruption and violence caused to a large extent by various individuals generally connected with the New Left. Some of these activists urge revolution in America and call for the defeat of the United States in Vietnam. They continually and falsely allege police brutality and do not hesitate to utilize unlawful acts to further their so-called causes. The New Left has on many occasions viciously and scurrilously attacked the Director and the Bureau in an attempt to hamper our investigation of it and to drive us off the college campuses. With this in mind, it is our recommendation that a new Counterintelligence Program be designed to neutralize the New Left and the Key Activists. The Key Activists are those individuals who are the moving forces behind the New Left and on whom we have intensified our investigations.

The replies to the Bureau’s request have been analyzed and it is felt that the following suggestions can for counterintelligence action can be utilized by all offices.

1. Preparation of a leaflet designed to counteract the impression that Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) and other minority groups speak for the majority of students at universities. The leaflet should contain photographs of New Left leadership at the respective university. Naturally, the most obnoxious pictures should be used.

2. The instigating of or the taking advantage of personal conflicts or animosities existing between New Left leaders.

3. The creating of impressions that certain New Left leaders are informants for the Bureau or other law enforcement agencies.

4. The use of articles from student newspapers and/or the “underground press” to show the depravity of New Left leaders and members. In this connection, articles showing advocation of the use of narcotics and free sex are ideal to send to university officials, wealthy donors, members of the legislature and parents of students who are active in New Left matters.

5. Since the use of marijuana and other narcotics is widespread among members of the New Left, you should be alert to opportunities to have them arrested by local authorities on drug charges.

6. The drawing up of anonymous letters regarding individuals active in the New Left. These letters should set out their activities and should be sent to their parents, neighbors and the parents’ employers.

7. Anonymous mailings should be made to university officials, members of the state legislature, Board of Regents, and to the press. Such letters could be signed “A Concerned Alumni” or “A Concerned Taxpayer.” [emphasis added]

8. Whenever New Left groups engage in disruptive activities on college campuses, cooperative press contacts should be encouraged to emphasize that the disruptive elements constitute a minority of the students and do not represent the conviction of the majority. The press should demand an immediate referendum on the issue in question.

9. There is a definite hostility among SDS and other New Left groups toward the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA), and the Progressive Labor Party (PLP). This hostility should be exploited wherever possible.

10. The field was previously advised that New Left groups are attempting to open coffeehouses near military bases in order to influence members of the Armed Forces. Whereever these coffeehouses are, friendly news media should be alerted to them and their purpose. In addition, various drugs, such as marijuana, will probably be utilized by individuals running the coffeehouses or frequenting them. Local law enforcement authorities should be promptly advised whenever you receive an indication that this is being done.

11. Consider the use of cartoons, photographs, and anonymous letters which will have the effect of riduculing the New Left. Ridicule is one of the most potent weapons which we can use against it.

12. Be alert for opportunities to confuse and disrupt New Left activities by misinformation. For example, when events are planned, notification that the event has been cancelled or postponed could be sent to various individuals. Director to All Field Offices, July 5, 1968

I’m sure this had nothing to do with why the “silent majority” voted Republican. Nor does it have anything to do with why Joe “gag me with a spoon” Klein is so hostile to liberalism even today or why the Democrats in washington scurry at the slightest conflict. It’s not like they could have been played by a disinformation campaign that became conventional wisdom, right?

This report is also a good reminder of why some of us don’t trust the FBI to be the good guys in these political battles and why we think there should be pretty strict separation of powers and very strong oversight. Police agencies have a tendency to forget their limitations. And so do presidents:

CHENEY: All right. But in 34 years, I have repeatedly seen an erosion of the powers and the ability of the president of the United States to do his job. We saw it in the War Powers Act. We saw it in the Budget Anti-Impoundment Act. We’ve seen it in cases like this before, where it’s demanded that presidents cough up and compromise on important principles.

ROBERTS: And they always do.

CHENEY: Exactly, and that’s wrong.

ROBERTS: So in the end, it always comes out anyway, so why…

CHENEY: It’s wrong. And–well, but the…

ROBERTS: … go through this agony?

CHENEY: Because the net result of that is to weaken the presidency and the vice presidency.

And one of the things that I feel an obligation, and I know the president does too, because we talked about it, is to pass on our offices in better shape than we found them to our successors. We are weaker today as an institution because of the unwise compromises that have been made over the last 30 to 35 years.

That was in January of 2002. Cheney has been upfront about this from the get. He believed that the nation was better served when someone like Nixon could do whatever he wanted. He believes that the FBI should be able to do what he thinks is necessary to “protect” to country from people like me.

He just simply believes that the presidency should be more powerful than the other two branches (as long as a Republican occupies it, of course. Let’s not kid ourselves about that):

December 21, 2005

ABOARD AIR FORCE TWO — Vice President Dick Cheney yesterday said President Bush is aggressively consolidating the powers of the presidency, reversing a weakening of the office dating back more than 30 years.

“We’ve been able to restore the legitimate authority of the presidency,” he told reporters after inspecting earthquake-relief efforts in Pakistan.

Mr. Cheney, who was President Ford’s chief of staff, said “an erosion of presidential power and authority” emerged during that era but that the pendulum has now “swung back.”

“At the end of the Nixon administration, you had the nadir of the modern presidency in terms of authority and legitimacy,” he said. “There have been a number of limitations that have been imposed in the aftermath of Vietnam and Watergate.”

He said the Bush administration has reversed that trend in a variety of ways, ranging from its successful fight to keep secret the deliberations of its energy task force to its muscular assertion of authority at home and abroad in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks.

“We’ve been very active and very aggressively defending the nation and using the tools at our disposal to do that,” he said.

[…]

Speaking to reporters while flying from Pakistan to Oman, the vice president also suggested that the strengthening of the presidency is not finished. He noted that no president has eliminated the War Powers Act, which he said “many people believe is unconstitutional.”

“That was an infringement on the authority of the president,” he said. “It’s never been tested. It will be tested at some point.”

Again he’s totally candid. He did it, he believes he has the right to do it and the fact that war protestors or political dissidents are being monitored is a feature not a bug.

And about that disinformation and propaganda, I think we have a little hint about where that’s going in this era as well:

Bush ‘planted fake news stories on American TV’

Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies’ products.

Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items.

[…]

The range of VNR is wide. Among items provided by the Bush administration to news stations was one in which an Iraqi-American in Kansas City was seen saying “Thank you Bush. Thank you USA” in response to the 2003 fall of Baghdad. The footage was actually produced by the State Department, one of 20 federal agencies that have produced and distributed such items.

As far back as 1968 they were doing this in other forms and I have little doubt that among their many lies they are spreading disinformation about the left today as well. Cheney sees the GWOT as equivalent to the Cold War (or maybe the War of the Worlds.) He sees nothing wrong with expanding the police powers of the executive branch as far as he thinks necessary.

Keep your eyes wide open for signs of the kind of program outlined above against the New Left. Everything old is new again.

If you have an interest in seeing Richard Pryor’s FBI file you can see it here. He was a very serious threat to the nation, you know. He made people like Dick Cheney feel all wierd. You can understand why it was important for the government to keep tabs on him.

.