Another night of nothin

Nothin to say anyway. Still working on the little photo retrospective. This is an exampe of what you can do when you get a decent composition but the color sucks. It's also an example of why some photos need to be big. The couple in the water is an interesting element, but you can't even see them at this size.

Nothing to say

Just look at the pretty picture. Don't let them tell you Brooklyn's like totally ugly.

Schips passing in the night

The SCHIP "controversy" illustrates some very basic differences between conservatives and normal, decent people and provides a clue as to how we could better win a lot of these arguments (in the arena of public opinion, of course, in real life it's not a contest).

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's thought of all the money wasted on our murder spree in Iraq when conservatives complain about a relatively small amount being spent to help hard working families who have suffered devastating medical crises.

It's backfiring on them this time, but in general, the construction "Why should my tax dollars pay for x" appeals to the masses. x can be just about anything and everyone who pays taxes can sympathize.

Still, some x's have more resonance than others. For example, "why should my taxes pay to put out other people's fires?" isn't going to get a lot of traction. What if my house catches on fire? It could happen. Of course I want someone to come put it out.

Same thing with SCHIP. Why should I have to pay for someone else's catastrophic medical condition? Well, that could happen to me as well. The ability to recognize that we are all in the same boat does a lot to bring out the empathy in people.

But I'm an idealist. I think most people can empathize with those who suffer catastrophes that are less likely to happen to them as well, particularly if it is a moral issue. But it often takes more time to for the meaning to sink in and a often a little guidance is necessary.

So although America will not be occupied by a brutally repressive foreign power in our lifetime and the great majority of us will not be secretly imprisoned and tortured by our government or have our family murdered by drunken American mercenaries, errr Blackwater employees, I think most of us would prefer not to spend our tax dollars on murder, torture and oppression, particularly when it is so damaging to the national security, which when the words are not misused, is our security as well.

So maybe decent people should try that old conservative rhetorical strategy and frame the issues we rail against in terms of our blessed tax dollars.

I'll be damned if I want my tax dollars fattening the investment accounts of traitors and murderers that are fucking up the lives of so many people who are ultimately not that different from us. Who does? Particularly when that money could be used to help people, you know, people like us.

Where have all the copy editors gone?

The Associated Press gets caught with a sophomoric copy editing error in a headline for a major story". Someone let slip:

Bush Raps Democrats on Spending Bills

They obviously meant the hed to read:

Bush Rapes Democrats on Spending Bills

Pathetic, just pathetic. And that's just the poor copy editing. Not to mention the dog bites man nature of the story.

Ha ha. The "dog bites man" reference dates me, doesn't it? According to the AP stylebook, the term has been replaced by "Bush rapes Democrats," but their own copy editors fuck up such a simple question of style. Must be Bush appointees.

The nature of kitsch

Since I've been staring at photos all day and have already discussed one with you, reader, I'll share my concerns about this photograph.

It's kitsch, obviously. I feel no guilt about taking it. What can I do? I'm standing there with a camera. I see a white crane scanning the pond, which I know to be populated by many small Koi. I can see what's coming. I consciously line up the circular groups of lilly pads and set the camera to achieve the effect I want with the depth of field. I lock the exposure to ensure the bird is white, but not blown out. I set the autofocus for action. The photo comes out pretty much as planned. It's like winning at the horse races, when you've extensively studied the racing form and the race goes down exactly as you thought. Photography and serious handicapping aren't that different. It feels good to get it right. But do those little victories of predestination have any larger value? I'm leaning towards no, or rarely at best.

I am not a nature photographer, much less a wildlife photographer. Those people camp out for weeks to get the shot they envision. I am more of a photojournalist. I struggle to see what's there from instant to instant.

The problem I have intellectually, and as a photo critic, with unabashedly beautiful pictures is that they rarely tell a story. They are presented solely as objects of beauty. And beauty, by itself, is not necessarily art.

Photographs like this beg interesting questions about the relationships between actual experience and the artistic rendering of experience, or the experience of artistic rendering. To be physically present and witness a lithe white crane fish a Koi out of an in-bloom lilly pond and fly away into a blue sky on a crisp autumn day, now that is a genuinely beautiful experience. Yet, a photograph of the same event is nothing to speak of. Why don't realistic depictions of what we experience as beauty affect us in the same way as art? Why does art look like crap when you're out in reality and reality look like crap when you're in a gallery or museum, or home in the living room? I think it's because there is a physical as well as an aesthetic feeling asscoiated with natural beauty. Appreciating art requires not only vision, it requires a significant ability to empathize as well.

Another saturday at the museum

I thought this composition was interesting in a formal way. I waited quite awhile for the pieces to come to together. It's from inside a small theater in the contemporary Caribbean art exhibit at the Brooklyn Museum of Art. It's the second time we've been to see the current exhibitions. In addition to the Caribbean art, there's a great exhibition of the museum's watercolor collection and a major installation of feminist art, including "The Dinner Party" by Judy Chicago, a truly awesome work.

I've been working on photo stuff all weekend and haven't been able to get up the gumption to write anything, so this will have to do. I generally prefer photos that say something, but occasionally I don't mind looking at pretty shapes and colors.

