There is no one who has been treated worse in presidential politics than Hillary Clinton.
The coverage of her historic campaign started and ended snarky, unforgiving and suspicious. Nothing was accepted at face value. That's fine if you are going to treat everyone that way. Imagine if the prior careers of Junior Bush were held up to the same scrutiny back in 2000. What would it have been like if his every move were interpreted as clever subterfuge and his every proclamation scoffed at as so much manipulative claptrap? But, no. Junior got a pass just like Reagan got a pass and Bush Senior got a pass, and so on. We are used to Democrats being held to a higher standard, but the Clintons are presumed to be trouble just by showing up.
Assumptions about Hillary's expectations in the race made by people who had no idea or interest in what she really thought hounded her at every turn. She viewed her nomination as "inevitable"; she felt it was "owed" to her because of her husband’s Lewinsky embarrassment; the "16 years of Clinton" was planned back when Bill was back in Arkansas. All complete nonsense, none of it sourced with anyone close to the Clintons, and all accepted as conventional wisdom throughout the campaign, with a knowing wink from those who, you know, just know.
After Obama won Iowa and just before New Hampshire, the long knives of the punditocracy were dripping with the blood of the victorious. They celebrated the fall they failed to predict, dancing and spitting on the freshly-dug grave, waiting on the edge for her to walk by so they could push her in and heap dirt on her candy-yellow suit. Alas, she showed emotion for her good causes the day before the NH primary and spit in the face of their dire, celebratory predictions. They appeared on cable shows near and far, beating their breasts and insincerely apologizing for their sexist and anti-Hillary attitudes. Then, they spent the next four moths wishing she would go away again, asking each other, night after tiresome night, why she stayed so annoyingly in and What the Hell Does Hillary Want.
Hillary righted her message, found her voice and started reaching real voters with real issues just before the Pennsylvania primary. So, when it looked like Hillary might be succeeding, they turned on Bill. Any time he got off script at all, they ran out the story-line of the out-of-control ex-president who kept saying uncomfortable things at uncomfortable times. It didn't matter that what he said about the brutal media coverage of his wife and the relative pass given to Obama happened to be true. The last gasp of this tired tack was when he went off on the "writer" of a piece in Vanity Fair this month. Well, have you read the damn thing? The article is a miserable hack-job. Todd Purdum doesn’t even pretend to prove anything, but uses the anti-Clinton mystique to let his readers make broad leaps from innocuous trips in planes with rich guys to...oh, you know, don’t you? Clinton was right – anyone who would write such a piece of crap – to say nothing of the editors who published it – is a "scumbag". But, as always, the truth is not a defense for the Clintons.
I always wondered what would have happened if it was Hillary, rather than Obama, who got the 150-delegate lead in February and then ran out the clock for four months. You could imagine the clucking of the commentariat at the temerity of it all, especially if it was she who lost 7 of the last 11 contests. You would have commentators shouting all hours of the day and night, begging the super-delegates to save us from this failed democratic result. Instead, they celebrated when Obama reached the threshold and scolded Clinton for not taking it like a man soon enough.
I could never figure out why media personalities who are otherwise sympathetic to Democratic causes and principles bought so readily into the right-wing anti-Clinton caricatures and agenda. I think it’s because Bill Clinton came to Washington, much like Jimmy Carter, as an unapproved outsider governor, who was able to beat established Washington candidates on the ground. Bill didn’t toe any party line – he triangulated, getting what he could through a hostile Congress. The Washington Dems went running for cover when they got too much heat from their health industry lobbyist friends on universal health care. They held their nose and fought off the ridiculously partisan Clinton impeachment, but used the incident to joke around about Bill's supposed proclivities with their all-too-amused friends.
When Hillary made her move, which they knew she would, they were happy to see Obama rise up and squish her, regardless of his unknown qualities and his vulnerability to unwanted and unwarranted definition by the desperate right.
I supported Hillary until this past weekend and I’m more than happy to back Obama in the fall. I supported her because I did think she was more electable. But, with the pathetic McCain on the GOP ticket (Republicans – see Reagan and Junior Bush – always get a pass by the setting of extremely low expectations, but even that won't save McCain), even an Obama weakened by the 24/7 wing-nut echo-chamber that has already raised his negatives 30 points (so much for Hillary being the one who will do anything to win) is destined to win in a landslide .
He will come in with an even stronger Democratic Senate and House, and then it will truly be our turn. I've always thought -- for all of the name-calling of "radical" and "socialist" that will rain down on him from the right-wing between now and election day -- that Obama kept it a bit vague about what he is actually going to do as president. This is a good thing. It leaves him open to work for the evolving solutions that the Democrats will put together by consensus to fix the mess left by the radical Bushies and face the nation's many challenges. Obama would be wise to follow the example of the last great Democratic president; to work for change he can get, while standing on principles he believes.
Barack Obama, meet Bill Clinton. Now, let's get to work.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Agenda for Right-Wing Blogger Training
The right-wing front-group Americans for "Prosperity" is sponsoring a blogger training next week in Oshkosh and Madison. It’s free and open to anyone, I assume, so I look forward to learning much when I attend either or both.
Don’t ask me how, but I managed to acquire a copy of the agenda:
Don’t ask me how, but I managed to acquire a copy of the agenda:
- Introduction: Bringing the 19th Century Mentality to a 21st Century Medium: A Primer
- Originality...What Is It Good For? Absolutely Nothin’! – The Importance of Message Discipline
- PC Stands for Pelosi and Clinton – Finding Words That Rhyme With "Witch"
- Breaking News: How to Embed GOP Commercials and Memos From Scott Walker in Your Blog
- Gun Lust for Amateurs – Feeling the Heat (featured speaker: Owen Robinson)
- A Case Study: The Importance of Nancy Pelosi’s Scarf
- The Freedom of Diversity – Using Racist Language Against Your Own Race (featured speaker: James T. Harris)
- Hit and Run for Fun: Anonymous Posting on Liberal Comment Threads
- Repeating the Lie – Why We All Say The Same Things All The Time
- The Rove E-Mail – A Message A Day Keeps The Dems Away
- Bashing Obama – Who Needs Truth When Innuendo and Guilt-by Association Will Do?
- The McCain Conundrum – Holding Your Nose and Typing With One Hand
- After the Fall – What to Do After November 4th, When No One Cares What We Think
Reception to follow...
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Recount Redux
My review of the HBO movie Recount sparked a just few comments. But they are so predictable and tedious, I thought I would answer them out front. Both long comments are from my frequent tormentor (he thinks), the ubiquitous Prosqtor.
Yes, although I yearn for the comfort of guns and religion, I am made of stronger stuff.
Prosqtor has the details of the specious equal protection argument wrong. It wasn't that the Gore legal team had cherry-picked hand recounts in friendly counties -- by the time it got to the U.S. Supreme Court, it was a state-wide hand recount of undervotes. It was the different interpretation of the ballots -- some counties counting dimpled chads, some not. He's also wrong about what scenario would have had Gore ahead. It was not only overvotes on optical ballots -- it was also if "a statewide recount of all disqualified ballots was undertaken using the standards that each county's election officials have said they would use in a recount." That's exactly the standard the Florida Supremes ordered and that the U.S. Supremes stopped in its tracks.
You know, I was as surprised as Prosqtor was (and you know he was) when the media consortium that (finally) counted the votes found that Bush won under some scenarios, Gore in only some others. Certainly, if not for pre-election blunders (the butterfly ballots) and deviousness (Harris' overly-broad-on-purpose felon purge list), Gore wins Florida in a walk. No one believes that more people didn't go to the polls there on election day intending to vote for Gore.
But whether Gore comes out on top or not is not really the point. At the time the Bushies were fighting to stop the recount, no one knew who won. The outrage of the Bushies being able to stop the recount and run out the clock is not, necessarily, that Gore would have surely won. It was that they would go to such outrageous lengths to stop and hijack the process of democracy. As Spacey/Klain screams in a bar at the height of Recount, "Who WON??!" No one would have denied even Junior Bush electoral legitimacy if his henchmen had let the process play out to answer that question.
Let's review just some of the Republican tactics, shall we? 1) Sending congressional aides from Washington to start a riot during the Miami-Dade counting. 2) Sending in a lobbyist to sit on Katherine Harris so she'll do what you want. 3) Getting their election monitors to object to every ballot not because they had a legitimate concerns, but to slow the process. 4) Getting the legislature to vote to give Bush the electoral votes no matter what happened. 5) Using the U.S. Supreme Court to take the counting process away from the State of Florida. 6) Treating what should be a delicate matter like a scorched-earth political battle instead of a sacred protection of the voters' intent.
Now, let's play one of my favorite games: What If a Democrat Did It? If Gore was ahead by 500 votes and in control of the Florida political apparatus and pulled any one of the stunts listed above, do you think Bush would have graciously conceded, as Gore did? Do you think the (then) GOP House of Representatives and Senate would have certified the election results? Do you think Gore would have been impeached for these shenanigans in his first year?
Come on. But my favorite comments -- from anonymous pipsqueaks like Prosqtor and especially from people like Justice Scalia -- are that we should "get over it". This - yes - talking point emerged immediately after Gore's concession. This from people who never "got over" a stain on a blue dress. The hijacking of democracy in Florida is not something your "get over". It is a historical outrage. It is something that you (and your children, forever in history books) study and understand how it happened. It is something that you work to prevent. It is something that you never let happen again.
- "Let's ignore for the moment that several independent recounts of the very rejected ballots Gore sought to have (improperly, in my opinion) counted revealed....Bush won Florida. Even if you deny that (which I'm sure you will, if for no other reason than I asserted it), Gore made a tremendous legal error by only moving the courts to count certain counties' ballots. This legal strategy paved the way for the Equal Protection Clause-based decision by the Supremes. See, when you peel back the bias, there is the law. Gore's team sought to do an end-run around counting rejected ballots in places it would hurt them, in favor of only counting in certain counties. This was far more abusive than the Supreme Court following the Fourteenth Amendment. And making James Baker of all people out to be Darth Vader-esque is a joke. Baker continually surprises Republicans by not coming out with a McClellan-like book "telling all" about the Bushes. I await your assertion that I give nothing but "Talk Radio Talking Points," while refusing to address my argument."
- "The only way Al Gore wins a statewide recount in Florida -- and remember, he wasn't asking for that -- is if you count the "overvotes," where some moron both punched a selection on the ballot AND WROTE A NAME IN. These are by any standard improper votes.It's time to move past 2000, Mike. Your guy lost the Electoral College, and your guy lost worse in 2004. We're in '08 now; maybe some of the bitterness should be purged?(If only you had guns and religion to cling to, to help with the bitterness) ;)"
Yes, although I yearn for the comfort of guns and religion, I am made of stronger stuff.
Prosqtor has the details of the specious equal protection argument wrong. It wasn't that the Gore legal team had cherry-picked hand recounts in friendly counties -- by the time it got to the U.S. Supreme Court, it was a state-wide hand recount of undervotes. It was the different interpretation of the ballots -- some counties counting dimpled chads, some not. He's also wrong about what scenario would have had Gore ahead. It was not only overvotes on optical ballots -- it was also if "a statewide recount of all disqualified ballots was undertaken using the standards that each county's election officials have said they would use in a recount." That's exactly the standard the Florida Supremes ordered and that the U.S. Supremes stopped in its tracks.
You know, I was as surprised as Prosqtor was (and you know he was) when the media consortium that (finally) counted the votes found that Bush won under some scenarios, Gore in only some others. Certainly, if not for pre-election blunders (the butterfly ballots) and deviousness (Harris' overly-broad-on-purpose felon purge list), Gore wins Florida in a walk. No one believes that more people didn't go to the polls there on election day intending to vote for Gore.
But whether Gore comes out on top or not is not really the point. At the time the Bushies were fighting to stop the recount, no one knew who won. The outrage of the Bushies being able to stop the recount and run out the clock is not, necessarily, that Gore would have surely won. It was that they would go to such outrageous lengths to stop and hijack the process of democracy. As Spacey/Klain screams in a bar at the height of Recount, "Who WON??!" No one would have denied even Junior Bush electoral legitimacy if his henchmen had let the process play out to answer that question.
Let's review just some of the Republican tactics, shall we? 1) Sending congressional aides from Washington to start a riot during the Miami-Dade counting. 2) Sending in a lobbyist to sit on Katherine Harris so she'll do what you want. 3) Getting their election monitors to object to every ballot not because they had a legitimate concerns, but to slow the process. 4) Getting the legislature to vote to give Bush the electoral votes no matter what happened. 5) Using the U.S. Supreme Court to take the counting process away from the State of Florida. 6) Treating what should be a delicate matter like a scorched-earth political battle instead of a sacred protection of the voters' intent.
