Slate recently published a little piece (link) about a Thomas Hoepker 9-11 picture that Frank Rich commented on... saying the "young people" in the photo weren't "necessarily callous." The photo reads, when viewed one way, as a sign of the times. New Yorkers sitting around under the sun, taking in the destruction in the background with almost a ho-hum where-shall-we-go-for-dinner attitude. Except that Slate also found some of the people in the photo and allowed them to tell their story. (link)
As it turns out, the people in the photo were talking about the events of the day in the way that you might have been, in the way that I was. One of the subjects asks viewers to consider how a snapshot at a funeral can make mourners look as if they are attending a party. The point, of course, is well taken. How many times do we let those who wish to shape our opinions simply report the news to us without asking questions about how they are manipulating their stories? See, for example, how CNN reporter Susan Roesgen chooses to present stories on the demonization of Bush and Obama (link). One caricature is a "lookalike," the other is disrespectful.
With our current palavering pundit class, it is important always to ask what is behind the messages being produced. Who is behind the information? And don't simply take the image, or the interpretation of the image, at face value or without question. Learn to see between the lines, even in your own thinking. The next time you read something about global warming that is being espoused by some scientist or other, simply google that scientist's name. See what else he's been up to. Or listen to the way Rush Limbaugh dismisses those who call him with reasoned arguments against his opinions. Or ask yourself why, if Mr. Obama has suddenly found the power to act on the economy without the Congress's involvement, he didn't find a way to do so before we headed into election season.
Learn to ask, that is, what is behind the picture. In the thousand words that any picture represents, there are almost always two or three, or six or fifteen, different sides to the story.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
filed under: optics
Can the Occupy movement afford much of this? (link)
I think probably not.
And just a question... If they are indeed the 99%, don't the numbers themselves dictate that they may be going after wrong folks here? Or does anyone who disagrees with them, by definition, constitute the demonized 1%?
Again, I think not. I support OWS, and have here and elsewhere (link). But I do not support this kind of behavior. Nor this (link).
I think probably not.
And just a question... If they are indeed the 99%, don't the numbers themselves dictate that they may be going after wrong folks here? Or does anyone who disagrees with them, by definition, constitute the demonized 1%?
Again, I think not. I support OWS, and have here and elsewhere (link). But I do not support this kind of behavior. Nor this (link).
Friday, November 4, 2011
filed under: don't go wobbly on me now, george
In the run up to the First Gulf War, Margaret Thatcher famously stiffened George Bush's spine by telling him not to go "wobbly" when he had a moment of indecision. In a recent column in Slate, Beverly Gage wonders whether the OWS movement will have the stick-to-it-iveness to ride out the protests now that cold weather has come on (link). She is heartened to find that, one cold storm in, the movement seems resolved to continue. She then goes on to review the labor movement and draw lessons for OWS.
Like Gage, I hope the movement continues. There is talk of a national forum in Philadelphia next year, a kind of second constitutional convention. I hope it goes forward, and finds ways to meet on common ground with the Tea Party movement. I believe there is plenty of room to begin such a conversation (link). However, I hope the movement, while keeping its legs, also refrains from going Wobblie. That is, I hope the movement does not become coopted into the Big Labor movement, as Gage seems to suggest between the lines. If it does, it will become merely part of the Democrat party machinery, as the Tea Party has come dangerously close in recent days to becoming for the Republicans -- a kind of add-on that adds salt to the wound but does nothing to cure the disease.
Why do I say this? Didn't labor help us avert the kind of nationalist crises that Europe underwent during the Great Depression? Well, yes. It did. But has the labor movement come to be coopted by partisan politics? Well, of course. And worse, labor has, through those same partisan connections, rigged the system in ways that are perhaps less lucrative but no less wrong than the injustices that OWS is protesting (link) (link). And now, some union bosses are calling for OWS to become more "militant" (link) -- occupying bridges, banks, etc. (One small question, by the way... in this quote, Mr. Gerard says that since the right wing nut jobs took over the House nothing has been accomplished. I won't argue with that per se. But he also says it has been a year and a half or two years since that happened. Does he own a calendar? By my count from mid-January to today is just about ten months. Did Ed Schultz even ask about this or did he just hum in agreement, because they both know that they are "correct on the issues"?)