Our tax dollars at work

From a UN report on our Democracy project in Iraq:

The agency said it "remained gravely concerned at continuing reports of the widespread and routine torture or ill-treatment of detainees."

"In addition to routine beatings with hosepipes, cables and other implements, the methods cited included prolonged suspension from the limbs in contorted and painful positions for extended periods, sometimes resulting in dislocation of the joints; electric shocks to sensitive parts of the body; the breaking of limbs; forcing detainees to sit on sharp objects, causing serious injury and heightening the risk of infection; and severe burns to parts of the body through the application of heated implements," the report said.

We get a bit of burn for our bucks, too.

The U.N. report warned of an increased rate of violence against women, particularly "honor" killings, in the semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq. In the first half of the year, regional government statistics counted 23 women killed by "blunt objects," 195 by burning and 37 by gunfire.

Meanwhile, obama is doomed

In contrast to the stories that praise Fred Thompson (see post immediately below) for managing not to fart loudly during debates and interviews, all the stories about Barak OBama detail his many failures (in the eyes of journalists) despite being so incredibly smart and visionary.

David Ignaius types the script in this morning's Washington Post. Witness these tidbits:

"He may be the smartest candidate in either party this year, and also the most visionary... Obama is certainly charismatic, so much so that people often describe him as a rock star... the man gives a good speech... Nobody tells the story of the American dream better than Obama..."

You'd think an article with those quotes would be about what a formidable candidate he is? No. In media world, intelligence, charisma, and vision are horrible handicaps to the presidency, especially when there are so many rivals who got nothin.

There is clearly no way Obama can win. Going up against less intelligent, wooden candidates with no vision beyond their own greed and ambition, he is sure to be slaughtered in any debate. Hillary will be able to read Bush speeches in a robo-voice and the press will praise her seriousness and criticize Obama for making her look dull. And if Obama has a really good day, Fred Thompson could pick his nose and do nothing but grunt and all we'd hear is about how he didn't disgrace himself while that meanie Obama is just too smart to be president.

Yea, if we've learned nothing in the past eight years it's that you don't have to be smart or eloquent to be president. And the media thinks intelligence and the ability to express oneself well are outright handicaps. If Barak is to stand a chance, he'd better learn to pick his nose, fart, drool, and make indecipherable grunting noises soon, or it'll be too late.

The next president of the united states

Of course I haven't been paying much attention to the presidential debates (I have whadayacallit?, a life). But I read the headlines and maybe the first paragraph or two, and maybe skim a little deeper on occasion. Apparently, they can all be summed up as either "Republicans show themselves to be morons without an ounce of morality and promise violent, psychotic acts when elected," or "Democrats emphasize that they are not Bush while promising to continue his policies."

So it's hard to pick a winner among so many losers, but I think I may have decoded the signs and am now able to identify the next president of the United States.

Every blurb I read about Fred Thompson trumpets the news that he did not disgrace himself, that he did not fail miserably, that he managed to get through a debate without blowing snot bubbles or eating wax out of his ear.

Sound familiar? Remind you of how the press treated anyone currently in the white house in recent presidential elections?

Next steps? We'll know for sure when they start criticizing his opponents for stomping him so thoroughly on the issues.

Lathe of hell

Michael Gerson provides us with another one of those “what Conservatism means” pieces that are becoming increasingly popular as everything self-described conservatives passionately believe in changes, often diametrically, from one day to the next. From the party-like-it’s-1999-government giveaways to special interests by their fiscally restrained leaders, to their poorly planned wars to bring utopia to historically disadvantaged foreigners, to the bathroom sex addictions of their moral leaders, it’s no wonder the poor saps have trouble distinguishing up from down these days.

On one hand, Gerson’s article is illuminating in that it shows just how effectively the term “conservative” has been shorn of all rational meaning. On another, it shows how conservatives minds have effectively been shorn of all rational perspective.

It is not a coincidence that the great movements of conscience have generally come not from skeptical traditionalists but from men and women of faith and conviction who taught that loving your neighbor is inconsistent with enslaving him; who rescued children from the nightmare factories of the Industrial Revolution; who asserted that the long tradition of racial segregation created 10,000 petty tyrants; and who believed that the Declaration of Independence is actually true, for us and for all.

Traditionalism can save moralists from a foolish utopianism. But a moral vision is equally necessary to save traditional conservatism from its worst instincts.

Right, Mike. Conservatives have been wrong about almost everything throughout all of history. So what can you do? Re-write history so that conservatives wrote the declaration of Independence, freed the slaves, created the social safety net, bravely forced us into World War II, proudly led the civil rights marches, and now fight mightily to protect us from intrusive government here at home?

Yes, of course, that’s the ticket, but what about when your core values must change from one day to the next, as has happened so often in recent years. Can’t have a commander in chief who dodged the draft, now can we? Criticize the military during a time of war? Forfend!

For the poor conservative, the 21st century is like something out of Ursula K. Leguin’s Lathe of Heaven They never know what kind of new reality they will wake up to.