Now, let's play one of my favorite games: What If a Democrat Did It? If Gore was ahead by 500 votes and in control of the Florida political apparatus and pulled any one of the stunts listed above, do you think Bush would have graciously conceded, as Gore did? Do you think the (then) GOP House of Representatives and Senate would have certified the election results? Do you think Gore would have been impeached for these shenanigans in his first year?
Come on. But my favorite comments -- from anonymous pipsqueaks like Prosqtor and especially from people like Justice Scalia -- are that we should "get over it". This - yes - talking point emerged immediately after Gore's concession. This from people who never "got over" a stain on a blue dress. The hijacking of democracy in Florida is not something your "get over". It is a historical outrage. It is something that you (and your children, forever in history books) study and understand how it happened. It is something that you work to prevent. It is something that you never let happen again.
Monday, June 02, 2008
Recounting History
It is eerie watching Recount, the new TV film about the Bush campaign’s hijacking of democracy in Florida in 2000. The nightmare I watched on cable with my mouth hanging open in amazement for five long weeks as the Bushies committed election theft in slow motion and in broad daylight flies by in two hours on HBO. It has its moments, but it is the kind of Hollywood recent-history epic that tries to play it right down the middle. The Republican thugs who gleefully got Junior installed don’t deserve to be treated so well.
Not that the Bushies don’t look bad – they do. As portrayed in the film, the Republicans immediately saw the battle as political and pulled out all the stops to use every one of their Bush-friendly Florida resources to put the fix in. By the time they brought in the Silver Hammer – Bush family fixer James Baker – they had already locked down every law firm in Florida and, combined with the brother-governor, the legislature and the extremely needy Katherine Harris, it was over before it started. The Democrats, for some reason playing with a bunch of second-stringers – what, did Jeb shut down the airports too? – took the high road, looking for the diplomatic concessions they would have easily allowed if the tables were turned. The Republicans who supported the film (James Baker even hosted a screening) probably think it makes them look brilliant because of their brutal manipulation of the law, the facts and the politics. That’s how they roll, I guess, but they are wrong. The crisis in Florida called for the GOP to call up their better natures and do what was best for the country. As I suspected and as we know now far too well, they don’t have them.
As entertainment, the movie tries to have it three different ways and succeeds and fails in equal measure. 1) It wants to build suspense, but we all know the ending and most of the ugly details how it got there. Besides, the facts are so ridiculous, no one would believe it if it were fiction. 2) It wants to be respectable historically, but, although the main character is on the Democratic side, it fails to bring home the true Dark Side of the Republicans as they shut down the democratic process. And 3) it wants to show how smart it is by dropping little bomblets even recount connoisseurs may be unaware of, such as Bush shill Ben Ginsberg’s pathetic whining about Democrats "stealing elections". It is emblematic of the movie’s failings that his comments are not drenched in irony.
The actors involved are some of the best talents working, but the casting suffers from dominant personalities that often overwhelm their subjects and some mismatches. At this point in his career, Kevin Spacey is always Kevin Spacey; just like Jimmy Stewart was always Jimmy Stewart and Jack Lemmon was always Jack Lemmon. He could no more be believed as real-guy Ron Klain than Gary Cooper was Lou Gehrig. Same with Dennis Leary, who plays some other real guy with a weird Southern/Eastern accent, but is always his own smart-ass self. Tom Wilkinson, who was all over HBO a couple of months ago as a hilariously debauched Ben Franklin, plays James Baker as the center of the Republican universe, which gives the real-life line-reading thug a bit too much credit. (Karl Rove, who probably had more to do with the Bushies’ scorched-earth tactics in Florida as anyone else, gets only one mention in the film, when someone says he wants Al Gore’s house picketed. Wilkinson/Baker is more than happy to oblige.) John Hurt is even more of a waste than he plays Warren Christopher to be and the washed-up Ed Begley, Jr. can’t do justice to Gore lawyer David Boies, who kicked legal ass as best he could, with the deck stacked high against him.
And then there is Laura Dern as Katherine Harris, who has received universal and well-deserved praise for her dead-on, over-the-top portrayal. As a result, Harris comes out looking the worst in all this and she deserves almost all of it. But Dern is the only one in the whole picture that is allowed to tell the truth about her character. For a movie that is at least partially a product of Hollywood-style political compromise, it appears that even Republicans agreed that it was OK to hold Harris up to dramatic ridicule. Even Wilkinson/Baker, seeing her on TV, scoffs at her mere existence. I suppose it is not surprising that, in a self-serving story about greedy, power-mad men, it is the one woman in the room who bears the mark of the buffoon.
Sure, Harris was an easy target – the only thing that you can criticize about Dern’s performance is that she wasn’t weird enough – but why stop there? Recount would have been so much more of an artistic triumph if it didn’t play it so damn safe; if all of the characters were painted in broad caricatures. Get someone to play Baker like the smarmy back-room Bush-enabler he is – maybe James Cromwell. Let’s see those punk kids who shut down the counting in Miami-Dade the day before, as they left their congressional staffing offices in Washington and got on the Enron plane headed for Florida. How about digging into the dark world of the Bush legal team – I can see Nicholson as Scalia. Every close-up of someone in the Bush war room should be accompanied by bad-guy music. Every gathering of the naive Democrats should be preceded by something suitably naive and uplifting, like "I’d Like to Buy the World a Coke".
Well, maybe someday someone will make that movie. In the meantime, as a homogenized history lesson, Recount does just fine. This was the first grown-up adult talking-head movie my 13-year-old son has managed to sit through, and he seemed to get a lot out of it. After the first half-hour, he stopped asking me if this or that "really happened" and I had to dig up some YouTube videos to show him how good Dern had nailed the real Katherine Harris. After it was over, he announced that the bloodless Bush coup had landed on his top five outrageous things that happened in his lifetime, up there with the Iraq War, the Bush presidency generally, 9/11 and – I forget – maybe the Favre retirement (he reminds me in the comments below - it was Katrina).
When I was his age in 1968, I was living through the height of Vietnam/LBJ/Bobby-Martin/Nixon madness. It was an edgier time to be sure, but today is no less an essential moment in time. I can’t blame him for wanting hope, change and competence – something sorely missing from his national government during the politically-conscious part of his lifetime. Living through and understanding the worst prepares us to fight for better.
The circumstances in Recount were, as it turns out, the perfect start to the Bush presidency, which never stopped acting as if its rule were a result of providence and divine entitlement. With a wide swath of devastation in their wake, the Bushies will get what they deserve eventually – in the history books, at least. You can say we won’t get fooled again but, as Recount makes clear, not enough of us were fooled in the first place for this band of reckless bandits to assume power by one vote in the Supreme Court.
Not that the Bushies don’t look bad – they do. As portrayed in the film, the Republicans immediately saw the battle as political and pulled out all the stops to use every one of their Bush-friendly Florida resources to put the fix in. By the time they brought in the Silver Hammer – Bush family fixer James Baker – they had already locked down every law firm in Florida and, combined with the brother-governor, the legislature and the extremely needy Katherine Harris, it was over before it started. The Democrats, for some reason playing with a bunch of second-stringers – what, did Jeb shut down the airports too? – took the high road, looking for the diplomatic concessions they would have easily allowed if the tables were turned. The Republicans who supported the film (James Baker even hosted a screening) probably think it makes them look brilliant because of their brutal manipulation of the law, the facts and the politics. That’s how they roll, I guess, but they are wrong. The crisis in Florida called for the GOP to call up their better natures and do what was best for the country. As I suspected and as we know now far too well, they don’t have them.
As entertainment, the movie tries to have it three different ways and succeeds and fails in equal measure. 1) It wants to build suspense, but we all know the ending and most of the ugly details how it got there. Besides, the facts are so ridiculous, no one would believe it if it were fiction. 2) It wants to be respectable historically, but, although the main character is on the Democratic side, it fails to bring home the true Dark Side of the Republicans as they shut down the democratic process. And 3) it wants to show how smart it is by dropping little bomblets even recount connoisseurs may be unaware of, such as Bush shill Ben Ginsberg’s pathetic whining about Democrats "stealing elections". It is emblematic of the movie’s failings that his comments are not drenched in irony.
The actors involved are some of the best talents working, but the casting suffers from dominant personalities that often overwhelm their subjects and some mismatches. At this point in his career, Kevin Spacey is always Kevin Spacey; just like Jimmy Stewart was always Jimmy Stewart and Jack Lemmon was always Jack Lemmon. He could no more be believed as real-guy Ron Klain than Gary Cooper was Lou Gehrig. Same with Dennis Leary, who plays some other real guy with a weird Southern/Eastern accent, but is always his own smart-ass self. Tom Wilkinson, who was all over HBO a couple of months ago as a hilariously debauched Ben Franklin, plays James Baker as the center of the Republican universe, which gives the real-life line-reading thug a bit too much credit. (Karl Rove, who probably had more to do with the Bushies’ scorched-earth tactics in Florida as anyone else, gets only one mention in the film, when someone says he wants Al Gore’s house picketed. Wilkinson/Baker is more than happy to oblige.) John Hurt is even more of a waste than he plays Warren Christopher to be and the washed-up Ed Begley, Jr. can’t do justice to Gore lawyer David Boies, who kicked legal ass as best he could, with the deck stacked high against him.
And then there is Laura Dern as Katherine Harris, who has received universal and well-deserved praise for her dead-on, over-the-top portrayal. As a result, Harris comes out looking the worst in all this and she deserves almost all of it. But Dern is the only one in the whole picture that is allowed to tell the truth about her character. For a movie that is at least partially a product of Hollywood-style political compromise, it appears that even Republicans agreed that it was OK to hold Harris up to dramatic ridicule. Even Wilkinson/Baker, seeing her on TV, scoffs at her mere existence. I suppose it is not surprising that, in a self-serving story about greedy, power-mad men, it is the one woman in the room who bears the mark of the buffoon.
Sure, Harris was an easy target – the only thing that you can criticize about Dern’s performance is that she wasn’t weird enough – but why stop there? Recount would have been so much more of an artistic triumph if it didn’t play it so damn safe; if all of the characters were painted in broad caricatures. Get someone to play Baker like the smarmy back-room Bush-enabler he is – maybe James Cromwell. Let’s see those punk kids who shut down the counting in Miami-Dade the day before, as they left their congressional staffing offices in Washington and got on the Enron plane headed for Florida. How about digging into the dark world of the Bush legal team – I can see Nicholson as Scalia. Every close-up of someone in the Bush war room should be accompanied by bad-guy music. Every gathering of the naive Democrats should be preceded by something suitably naive and uplifting, like "I’d Like to Buy the World a Coke".
Well, maybe someday someone will make that movie. In the meantime, as a homogenized history lesson, Recount does just fine. This was the first grown-up adult talking-head movie my 13-year-old son has managed to sit through, and he seemed to get a lot out of it. After the first half-hour, he stopped asking me if this or that "really happened" and I had to dig up some YouTube videos to show him how good Dern had nailed the real Katherine Harris. After it was over, he announced that the bloodless Bush coup had landed on his top five outrageous things that happened in his lifetime, up there with the Iraq War, the Bush presidency generally, 9/11 and – I forget – maybe the Favre retirement (he reminds me in the comments below - it was Katrina).
When I was his age in 1968, I was living through the height of Vietnam/LBJ/Bobby-Martin/Nixon madness. It was an edgier time to be sure, but today is no less an essential moment in time. I can’t blame him for wanting hope, change and competence – something sorely missing from his national government during the politically-conscious part of his lifetime. Living through and understanding the worst prepares us to fight for better.
The circumstances in Recount were, as it turns out, the perfect start to the Bush presidency, which never stopped acting as if its rule were a result of providence and divine entitlement. With a wide swath of devastation in their wake, the Bushies will get what they deserve eventually – in the history books, at least. You can say we won’t get fooled again but, as Recount makes clear, not enough of us were fooled in the first place for this band of reckless bandits to assume power by one vote in the Supreme Court.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Exploiting Murder
There is no tragedy too severe, no outrage too deep, no crime too gruesome for the right-wing to exploit for their nefarious political purposes. Whether it is self-imposed carnage in Iraq, natural and man-made disaster in New Orleans or epidemics from AIDS to malaria, the bodies of the dead and wounded are merely convenient stepping-stones on the path to one aspect or other of the GOP agenda.
