<$BlogRSDURL$>

Ramblings From the Ragged Crumbling Edge Of The Reality-Based Community

Friday, February 25, 2005

THE SLIME ALSO RISES

...one of the aspects of politics that has made me a junkie for all my adult life is the gamesmanship. It's all well and good for some pretty boy candidate to stand under the bright lights and rattle off all the things he's going to do if elected, but the real game, the speed, is in the background behind the stage where you do the nuts-and-bolts work, matching wits with the opponent in trying to make your candidate and your message more attractive than the opponents. A little cleverness and monkey-wrenching is sometimes called for, and that's part of the fun. Not stealing the other guy's yard signs or breaking into his National Political Headquarters; the first is cheesy and juvenile and the second can get you impeached. There are other, more clever games to play revolving around the message that require brains rather than muscle and still allow a person of average moral clarity to get to sleep at night. The worm has been turning over the last several years; cleverness has been replaced in many instances by simple brutal lying, which certainly isn't a new thing but wasn't really a primary tactic until Karl Rove decided to teach us a thing or two about campaigning. The poster child case-study, of course, was the Georgia Senate campaign between noted Republican Draft Avoider Saxby Chamblis and Democratic incumbent Max Cleland, who came home from Viet Nam without an arm and both legs. One of the Chamblis ads that received wide play challenged Cleland's patriotism and diligence against terror while showing his face morphing back and forth with that of Osama bin Laden. It was brutal and ugly, not to mention remarkably audacious for a fella who grabbed at deferment opportunities like a drowning man to avoid his opportunity to display patriotism when it was presented, but at least it was vaguely on-topic (although the ad misrepresented Cleland's position, which in itself is fair game to a point). Some stuff completely crosses the line, however, and the following picture is a perfect example:



...and thanks to Daily Kos for the photo link...

...this little gem was cooked up the same folks that were the brains behind the infamous Swift Boat Veterans of the last election and who apparently are now the brains behind some sleazeball outfit called USA Next, which is trying to style itself as some sort of conservative alternative to the American Association of Retired Persons but actually seems, if one were to visit it's web site (no link here; you can do that on your own time), almost completely geared to trashing the AARP. The story line is fascinating: the AARP is concerned about the President's Social Security proposal and generally in opposition what little has been heard so far; the administration, working through the Swift...er, excuse me..USA Next, wants to lay the wood to the AARP to get them to step into line, so this little trial balloon internet ad sees the light of day throwing a bit of way-off-topic slander-mud at the old folks just to slip them a hint about how tough it could get. Now, keep in mind that these parties were recently allies; AARP was a significant force behind the passage of Gee Dub's disastrous and profoundly expensive Medicare drug plan. If nothing else, the AARP is learning a valuable lesson as to the degree of compassion and loyalty that the Bush administration accords to those who support it on a given issue and how much they will tolerate honest disagreement...

...as to the ad itself, somebody has obviously chosen to give up their place in line on the path to glory. It is inconceivable that someone who claims such devout Christian faith and calls Jesus his primary philosopher would tolerate such behavior anywhere in his proximity, but we've talked before both here and at Ruminate This about some of those same vexing contradictions. Suffice it to say that the forces behind this absurd simplistic mud-slinging attempt have failed the stray dog test (stray dog and subject in question lie injured and barely visible in the travel lane of a busy high-speed evening-time street; which do you save first?). Repudiation is easy from the progressive side; what really needs to be done is to publicly force legislative and executive Republicans in D.C. to repudiate this mess also. Up or down vote: either you publicly and forcefully reject this sort of sleaze or, by your silence, accept and embrace it. Pick choice A and everything will be ok; pick choice B and you will see this again in your next reelection campaign and be afforded the opportunity to explain to all those actively voting AARP members just why you think they don't support the troops but are big fans of gay marriage...

...that's the kind of campaign fun I like to see...
Posted by: Jack K. / 7:57 AM 0 comments

Thursday, February 24, 2005

SCREWS LOOSE IN THE LIBRARY

...Crossposted at Ruminate This...

