Skip to content

Contrast and compare

At the Washington Monthly Steve Benen writes about the fact that the right may be opposing Sotomayor out of a generation old sense of grievance about the confirmation battles involving Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. He suggests they take the advice that they, including Scalia, have given us about Bush v. Gore: get over it.

This may be yet another of the stark differences between the Republicans and Democrats that make it into the seat of power. Perhaps due to their affiliation with elephants, Republicans never forget. For reasons completely inexplicable, Democrats never remember. As Krugman has been pointing out lately, Democrats seem to qualify as insane, if one accepts the definition that one is insane if one continually does the same thing expecting a different result. In the case of the Democrats, they have been continually trying to “compromise” with a group that has no interest in reaching agreements, and, even worse, leading with what they consider to be a reasonable compromise position instead of starting with a strong initial position and bargaining from there. And let’s not forget about the fact that, unlike those of us on the outside, Democrats in Washington “got over” the stolen 2000 election before Bush was even inaugurated. If the Democrats were the opposition in Iran, the country would be quiescent today.


Mark Who?

What has a shorter attention span than the American Media?

Give up?

Nothing, and nobody.

A few minutes ago my wife and I finished last night’s Daily Show/Colbert. We were about to turn our attention to Keith Olbermann, which was being saved to my hard drive as we watched Jon and Stephen. (That way we can speed through the commercials)

A digression: I consider the Daily Show and Colbert, especially Colbert, to be fine journalism, albeit of the satirical variety. I freely admit that I watch Keith for the guilty pleasure of having my own opinions validated. We lefties waited a long time for someone to pander to us, and now that there’s someone doing it, we might as well enjoy it.

Back to the main event. Where was I? Let’s see. O, right. Short attention spans.

So, there we were, settling in to watch Keith skewer Mark Sanford some more, but alas, Sanford is so yesterday. Much to Sanford’s probable delight, yesterday’s all Sanford all the time media has morphed into today’s all Michael Jackson all the time-really all the time- media. So far as I could see as I sped through the spooled portion of the show (including the last 15 minutes of “Hardball”), there were no stories to count down. There was only one story: the death of a very bizarre, albeit hugely talented performer. Apparently Farrah Fawcett has been lost in the undertow.

So, exit Mark Sanford, stage right (at least I assume he’d exit stage right, given his choice). Sanford himself had driven Iran from the public consciousness, or at least the media consciousness.

And so it goes. If our media was a child it would be on Ritalin.


An act of will

At times like this I realize my inadequacies as a wordsmith. What original slant could one possibly bring to the Sanford story? Sure, we all know that you couldn’t make it up, but that doesn’t help a guy in my situation. As I write, the story is already over 5 hours old, and in this internet age that’s an eon. Everything that could possibly be said has been said, except no one has yet said what will surely come out in the next day or two, which everyone will agree, once it comes out, could also not be made up.

One has to wonder where the tipping point is. Fairly or not, there’s getting to be a presumption that your average Catholic priest is a pedophile. After all, numbers don’t lie. At what point will the presumption arise in the public mind that every right wing holier than thou politician is breaking the sixth commandment, not to mention, in some cases, some strictures from Leviticus (see, e.g., Larry Craig).

But perhaps we should feel a bit of sympathy for Sanford. It can’t be is this is the level of enthusiasm you manage to evoke in your wife, who had this to say about her hubbie:

I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will…

That called to mind this colloquy from the Gondoliers (Gilbert & Sullivan, you see-I brought music in without mentioning Evita) among the Duke and Duchess of Plaza-Toro and their daughter, Casilda, the subject being Casilda’s upcoming arranged marriage:

CAS. Well, whatever happens, I shall, of course, be a dutiful wife, but I can never love my husband.

DUKE. I don’t know. It’s extraordinary what unprepossessing people one can love if one gives one’s mind to it.

DUCH. I loved your father.