Locally, the right-radio-and-blog trafficking in human suffering usually features stories – real and imagined – from the inner city, a part of the world none of them care about, and understand even less. Every shooting, drug arrest and dropout is held out as evidence of systemic cultural deficiency that can only be cured by right-remedies such as profiteering "choice" "schools"; more arrests, (still) longer incarceration and, even, the death penalty; and, ultimately, the realization by the victims of the legacy of slavery, poverty and racism that they have victimized themselves.
This week, however, local nut-right radio lurched into previously uncharted territory when it latched on to a sad, violent incident in the white community and proceeded to play political games with it. No, I’m not talking about the guy who drove off the bluff in Shorewood, mere blocks from Plaisted Writes headquarters, although some did blab about that, to no real end. Rather, it was the murder of a 65 year-old choral singer from Whitefish Bay in a downtown parking ramp that mainstream radio wing-nuts Charlie Sykes and Jay Weber (at least) used to push – absurdly – legalizing the carrying of concealed weapons, a long-cherished NRA objective in Wisconsin.
The poor woman has not even been put to rest yet, but that didn't stop them from tramping over her memory and, no doubt, increasing the suffering and grief of her family by foolishly claiming that she could have saved herself if only she was allowed to pack heat. Imagine driving around making arrangements and gathering family for the services on Saturday and having to put up with this crap on your radio. African-Americans in town have had to tolerate this nonsense for years, but this could (and should) be considered out of bounds on the North Shore. Perhaps Sykes might catch a little blow-back on his next trip to Sendik’s. We could only hope.
The NRA talking-points read by both Sykes and Weber were identical: Elizabeth Witte might be alive today if she had a gun in her purse to protect herself. The whole premise is absurd. Murderous stalkers like her sick ex-husband don’t announce themselves, wave their knives up in the air and give her time to get the gun out, much less aim and shoot. The gruesome details in the complaint show that she never had a chance, armed or unarmed. To take these horrible facts and try to make political hay out of these circumstances is an outrage. In the pursuit of their right-wing agenda, Sykes and Weber went and pissed on her grave before she even got a chance to get buried in it.
Jay Weber is an annoying, interchangeable hack, but Charlie Sykes yearns for respectability. Although, as the golden boy of the Journal Company, he can get away with anything (such as calling Al Sharpton a pimp and Hillary Clinton a witch), he also savors his TV face-time, most recently offering campaign "analysis" on straight news programs (if you can still call the continuing deterioration of Channel 4 "straight news"). You wonder if it is really worth it for him to drive political points over the dead bodies of obviously beloved tragic victims like Elizabeth Witte.
Locally, the right-radio-and-blog trafficking in human suffering usually features stories – real and imagined – from the inner city, a part of the world none of them care about, and understand even less. Every shooting, drug arrest and dropout is held out as evidence of systemic cultural deficiency that can only be cured by right-remedies such as profiteering "choice" "schools"; more arrests, (still) longer incarceration and, even, the death penalty; and, ultimately, the realization by the victims of the legacy of slavery, poverty and racism that they have victimized themselves.
This week, however, local nut-right radio lurched into previously uncharted territory when it latched on to a sad, violent incident in the white community and proceeded to play political games with it. No, I’m not talking about the guy who drove off the bluff in Shorewood, mere blocks from Plaisted Writes headquarters, although some did blab about that, to no real end. Rather, it was the murder of a 65 year-old choral singer from Whitefish Bay in a downtown parking ramp that mainstream radio wing-nuts Charlie Sykes and Jay Weber (at least) used to push – absurdly – legalizing the carrying of concealed weapons, a long-cherished NRA objective in Wisconsin.
The poor woman has not even been put to rest yet, but that didn't stop them from tramping over her memory and, no doubt, increasing the suffering and grief of her family by foolishly claiming that she could have saved herself if only she was allowed to pack heat. Imagine driving around making arrangements and gathering family for the services on Saturday and having to put up with this crap on your radio. African-Americans in town have had to tolerate this nonsense for years, but this could (and should) be considered out of bounds on the North Shore. Perhaps Sykes might catch a little blow-back on his next trip to Sendik’s. We could only hope.
The NRA talking-points read by both Sykes and Weber were identical: Elizabeth Witte might be alive today if she had a gun in her purse to protect herself. The whole premise is absurd. Murderous stalkers like her sick ex-husband don’t announce themselves, wave their knives up in the air and give her time to get the gun out, much less aim and shoot. The gruesome details in the complaint show that she never had a chance, armed or unarmed. To take these horrible facts and try to make political hay out of these circumstances is an outrage. In the pursuit of their right-wing agenda, Sykes and Weber went and pissed on her grave before she even got a chance to get buried in it.
Jay Weber is an annoying, interchangeable hack, but Charlie Sykes yearns for respectability. Although, as the golden boy of the Journal Company, he can get away with anything (such as calling Al Sharpton a pimp and Hillary Clinton a witch), he also savors his TV face-time, most recently offering campaign "analysis" on straight news programs (if you can still call the continuing deterioration of Channel 4 "straight news"). You wonder if it is really worth it for him to drive political points over the dead bodies of obviously beloved tragic victims like Elizabeth Witte.
Monday, May 26, 2008
The Unknown Soldier
For Memorial Day a re-post of something I wrote on my old blog. This was posted January 1, 2004 -- 4-and-a-half long years ago. Since then, thousands have died and tens of thousands have been maimed for the sake of vain politicians. I still hope this guy wasn't one of them, that he somehow made it home in one piece -- from that tour and the second and third. I hope he was not another Unnecessary Casualty in the Stupidest War and the greatest foreign policy fiasco in American history.
2 a.m. – Ho-Chunk Casino, Wisconsin Dells – 12/29/03
I must have sat at the blackjack table with the guy for an hour or more. Sometimes the tables get a little chatty – sometimes obnoxiously so, such as the next table over, where some idiot was thrown out for making racial slurs – but this table was quiet. We placed our bets, we got the cards, we studied the cards, the dealer took the chips away (more often than not). I was in the middle of the table, right next to a cranky chain-smoker on a losing streak and an Asian woman, muttering under her breath (cursing?).
I barely noticed him at the end of the table to my right ("first base"). He was playing quietly as was I, except he was spared the cigarette fumes from the guy next to me. I couldn’t even tell if he was winning or losing. He was in his late 20s or early 30s, head shaved down to a stubble, thin, healthy. He wasn’t smoking or drinking that I could tell. Just hanging out on a late night. He might have been talking to the person next to him quietly and I paid no attention. Then I heard him say:
"I’m going to Baghdad, Sunni triangle, next week."
Well, that got my attention, even through the haze of noise, smoke, gambling adrenalin and late-night exhaustion. Now I looked at him, really, for the first time. He had none of the false bravura you often see in military men. His affect was flat – not happy, not sad. He seemed accepting of his unknown fate. But concerned enough to share his upcoming adventure with anyone within earshot at a blackjack table.
I’m pretty shy and usually don’t interject myself in other people’s conversation or talk to strangers. But this was too much. As I looked over, whoever he was talking to and the Asian woman left the table and now there was no one between him and me. As the dealer shuffled, I asked him if he had been there before. "Nope, I was in Japan when this whole thing started," he said matter-of-factly. "It’s pretty rough over there, isn’t it?" I said, my brilliant conversational style in full effect. "Yeah," said the soldier, as the cards hit the table again.
I wanted to say more, of course. I wanted to tell him that the invasion was based on lies and he shouldn’t be put in harm’s way for the dreamy geopolitical designs of Wolfowitz and Cheney. I wanted to tell him that I would be working like hell in ‘04 for an end to the radical Bush regime and, hopefully, an end to the impossible occupation he was about to join. He seemed to have an attitude that was far from gung-ho and maybe he’d appreciate my concern for his safety and give a tacit (or even overt) endorsement of my (our) campaign to free the nation from this madness. But, out of respect for the predicament he apparently had come to terms with, I kept quiet as I played just a couple more hands. When he wasn’t looking, I snuck a few peeks at him – the human face of the Bush Tragedies.
As I got up to leave, I quietly said "take care" to him, but I don’t think he heard me, since he was talking to someone else. I took a few steps away from the table and then circled back. "Hey, good luck," I said as I tapped him on the elbow. I never meant it so much in my whole life. He looked at me, but didn’t say anything. I walked out in the cold and drove back to the hotel in silence.
My dad served in the Navy in WWII and I used to love rummaging around in his artifacts as a kid (my brother and I still have his dogtags). But I formed my first opinions about military people while in high school, while the Vietnam War raged. The stories of the My Lai massacre and other tragedies helped me to think the worst about the potential behavior of those in uniform.
Since then, I have been educated about the impossible situation the soldiers were put in by politicians who couldn’t care less about the human cost of their grand designs. History books, movies like Apocalypse Now and personal stories from my brave brother-in-law John and others have brought into full focus the irresponsibility of the Masters of War.
Sure, a few people still use their time in the service as an excuse to brag, bully and otherwise act like jerks. But the volunteer military is mostly made up of the sons and daughters of the poor and working class, who are willing to take the risk of hostile fire to get a leg up in education or job skills. We owe them more respect than they are shown by throwing them into Unnecessary Wars and Impossible Occupations. There are now almost 500 soldiers dead in Bush’s Folly in Iraq. Not one of those deaths and not one of the thousands of injuries were Necessary.
That handsome young man at the end of the table is about to be shipped off and serve as a Walking Target for Iraqi nationalists, fighting off – as nationalists always do and always will – the illegal occupation of their country. I’ll watch for his face in lists of the dead and injured while I fight this year for an end to the Bush regime and everything it stands for.
THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER
2 a.m. – Ho-Chunk Casino, Wisconsin Dells – 12/29/03
I must have sat at the blackjack table with the guy for an hour or more. Sometimes the tables get a little chatty – sometimes obnoxiously so, such as the next table over, where some idiot was thrown out for making racial slurs – but this table was quiet. We placed our bets, we got the cards, we studied the cards, the dealer took the chips away (more often than not). I was in the middle of the table, right next to a cranky chain-smoker on a losing streak and an Asian woman, muttering under her breath (cursing?).
I barely noticed him at the end of the table to my right ("first base"). He was playing quietly as was I, except he was spared the cigarette fumes from the guy next to me. I couldn’t even tell if he was winning or losing. He was in his late 20s or early 30s, head shaved down to a stubble, thin, healthy. He wasn’t smoking or drinking that I could tell. Just hanging out on a late night. He might have been talking to the person next to him quietly and I paid no attention. Then I heard him say:
"I’m going to Baghdad, Sunni triangle, next week."
Well, that got my attention, even through the haze of noise, smoke, gambling adrenalin and late-night exhaustion. Now I looked at him, really, for the first time. He had none of the false bravura you often see in military men. His affect was flat – not happy, not sad. He seemed accepting of his unknown fate. But concerned enough to share his upcoming adventure with anyone within earshot at a blackjack table.
I’m pretty shy and usually don’t interject myself in other people’s conversation or talk to strangers. But this was too much. As I looked over, whoever he was talking to and the Asian woman left the table and now there was no one between him and me. As the dealer shuffled, I asked him if he had been there before. "Nope, I was in Japan when this whole thing started," he said matter-of-factly. "It’s pretty rough over there, isn’t it?" I said, my brilliant conversational style in full effect. "Yeah," said the soldier, as the cards hit the table again.
I wanted to say more, of course. I wanted to tell him that the invasion was based on lies and he shouldn’t be put in harm’s way for the dreamy geopolitical designs of Wolfowitz and Cheney. I wanted to tell him that I would be working like hell in ‘04 for an end to the radical Bush regime and, hopefully, an end to the impossible occupation he was about to join. He seemed to have an attitude that was far from gung-ho and maybe he’d appreciate my concern for his safety and give a tacit (or even overt) endorsement of my (our) campaign to free the nation from this madness. But, out of respect for the predicament he apparently had come to terms with, I kept quiet as I played just a couple more hands. When he wasn’t looking, I snuck a few peeks at him – the human face of the Bush Tragedies.
As I got up to leave, I quietly said "take care" to him, but I don’t think he heard me, since he was talking to someone else. I took a few steps away from the table and then circled back. "Hey, good luck," I said as I tapped him on the elbow. I never meant it so much in my whole life. He looked at me, but didn’t say anything. I walked out in the cold and drove back to the hotel in silence.
My dad served in the Navy in WWII and I used to love rummaging around in his artifacts as a kid (my brother and I still have his dogtags). But I formed my first opinions about military people while in high school, while the Vietnam War raged. The stories of the My Lai massacre and other tragedies helped me to think the worst about the potential behavior of those in uniform.