OWS should strive to keep itself free of those who want to march in its parades only in order to line their pockets and fund their re-elections and take credit for their anger. Chris Hedges has the right idea (link). If the Tea Party and OWS allow themselves be sucked up into the parties that have been the driving forces (along with corporations) behind the problems they protest, they will ultimately show themselves no better than those hypocritical partisan players that weeble when they wobble... and we don't want that. It's time to knock the bastards down.
Like Gage, I hope the movement continues. There is talk of a national forum in Philadelphia next year, a kind of second constitutional convention. I hope it goes forward, and finds ways to meet on common ground with the Tea Party movement. I believe there is plenty of room to begin such a conversation (link). However, I hope the movement, while keeping its legs, also refrains from going Wobblie. That is, I hope the movement does not become coopted into the Big Labor movement, as Gage seems to suggest between the lines. If it does, it will become merely part of the Democrat party machinery, as the Tea Party has come dangerously close in recent days to becoming for the Republicans -- a kind of add-on that adds salt to the wound but does nothing to cure the disease.
Why do I say this? Didn't labor help us avert the kind of nationalist crises that Europe underwent during the Great Depression? Well, yes. It did. But has the labor movement come to be coopted by partisan politics? Well, of course. And worse, labor has, through those same partisan connections, rigged the system in ways that are perhaps less lucrative but no less wrong than the injustices that OWS is protesting (link) (link). And now, some union bosses are calling for OWS to become more "militant" (link) -- occupying bridges, banks, etc. (One small question, by the way... in this quote, Mr. Gerard says that since the right wing nut jobs took over the House nothing has been accomplished. I won't argue with that per se. But he also says it has been a year and a half or two years since that happened. Does he own a calendar? By my count from mid-January to today is just about ten months. Did Ed Schultz even ask about this or did he just hum in agreement, because they both know that they are "correct on the issues"?)
OWS should strive to keep itself free of those who want to march in its parades only in order to line their pockets and fund their re-elections and take credit for their anger. Chris Hedges has the right idea (link). If the Tea Party and OWS allow themselves be sucked up into the parties that have been the driving forces (along with corporations) behind the problems they protest, they will ultimately show themselves no better than those hypocritical partisan players that weeble when they wobble... and we don't want that. It's time to knock the bastards down.
filed under: fathers be good to your daughters
The viral video of Texas Judge William Adams beating his 16-year old daughter shows parental behavior that is reprehensible (link). There is nothing that can justify such behavior. The fact that this man will likely not be prosecuted due to a statute of limitations (link) should not preclude him from losing his position on the bench. He sits in judgment of child abuse cases. How can a man who so clearly is willing to let his temper loose and terrorize his own family make judgments about the actions of others? We should not hold our public servants and officials to a higher standard than the law requires, but we can at least expect them to obey the laws that they enforce on the people. Anyone who would rationalize his behavior (and from the comments, there are plenty who would) is simply wrong-headed.
Like so many in my generation, I grew up with the belt. Like some parents, I have given the occasional swat on the behind to my own children with my hand. But never in anger and not for years. It has simply been uncessary. In this one video, this man doles out more than my children have experienced in their entire lives, combined. But they have had a swat or two on the rarest of occasions. I admit to this here merely to indicate that I don't want to be a hypocrite and suggest there should be a total abstention from any particular form of "disciplining." As with the use of weapons in war, when dealing with other nations, we should have everything on the table, if only so that we do not have to use everything.
This impulse to beat a child comes from a bliblical view that revolves around the notion that when you spare the rod you spoil the child. An eye for an eye and all of that. While I am not entirely opposed to the use of force in circumstances where it is warranted, it is high time we put away our medieval notions of public justice and family rearing and realize that an example of good behavior is far more effective than a threat to punish bad. Train up a child in the way that he should go? You don't get there by first telling the child that if she doesn't listen to you and obey your commandments, you will "hit her in the fucking face" with a belt. And you don't let men who make such threats sit in judgments of our laws and ourselves. Whether it be policemen spraying pepper spray in the faces of protestors or politicians sitting on tax committees who do not pay their taxes... or judges sending people to jail for beating children when they themselves do the same... we should not accept this in a civil society. Fathers be good to your daughters... people who live in glass house shouldn't throw stones... there's a reason those things resonate.