DUKE. My love–that remark is a little hard, I think? Rather cruel, perhaps? Somewhat uncalled-for, I venture to believe?

DUCH. It was very difficult, my dear; but I said to myself, “That man is a Duke, and I will love him.” Several of my relations bet me I couldn’t, but I did–desperately!

But it probably would take an effort of will to love a guy who could write this sort of drivel:

You have a particular grace and calm that I adore. You have a level of sophistication that so fitting with your beauty. I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificent gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curve of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of the night’s light – but hey, that would be going into sexual details…

And yes, that last line is really in his emails to his Argentinean inamorato.

Sounds like the Duchess has nothing on Sanford’s wife, since the Duchess had a much easier task.


It’s all about us

Tom Tomorrow puts it succinctly, as always.


Human Nature

According to Thinkprogress, Joe Scarborough has taken John McCain and Lindsay Graham to task for criticizing Obama’s hands off approach to the Iranian situation:

SCARBOROUGH: All we would do is undermine those people in the street, who the second that they are attached to the United States of America, the country after all that’s been known in Iran as the great Satan since 1979, we will undermine their cause … It’s so shortsighted I find it stunning. […]

What would John McCain and Lindsey Graham specifically have the president say? All of those people that are emailing in and telling me that I’m being liberal? Oh really? I’m being liberal? No I think it’s called restraint. Showing a little bit of restraint. Looking at the battlefield in front of you and not just running up Pickett’s Charge and getting gunned down. If you want to feel good about yourself — and you can only feel good about yourself by screaming about the evils of Iran — fine do that. But our leaders in Washington don’t need to do that because people will be routed in the street the second they are identified with the United States of America.

With all of which I heartily agree. But this post is not about Iran, it is about a somewhat irrational implied argument.

Now, Thinkprogress is a “progressive” site. Normally, it disagrees with Joe Scarborough. But the implied argument here is as follows: We normally disagree with Scarborough. If even he agrees with our position we must be right.

Now, this is something we all do. Left or right, it makes no difference. If a conservative finds him or herself on the same page as Teddy Kennedy, they will cite that agreement as proof positive of the justice of their position. For, after all, if even Teddy Kennedy (or Joe Sarbourough) can see the light….

In truth, this line of argument is totally illogical. If I believe that Joe Scarborough is usually wrong, then it stands to reason that I should re-examine my position if I occasionally find myself in agreement with him. After all, if he is usually wrong, there is a high probability that when he agrees with me, it is my position that is wrong, and not he that is right. But no one thinks that way. If we find ourself with a position in common with an ideological foe, we trumpet that fact as proof positive of the correctness of our position.

I should hasten to add that Scarborough happens to be right in this particular situation, not only in his position, but in the reasons he gives for his position.

For those with doubts, recall a little American history. Just before the 2004 election, Osama bin Laden issued a stern warning to the American people, warning them not to re-elect George Bush. The pundits, like the idiots they are, interpreted this as an endorsement of Kerry. The CIA, and the Bush people knew better of course. Osama, who is depraved but not stupid, knew that an attack on Bush would help Bush’s re-election campaign. Since Bush was the gift that kept on giving as far as Al Qaeda was concerned, and since Osama knew that his words would be taken at face value by the stupid American media, Osama made his endorsement in the way that he did. Obama doesn’t have the luxury to play the reverse psychology gambit, since the Republicans would skewer him at home, and because the government of Iran is very likely not as stupid as the American people or the American media. But an outright endorsement of the protestors would be seized upon by the Iranian government in just the same way as Osama’s “endorsement” of Kerry was seized on by the Republicans, except that it would be used as an excuse to not just discredit, but to oppress, the opposition. It’s not logical to argue that if even Joe Scarborough can see that, it must be true, but if even Joe Scarborough can see that, it must be true.


A silver lining to every cloud

Thanks to my sister for sending me this.


Sunday Book Review

Be warned. This is long and I’m not sure it’s worth the reading, but I enjoyed writing it, so what the heck.