What these soul searching articles by folk like Michael Gerson teach us is that being a conservative these days is no different than being a Dallas Cowboy fan. Once a person has chosen a team, he will stick with that team no matter what. Maybe he liked the Cowboys because of their old school three yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust offense and hated players like Terrell Owens who were loud braggarts lacking all class. Yet when the Cowboys fired the old coach, became a run and shoot team and overpaid Terrell Owens, that was all okay. No, it was better than okay. It was good. It was the right thing to do. It was the way they had always believed the game should be played. It’s not the style of play that matters. It’s the allegiance to the team. Winning is all that matters.

The owners, of course, have somewhat different goals, or at least different definitions of “winning,” but that’s a different story. One tools like Gerson are only dimly aware of, at best.

Schizo nomos disorder

First we learn that we can’t return this guy to his country because he might be imprisoned and tortured:

A federal district judge has ordered the government not to transfer a Tunisian detainee held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to his home country, over fears that he would be tortured or killed.

Then we’re told that we can kidnap and torture people just for the fun of it:

The Supreme Court declined yesterday to open U.S. courts to a German citizen who said he was abducted, imprisoned and tortured by the CIA because he was mistakenly identified as a terrorist.

Damn, I guess it just goes to show that once your government has abandoned all morality and respect for basic human rights, the slope gets awful slippery. What's that red stuff we keep slipping on?

White chalk

I've been listening to PJ Harvey's new disc, White Chalk for the past few days and have now added the rest of her music to the playlist. You can hear a good song here, just click on the audio/video button.

Unfortunately, my verbal skills have been on the decline lately. As regular readers know, I've always been ambivalent about reviewing other people's artistic output. Lately, I can't even think of anything to say beyond I liked it or I didn't, it was technically well-done or it wasn't, the story was well-told or otherwise.

Fortunately, when my verbal skills fail me, sometimes I can fall back on visual story telling, so the above image is my review of White Chalk.

Do androids dream of big screen beauty?

Yesterday I saw Blade Runner: the Final Cut on the big screen. I trust you all have seen Blade Runner and probably even the director’s cut. Final Cut doesn’t add all that much to Director’s Cut--a little more gore, a little more skin, a little more face time for Sean Young,--but the opportunity to see this film on the big screen should not be missed. It’s a great narrative and the visual story telling remains incredible.

If you’re here in New York, or looking for a good excuse to visit, go see it at the Ziegfeld theater. It’s as beautiful a theater as you will ever see, the screen is as big as they come and the sound is excellent. Wherever you are, try to see it on the best screen possible. This is one movie where it really makes a difference.

Monkey Tales (10.9.07) Columbus Day Hangover Edition

In a rare bout of self-examination, the NYT reports on the latest studies on the behavior of major media folk and their relationship with politicians.

“Monkey society is governed by the same two general rules that governed the behavior of women in so many 19th-century novels,” Dr. Cheney and Dr. Seyfarth write. “Stay loyal to your relatives (though perhaps at a distance, if they are an impediment), but also try to ingratiate yourself with the members of high-ranking families.”

Good to see that scientific method is finally catching up with journalism.

*

The New York Times once again shows their liberal bias by spinning for Democrats:

Democratic Concessions Are Expected on Wiretapping

WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 — Two months after vowing to roll back broad new wiretapping powers won by the Bush administration, Congressional Democrats appear ready to make concessions that could extend some of the key powers granted to the National Security Agency.

“Some” of the key powers? Could grant? Some? Yea, right. If we had an objective press, the headline would read something more like this:

Democrats pull down their pants, lay down in the road, and yell, “fuck us up the as Georgie boy, fuck us hard.”
WASHINGTON, Oct. 8 --Two months after making lame noises about doing their constitutional duty, Congressional Democrats appear ready to wipe Bush’s ass with it and do what they’re told.

What’s more is there to say? So much, unfortunately.

*

The WaPo reports on another triumph for the Bush administration in their continuing struggle to protect al-Queda. A private company that has had great success providing intelligence on the terrorist group gave the Bushies a heads up on a bin Laden video on the promise they would keep it quiet.

Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company's Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.


The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group's communications network.

"Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless,"

Yep, as a super enemy, al-Queda’s not much, but from the Republican perspective it’s a lot better than nothing. Without it, they’d have to find a new public enemy number one to justify looting our economy at home and their insane murder spree abroad. Atta boy George!

Monkey Tales (10.8.07) Columbus Day Edition

I’d be curious to see the Associated Press stylebook entry for torture. It must distinguish between foreign and domestic. Witness this headline and lede:

China Land Activist Tortured in Prison

BEIJING (AP) -- A Chinese land rights activist imprisoned after circulating a letter rejecting the Olympics has been chained for days in the same position and forced to clean up the waste of other inmates...

In the U.S. version, “chained in the same position for days” is nothing more than a “stress position,” at worst a harsh interrogation method. In China, it’s torture. You can see the difference. We are good. Foreigners are evil. The Associated Press and other news organizations must respect that basic difference. Of course it would be better if they didn't report the details of another country's torture if it is similar to our not unduly harsh interrogation tactics. As long as the Chinese stop short of dumping people in vats of boiling oil, the press should just call it harsh interrogations and leave the details to the imagination. That's my recommendation. At least until we learn that the US boils people alive. Then we'd have to find a new terminology. We would never commit torture, obviously. Heated interrogations perhaps?