Since then, I have been educated about the impossible situation the soldiers were put in by politicians who couldn’t care less about the human cost of their grand designs. History books, movies like Apocalypse Now and personal stories from my brave brother-in-law John and others have brought into full focus the irresponsibility of the Masters of War.
Sure, a few people still use their time in the service as an excuse to brag, bully and otherwise act like jerks. But the volunteer military is mostly made up of the sons and daughters of the poor and working class, who are willing to take the risk of hostile fire to get a leg up in education or job skills. We owe them more respect than they are shown by throwing them into Unnecessary Wars and Impossible Occupations. There are now almost 500 soldiers dead in Bush’s Folly in Iraq. Not one of those deaths and not one of the thousands of injuries were Necessary.
That handsome young man at the end of the table is about to be shipped off and serve as a Walking Target for Iraqi nationalists, fighting off – as nationalists always do and always will – the illegal occupation of their country. I’ll watch for his face in lists of the dead and injured while I fight this year for an end to the Bush regime and everything it stands for.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Peace Through Music - Lennon Tribute on Sunday
Join me and a few hundred friends for the annual Peace Through Music benefit at Linneman's this Sunday night, featuring the music of John Lennon. It is a benefit for WAVE and the Brady Campaign, both dedicated to curbing handgun violence. The performers are some of the best Milwaukee has to offer and a splendid time is guaranteed for all.
As I have the past several years, I will be acting as host for the entire evening -- always an adventure, especially after midnight. I will be performing early -- at 7:30 -- with a band and the best of musical intentions.
With wack-job right-wing bloggers celebrating the gun culture (my favorite from B&S: "Congratulations to Brandon at GOP3 on the purchase of his first handgun!" Go get 'em, killer!) and all reasonable gun control efforts being challenged in court by gun industry (not gun-owner) flacks in the NRA, it is more important than ever to support efforts to curb handgun violence.
Show your support and get great music in your ears on Sunday night!
Friday, May 23, 2008
Breaking Into the National Conversation
The employment interviews for the minor wing-nuts that continue to populate mainstream radio can’t be that complicated. Is the prospect committed to the increasingly tiresome and doomed right-wing agenda? Do they promise to promote Big Oil’s excuse-making for its obscene profits and its attack on solid global warming science? Can they recite scripts featuring constant phony attacks on biofuels and all other forms alternative energy? Will they adhere strictly to GOP talking-points designed to portray Barack Obama as a Wright-believing, brie-eating, America-hating elitist? Good, you’re hired. Check your conscience at the door and we’ll see you on Monday...
Besides that, there does not seem to be a whole lot expected from the minor league off-peak and fill-in blowhards. Although the whole point of this kind of heavily-scripted, unoriginal programming is supposed to be "entertainment" for selfish, angry white males – Obama is coming for your SUV! – there is little in the voices and presentation that makes any of the shows worthwhile for anything but sheer amazement of what these people are doing on the air. From nightmare-smoker-at-the-end-of-the-bar Vicki McKenna to soft-spoken Sykes-wannabe Jeff Wagner to morning chucklehead Jay Weber, all of the third-tier (there is no second-tier) squawkers that soak up the innings while Sykes and Belling do their show prep in corporate boardrooms are a collection of the most uninteresting voices you could imagine behind a radio microphone.
But, even among the tedious and mundane, there is one voice that stands out. That voice belongs to James T. Harris.
Harris was plucked out of his well-earned obscurity as a self-styled inspirational speaker after calling frequently into Charlie Sykes’ show as "James from Sherman Park", the kind of African-American seminar-caller Sykes and other radio hacks like to parade around as the "true" voice of the city. You know the drill: they always make sure to mention they are black, always make sure to mention they are conservative (for which they are patted on the head by the patronizing host), blah de blah blah.
Harris holds down the non-Brewer Saturday and Sunday afternoon no-one-is-listening shift at WTMJ, while other AM talkers are running innocuous real estate, financial and computer advice shows, and also fills in for Wagner when he is not around. His radio demeanor is extremely light, like he can’t even bring himself to talk directly into the microphone. He seems very amused with himself, chuckling with every lame observation or attempt to outrage. Again, you wonder about the station manager that hears crap like this and then says "Yeah, let’s get that guy on the air."
Substance-wise, Harris seldom strays from the mundane wing-nut orthodox talking-points left behind by others. When he adds his wacked-out personal touch, he often uses his (he thinks) protected status as a black man to spin racist tripe about Barack Obama. He calls Obama "the Chocolate Jesus", something no one else could get away with. Like other African-American conservatives anointed by his white benefactors, he has the right-wing blame-the-victim thing down-pat, blaming his less fortunate (i.e.: less accomodating, less corporate-sponsored) brothers and sisters in the city for the legacy of slavery, the long history of someone else’s racism, their systemic poverty and uncomfortable underclass behavior.
Some of this is too much for even his corporate enablers at TMJ. Harris has two versions of his blog – laughingly titled "The National Conversation". One is on the radio site (although, interestingly, it is not linked or allowed a button on Sykes’ vanity-blog page along with the other hosts); the other is titled "the National Conversation (Raw)", which has the more unfiltered content. It is on the (Raw) site that you will find more of James the Ridiculous, such as supporting the racist comparison of Obama to Curious George (banana and all). In his latest post, Harris complains about Sen. Herb Kohl accurately saying that the obscene profits of Big Oil were "unfair". "Sen. Kohl, I'll tell you what isn't fair. It isn't fair that you represent Wisconsin," says Harris, perhaps forgetting all those elections the senator fairly won. "The only reason why you are still a Senator is because you saved the Bucks, and because you are filthy rich. Well guess what? The Bucks suck."
Astute analysis, is it not? But, Harris plods on, using his TMJ platform to acquire TV face-time (on Sykes’ Sunday show, natch) and an unfortunate recent puff-piece on OnMilwaukee.com. He is the perfect example of the extent to which mainstream radio will go to maintain its poisonous right-wing message. They’ll accept any level of lameness in their hosts, as long as they toe the corporate line. And when it comes to jumping through hoops, carrying water and shilling for the right-wing agenda, the only question James T. Harris has is: How high, how far and how often?
Besides that, there does not seem to be a whole lot expected from the minor league off-peak and fill-in blowhards. Although the whole point of this kind of heavily-scripted, unoriginal programming is supposed to be "entertainment" for selfish, angry white males – Obama is coming for your SUV! – there is little in the voices and presentation that makes any of the shows worthwhile for anything but sheer amazement of what these people are doing on the air. From nightmare-smoker-at-the-end-of-the-bar Vicki McKenna to soft-spoken Sykes-wannabe Jeff Wagner to morning chucklehead Jay Weber, all of the third-tier (there is no second-tier) squawkers that soak up the innings while Sykes and Belling do their show prep in corporate boardrooms are a collection of the most uninteresting voices you could imagine behind a radio microphone.
But, even among the tedious and mundane, there is one voice that stands out. That voice belongs to James T. Harris.
Harris was plucked out of his well-earned obscurity as a self-styled inspirational speaker after calling frequently into Charlie Sykes’ show as "James from Sherman Park", the kind of African-American seminar-caller Sykes and other radio hacks like to parade around as the "true" voice of the city. You know the drill: they always make sure to mention they are black, always make sure to mention they are conservative (for which they are patted on the head by the patronizing host), blah de blah blah.
Harris holds down the non-Brewer Saturday and Sunday afternoon no-one-is-listening shift at WTMJ, while other AM talkers are running innocuous real estate, financial and computer advice shows, and also fills in for Wagner when he is not around. His radio demeanor is extremely light, like he can’t even bring himself to talk directly into the microphone. He seems very amused with himself, chuckling with every lame observation or attempt to outrage. Again, you wonder about the station manager that hears crap like this and then says "Yeah, let’s get that guy on the air."
Substance-wise, Harris seldom strays from the mundane wing-nut orthodox talking-points left behind by others. When he adds his wacked-out personal touch, he often uses his (he thinks) protected status as a black man to spin racist tripe about Barack Obama. He calls Obama "the Chocolate Jesus", something no one else could get away with. Like other African-American conservatives anointed by his white benefactors, he has the right-wing blame-the-victim thing down-pat, blaming his less fortunate (i.e.: less accomodating, less corporate-sponsored) brothers and sisters in the city for the legacy of slavery, the long history of someone else’s racism, their systemic poverty and uncomfortable underclass behavior.
Some of this is too much for even his corporate enablers at TMJ. Harris has two versions of his blog – laughingly titled "The National Conversation". One is on the radio site (although, interestingly, it is not linked or allowed a button on Sykes’ vanity-blog page along with the other hosts); the other is titled "the National Conversation (Raw)", which has the more unfiltered content. It is on the (Raw) site that you will find more of James the Ridiculous, such as supporting the racist comparison of Obama to Curious George (banana and all). In his latest post, Harris complains about Sen. Herb Kohl accurately saying that the obscene profits of Big Oil were "unfair". "Sen. Kohl, I'll tell you what isn't fair. It isn't fair that you represent Wisconsin," says Harris, perhaps forgetting all those elections the senator fairly won. "The only reason why you are still a Senator is because you saved the Bucks, and because you are filthy rich. Well guess what? The Bucks suck."
Astute analysis, is it not? But, Harris plods on, using his TMJ platform to acquire TV face-time (on Sykes’ Sunday show, natch) and an unfortunate recent puff-piece on OnMilwaukee.com. He is the perfect example of the extent to which mainstream radio will go to maintain its poisonous right-wing message. They’ll accept any level of lameness in their hosts, as long as they toe the corporate line. And when it comes to jumping through hoops, carrying water and shilling for the right-wing agenda, the only question James T. Harris has is: How high, how far and how often?
Sunday, May 18, 2008
They Paved Paradise
I didn’t know an important part of my professional playground was in such trouble.
More significantly, you can’t even get out of the Courthouse on the east side anymore due to the increased security in the building, caused by goddamn 9/11 and other uptight what-if-people-
get-upset-in-family-court security measures. This all happened right around the time they sold the giant clock to the Brat Stop and a statue of Mahatma Gandhi was erected right outside the east doors, which you can no longer enter or exit, leaving Gandhi the loneliest excellent sculpture in town. Early in my career, I used to make a choice every morning whether to walk in to one of three doors on the east side of the Courthouse – for what it’s worth, I always chose the one labeled "justice" (as opposed to the more ominous concepts on doors labled "order" or "truth"). Now, you can’t get in or out of any of those doors. Justice denied, indeed.
I’m no architect or civil engineer (Whitney Gould, where are you now that we need you?), but this all seems gross to me. I am all in favor of leaving our anachronisms in place, if only to remind us of a simpler, dumber time. Although we don’t seem to be in any hurry to develop the Park East corridor, I understand that every inch of downtown must be filled with some kind of goddamn functional purpose. But I don’t see the problem with the roof of the Courthouse/MATC/Museum parking lot being filled with empty space, grass, concrete, and a statue of Douglas MacArthur looking out over parading troops that aren’t there anymore. It seems a fitting tribute for us – and for him.
The Journal Sentinel reported on Saturday that MacArthur Square – that two-block-long flat block of concrete-and-green space in the shadow of the Milwaukee County Courthouse and above a parking lot – was falling apart so much that the city couldn’t fill the reflecting pool and run the fountain at the east end, next to the Muni Court, this summer. Apparently, that’s part of the reason why the ceiling of the parking lot leaks on the hood of my car every other week in the spring and summer. Thus do our grandest traditions crumble under the weight of time and the crushing realities of civic plans gone awry.
There was a time when MacArthur Square served as a grand vista for the most cinematic of my lawyerly daydreams. Walking out of the Courthouse after a hard day of kicking ass on behalf of poor, disenfranchised alleged criminals (I said alleged!!), I would walk out of the Courthouse or the decrepit Safety Building (want to ride in the Safety Building elevators? You feeling lucky, punk?) out into the flat expanse looking east over the skyline, the Hyatt and City Hall and bounce around like Rocky. Top ‘o the world, Ma!
But MacArthur Square lost its pizzazz in direct proportion to its diminished access. Back when I was working at the Public Defender at the State Office Building in the early ‘90s, you could actually get from the Courthouse to the S.O.B. on 7th Street (alright: James Lovell) by walking across the plaza to the unnecessarily circular walkways. Alas, both curly-cues that brought you from the plaza to street level have crumbled and been removed. You can't get to James Lovell from the plaza anymore without walking to either side and walking down Wells or State.