...courtesy of Hugo at Hugo Zoom, we're led to the American Library Association's list of the Top 10 Challenged Books of 2004. The usual culprits can be found on the list, targets of objections by watchdogs unsure of their - and, apparently, my - skills and abilities as parents, anxious to sanitize their - and, apparently, my - children's literary landscapes of any sort of evil seed that might germinate in their developing little brains and, somewhere down the road, lead them to run off to the big city and become the service staff in a gay biker bar or pole-dancers in some gentleman's club. Issues of language, sexual content, and homosexuality end up, therefore, as popular targets for challenges, so things like "the Chocolate War", "What My Mother Doesn't Know", and "I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings" are unsurprising entries....but then we have Captain Underpants...

...it makes one pause for a moment. Not only did the cartoon alter-ego of Principle Krupp in Dav Pilkey's strange little fantasy world make it onto the list, it received the fourth-highest number of complaints, because of it's offensive language (apparently some sensitive souls blanche in the face of such foul lingo as "poop" or variations and permutations of body-function jokes) and the "modeling of bad behavior", which presumably refers to the trouble in which the series' protagonists, George and Harold, find themselves on occasion. These delicate flowers had best steer clear of Bill Watterson's archives; if they have a problem with Captain Underpants, they would probably require hospitalization with even meager exposure to Calvin and Hobbs, an unabashed celebration of reckless, inappropriate, and downright bad behavior once openly available in newspapers all across the country...

...this is Teletubbies land, a twisted revisitation to the discussion of Spongebob Squarepant's sexual orientation, only this time there is no indication that Bill O'Reilly is going to ride to the rescue. What little harm that may come from the exposure to a bit of elementary-school-level potty humor (as if the little darlin's aren't going to get a good dose of it every day at school anyway) is far outweighed by the interest it sparks in untold numbers of children to actually pick up a book and read it. My younger child, a capable but uninspired reader, fell in love with Captain Underpants with a fervor only previously seen during the early flush of Harry Pottermania; the Underpants series represents the first time he actually picked up a book of any substance to read for recreational purposes. Books like this are stepping stones to the development of a behavior far more important than concern over some sorts of fart jokes that are, in any case, more tame than the kinds of things he's going to hear at school anyway. Objections to this sort of literature say more about the general cluelessness of the objectors than it does about the qualities of the material...

...banning books from libraries is always dangerous ground on which to trod. As Hugo points out, there are certainly books that don't need to be made available to the school-aged crowd for various reasons. The line eventually needs to be drawn, however, when conservatives want to ban from circulation books that violate their personal sensibilities, playing their bizarre but typical "father knows best" gambit to rob from others the right to decide on behalf of their own children what is and isn't appropriate, manifested by efforts to ban works like "Of Mice and Men" or "Huckleberry Finn" or any one of the Harry Potter books (although, in fairness, it should be noted that some complaints about those first two actually come from the liberal side of the fulcrum). Efforts to deny circulation of a book over purely personal objections is simple raw censorship; in fact, on my grumpier days I can even twist it into custodial interference (raise your kids any damned way you want, but don't be telling me how to raise mine. You don't want your kid to read "Harry Potter and The Goblet of Fire? Fine; I do.). The secret decoder-ring password of the day is "vigilance"; efforts by those with a particular political or philosophical mindset to pull books from the shelves because of their personal views need to be detected and combated at every turn, or otherwise we might as well wheel-barrow everything out the door and replace it all with the complete Archie Comic Book collection, with maybe a couple of Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew mysteries thrown in for chapter-book experience...

...one does have to wonder, however: what would John Steinbeck think if he knew that an underpants-wearing cartoon superhero received more complaints for being a bit too edgy than did his own epic novel? A nasty shock like that might just make a guy want to give back his Nobel Medallion...