Most of the books I read concern events that happened a long long time ago, if not far away. Thus, they are not really appropriate for comment on this blog. The book I just finished, Idiot America, by Charles P. Pierce, as the name implies, is strictly concerned with current events. No one with an ounce of historical perspective could deny that while idiocy has always had a place in America, it has reached its apogee in the here and now.

So, one might argue that Pierce has an easy job-no barreled fish is easier to hit than an Idiot in America. They are, after all, everywhere. But Pierce makes reading about them a pleasure. This book is Al Gore’s The Assault on Reason, salted by the outrage and mockery that Gore could not have employed. It’s a fun read throughout.

You might say that this is a book length meditation on a concept that Stephen Colbert brilliantly reduced to a single word: truthiness.

Pierce is not the first person to notice that the the notion of truth has become a malleable concept in this country. The very people who otherwise think in absolutes are the most likely to treat truth as a relative term, determined not by resort to objective provable fact, but to belief. In this country, Pierce correctly asserts, a firmly held belief (provided, usually, that it is grounded in Christian doctrine or some other creed, such as capitalism, entitled to unquestioning respect) is accorded equal status with provable fact. Thus, creationism and evolutionary theory are entitled to equal credence and equal treatment, because creationists vociferously assert their belief, and therefore are entitled to respect. But it goes one step further. It isn’t really even necessary for one side to have a deeply felt belief; it is enough that they pretend to believe convincingly though cynically. Thus, we give credence to the absurd charge that Sadaam was in league with Osama, or to the assertion that the verdict is not in on global warming. It’s not that facts don’t matter, it’s just that facts are not entitled to any precedence. Moreover, as Pierce points out, the traditional American skepticism of experts and intellectuals has been put to good use by the idiots. The fact that one is an expert in a given field is now positive evidence that the opinion of that person should be ignored. Put another way, we have promoted anyone who speaks loudly and emphatically about a subject to the status of expert, on an equal par with someone who has actually spent a lifetime studying the subject. Thus, Sean Hannity can qualify as an expert on stem cell research, or anything else about which he chooses to pontificate. (Cue Gilbert & Sullivan: “If everyone is somebody , then no one’s anybody” ) Of more moment, self styled neocon “experts”, who had no real understanding of the mid-East situation, trumped the real experts who insisted that a Sadaam-Osama connection did not exist. Fervent belief, or fervent pretending trumped the facts, both within the Administration and within the punditry. According to Pierce, discussion of issues degenerates into something like team sports, with partisans on both sides taking positions based on faith.

The book is a polemic, so Pierce can be forgiven a little exaggeration, but I do think he does underestimate the intelligence of the American people. (Yes, I can hear P.T. Barnum laughing) A lot of them are idiots, but not as many as the folks who lead them are wont to believe. In his treatment of the Schiavo case, for instance, he neglects to point out that while the Democrats in Congress largely scurried to protect their right flanks, the American people, once aware of the situation, were immediately, forcefully, and overwhelmingly non-idiotic. It was the beginning of the end of the Bush presidency and Republican ascendance. Yes, we are often idiots, but we are not nearly as idiotic as the Democrats assume us to be, or the Republicans want us to be.

Pierce is particularly effective when he writes about the victims of idiot America: the Native American inhabitants of the Alaskan town of Shishmaref, situated on a barrier reef island slowly being destroyed as a consequence of global warming, whose governor does not believe it is happening; or the employees of the hospice in which Terry Schiavo died, who were subjected to harassment ranging from the absurd-a subpoena from Congress to produce the brain dead Schiavo so she could testify about her wish to live- to the terrifying-death threats and other abuse. Of course, in a larger sense we are all victims. For example, if the Republicans have their way they will kill heath care legislation once again by endlessly repeating talking points that will be exceeding truthy, and exceedingly untrue. If history repeats itself, and it will, the truthy and the true will be given equal standing in the national debate, with a tie going once again to the truthy.