*

In other news concerning heated interrogations, tired of nuisances like unions, environmental concerns, and those pesky laws against dumping their employees in vats of boiling oil, General Motors is opening a factory in Uzbekistan.

But first they had to consider the human rights situation (via CommonDreams.org).

Who is more brutal, Saddam Hussein or (Uzbekistan dictator) Islam Karimov ? Reasonable victims disagree. Saddam's goons electrocuted his political dissidents. Karimov, on the other hand, loots so much of his country's oil wealth that his state torturers don't have an electrical grid to draw upon. So his police torturers are forced to resort to medieval methods. They boil their "terrorist extremists"--businessmen who refuse to pay bribes--to death.

Well, a lot of people agree he’s better than Saddam, so I guess it's okay. Let’s hope none of those GM executives become “terrorist extremists.” I’m sure they won’t. They’ll be good corporate citizens and pay their bribes in full and on time.

*

Meanwhile, Paul Krugman, usually a reliable human, gives conservatives way more credit than they deserve:

Now, as they survey the wreckage of their cause, conservatives may ask themselves: “Well, how did we get here?” They may tell themselves: “This is not my beautiful Right.” They may ask themselves: “My God, what have we done?”

But their movement is the same as it ever was.

Sad, Mr. Krugman. Sad and naive. If conservatives were the types who questioned themselves to the tune of Talking Heads masterpieces, we probably wouldn’t be in such a mess in the first place. Come to terms with reality sir.

*

In other pundit news, Howard Kurtz, the Washington Post’s media lap, err I mean watch, dog digs deep to find a new class of victims of our war in Iraq--major network anchor millionaires!!! Brian Williams, Katie Couric, and Charles Gibson. Oh how they suffer the tortures of the damned as they read their teleprompters. It’s tragic. Tragic, I tells ya.

*

In other breaking news, the WaPo reports that those crafty Real Estate companies have come up with ingeniously innovative ways to sell houses:

New Tactics in New-Home Market

In order to sell in a slow housing market, builders are slashing prices and offering financing deals.

Slashing prices and offering deals!!! Quelle innovation!!! In tomorrow’s paper, the same reporter will discover that innovative fireman have begun using water to put out fires!!!

*

In local news, the Post reports that Maryland’s Prince William County has learned important lessons about governing from the Republicans in the federal government next door, but are still a bit too squeamish for the big time.

PRINCE WILLIAM County's elected leaders have balked, for the moment, at implementing what would be one of the nation's more pernicious, unenforceable and legally dubious local crackdowns on illegal immigrants. Facing elections next month and political heat generated in no small part by their own rhetoric, they may still decide to go ahead. If they do, they will fan the flames of xenophobia in Prince William, squander the time and energy of police officers and other agencies' employees, and, we now know, burden county taxpayers with millions of dollars in spending that will achieve very little.

Would the Bush administration or congressional Republicans ever balk at something that was pernicious, unenforceable and legally dubious? These Maryland weenies might as well be Democrats.

Actually, they might be Democrats, but I doubt it. The article doesn’t say which party is so monumentally incompetent. Granted, it could be both, but generally the Post is more likely to cover for Republicans.

A one, a two, a three... a what?

Via TBogg

David Freddoso:

But what about ordinary people of good faith, who love their country, simply expressing an opinion that a particular war is not worth the loss of life? I thought that the soldiers were fighting precisely for our freedom to express that opinion.

As as a quipster, I’m tempted to say that I thought or soldiers were fighting to rid the world of Saddam Hussein’s apocalyptical weapons of mass destruction that were going to have us spending our last precious moments of life squatting under a mushroom cloud waiting for our skin to melt.

No? Scratch that. Our blessed troops were heroically giving their lives to bring to justice the monster who unleashed 9/11 on us by crashing thousands of airplanes into thousands of twin towers.

No? Wrong guy? Well then, our patriotic warriors are selflessly fighting to bring Democracy to the middle east, giving their own lives so that Muslims of all sects can live and vote in paragons of participatory good government from West Africa all the way to Islamabad and beyond, a cause so noble it brings tears of gratitude to the eyes of anyone with an ounce of humanity.

The Democracy project not working out either? Damn.

At least they are nobly sacrificing all they have to give to secure our access to cheap middle eastern oil. Fill up the ol’ SUV? That’ll be $75 bub.

Any other ideas?

Ok, let’s try a new one! Freddoso suggests that our brave and sacred troops are fighting precisely for the right of ordinary people of good faith to criticize the war they are fighting in, precisely so that good people can criticize them. With great precision, the troops realize that if they were not fighting in this war, good people of good faith would have no war to criticize, thus there would be nothing to fight about and good people of faith would lose their constitutional right to free speech.

I admit that makes sense on a certain intellectual level, but my own experience suggests that the troops, many of them at least, are fighting for a variety of reasons.

Here I must confessed that I am a bit embarassed. I say my experience “suggests” because I don’t actually know the motivations of hundreds of thousands of individuals and, given my sad lack of all-knowingness, hesitate to speculate that they all fight for the same reason, even if it would conveniently support whatever point I’m trying to make. I'm so weak on mind reading that I can’t even say for certain why even one single person is fighting.