UPDATE
...Hugo reminded me in the Comments section about the t-shirts. I forgot about the t-shirts. You can support the ALA by purchasing one (or two or maybe five) of their "Banned Book Week" T-shirts, complete with the spiffy Captain Underpants logo on the front, by going right here...
Posted by: Jack K. / 11:02 AM 0 comments

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

TAKING THE PARTY OUT OF PARTISANSHIP

...the inability of the Oregon legislature to do much in the way of actually appearing to function as a legislative body has been, over the last several years, a secret kept only from those who don't keep up on statewide news. Among other aspects of this general failure of leadership that aren't really as good a deal as they sound, it has served its own turn in helping to fuel the occasionally wild-eyed charge to the referendum process. As a result, elections have occasionally brought the hapless voter a list of ballot measures ranging from the pressing state-wide issue to the perfectly mundane in such large numbers - more than 20 at a time on occasion - that it has been a hopeless task for any but the most engaged political wonk to begin to make heads or tails out of each and every one of the confusing little buggers. A couple of proposals are bouncing around the Oregon political landscape at the moment that proposed to make positive changes that would supposedly free the legislative process from the current dark tangle of partisanship and special interests providing so much inertia to the status quo...

...the first hot idea, from Senator Charlie Ringo, a Beaverton Democrat, would be to eliminate party affiliation from legislative seats. His proposal certainly has sufficiently sound underpinnings for its desire to attempt to bring more moderate voices to the legislature; the current closed primaries by their very nature ensure the selection of party candidates found most suitable to the increasingly rigid ideologues in the core of the two major parties. Democrats are liberal and Republicans are conservative, by golly, and anybody insisting that there isn't any difference between the candidates is either kidding, posturing, or drunk. Ringo thinks that the elimination of party designations would go a long way toward eliminating the strength of that partisanship and give moderates something closer to a level playing field. It certainly sounds like a promising idea and, if it really worked, would go a long way toward eliminating all of the bitter line-drawing that goes in these days. The strongest opposition, of course, has come from the parties themselves, typically through the argument that the parties have the right to nominate the candidates of their choices, which is true enough but itself highlights the problem that winning and majorities (even ineffective majorities, pitted against a strong Governor of the opposition party) is more important than effectively coming to grips with inadequate school financing...

...the major weakness in Ringo's proposal, which is gaining moderate support in the legislature and which he promises to make (what else??!!) a ballot measure if it doesn't fly in the House and Senate, is that it doesn't remove that partisanship from the actual process. Partys are not being banned outright and can therefore operate at the margin, giving the appropriate winks and nudges to the faithful to indicate the most ideologically acceptable candidate as well as discretely providing financing to the fair-haired favorites through the labyrinth of quasi-legal mechanisms in place today. This is where former Secretary of State Phil Keisling comes in. He is trotting around a proposal that would eliminate direct partisanship (so he says) from the electoral process by creating an open primary, where everyone, including unaffiliated or minor party voters, could vote for any candidate and the top two candidates, regardless of party affiliation, would advance to the final round of "Jepardy" in the general election...

...there is a little bit of state history to support this. A number of years ago, the Oregon Republican party, all the while proudly boasting that it - not the Democrats - was the true "Party of the People", opened up it's side of the primary ballot to unaffiliated independent voters - like me. They only did this once, mind you, perhaps discontinuing the practice after discovering that unaffiliated independent voters (like me), having nothing better to do with their time, occasionally had the tendency to attempt to bring new blood, new faces, new ideas into the electoral process by voting exclusively for women (not of whom was an incumbent or the party's leading choice for any given position) or, in the absence of a female candidate, the most wild-eyed far-right-wing backwoods/radical anti-government survivalist on a given slate. I am quit proud of the strides I helped the Republican party take that year in recognizing the value of its women candidates (none of whom actually won per se, but you gotta start somewhere); this, sadly, was my only opportunity as the party decided in future elections to confining itself to being the "Party of the People Who Want to Register Republican". Aside from the 'freedom of association' objections being raised by both major parties over Keisling's proposal (and a similar effort in Washington), there probably are at both State party headquarters certain understandable reservations about letting voters like me have another crack at helping to shape the parties' future...