More significantly, you can’t even get out of the Courthouse on the east side anymore due to the increased security in the building, caused by goddamn 9/11 and other uptight what-if-people-
get-upset-in-family-court security measures. This all happened right around the time they sold the giant clock to the Brat Stop and a statue of Mahatma Gandhi was erected right outside the east doors, which you can no longer enter or exit, leaving Gandhi the loneliest excellent sculpture in town. Early in my career, I used to make a choice every morning whether to walk in to one of three doors on the east side of the Courthouse – for what it’s worth, I always chose the one labeled "justice" (as opposed to the more ominous concepts on doors labled "order" or "truth"). Now, you can’t get in or out of any of those doors. Justice denied, indeed.According to the article, there is now talk of eliminating the Square altogether and replacing it with an extension of Kilbourn Avenue somehow. I’d like to know how that is going to work. Are they going to drive asphalt right through the parking lot and under the Courthouse to get to – where? 10th Street? The freeway? Will they bring Kilbourn up over the parking lot, only to do one of those damn circles and point traffic back down toward the Arena? How about plowing right through the Courthouse (losing the 00 through 04 courtrooms on each floor) and right over the freeway?
I’m no architect or civil engineer (Whitney Gould, where are you now that we need you?), but this all seems gross to me. I am all in favor of leaving our anachronisms in place, if only to remind us of a simpler, dumber time. Although we don’t seem to be in any hurry to develop the Park East corridor, I understand that every inch of downtown must be filled with some kind of goddamn functional purpose. But I don’t see the problem with the roof of the Courthouse/MATC/Museum parking lot being filled with empty space, grass, concrete, and a statue of Douglas MacArthur looking out over parading troops that aren’t there anymore. It seems a fitting tribute for us – and for him.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Take Me Out To the Ball Game
In his always-amusing column in the Journal Sentinel on Tuesday, Jim Stingl relates the story of a couple of guys who got into a heated political argument at Miller Park on Saturday during the Brewer game. Well, now that the cat’s out of the bag, I guess I can man-up and confess to being one of the apparently obnoxious drunken debaters. Things kind of snowballed in the course of the game and...well, let me start at the beginning.
It all started innocently enough in the parking lot, where my friends and I were having a friendly game of toss-the-beanbag over a case or two of Milwaukee’s finest. We were minding our own business when a football flew in from a couple of rows over and smacked into the back of my car, right on my "I’m already against the next war" bumper sticker. "Hey, man, take it easy," I said to the perps. "Shut up and give me the football, you hippie jerk," the young man responded. I flashed a peace sign and headed towards the stadium, not knowing that the dangerous mix of politics and sports was just beginning.
As we settled into our seats, it appeared Ben Sheets was going to be serviceable, but not great, on this day. He gave up a couple of runs early and the Brewers continued their lethargic early-season hitting. But it was baseball on a Saturday afternoon and all was right with the world.
The thing that I love about going to Brewer games is just hanging out with my friends and/or family. You can watch the game or you don’t have to. You can engage in conversations, interrupted only by the crack of the bat. You look up to see what happened – groan if it’s bad, cheer if it’s good – and go back to talking. Or not. Your choice.
On this day, one of my friends was blabbing on like he was Chris Matthews about why Hillary Clinton wouldn’t just quit already. "What’s her deal, man?" he complained while sipping his Leinie Red. "I mean, it’s over. Just go home already. Jeesh." Having heard this from him for the last three months, I know how to deal with it. "Relax, let it play out," I said. "We’ll be fine. McCain is just Bob Dole without the Grecian Formula."
Then someone sitting next to me decided to pipe up. I had seen him out of the corner of my eye. He looked kind of familiar, but seemed kind of stuffy. But apparently, he had had enough of our liberal jibber-jabber. "Aw, she’ll never quit," he said. "A house has to fall on her and her toes have to curl up before she’ll be done." Well, alright. This guy just called Hillary a witch – the Wicked Witch of the West, no less. I turned to him with a smile and an attitude. My friend, knowing what was coming, said "oh oh". It was ON.
"Oh, I see," I began, as another Brewer swung and missed. "And your candidate would be he of the 100 Year Stupid War in Iraq?" "That’s not what he meant..." he stammered. I continued. "Yes...I suppose he also didn’t mean to be against the Bush tax cuts for the rich before he was for them. And he didn’t mean to accept the endorsement of that religious nutjob. And his wife’s secret taxes, I suppose that’s something you can live with?" Down the row, I could see the people he was with trying to pull him to the side. But my new friend apparently thought he was up to the task.
"Say, who was that great president you guys had not so long ago...Carter? I seem to remember, peanut farmer, terrorist-lover, Jimmy somebody..." He was smirking now, egging me on. "Jimmy Carter is a great humanitarian," I proclaimed, without a shred of irony. "I can’t wait to see Bush as an ex-president. What’s he gonna do – go on a tour giving play-time lectures at Chuckie Cheese?" I could tell I was getting to him now. "Oh yeah?" he said. "Well, Bill Clinton got his DNA on a blue dress!" "Really?" I was just warming up. "Well, Bush got buckets blood and death all over tens of thousands of people and that stuff just will not come off!" Our necks swiveled at the crack of the bat – a two-run dinger for the Cardinals. Groan.
I took the opportunity to get in a double shot. "Oh yeah, and you guys have been just great for the economy. I had to take another loan to fill up my car again today. Nice to know it’s all going to Bush and Cheney’s oil buddies, idn’t it?" "Figures," he said. "Can’t trust the free market. Damn socialist." "Free market??" I retorted. "The oil market is about as free as a Gitmo prisoner." "There you go again," he went again. "Won’t be happy ‘til the terrorists win. Why don’t you take your damn law license and go represent a few of them?"
OK, so now it’s clear I’ve been made. But I had his number, too. "I’d love to, but then I’d miss your radio comedy show. It is a comedy show, right? All that stuff about the 50 Rules that you don’t even follow? All that reading GOP talking points with a straight face. Hilarious."
"Shut up!" "No, you shut up." ‘No, you." "You shut up." Etc.
By this time, our entire section was vacated, the aisles roped off with police tape. It was getting really ugly, and it was only the 6th inning – Gagne wouldn’t give up the winning runs for at least another hour. I decided it had to stop and looked for a graceful exit. "Look, Sykes, why don’t you save your half-baked, pseudo-intellectual, right-wing-funded nonsense for Monday morning. I’m trying to watch some baseball here." I reached out my hand to shake his but - honest! - forgot I had a beer in that hand. Before I knew it, he was wearing my beer.
In retrospect, it was the best $6.75 I ever spent.
It all started innocently enough in the parking lot, where my friends and I were having a friendly game of toss-the-beanbag over a case or two of Milwaukee’s finest. We were minding our own business when a football flew in from a couple of rows over and smacked into the back of my car, right on my "I’m already against the next war" bumper sticker. "Hey, man, take it easy," I said to the perps. "Shut up and give me the football, you hippie jerk," the young man responded. I flashed a peace sign and headed towards the stadium, not knowing that the dangerous mix of politics and sports was just beginning.
As we settled into our seats, it appeared Ben Sheets was going to be serviceable, but not great, on this day. He gave up a couple of runs early and the Brewers continued their lethargic early-season hitting. But it was baseball on a Saturday afternoon and all was right with the world.
The thing that I love about going to Brewer games is just hanging out with my friends and/or family. You can watch the game or you don’t have to. You can engage in conversations, interrupted only by the crack of the bat. You look up to see what happened – groan if it’s bad, cheer if it’s good – and go back to talking. Or not. Your choice.
On this day, one of my friends was blabbing on like he was Chris Matthews about why Hillary Clinton wouldn’t just quit already. "What’s her deal, man?" he complained while sipping his Leinie Red. "I mean, it’s over. Just go home already. Jeesh." Having heard this from him for the last three months, I know how to deal with it. "Relax, let it play out," I said. "We’ll be fine. McCain is just Bob Dole without the Grecian Formula."
Then someone sitting next to me decided to pipe up. I had seen him out of the corner of my eye. He looked kind of familiar, but seemed kind of stuffy. But apparently, he had had enough of our liberal jibber-jabber. "Aw, she’ll never quit," he said. "A house has to fall on her and her toes have to curl up before she’ll be done." Well, alright. This guy just called Hillary a witch – the Wicked Witch of the West, no less. I turned to him with a smile and an attitude. My friend, knowing what was coming, said "oh oh". It was ON.
"Oh, I see," I began, as another Brewer swung and missed. "And your candidate would be he of the 100 Year Stupid War in Iraq?" "That’s not what he meant..." he stammered. I continued. "Yes...I suppose he also didn’t mean to be against the Bush tax cuts for the rich before he was for them. And he didn’t mean to accept the endorsement of that religious nutjob. And his wife’s secret taxes, I suppose that’s something you can live with?" Down the row, I could see the people he was with trying to pull him to the side. But my new friend apparently thought he was up to the task.
"Say, who was that great president you guys had not so long ago...Carter? I seem to remember, peanut farmer, terrorist-lover, Jimmy somebody..." He was smirking now, egging me on. "Jimmy Carter is a great humanitarian," I proclaimed, without a shred of irony. "I can’t wait to see Bush as an ex-president. What’s he gonna do – go on a tour giving play-time lectures at Chuckie Cheese?" I could tell I was getting to him now. "Oh yeah?" he said. "Well, Bill Clinton got his DNA on a blue dress!" "Really?" I was just warming up. "Well, Bush got buckets blood and death all over tens of thousands of people and that stuff just will not come off!" Our necks swiveled at the crack of the bat – a two-run dinger for the Cardinals. Groan.
I took the opportunity to get in a double shot. "Oh yeah, and you guys have been just great for the economy. I had to take another loan to fill up my car again today. Nice to know it’s all going to Bush and Cheney’s oil buddies, idn’t it?" "Figures," he said. "Can’t trust the free market. Damn socialist." "Free market??" I retorted. "The oil market is about as free as a Gitmo prisoner." "There you go again," he went again. "Won’t be happy ‘til the terrorists win. Why don’t you take your damn law license and go represent a few of them?"
OK, so now it’s clear I’ve been made. But I had his number, too. "I’d love to, but then I’d miss your radio comedy show. It is a comedy show, right? All that stuff about the 50 Rules that you don’t even follow? All that reading GOP talking points with a straight face. Hilarious."
"Shut up!" "No, you shut up." ‘No, you." "You shut up." Etc.
By this time, our entire section was vacated, the aisles roped off with police tape. It was getting really ugly, and it was only the 6th inning – Gagne wouldn’t give up the winning runs for at least another hour. I decided it had to stop and looked for a graceful exit. "Look, Sykes, why don’t you save your half-baked, pseudo-intellectual, right-wing-funded nonsense for Monday morning. I’m trying to watch some baseball here." I reached out my hand to shake his but - honest! - forgot I had a beer in that hand. Before I knew it, he was wearing my beer.
In retrospect, it was the best $6.75 I ever spent.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Operation Chaos - Republican Version
Right-wingers like to gloat about how the continuing race for the Democratic nomination is tearing Democrats apart along racial, class, gender and other lines. This is all a bunch of hooey. There is a legitimate conversation going on about who is best to lead the party in November. Once that fight is over, the entire party will rally around whoever wins. Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are much more interested in the party’s strength and the nation’s future than they are in their own personal ambitions – although they have those, too. Regardless of what happens, the party will be united in the fall, despite the best efforts of the right to inflame imaginary fissures and the MSM to exacerbate slight internal conflicts for entertainment purposes.
If you really want to see division, chaos and disaster in a political party, check out the Republicans.
When John McCain emerged from a pathetic field of candidates in March, the Republicans were stuck with the results of their own democratic arrangements. The winner-take-all scheme in place in most Republican primaries rewarded the hot hand when the most primaries are happening (winner-take-all in Dem primaries would have handed the nomination to Hillary a long time ago). The only other candidate that got anything close to momentum going at any time was Mike Huckabee, who had his fifteen minutes of fame and late-show appearances and quickly squandered it with wacky tax schemes and other religious nuttery. Everyone else either blew up (the delicious Rudy), melted under the lights (the robotic Romney) or lost track of the others wandering in the desert looking for Area 51 (Ron Paul, phone home). McCain became the nominee by default, not because any Republicans necessarily wanted him.