But I do actually know one person who joined the army and got sent to Iraq, and I can at least make an educated guess about why he is fighting. And I'm pretty sure he's not unique. His reasons are no doubt representative of a lot of the troops.

A friend of my family, we’ll call him Joe Bob for the purposes of the internets, recently enlisted in the army and after several weeks of basic training was sent to Iraq. I can’t say that I’ve known the kid his whole life, but I’ve known of him. My mother, I’m pretty sure, thinks of him as the good son she never had. When he came home for a few days leave between basic training and Iraq, he bought mom a fancy new tv. Me? Not in a million years would it cross my mind to buy her a television. It’s not that I’m evil. Just thoughtless. A television means nothing to me. It surprises me when I realize that it can mean so much to someone else. Point is, Joe Bob's a great kid.

Anyway, Joe Bob, like many young recruits, is from a small town. For you, reader, to best comprehend this story, it is crucial to understand that we cannot believe a word that anybody in a small town says. All of the characters lie. They lie to each other. They lie to themselves. And they certainly lie to poor chuckling, intentionally and otherwise. So we will never know for sure about college scholarships and the like, but still, the stories tell a tale that illuminates some larger truths.

Joe Bob’s mother is one of my sister’s best friends. She’s been hanging around our house for just about as long as I remember. According to her, Joe Bob was offered a scholarship to play football at a small, division III college somewhere south of Bumfuck, Tennessee. He lettered in high school but his prospective college coach warned him that he’d spend a couple years on the bench. Next thing anyone knew was that he had joined the army. He didn't want to sit on no bench for two years. The recruiter had promised him an exiting career in electronics! But when the papers arrived he had been assigned to the infantry. Damn the bad luck! But he would get some training in electronics. He would be a radio operator for a convoy in Iraq. The technical term for that assignment is, I believe, “I.E.D. fodder”.

What were Joe Bob’s motives for joining the glorious war against whatchamacallit? According to his mother, he did it solely for that career in electronics. That and because he is a total idiot. Understand reader, please, it is not me, chuckling, calling this fine young man an idiot for joining the army and getting sent off to Iraq. His immediate family and wide circle of friends are the ones calling him an idiot, usually prefixed with something along the lines of "stupid fucking." To a person they were mortified and repeatedly call both him and his decision stupid and every synonym they know that conveys the same concept. They hold no belief that he will be risking his life for anything the least bit noble. More than one person made the comment about the high price of gas.

Understand also that these people are not upper west side liberals. They are small town folk, the heart and soul of middle America. They have no college education, no trust fund. They work hard at low-skilled jobs that may or may not be low-paying. They are the Joe Sixpacks, the Reagan revolutionaries, the people who fought to be first in line to by the 9/11 commemorative magnets for their automobiles, the people who cursed Osama bin Laden and said “fuck yea” when George W. Bush said “bring em on.” The fact that these people think that a good kid is a total moron for joining the army is all the evidence anyone should need to know this stupid war is lost.

But back to speculating about Joe Bob’s motives, or in the bigger picture--what the fuck are we fighting for?-- I can say with near certainty that it never crossed his mind to join the army and risk his life precisely so Americans could criticize the war and his own participation in it. And this is just me speculating, but knowing the state of education where he’s from, I’d be shocked if he gave any thought whatsoever to protecting any constitutional rights. Fuck, I’d be surprised if he can name three, and that's giving one free cause I'm sure he's heard of the second amendment.

And it would be less shocking, but I’d still be very surprised if he gave much, if any, thought to the idea of defending America from our enemies. I’d bet the farm his thought processes had more to do with getting out of that soul-sucking small town in which decent job opportunities are few and dwindling, making some money, seeing the world, and having a few adventures. Defending the constitution? The American way of life? Oh, right, yea, that too.

Is Joe Bob representative of all the troops? No, of course not, but odds are good that he is representative of a hell of a lot of them.

On the flip side, is there a single soldier out there who is fighting precisely for our right to criticize the Iraq war? My guess would be no. The only thing Freddoso's opinion is representative of is the ridiculous extremes that pro-war morons who have been catastrophically wrong about everything will go to justify the continuation of the damage they are doing to our national security, economy, and the lives of millions.

Monkey Tales (10.6.07) Pick on the Times Edition

In the ongoing controversy over whether to call torture torture, the New York Times continues to favor softer, administration-friendly, and dare I say it, patriotic terminology.

President Bush, reacting to a Congressional uproar over the disclosure of secret Justice Department legal opinions permitting the harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects

Harsh interrogation? What does that mean? Do they yell at them? Call them names? Insult their mothers? That would be harsh. But no...

the Justice Department authorized the C.I.A. to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures.

That’s not harsh. That’s torture. And who is naive to think that's even close to the half of it. We know of electrodes to the genitals, attack dogs, severe physical beatings, and murders. The only people they are fooling are the major media and liberal Democrats. The Republicans and wingnuts just chortle contentedly.

In the same article, the Times inadvertently juxtaposes two of the president’s conflicting pro-torture talking points, illustrating both the hypocrisy of the administration and the incompetence of the reporting.

“I have put this program in place for a reason, and that is to better protect the American people,” the president said...

and

the deputy White House press secretary, Tony Fratto, took The Times to task for publishing the information, saying the newspaper had compromised America’s security.