...both of these proposals need some fleshing out, at least in their presentation, to be able to better understand how they might fix what ails the Oregon Legislature these days. Both will probably be better spelled out in the future, since Keisling has also indicated that he may pursue a ballot measure for the open primary initiative. If nothing else, the apparent acceptance of the general outlines of each proposal by the voting public should be a wakeup call to the warring parties in the legislature that - if they want to maintain their two-party grip on the steering wheel - they might want to start exploring some attempts at bipartisanship on their own. It would probably take something far less than another week's worth of Doonesbury strips about our failing schools to stimulate us common folks to give serious consideration to changes to the way things are...
Posted by: Jack K. / 10:19 AM 0 comments

Monday, February 21, 2005

PUT-UP OR SHUT-UP TIME

...over the past several years we have seen enough of it to last a political lifetime. We have the on-going specter of Gee Dub, Mr. 43, the sneering rejector of his father's concepts of how to nurture international relationships, carrying on about bringing freedom to the world, perhaps one oil-rich national invasion at a time, while his democracy-hungering soul mate - into whose eyes he explored and found "a good man" - former KGB official and now Russian President Vladimir Putin, moves with increasing speed to eliminate such unnecessary impediments to the development of democracy as a free and independent press, political opposition, and large privately-held national corporations. Gee Dub has recently, in his State of the Union Fantasy Story, laid out a challenge to "all nations", placing freedom squarely at the center of his foreign relations policy. He will now have the opportunity to discuss these philosophies with his seemingly recalcitrant soul mate for the second time, having been steam-rolled in his first attempt...

...this is a little-acknowledged BIG MOMENT in what will become the history of the younger Bush's administration. Most reasonable observers would be more than happy to share with you in a bar their abiding fear that Putin's Russia seems to be heading back down the path toward the Soviet Union of the Good Old Days. Some don't even need a bar. Unfortunately, in our current American climate, we are dealing with an administration that won't tolerate such carrying on about the role-back of personal freedom in Russia, because to admit such a thing (or to even hint at agreement) would blow a big hole in the demigod-like aura that Karl Rove and his minions would like to construct around the myth that is George Bush, not to mention the damage that it would do to his own unearned sense of infallibility. The fact of the matter is simple: Vladdy Putin is patiently and methodically reinstalling the mechanisms of Soviet control in Russia, using whatever excuse is available to make it ok to provide a story cover when Gee Dub comes calling. In addition, Russia is happily selling arms to Syria, Gee Dub's currently unnamed co-conspirator in the Axis of Evil, and just last week reaffirmed that Russia will help Iran in the development of a nuclear power program, despite the loud insistence of the US that Iran should not be allowed into the nuclear community in any way, shape, or form (that's not exactly what we are saying, but it's what we mean)...

...maybe I read to many Tom Clancy and Dale Brown novels. This is starting to sound like the basic back-story of half a dozen novels I've gobbled down over the last decade. It's a classic: the vibrant motivated despot-wannabe hungering to bring Mother Russia back to its former glory as a world power faced off against a diffident American President unwilling to draw a line in the sand against a nominal friend in order to sufficiently defend or even articulate American interests. At their last meeting, Vladdy brow-beat Gee Dub to the point that few of the issues on our guy's discussion agenda had a chance to see daylight. Knowledgeable staffers with a long sense of history could have almost sworn that they saw Neville Chamberlain slump away from that dinner conversation to seek shelter in his US-flag bedraped limo for the quiet uncomfortable ride back to the US embassy. It may well be that the biggest national security threat that we face over the long haul is right before our eyes, clearly visible but completely unseen all at the same time...

...it's going to be really interesting to see how this next meeting between Gee Dub and his good bud Vladdy works out. There may be lots more at stake than any of us realize...
Posted by: Jack K. / 7:55 PM 0 comments

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?