Because, if you believe what they say, they really don’t. Historically, McCain would be considered a fairly straight Republican follower. But, in the context of the strict discipline and orthodoxy required of party regulars (and talking-pointed mainstream radio "personalities") by the Rove-run Bush political regime, he was re-cast as a wild-eyed independent, thumbing his nose at Bush’s political judicial appointments, working on campaign finance reform and other such outrages. McCain also made the Bushies jealous because he actually had a genuine sense of humor, something they couldn’t buy in a store or from their consultants. McCain was too good for the Bush Republican party (not saying much), but not any use to anyone else. Once the focus gets on him – especially in comparison to the vibrant Obama and, yes, Clinton – McCain will melt like butter in his Arizona sun. He is the Bob Dole of 2008. This just might be the first Democratic landslide since 1964.
While the Dems battle the last mile, the right-wing radio and blog wing-nuts are getting in their last licks at McCain before the same cowardly chameleons swallow their ever-shifting "principles" and get behind him in the fall.
For instance, a bunch of head-in-the-sand reactionaries in his party on mainstream radio and the blogosphere feigned outrage this week when McCain had the temerity to recognize global climate change as the threat that it is in a speech this week. Although he tried pathetically to squeeze as much free-market clap-trap into his watered-down proposal as possible, this was not enough for the tireless blowhards that have chosen to carry Big Oil’s water. McCain obviously chose this course to avoid being completely laughed off the stage – he’ll get enough of that on his absurd position on Iraq. But, Republicans will pretend to stand on principle until they don’t. That’s how win-at-all-costs, for-sale people roll.
As entertaining as this beating up on McCain for being McCain is, there is apparently trouble on another front for the GOP nominee. The Prince of Darkness, Bob Novak, got on his knees (not a unique position for him when it comes to Republican sources) and put his ear to the dirty ground of some political evangelicals, discovering a let-Obama-win movement within the over-heated rapture crowd. For these wacked-out religi-nuts, the inevitable (to them) Obama presidency is "a biblical plague visited upon a sinful people". After four years of the supposed Obama disaster, the nation will turn its lonely eyes to preacher Huckabee, who will lead the righteous (and only the righteous, I assume) to the promised land of, er, the Fair Tax scheme or something.
The only question in Novak’s mind is whether Huckabee himself is in on this lunacy. Whether he is or whether he isn’t (if you want a real laugh, listen to the nut-right screech about McCain’s Huckabee-as-VP trial balloon, also this week), the whole notion of an Obama presidency as some sort of guaranteed nightmare for anyone but Republican operatives is ludicrous. If Obama is the nominee and gets the mandate of a 55-45 margin, 20-30 more seats in the House and a near-filibuster-proof Senate – all very much in the realm of possibility, if not likelihood – it is much more probable that his first four years would be a resounding success, especially if the Democrats can end the Stupid War and get universal healthcare enacted. What happens to their supposed faith when Obama succeeds and Huckabee continues life in 2012 and beyond as just another 2008 has-been? You would hope this kind of failed prophesy would affect their sanctimony or, at least, cost them a few gullible followers. Alas, this is hoping for too much.
When it gets to be September and the right-wing sees the writing on the wall of the impending Democratic landslide, it’s not like they are going to give up. They are going to poison the political environment with lies and smears, trying to drag whoever the Dem candidate down to their sorry level. They'll kick and scratch and lose like a bunch of whiney babies. But lose they will. And they will have no one to blame but themselves...and Junior Bush.
If you really want to see division, chaos and disaster in a political party, check out the Republicans.
When John McCain emerged from a pathetic field of candidates in March, the Republicans were stuck with the results of their own democratic arrangements. The winner-take-all scheme in place in most Republican primaries rewarded the hot hand when the most primaries are happening (winner-take-all in Dem primaries would have handed the nomination to Hillary a long time ago). The only other candidate that got anything close to momentum going at any time was Mike Huckabee, who had his fifteen minutes of fame and late-show appearances and quickly squandered it with wacky tax schemes and other religious nuttery. Everyone else either blew up (the delicious Rudy), melted under the lights (the robotic Romney) or lost track of the others wandering in the desert looking for Area 51 (Ron Paul, phone home). McCain became the nominee by default, not because any Republicans necessarily wanted him.
Because, if you believe what they say, they really don’t. Historically, McCain would be considered a fairly straight Republican follower. But, in the context of the strict discipline and orthodoxy required of party regulars (and talking-pointed mainstream radio "personalities") by the Rove-run Bush political regime, he was re-cast as a wild-eyed independent, thumbing his nose at Bush’s political judicial appointments, working on campaign finance reform and other such outrages. McCain also made the Bushies jealous because he actually had a genuine sense of humor, something they couldn’t buy in a store or from their consultants. McCain was too good for the Bush Republican party (not saying much), but not any use to anyone else. Once the focus gets on him – especially in comparison to the vibrant Obama and, yes, Clinton – McCain will melt like butter in his Arizona sun. He is the Bob Dole of 2008. This just might be the first Democratic landslide since 1964.
While the Dems battle the last mile, the right-wing radio and blog wing-nuts are getting in their last licks at McCain before the same cowardly chameleons swallow their ever-shifting "principles" and get behind him in the fall.
For instance, a bunch of head-in-the-sand reactionaries in his party on mainstream radio and the blogosphere feigned outrage this week when McCain had the temerity to recognize global climate change as the threat that it is in a speech this week. Although he tried pathetically to squeeze as much free-market clap-trap into his watered-down proposal as possible, this was not enough for the tireless blowhards that have chosen to carry Big Oil’s water. McCain obviously chose this course to avoid being completely laughed off the stage – he’ll get enough of that on his absurd position on Iraq. But, Republicans will pretend to stand on principle until they don’t. That’s how win-at-all-costs, for-sale people roll.
As entertaining as this beating up on McCain for being McCain is, there is apparently trouble on another front for the GOP nominee. The Prince of Darkness, Bob Novak, got on his knees (not a unique position for him when it comes to Republican sources) and put his ear to the dirty ground of some political evangelicals, discovering a let-Obama-win movement within the over-heated rapture crowd. For these wacked-out religi-nuts, the inevitable (to them) Obama presidency is "a biblical plague visited upon a sinful people". After four years of the supposed Obama disaster, the nation will turn its lonely eyes to preacher Huckabee, who will lead the righteous (and only the righteous, I assume) to the promised land of, er, the Fair Tax scheme or something.
The only question in Novak’s mind is whether Huckabee himself is in on this lunacy. Whether he is or whether he isn’t (if you want a real laugh, listen to the nut-right screech about McCain’s Huckabee-as-VP trial balloon, also this week), the whole notion of an Obama presidency as some sort of guaranteed nightmare for anyone but Republican operatives is ludicrous. If Obama is the nominee and gets the mandate of a 55-45 margin, 20-30 more seats in the House and a near-filibuster-proof Senate – all very much in the realm of possibility, if not likelihood – it is much more probable that his first four years would be a resounding success, especially if the Democrats can end the Stupid War and get universal healthcare enacted. What happens to their supposed faith when Obama succeeds and Huckabee continues life in 2012 and beyond as just another 2008 has-been? You would hope this kind of failed prophesy would affect their sanctimony or, at least, cost them a few gullible followers. Alas, this is hoping for too much.
When it gets to be September and the right-wing sees the writing on the wall of the impending Democratic landslide, it’s not like they are going to give up. They are going to poison the political environment with lies and smears, trying to drag whoever the Dem candidate down to their sorry level. They'll kick and scratch and lose like a bunch of whiney babies. But lose they will. And they will have no one to blame but themselves...and Junior Bush.
Sunday, May 04, 2008
Bill Maher and the American Way
It appears one of his students left a Shepard Express laying around in nut-right Marquette professor John McAdam’s classroom last week. No doubt this is not an uncommon occurrence on Thursdays; the Shepard and McAdam’s lectures being what they are or, rather, what they are not. The student needs something to glance at to stay awake during the class and immediately abandons the always-disappointing rag at the sound of the class period bell. One man’s lame effort to shape Milwaukee opinion becomes another man’s litter. And that man’s litter becomes McAdam’s rant-fodder.
McAdams breathlessly reported over the weekend that comedian Bill Maher is coming to town in a show sponsored by American TV. McAdams is outraged that Maher would be invited to our fair city because he read all this stuff from catholic crazy man Bill Donohue and others on the right-religious fringe that Maher said this or that and that he was an anti-Christian "bigot". This was too much for the professor, who promises not to darken the showrooms of American ever again. Charlie Sykes was so impressed with McAdams’ dark victimhood, he even decided to highlight and quote the screed on his vanity blog, although he failed to say whether he would sign on to McAdams brave but lonely boycott (radio advertisers being who they are and such).
Apparently, McAdams undies are in a bundle over a couple of things Maher has said on his excellent Real Time show on HBO, which, after all, has as its purpose discussing controversial topics. This has been Maher’s forte since his Politically Incorrect show on ABC. On that show, a couple of days after 9/11, he said: "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly." The truth not being a defense in that place and at that time, he was fired and found a home at HBO, where he continues to play his role as agent provocateur, this time with naughtier language and no commercials. Along with Lewis Black and Chris Rock (sorry, George), he is one of the best political comedians working today.
When he's not telling jokes, Maher is a fairly mainstream progressive on most topics (or not – he actually supported the Iraq invasion for a short time), but religion, marijuana legalization and meat-eating are his pet peeves – the things that get him off even if his guests won’t follow him there. His religious views are nothing you haven’t heard and read from pop atheist best-sellers Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, both of whom make regular appearances on Real Time. Once you cast off the protective veneer of taboo that insecure religionists hope would prevent all honest discussion of religion, its illogic and the pain and misery it has visited on the world through the years, the whole Sky God thing is a fairly big and easy target.
Saying Christianity is "a dress-up cult that hates sex and worships magic" is not all that outrageous or even very original. And again, there is that fact check: A dress-up cult? Did you see the Pope?...Hates sex? Well, if you don’t, aren’t you supposed to?...Worships magic? Well, what else would you call the claims of a "miracle" that are necessary for sainthood? The Pope really did used to be a Nazi. There really was sexual abuse going on, which was hidden and protected by the paternalistic "religious cult" of the church.
The vast majority of Christians take these remarks for what they are worth and appreciate that, on Real Time, they are usually said in front of someone on the panel that will defend the religionist prerogative. Nobody ever "wins" and argument on Real Time, they just have one. But defensive religionists like McAdams don’t even want these matters discussed. If they could find out whether he floated on water, they would burn Maher at the stake as a witch. As it is, they have their perpetual campaign to get him fired from HBO and now, apparently, to make businesses afraid to sponsor his popular comedy tours. Taking this new approach is a bit of a surprise, but then, nooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition....
At the heart of McAdam’s diatribe, however, is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Maher says and what real bigotry is. Maher has a "hatred of Christians", squawks McAdams, which is ridiculous. Taking issue with religion generally and the Christian or Catholic faith specifically is different from going after the followers, although, admittedly, the more devout are bigger targets and most easily offended because of the kind of enormous insecurity evident in McAdams’ shut-him-up demands. Maher's comments have much more to do with Christianity than with Christians; much more with the leadership than the flock.
I'm sure Maher assumes that the vast majority of people he meets and works with are involved in some of the religions or spiritual organizations he attacks and mocks. To say that he is "bigoted" towards them personally is ludicrous. But that's the impression McAdams, Sykes and their fellow travellers have to try to leave to protect the religious leadership, the zealots and themselves from rational skepicism and historic accountability. They don't have a problem with Bill Maher -- they have a problem with the truth.
I've seen Maher in concert before and he is brilliant in that format. All this pretend "controversy" makes me want to go see him again this time. Then maybe I'll go out to American and get me a new couch.
McAdams breathlessly reported over the weekend that comedian Bill Maher is coming to town in a show sponsored by American TV. McAdams is outraged that Maher would be invited to our fair city because he read all this stuff from catholic crazy man Bill Donohue and others on the right-religious fringe that Maher said this or that and that he was an anti-Christian "bigot". This was too much for the professor, who promises not to darken the showrooms of American ever again. Charlie Sykes was so impressed with McAdams’ dark victimhood, he even decided to highlight and quote the screed on his vanity blog, although he failed to say whether he would sign on to McAdams brave but lonely boycott (radio advertisers being who they are and such).
Apparently, McAdams undies are in a bundle over a couple of things Maher has said on his excellent Real Time show on HBO, which, after all, has as its purpose discussing controversial topics. This has been Maher’s forte since his Politically Incorrect show on ABC. On that show, a couple of days after 9/11, he said: "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away. That's cowardly. Staying in the airplane when it hits the building, say what you want about it, it's not cowardly." The truth not being a defense in that place and at that time, he was fired and found a home at HBO, where he continues to play his role as agent provocateur, this time with naughtier language and no commercials. Along with Lewis Black and Chris Rock (sorry, George), he is one of the best political comedians working today.