“And I could tell you that every time I’ve dealt with any of these stories, I have felt that we have chipped away at the safety and security of America with the publication of this kind of information.”

It’s not the stories that chip away at our National Security. It’s the torture. And the secrecy.

Of course we could fill pages with examples of how the Bush administration chips away at National Security and there are so many chips that we could use them to pave a road from here to the moon, but we must only list those chips related to the article in question, or the massive weight of the disaster becomes too oppressive.

*

The Times also has a nice piece that argues the wealthy should be taxed back to 1950’s levels.

“Getting the very best of New York real estate is an extension of who they think they are; it goes with the rest of their résumé and portfolio,” said Denise Lefrak Calicchio,“

“This trend is not going to go away because there are so many people who want these apartments,” she explained. “There’s the new rich and there’s the old rich. There’s the poor rich and the rich rich.”

“If you spend $20 million on an apartment, you want it to be right,” said Edward Lee Cave, a high-end Manhattan real estate broker. “And it’s never absolutely right.”

So far this year, 324 buyers purchased Manhattan apartments worth more than $5 million; of those 16 buyers closed on homes that cost more than $20 million, according to the research firm PropertyShark.com. Another 45 homes are on the market with asking prices of more than $20 million.

Meanwhile, a tumbling down shack in Brooklyn costs $700,000. Twenty percent down payment would be $140,000 and the monthly payments on the remainder would be almost $3400 per month at 6 percent interest, not counting taxes and other fees. A couple making $100,000 per year cannot afford a shack in Brooklyn. The scale is different in the rest of the country, but it is apparently just as big a mess out there, if not bigger.

Yep, time to reel these rich fucks in, return to being more of a meritocracy. Too bad there’s no political party they don’t control.

*

In other news concerning America’s lack of a two party system, the Times reports that Democrats are like dogs who have been neutered and beaten for so many years that all they can do is stare mournfully at the Republicans and hope for more crumbs and fewer beatings.

The debate now raging here over the children’s health insurance program offers a cautionary lesson to Democrats running for president. It shows how hard it will be to persuade many Republicans to sign on to their vision of universal coverage.

Yea, a cautionary tale. On an issue supported by the great majority of Americans, the poor Democrats will have difficulty persuading the Republicans. Awwwww. Poor Democrats. Gonna get a beating for even trying.

Never mind that in a Democracy they would worry about persuading the people rather than the powerful. Here, the people are already persuaded but they (we) don’t count for shit.

Note also how the Times, as usual, buried that lede. Aw fuck. That’s giving them too much credit. I doubt it even occurred to them that the Democrats would have to persuade anyone other than Republicans, with the possible exception of New York Times honchos.

*

In three separate reports we learn that American forces attacked and killed another 25 civilians in Iraq, that that there would be no prosecutions for the killing of 24 Iraqi civilians awhile back in Haditha, and that our chief war crimes prosecutor had been forced out by the Pentagon.

Connections? I don’t see no fucking connections.

*

And finally, in another example of how out sports heroes are totally out of control, the Times informs us that:

Giants’ Tynes Juggles Kicking With Children

Someone should report that sicko to Health and Human Services.

Monkey Tales (10.1.07)

The New York Times shares the good news that Iraqi violence ebbed in September.

American military officials here quickly asserted that the decline in civilian and military deaths was a direct result of the rapid buildup of American forces in Iraq earlier this year.

The article fails to mention the fact that the ethnic cleansing (sweet talk for mass murder) is just about completed and that over 4 million Iraqis (10 percent of the population) have been displaced. Of course violence is going to ebb. It’s like Nazis trumpeting the fact that they arrested fewer Jews in 1945 when almost all of them had fled, were dead, or locked up in concentration camps by that time.

*

On the downside, the Times reports that our mercenaries have been somewhat “reckless.”

State Department documents, depicts the security contractor as being staffed with reckless, shoot-first guards who were not always sober and did not always stop to see who or what was hit by their bullets.

In other words, we are paying a bunch of violent criminals to go on an insane murder spree. I’ll bring up the big bugaboo twice in one essay and guess that if today’s New York Times were transported back in time to 1945, they’d opine that the Nazis were a bit “reckless” in both their foreign and domestic policies. It’s not murder folks. Just a bit of recklessness. Move along. Nothing to see here.

*

In other happy news, we’re still number one in something!

The United States maintained its role as the leading supplier of weapons to the developing world in 2006

It’s very important that we flood the developing world with arms. Our national security depends on it. If everyone in the world were not armed to the teeth, we would have no enemies to manufacture, no threats to face, no Hitlers to squash and no one would support gazillion dollar “defense” budgets.

The study makes clear also that the United States has signed weapons-sales agreements with nations whose records on democracy and human rights are subject to official criticism.

Well duh.

*

In immigration news, the Times reports that Bush bashing immigrants are not only threatening to destroy our economy, but the American way of life as well.

When she moved to the United States from Germany seven years ago, Angela Neigl brought with her the energy-conscious sensibilities of life in Europe. You drove small cars. You recycled every can, lid and stray bit of household waste. You brought your own reusable bags or crate to the market rather than adding to the billions of plastic bags clogging landfills, killing aquatic creatures on the bottoms of oceans and lakes, and blowing in the wind.