At times Pierce asserts that this is a game both sides play-and no doubt there have been folks on the left that have dabbled in truthiness- but in fact at the present time the willingness to cater to, and act like, idiots is a right wing phenomenon. At worst, the Democrats meekly cower in fear at the prospect of the idiot masses (who are still, when all is said, a minority among us). The true idiots, as Pierce demonstrates, are the members of the various groups that form the Republican base and a goodly share of the Republicans in Congress.

Pierce argues for an American exceptionalism-there are idiots elsewhere, but nowhere else are they treated with such deference and respect. I think that’s a bit of a stretch. Any culture in which “faith” is put on a par with fact will exhibit similar patterns of behavior. Europe is less idiotic now because Europe has, at least for the moment, lost faith in faith. But where faith is strong, similar forces will be at play. In today’s Times, for instance, we learn that neither side in Iran is concerned with facts any longer. They believe what they believe, evidence be damned and their positions are hardening. As in America, the two sides are losing their ability to talk to each other.

The book is an indictment. Other than a call for a return to reason, interwoven with a well deserved tribute to that most reasonable of the Founders, James Madison, Pierce offers no prescription. It’s not clear that there is one. Obama actually appears to be a guy who is more or less determined to act in a rational manner, idiots be damned. We’ll see how it works out.

As a sidenote, this book seems to embody a trend I’ve noticed lately-bad editing. Maybe it’s an over reliance on computers-spell check, etc. I know from experience that after I’ve worked on something for awhile I start seeing what I think I wrote, rather than what I did write. I have my secretary read my legal briefs so she can catch that sort of stuff. In Idiot America there are words misplaced, or misused (“literal” instead of “literally”) and sadly, for a book arguing for reliance on fact, glaring factual errors. For instance, the date Joe Wilson wrote his column in the Times is off by a year, and the date Andrew Bacevich, Jr. died in Iraq is off by five. These are obvious typos, but isn’t that what editors are for?

UPDATE: Corrected the name of Al Gore’s book. Sorry about that.


Stating the obvious, take 2

It is inconceivable to me that there is anyone out there who disagrees with Obama’s response to the Iranian election and the subsequent unrest. It seems so obvious that the folks in power there would just love to tar the opposition as American pawns.In fact, they are already forcing people to confess to being agents of foreign powers. Those Republicans that are insisting on a more aggressive approach are grandstanding for the home crowd. One must wonder if there is anything they wouldn’t do to destroy Obama.


Friday Night Music-Marvin Gaye

As best as I can determine, I haven’t posted Marvin before. I can’t imagine why.


A loss for Groton

Over the course of the last 40 years or so great chunks of Groton have been preserved for posterity as Open Space. Lots of folks were involved in the various efforts to preserve the many parcels that have been saved, but one person was central to them all.

Groton owes a huge debt of gratitude to Priscilla Pratt, who has quietly but determinedly led the efforts of the Groton Open Space Association (or its forebears) for those 40 odd years.

Priscilla would set out to preserve a threatened property, and against all odds, she would succeed, time and again. Many a developer left Groton in frustration, having seen a proposal die the death of a thousand cuts at Priscilla’s hands.

Never daunted, never deterred, often unfairly derided, as soon as she saved one piece she set her sights on another.

Last night at the Town Committee meeting Andy Maynard told us that Priscilla died recently. Many people in Groton don’t know her name, but each and every one has been benefitted by her work. Not too many people have had the quiet impact that Priscilla has had on her community. She leaves behind many hundreds of acres of preserved space as her memorial. During her life she deflected attempts to honor her for her work; now that she’s gone it is certainly fitting that one of the properties she saved by named in her honor.

Below are some pictures of Haley Farm State Park and some of its inhabitants, the first property that Priscilla saved, which would, if not for her and her brother, Mort Wright, now be filled with Coast Guard housing.