Like so many in my generation, I grew up with the belt. Like some parents, I have given the occasional swat on the behind to my own children with my hand. But never in anger and not for years. It has simply been uncessary. In this one video, this man doles out more than my children have experienced in their entire lives, combined. But they have had a swat or two on the rarest of occasions. I admit to this here merely to indicate that I don't want to be a hypocrite and suggest there should be a total abstention from any particular form of "disciplining." As with the use of weapons in war, when dealing with other nations, we should have everything on the table, if only so that we do not have to use everything.
This impulse to beat a child comes from a bliblical view that revolves around the notion that when you spare the rod you spoil the child. An eye for an eye and all of that. While I am not entirely opposed to the use of force in circumstances where it is warranted, it is high time we put away our medieval notions of public justice and family rearing and realize that an example of good behavior is far more effective than a threat to punish bad. Train up a child in the way that he should go? You don't get there by first telling the child that if she doesn't listen to you and obey your commandments, you will "hit her in the fucking face" with a belt. And you don't let men who make such threats sit in judgments of our laws and ourselves. Whether it be policemen spraying pepper spray in the faces of protestors or politicians sitting on tax committees who do not pay their taxes... or judges sending people to jail for beating children when they themselves do the same... we should not accept this in a civil society. Fathers be good to your daughters... people who live in glass house shouldn't throw stones... there's a reason those things resonate.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
filed under: he just can't help himself
Here's another reason church and state should be kept separate. (link) Because once in a while, like a double negative, their lies seem to cancel each other out, and it begins to seem like someone is telling the truth. Like here, for example when Carney says that the House should be focused on passing Mr. Obama's jobs bill instead of reaffirming the national motto regarding trust and God and us, and the relationship between all three. Is what he said true? Well, it would seem so. It would certainly seem to be the case that Congress should focus on attending to the economy rather than trafficking in medieval fantasies and fictional caricatures. But that doesn't really get at the truth behind the jobs debate -- which is how will Mr. Obama's package affect the economy? We are asked to placed our unblinking faith in a plan that obviates any call for social responsibility for the mess we are in, except for, of course, the ultimate responsibility, the requirement that we pay the final costs.
And so, if Mr. Obama will have his way, we will close our eyes and march on our capitols and push through his proposals. And then we'll bathe in the newfound riches turned loose by the wash of government funds. He has told us over and over that it is a deadlock certainty -- all the prophets testify -- if we will but take up our cross and follow him, the promised land is in sight. So what shall it be? Shall we gather by the river? Shall we dive under the water's smooth surface and hope that we don't drown as we are baptized in his love? And shall we remember his promises in the day of judgment and be counted whole, or land in hell?
And if all of that doesn't work, just re-elect him. Then all will be forgiven.
Which is as much to say, where is the Lord in all of this? and from whence comes his help? Doesn't he help those who help themselves? So why then is Mr. Obama so deadset on putting government squarely in the path. Wouldn't a simple step to the side, simply getting out of the way, be a more effective move in this time of struggle?
The nine most frightening words in the English language: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.
And so, if Mr. Obama will have his way, we will close our eyes and march on our capitols and push through his proposals. And then we'll bathe in the newfound riches turned loose by the wash of government funds. He has told us over and over that it is a deadlock certainty -- all the prophets testify -- if we will but take up our cross and follow him, the promised land is in sight. So what shall it be? Shall we gather by the river? Shall we dive under the water's smooth surface and hope that we don't drown as we are baptized in his love? And shall we remember his promises in the day of judgment and be counted whole, or land in hell?
And if all of that doesn't work, just re-elect him. Then all will be forgiven.