Damned immigrants. We should go reckless on their ass.

Update: Another day, another atrocity revealed:

Employees of Blackwater USA have engaged in nearly 200 shootings in Iraq since 2005, in a vast majority of cases firing their weapons from moving vehicles without stopping to count the dead or assist the wounded, according to a new report from Congress.

Whatayawannabet that's just the proverbial tip of the iceberg? Yes, I know, I know. Icebergs are just reckless things, it's their nature, they mean no harm, kinda like Pol Pot.

One last bm slide show

Here is yet another slideshow from my trip to Nevada. If you want to experience it as intended, click on the first photo and watch the slide show. It lasts about 14 minutes. Soundtrack is included this time. You'll need fast internet.

Monkey Tales (9.30.07) Weekend Edition

The Washington Post reports that President Bush may well be mankind’s savior in the fight against global warming. “Mr. Bush Gets Warmer” reads the headline and the lede is a positive diplomatic quote from the German foreign minister:

This here was a great step for the Americans and a small step for mankind.

The “great step” is that Mr. Bush is boldly calling for America and the rest of the world to do nothing whatsoever about global warming. In other words, he has made a minor change to his rhetoric, but not changed his position in the least.

The Guardian demonstrates that professional journalism is not entirely dead, at least outside the US:

George Bush was castigated by European diplomats and found himself isolated yesterday after a special conference on climate change ended without any progress.

European ministers, diplomats and officials attending the Washington conference were scathing, particularly in private, over Mr Bush's failure once again to commit to binding action on climate change.

Britain and almost all other European countries, including Germany and France, want mandatory targets for reducing greenhouse emissions. Mr Bush, while talking yesterday about a "new approach" and "a historic undertaking", remains totally opposed.

Congrats again to the WaPo for patriotically reporting the administration's talking points rather than what acutally went down. Bush gives a major speech in which he proposes nothing new and is ridiculed by the rest of the world. and they describe it like this:

Mr. Bush's great step was a small step for humanity because he did not budge from his insistence that whatever action the nations take be voluntary.

A real newspaper, in contrast, actually reports what everyone involved is saying;

It was a total charade and has been exposed as a charade," the diplomat said. "I have never heard a more humiliating speech by a major leader. He [Mr Bush] was trying to present himself as a leader while showing no sign of leadership. It was a total failure."

Humiliation? A total failure? Bush? Who woulda thunk it? Better question: Who woulda reported it?

*

The Post also reports that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is a stark raving mad wingnut who shouldn’t be allowed to rule on a parking violation.

Justice Clarence Thomas settles scores in an angry and vivid forthcoming memoir, scathingly condemning the media, the Democratic senators who opposed his nomination to the Supreme Court, and the "mob" of liberal elites and activist groups...

Liberal elites? The liberal elites, we’re learning, are the elders of Zion of the 21st century. They secretly control everything, hate their country and conspire with enemies to bring about its downfall, eat Christian babies, and are responsible for all of your problems (pssst, most of them are Jews as well). Good to know one of the most powerful and influential guys in the nation is on top of the problem. And he obviously is settling scores with those liberals, Democrats, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison though his rulings in the Supreme Court, not just through the right wing vanity press machine.

*

The New York Times reports that the south is making great strides toward racial equality. In this incident, one of their brown-skinned reporters was handcuffed and thrown face down on the hood of a squad car because he was out after dark.

“This is America,” I said angrily, in that moment supremely unconcerned about whether this was standard police procedure or a useful law enforcement tool or whatever anybody else wanted to call it. “I have a right to talk to anyone I like, wherever I like.”

The female officer trumped my naïve soliloquy, though: “Sir, this is the South. We have different laws down here.”

Note how the cop called him “Sir” as they ignored his constitutional rights and brutally attacked him. Good to see such progress. Better to be called sir than nigger as the cops kick the shit out of you for being black, I guess.

*

On the pundit front, New York TIme columinist Frank Rich can’t understand Hillary Clinton:

So far her post-first-lady record suggests a follower rather than a leader. She still can't offer a credible explanation of why she gave President Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq (or why she voted against the Levin amendment that would have put on some diplomatic brakes). That's because her votes had more to do with hedging her political bets than with principle. Nor has she explained why it took her two years of the war going south to start speaking up against it. She was similarly tardy with her new health care plan, waiting to see what heat Mr. Edwards and Senator Obama took with theirs. She has lagged behind the Democratic curve on issues ranging from the profound (calling for an unequivocal ban on torture) to the trivial (formulating a response to the MoveOn.org Petraeus ad).

That’s cause she’s a Republican Frank. A Republican. And it's Bush she's following. Once you come to terms with those facts, it all makes perfect sense.

Elsewhere, Maureen Dowd provides some real insight:

Without nepotism, Hillary would be running for the president of Vassar. But then, without nepotism, W. would be pumping gas in Midland — and not out of the ground.

Yep, in their cases, though I think in the bigger picture it’s going beyond nepotism. With the effective end of progressive income and estate taxes, we are quickly developing a culture of hereditary rule, both in government and industry. As more and more third, fourth, fifth, etc. generations of trust fund idiots replace their already degenerating predecessors, the future will become increasingly bleak.