When he's not telling jokes, Maher is a fairly mainstream progressive on most topics (or not – he actually supported the Iraq invasion for a short time), but religion, marijuana legalization and meat-eating are his pet peeves – the things that get him off even if his guests won’t follow him there. His religious views are nothing you haven’t heard and read from pop atheist best-sellers Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins, both of whom make regular appearances on Real Time. Once you cast off the protective veneer of taboo that insecure religionists hope would prevent all honest discussion of religion, its illogic and the pain and misery it has visited on the world through the years, the whole Sky God thing is a fairly big and easy target.
Saying Christianity is "a dress-up cult that hates sex and worships magic" is not all that outrageous or even very original. And again, there is that fact check: A dress-up cult? Did you see the Pope?...Hates sex? Well, if you don’t, aren’t you supposed to?...Worships magic? Well, what else would you call the claims of a "miracle" that are necessary for sainthood? The Pope really did used to be a Nazi. There really was sexual abuse going on, which was hidden and protected by the paternalistic "religious cult" of the church.
The vast majority of Christians take these remarks for what they are worth and appreciate that, on Real Time, they are usually said in front of someone on the panel that will defend the religionist prerogative. Nobody ever "wins" and argument on Real Time, they just have one. But defensive religionists like McAdams don’t even want these matters discussed. If they could find out whether he floated on water, they would burn Maher at the stake as a witch. As it is, they have their perpetual campaign to get him fired from HBO and now, apparently, to make businesses afraid to sponsor his popular comedy tours. Taking this new approach is a bit of a surprise, but then, nooobody expects the Spanish Inquisition....
At the heart of McAdam’s diatribe, however, is a fundamental misunderstanding of what Maher says and what real bigotry is. Maher has a "hatred of Christians", squawks McAdams, which is ridiculous. Taking issue with religion generally and the Christian or Catholic faith specifically is different from going after the followers, although, admittedly, the more devout are bigger targets and most easily offended because of the kind of enormous insecurity evident in McAdams’ shut-him-up demands. Maher's comments have much more to do with Christianity than with Christians; much more with the leadership than the flock.
I'm sure Maher assumes that the vast majority of people he meets and works with are involved in some of the religions or spiritual organizations he attacks and mocks. To say that he is "bigoted" towards them personally is ludicrous. But that's the impression McAdams, Sykes and their fellow travellers have to try to leave to protect the religious leadership, the zealots and themselves from rational skepicism and historic accountability. They don't have a problem with Bill Maher -- they have a problem with the truth.
I've seen Maher in concert before and he is brilliant in that format. All this pretend "controversy" makes me want to go see him again this time. Then maybe I'll go out to American and get me a new couch.
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Fighting Fire With Fire
There is still something about this Jeremiah Wright thing that just isn’t, well, right. Despite his declaration of unilateral divorce from his former pastor for the sin of impolitic self-aggrandizing (grounds for separation in at least 35 states), Barack Obama is still being tied to the yoke of the inconveniently silly man in the right-wing media. "Too little, too late," they shout in unison, hoping to soak the last drop of sweat and blood from Obama’s brow.
The whole Wright episode is such a ridiculous distraction; one of those things that seem to happen every week in this campaign that no one would buy as realistic in a political novel. It started – as too many of these things do – with a nut-right talking point that blossomed into a full-blown "issue" when ABC News legitimized the "concerns" about Wright when it ran the now-infamous video of Wright yelling "god damn America" in god-knows-what context. This led to Obama’s exquisite speech about race on March 18th. Obama was in the process of (maybe) riding it out before Wright hit the redemption media circuit over the weekend (Barbara Walters must not have been interested -- Bill Moyers gets the "get"?), committing the sin of being himself and making it impossible for Obama to survive without a clean break. And so he did, but such a break would never be clean enough for the unclean right-wing, who are not about to let the still-likely Democratic nominee off the hook if they can help it.
All of this has been unfair to Obama. Everyone running for president has some clown they would rather not have hanging around in their past, their present or their future. If you can’t see them, it is because either the candidate is too boring (Chris Dodd comes to mind) or they keep their embarrassments well hidden inside corporate cocoons or loopy mega-churches where anyone trying to do oppo-research would be bored to tears, their original curiosity drowned in a sea of piety and self-pity. So, the right-wing echo machine – with the cowardly acquiescence of the MSM – has managed to make Wright and "issue" for Obama and Bill (who, despite the hysterical exaggerations about what he has said or meant, is just fine) an "issue" for Hillary Clinton. Who or what is (or should be) the albatross(es?) around the GOP’s neck?
First of all, forget about looking under the pews at whatever Baptist or Episcopal church John McCain attends every month or so when the cameras are rolling. The chance of finding anything of substance, much less interesting at a church in wherever Arizona McCain claims as his home turf is slim to none (but, believe it or not, somebody tried). McCain’s nut-bag religious baggage rests not in his personal church, but in the usual collection of pathetic, attention-seeking GOP hangers-on, like proud endorser John Hagee, who, among other things, calls the Catholic church "the great whore". Oh, what the hell. Who cares about these religious groups calling each other names? At least he didn’t call them a "bad whore". Now, that’s an insult in the religious world. No – although right-wing preachers say all the time that America is already "damned" for its hedonistic sins and Wright just suggested, perhaps, it should be "damned" for something or other, there is no point in trying to parse these differences and insist on equal treatment for the religious nuts on either side. That ship, unfortunately, has sailed.
But we all know there are people closely tied to the Republicans in general and John McCain in particular that say worse things than Jeremiah Wright ever thought. It is past time for a media frenzy to call on the Republicans denounce and disassociate themselves from their hotheaded good friends...on mainstream talk-radio.
Go through any list of the outrageous statements made through the years by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or any of the other ubiquitous national wing-nuts who have done the GOP’s dirty work since the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated by Reagan 20 years ago. John McCain has appeared on all of these shows many times and will benefit throughout the election period for their support, however grudging. When will he be called on to denounce and disassociate himself with their various outrageous statements through the years?
This also works locally. Pardon the disgusting imagery, but Scott Walker has crawled so far up Charlie Sykes’ ass he has actually gotten a paler shade of white over the past several years. Does he agree with Sykes that Al Sharpton is a pimp? Does he agree with his other radio whore, Mark Belling, that Latinos are "wetbacks"? Do all the local Republicans – pretty-boy Paul Ryan, the repulsive Jim Sensenbrenner, the grandstanding David Clarke – who have an open invitation to appear on all the major and minor local wing-nut shows any time they want to really subscribe to the extreme and laughable positions of the various hosts? If not, what are they doing granting legitimacy to the hosts and their nut-right views?
Somehow, I don’t think this is an idea that is likely to get any traction. But, if the pretended outrage over Wright’s comments will continue to haunt Obama’s campaign, it is only fair that the Republican nominee be held to the same standard – hoisted on the petard of the comments of his most ridiculous supporters. The only problem is that, when it comes to the many ridiculous supporters of Republicans, it’s hard to know where to start.
The whole Wright episode is such a ridiculous distraction; one of those things that seem to happen every week in this campaign that no one would buy as realistic in a political novel. It started – as too many of these things do – with a nut-right talking point that blossomed into a full-blown "issue" when ABC News legitimized the "concerns" about Wright when it ran the now-infamous video of Wright yelling "god damn America" in god-knows-what context. This led to Obama’s exquisite speech about race on March 18th. Obama was in the process of (maybe) riding it out before Wright hit the redemption media circuit over the weekend (Barbara Walters must not have been interested -- Bill Moyers gets the "get"?), committing the sin of being himself and making it impossible for Obama to survive without a clean break. And so he did, but such a break would never be clean enough for the unclean right-wing, who are not about to let the still-likely Democratic nominee off the hook if they can help it.
All of this has been unfair to Obama. Everyone running for president has some clown they would rather not have hanging around in their past, their present or their future. If you can’t see them, it is because either the candidate is too boring (Chris Dodd comes to mind) or they keep their embarrassments well hidden inside corporate cocoons or loopy mega-churches where anyone trying to do oppo-research would be bored to tears, their original curiosity drowned in a sea of piety and self-pity. So, the right-wing echo machine – with the cowardly acquiescence of the MSM – has managed to make Wright and "issue" for Obama and Bill (who, despite the hysterical exaggerations about what he has said or meant, is just fine) an "issue" for Hillary Clinton. Who or what is (or should be) the albatross(es?) around the GOP’s neck?
First of all, forget about looking under the pews at whatever Baptist or Episcopal church John McCain attends every month or so when the cameras are rolling. The chance of finding anything of substance, much less interesting at a church in wherever Arizona McCain claims as his home turf is slim to none (but, believe it or not, somebody tried). McCain’s nut-bag religious baggage rests not in his personal church, but in the usual collection of pathetic, attention-seeking GOP hangers-on, like proud endorser John Hagee, who, among other things, calls the Catholic church "the great whore". Oh, what the hell. Who cares about these religious groups calling each other names? At least he didn’t call them a "bad whore". Now, that’s an insult in the religious world. No – although right-wing preachers say all the time that America is already "damned" for its hedonistic sins and Wright just suggested, perhaps, it should be "damned" for something or other, there is no point in trying to parse these differences and insist on equal treatment for the religious nuts on either side. That ship, unfortunately, has sailed.
But we all know there are people closely tied to the Republicans in general and John McCain in particular that say worse things than Jeremiah Wright ever thought. It is past time for a media frenzy to call on the Republicans denounce and disassociate themselves from their hotheaded good friends...on mainstream talk-radio.
Go through any list of the outrageous statements made through the years by Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity or any of the other ubiquitous national wing-nuts who have done the GOP’s dirty work since the Fairness Doctrine was eliminated by Reagan 20 years ago. John McCain has appeared on all of these shows many times and will benefit throughout the election period for their support, however grudging. When will he be called on to denounce and disassociate himself with their various outrageous statements through the years?
This also works locally. Pardon the disgusting imagery, but Scott Walker has crawled so far up Charlie Sykes’ ass he has actually gotten a paler shade of white over the past several years. Does he agree with Sykes that Al Sharpton is a pimp? Does he agree with his other radio whore, Mark Belling, that Latinos are "wetbacks"? Do all the local Republicans – pretty-boy Paul Ryan, the repulsive Jim Sensenbrenner, the grandstanding David Clarke – who have an open invitation to appear on all the major and minor local wing-nut shows any time they want to really subscribe to the extreme and laughable positions of the various hosts? If not, what are they doing granting legitimacy to the hosts and their nut-right views?
Somehow, I don’t think this is an idea that is likely to get any traction. But, if the pretended outrage over Wright’s comments will continue to haunt Obama’s campaign, it is only fair that the Republican nominee be held to the same standard – hoisted on the petard of the comments of his most ridiculous supporters. The only problem is that, when it comes to the many ridiculous supporters of Republicans, it’s hard to know where to start.
Monday, April 28, 2008
The Wright Stuff
I held my breath as I watched Barack Obama eat a waffle on TV last week. It was from one of Jeannie Most’s always amusing video essays on CNN, this one about the left-over waffle and sausage from Obama’s breakfast in a Pennsylvania coffee-shop photo-op being offered on eBay (final bid: $10,000 before the diner’s owner put a stop to it).
Obama was sitting there peacefully, with an entire bank of reporters and cameras trained on his every move. He cut the waffle and turned his fork upside-down to pick it up. No, I thought. Don’t do it, man! Thankfully, he turned the fork around and took the food in his mouth like an American man, with the prongs pointing up; not down like some effete European wannabe. Thus did we escape a week of discussion on issue-starved cable TV about how Obama hangs around with elitists, talks like an elitist, eats like an elitist...
The Obama Destruction project being conducted by the right-wingers continues, with the full cooperation of the easily-manipulated nervous-nellies of the mainstream media, who think they have to take this nonsense seriously or they’ll be called "liberal". The result is that even faithful Obama-inclined Democrats are wondering whether Hillary Clinton has a point about his electability in light of the right-wing’s all-too-successful attempts to define him in a negative light before he gets a chance to define himself. We may end up thanking the wing-nuts for letting their various cats out of their bag before Obama had the nomination completely in his, but they just couldn’t help their hot-headed selves. They used to be so much better disciplined.