Which is as much to say, where is the Lord in all of this? and from whence comes his help? Doesn't he help those who help themselves? So why then is Mr. Obama so deadset on putting government squarely in the path. Wouldn't a simple step to the side, simply getting out of the way, be a more effective move in this time of struggle?
The nine most frightening words in the English language: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
filed under: last call
Al, please call your campaign office. Al Cohol, please stop what you are doing and call your campaign office. There's trouble that needs attendin'...
Was Rick Perry drunk? Watch the video and decide for yourself (link). Maybe he was just being an excitable little fuss-budget. But at 6:59, there sure seemed to be a beer burp that came up on him. It seemed more than just the occasional campaign slur. Stump speech or just stumped? Either way, do we really want to watch this guy address Congress with a State of the Union?
Was Rick Perry drunk? Watch the video and decide for yourself (link). Maybe he was just being an excitable little fuss-budget. But at 6:59, there sure seemed to be a beer burp that came up on him. It seemed more than just the occasional campaign slur. Stump speech or just stumped? Either way, do we really want to watch this guy address Congress with a State of the Union?
filed under: move on
I have written several posts recently discussing Herman Cain's bid for the presidency. His case interests me because it is one of those cases that come along once in a while in American politics that muddy the usual partisan waters. Think Terry Schiavo or Monica Lewinsky. Folks are trying to find a way to line up so that their glaring hypocrisies do not show and they can still get the outcome they desire. In the case of Schiavo, liberals who argued that women have an unassailable right to decide what to do with their own bodies suddenly found themselves having to find a way to justify allowing a husband to pull the plug on his vegetative wife's life support so that they could get at the real nut, which was opposing the nuts who believe in the sanctity of life. In the case of Lewinsky, it came down to conservatives who had spent the better part of a decade arguing that sexual harassment was a trumped up political wedge issue suddenly trying to use that wedge to bring down the Clinton Administration. For better or worse, the liberals won both of those arguments.
Which brings us to Mr. Cain. I will say here that I do not support Cain for President -- not because he is, as has been claimed by the pundit class class recently, an Uncle Tom, but because he seems to me to be the crazy uncle in the corner. He simply doesn't make much sense. He is incoherent. And I don't think he is what we need right now.
That said, I am unwilling to live in a society where there is one set of rules for one class of people and another for everyone else. So I would take a moment here to ask a very simple question: Even if Mr. Cain was involved in a suit for sexual harassment in which his organization paid out, as has been reported, a $35,000 settlement to a woman who claimed he made her uncomfortable with his advances... so what?
Didn't Bill Clinton put the nail in this coffin once and for all? Didn't the fact that he paid out $800,000 to Paula Jones in a settlement over the very same issue without ever for one moment, according to the left, losing his credibility and legitimacy as President, set a hard and fast rule that settling on a sexual harassment claim is not a preclusion to serving as President?
If you want to oppose Cain, oppose him, as I do, on policy grounds. But sexual harassment? Move on, America. One is tempted to say... Move on dot org.
(See also here: link)
Which brings us to Mr. Cain. I will say here that I do not support Cain for President -- not because he is, as has been claimed by the pundit class class recently, an Uncle Tom, but because he seems to me to be the crazy uncle in the corner. He simply doesn't make much sense. He is incoherent. And I don't think he is what we need right now.
That said, I am unwilling to live in a society where there is one set of rules for one class of people and another for everyone else. So I would take a moment here to ask a very simple question: Even if Mr. Cain was involved in a suit for sexual harassment in which his organization paid out, as has been reported, a $35,000 settlement to a woman who claimed he made her uncomfortable with his advances... so what?
Didn't Bill Clinton put the nail in this coffin once and for all? Didn't the fact that he paid out $800,000 to Paula Jones in a settlement over the very same issue without ever for one moment, according to the left, losing his credibility and legitimacy as President, set a hard and fast rule that settling on a sexual harassment claim is not a preclusion to serving as President?
If you want to oppose Cain, oppose him, as I do, on policy grounds. But sexual harassment? Move on, America. One is tempted to say... Move on dot org.
(See also here: link)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)