On a side note, a lot of people wonder how Maureen Dowd got, and keeps, her job. I’m not saying it’s nepotism. My guess would be the old “who you know” or “who was in your ivy league sorority,” but I’m not totally on-board with the Daily Howler or Atrios on the subject. Although it’s true that so many of her columns are superficial and harmful to progressive politics, she is a sharp, funny writer and her quips, like the one above, can be quite entertaining and sometimes illustrate the truth of the matter. Anyway, there's enough dour and serious propaganda in the media. In that context, I don't really mind a place for someone like Dowd who at least brings a bit of levity and bipartisanship to the enterprise.

In other pundit news, Jim Hoagland (who knew he was still alive?) reinforces his frontrunner status (not counting Richard Cohen, of course) in the “most irrelevant pundit on the planet” competition.

Circumstances may be just desperate enough for reason and good will to break out suddenly,

he writes in an articled headlined “A Small Outbreak of Mideast Hope.” Yea, and wishes are fishes. We’ll cast our nets and reap the riches!

Meanwhile, the WaPo’s biggest blowhards (behind Richard Cohen, champ-for-life), George Will and David Broder give the old one-two punch to Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, pressing them to stop pretending not to know the future and detail exactly what they would do as president. It would, of course, be nice if politicians would stand up for what they believe in, if indeed they believe in anything, rather than tailor non-answers to avoid pissing off key constituencies, but it’s just sick that wankers like Will and Broder routinely make these demands of (nominal) Democrats when they gave Bush--whose policy proposals in 2000 were at least equally vague, obviously disingenuous when not outright dishonest, and the moron couldn’t even remember what they were--a free pass.

Why does the post continue to employ such a stable of miserable failures? Must be a hell of a satisfying circle jerk around there.

And speaking of miserable failures (pundit class), back at the Times, Thomas Friedman notes that it's not 9/11/01 anymore and suggests we move on to 9/12/01. Knock knock, Tom. It's 2007!

*

In religious news, the New York Times magazine presents a piece on an up-and-coming evangelical college in Idaho and bemoans their persecution by liberals. There is, of course, no documentation of any persecution of liberals, but the college’s founder claims it, so it must be true. The guy is very serious about his religion, so we must respect his views.

Doug Wilson proudly declares himself more right-wing than most Idaho conservatives. “They voted for Bush; I’d vote for Jefferson Davis,”

Wilson emphasizes his flexibility when it comes to Old Testament law. “You can’t apply Scripture woodenly,” he says; instead of executing them, “you might exile some homosexuals, depending on the circumstances and the age of the victim.” He adds: “There are circumstances in which I’d be in favor of execution for adultery...

An up-and-coming college teaches that perhaps homosexuals should merely be exiled (to where? Dachau perhaps?) rather than tied to a fence and beaten to death and that adulterers should be executed (stoned to death, presumably), and the article leads with their old fashioned classical curriculum and persecution by liberals? Kinda burying the lede, eh? What other kind of violent psychotic crap is lurking beneath the surface?

The article does get to some of it. The college’s intellectual foundation is provided by a real nut case:

a Dutch theologian named Cornelius Van Til introduced a kind of theology called presuppositionalism. He argued that no assumptions are neutral and that the human mind can comprehend reality only if proceeding from the truth of biblical revelation. In other words, it is impossible for Christians to reason with non-Christians. presuppositionalism is a strangely postmodern theory that denies the possibility of objectivity — though it does not deny the existence of truth, which belongs to Christians alone.

According to critics, this school of thought equips young Christians to read and discuss non-Christian ideas without ever taking them seriously. “The trouble is that once you’ve figured out someone’s presuppositions, you can write them off as right or wrong without having to deal with their arguments. . . . It becomes anti-intellectual,” says Darryl Hart, a historian...

All aboard the Dark Ages Express. Next stop Inquisition.

*
And finally, in news that brings together religion and sports, Notre Dame’s football team went 0-5 yesterday and has yet to even be competitive in a game. This is notable because three years ago they were a program on the rise, with a great coach and top recruits, poised to reclaim their dynasty. The problem was, the good Catholics who run the university had not realized that the great coach, Ty Willingham, was black. Apparently, spending so much time in their cloisters, they did not know that Ty was short for Tyrone.

They were embarrassed, of course, but they couldn’t fire him immediately. And after three years, the situation was becoming dire. Willingham had a veteran team led by the nation’s top quarterback and they were sure to challenge for a national championship during the next two years. The good Christians at Notre Dame couldn’t let that happen. If he won a national championship, they’d be saddled with the nigger for the devil knows how long. So they fired him and hired some white guy with no college coaching experience. With Willingham’s very well-coached players, the inexperienced white guy was able to do okay for a couple years, but the good Christian folk who run the university realized that things were going downhill fast, so they gave him a lucrative ten year contract.

Notre Dame has taken a lot of abuse over the years for the perception that winning football games was more important than any nonsense about Christian values. This incident shows just how wrong that accusation was. It’s clear now that they would rather field the worst team in the country than win national championships with a black coach.

Willingham, meanwhile, is successfully rebuilding the University of Washington program and their future looks bright. The U-Dub is obviously lacking in Christian values.