If Obama’s innocent friendship with former, unrepentant ‘60s radicals who happen to live in his neighborhood is not enough for you, there is still plenty of Jeremiah Wright to go around. Those keeping the video and audio of Rev. Wright shouting "god damn America" from his former pulpit running on a permanent loop now have lots more grist for the mill. The reverend spent most of the past several days providing fresh quotes and antics for those who like to feign outrage about such things, especially when they are trying to generate irrelevant distractions to destroy a candidate who would otherwise clean their candidate’s proverbial clock (and still might).
It wouldn’t take more than an hour of internet research to find all kinds of offensive, reactionary right-wing preachers supporting McCain specifically or Republicans generally spouting offensive nonsense. What’s the difference between the pathetic Falwell and Robertson blaming 9/11 on feminists and gays and Wright saying "the chickens were coming home to roost"? But the Gotcha Preacher game doesn’t work both ways – since Bakker and Swagert, etc., we expect right-wing preachers to say idiotic things while they root around in their parishioners’ pockets. As always, left-leaning churches are held to a higher standard, if only because they are rightly taken more seriously.
"For we have a choice in this country," said Barack Obama’s towards the end his terrific speech on the issue of race back on March 18th. "We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism...We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. That is one option...Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, ‘Not this time.’"
Yeah, right. Obama is more hopeful than naive; hoping rather than expecting things to change. With Rev. Wright being very much his unapologetic self on his own personal campaign trail, Obama is stuck with the media narrative that could lead to Wright being perceived as his personal doppelganger. Since mainstream radio and Fox "News" will continue to whore for the GOP, granting unearned legitimacy to all sorts of ridiculous notions, Obama needs to find a solution, and fast.
And then, he needs to get ready for the next personal attack, because these people just don’t quit.
Obama was sitting there peacefully, with an entire bank of reporters and cameras trained on his every move. He cut the waffle and turned his fork upside-down to pick it up. No, I thought. Don’t do it, man! Thankfully, he turned the fork around and took the food in his mouth like an American man, with the prongs pointing up; not down like some effete European wannabe. Thus did we escape a week of discussion on issue-starved cable TV about how Obama hangs around with elitists, talks like an elitist, eats like an elitist...
The Obama Destruction project being conducted by the right-wingers continues, with the full cooperation of the easily-manipulated nervous-nellies of the mainstream media, who think they have to take this nonsense seriously or they’ll be called "liberal". The result is that even faithful Obama-inclined Democrats are wondering whether Hillary Clinton has a point about his electability in light of the right-wing’s all-too-successful attempts to define him in a negative light before he gets a chance to define himself. We may end up thanking the wing-nuts for letting their various cats out of their bag before Obama had the nomination completely in his, but they just couldn’t help their hot-headed selves. They used to be so much better disciplined.
If Obama’s innocent friendship with former, unrepentant ‘60s radicals who happen to live in his neighborhood is not enough for you, there is still plenty of Jeremiah Wright to go around. Those keeping the video and audio of Rev. Wright shouting "god damn America" from his former pulpit running on a permanent loop now have lots more grist for the mill. The reverend spent most of the past several days providing fresh quotes and antics for those who like to feign outrage about such things, especially when they are trying to generate irrelevant distractions to destroy a candidate who would otherwise clean their candidate’s proverbial clock (and still might).
It wouldn’t take more than an hour of internet research to find all kinds of offensive, reactionary right-wing preachers supporting McCain specifically or Republicans generally spouting offensive nonsense. What’s the difference between the pathetic Falwell and Robertson blaming 9/11 on feminists and gays and Wright saying "the chickens were coming home to roost"? But the Gotcha Preacher game doesn’t work both ways – since Bakker and Swagert, etc., we expect right-wing preachers to say idiotic things while they root around in their parishioners’ pockets. As always, left-leaning churches are held to a higher standard, if only because they are rightly taken more seriously.
"For we have a choice in this country," said Barack Obama’s towards the end his terrific speech on the issue of race back on March 18th. "We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism...We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can do that. But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change. That is one option...Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, ‘Not this time.’"
Yeah, right. Obama is more hopeful than naive; hoping rather than expecting things to change. With Rev. Wright being very much his unapologetic self on his own personal campaign trail, Obama is stuck with the media narrative that could lead to Wright being perceived as his personal doppelganger. Since mainstream radio and Fox "News" will continue to whore for the GOP, granting unearned legitimacy to all sorts of ridiculous notions, Obama needs to find a solution, and fast.
And then, he needs to get ready for the next personal attack, because these people just don’t quit.
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The Audacity of Pope
You can be the president
I’d rather be the pope.
– Prince, "Pope"
The networks and cable news channels were out flexing their pomp muscles this week. It’s important for them to do this once in a while, especially for something planned in advance. You never know when an ex-president is going to die again and you want to be sure they have their deferential live-event chops in order.
Joseph Ratzinger made his first visit to the U.S. in his new name, costume and popemobile and the supplicant media beat a path to his door. Rather than spend their time on vastly more important but un-sexy matters like a disastrous Stupid War and a tanking economy, the nation’s news organizations spent most of this week sucking up to America’s 71 million Roman Catholics by uncritically celebrating the pageant of parades and Masses in Washington and New York.
The church took a giant step backward when it elevated the staunch conservative Ratzinger to pope status in 2005, a step the bishops apparently thought they could afford, since they were already a hundred or so steps behind the modern world. Accepting the earth revolves around the sun is one thing but – condoms? Tut, tut – we’ll have none of that. Maybe someday the church can make up a couple of those steps by recognizing the equality of women, but, let’s not go crazy out here.
In his prior position, Ratzinger cracked the whip for the church hierarchy as head of the office that, believe it or not, used to be called the Inquisition. Talk about your rich church history. As the Defender of All That is Wrong – I’m sorry, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (same difference) – Ratzinger put the hammer down on those who would try to bring the church into (at least) the 19th century on issues such as birth control and homosexuality, the result of the insane position on the use of condoms having caused untold death and disease in the third-world countries. He presided over various purges of those who would entertain notions of "liberation theology" (Jeremiah Wright, the cardinal will see you now) and helped, however temporarily, to keep the church’s sexual abuse under wraps.
The week-long media love-fest with the pope – on behalf and because of their Catholic viewer demographic – has done wonders for Ratzinger’s image. He has discussed the sex-abuse scandal early and often, even meeting with several victims in an unannounced location. Brilliant damage control strategy – who’s he got working that, Karl Rove? No word on whether he brought the church’s bulging checkbook with him – now that would be making amends. The awed anchors have found him nicer than they expected – what did they expect, that he’d swing his staff around like the explosion-loving Tim the Enchanter in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, smiting cardinal sinners left and right? Ratzinger has obviously benefitted from low expectations and the intense security detail that preserves his beatific countenance from unworthy disruption.
This is all just casual amusement for the majority of American Catholics, an increasingly shrinking and aging group (other than the booming, younger Latino sector), who attend every other Sunday or so and otherwise ignore most of the church’s ridiculous teachings. The more doctrinaire, almost evangelical Catholics – which seems to include a remarkable proportion of local right-wing bloggers and national columnists like the putrid Bob Novak [ed. -- OK, Bill Kristol is not Catholic, but still putrid]– also pick and choose from the church’s teachings, beating people over the head with the church's anti-choice position (it has been said that if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament) and conveniently ignoring the church’s strong statements against the death penalty and the Stupid War and U.S. occupation of Iraq and in favor of economic justice for the world’s poor. Same as it ever was for those of faith, who believe what they want to believe and leave the rest.
But, for now, the right-wing commentators are treating the pope’s tour like some kind of national cathartic event, claiming the smiles of the faithful crowds and pretty pictures as some sort of rejection of satanic secularism. It’s hardly that. The pope comes and the pope goes, but $4 a gallon gas and the rest of the disastrous legacy of Junior Bush will continue. It'll take more than medival scanctimony and Latin prayers to get us out of this mess.
I’d rather be the pope.
– Prince, "Pope"
The networks and cable news channels were out flexing their pomp muscles this week. It’s important for them to do this once in a while, especially for something planned in advance. You never know when an ex-president is going to die again and you want to be sure they have their deferential live-event chops in order.
Joseph Ratzinger made his first visit to the U.S. in his new name, costume and popemobile and the supplicant media beat a path to his door. Rather than spend their time on vastly more important but un-sexy matters like a disastrous Stupid War and a tanking economy, the nation’s news organizations spent most of this week sucking up to America’s 71 million Roman Catholics by uncritically celebrating the pageant of parades and Masses in Washington and New York.
The church took a giant step backward when it elevated the staunch conservative Ratzinger to pope status in 2005, a step the bishops apparently thought they could afford, since they were already a hundred or so steps behind the modern world. Accepting the earth revolves around the sun is one thing but – condoms? Tut, tut – we’ll have none of that. Maybe someday the church can make up a couple of those steps by recognizing the equality of women, but, let’s not go crazy out here.
In his prior position, Ratzinger cracked the whip for the church hierarchy as head of the office that, believe it or not, used to be called the Inquisition. Talk about your rich church history. As the Defender of All That is Wrong – I’m sorry, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (same difference) – Ratzinger put the hammer down on those who would try to bring the church into (at least) the 19th century on issues such as birth control and homosexuality, the result of the insane position on the use of condoms having caused untold death and disease in the third-world countries. He presided over various purges of those who would entertain notions of "liberation theology" (Jeremiah Wright, the cardinal will see you now) and helped, however temporarily, to keep the church’s sexual abuse under wraps.
The week-long media love-fest with the pope – on behalf and because of their Catholic viewer demographic – has done wonders for Ratzinger’s image. He has discussed the sex-abuse scandal early and often, even meeting with several victims in an unannounced location. Brilliant damage control strategy – who’s he got working that, Karl Rove? No word on whether he brought the church’s bulging checkbook with him – now that would be making amends. The awed anchors have found him nicer than they expected – what did they expect, that he’d swing his staff around like the explosion-loving Tim the Enchanter in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, smiting cardinal sinners left and right? Ratzinger has obviously benefitted from low expectations and the intense security detail that preserves his beatific countenance from unworthy disruption.
This is all just casual amusement for the majority of American Catholics, an increasingly shrinking and aging group (other than the booming, younger Latino sector), who attend every other Sunday or so and otherwise ignore most of the church’s ridiculous teachings. The more doctrinaire, almost evangelical Catholics – which seems to include a remarkable proportion of local right-wing bloggers and national columnists like the putrid Bob Novak [ed. -- OK, Bill Kristol is not Catholic, but still putrid]– also pick and choose from the church’s teachings, beating people over the head with the church's anti-choice position (it has been said that if men got pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament) and conveniently ignoring the church’s strong statements against the death penalty and the Stupid War and U.S. occupation of Iraq and in favor of economic justice for the world’s poor. Same as it ever was for those of faith, who believe what they want to believe and leave the rest.
But, for now, the right-wing commentators are treating the pope’s tour like some kind of national cathartic event, claiming the smiles of the faithful crowds and pretty pictures as some sort of rejection of satanic secularism. It’s hardly that. The pope comes and the pope goes, but $4 a gallon gas and the rest of the disastrous legacy of Junior Bush will continue. It'll take more than medival scanctimony and Latin prayers to get us out of this mess.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Handling the Truth
This primary season has dragged on for so long, the 24-hour news-cycle purveyors are starting to get dizzy. On cable news and political web pages, they stumble from non-issue to non-issue, trying to stay interested in a race on the Democratic side that was been frozen for two months in an apparently insurmountable 150-delegate margin for Barack Obama. When they are not spending hours waxing quizzical about what Hillary Clinton could possibly be thinking of by staying in the race, they are scrutinizing the brow-furrows of her husband for signs of weakness or, at least, the Last Mistake.
Now, this week, everyone has something to say – repeatedly – about Obama’s "gaffe" when he discussed "bitter" working-class people finding cold comfort in guns, religion and anti-immigrant xenophobia. You could hear Democratic consultants tearing their collective hair out from San Francisco to Washington as they braced for the inevitable onslaught from the right-wing echo chamber, who, after having great success parsing 30 seconds from various Jeremiah Wright sermons now have 30 more seconds – this time from the candidate himself – to amuse themselves with. "Elitist!" scream the elitist wing-nuts from their government-licensed radio studios and Scaife-and-Bradley-funded "think tanks".
Unlike the hysterical Wright red herring, however, this one has even Obama sympathizers running for their pacifiers. Even the usually reliable Eugene Kane checks in this morning, lamenting that Obama was "talking down" to small-town voters. On Slate, Melinda Heneberger deconstructs the statement phrase-by-phrase, concluding that "connecting the two [guns ‘n god]" is "belittling in the extreme to the ‘average white person’". In the MSM and cable commentariat, the question isn’t whether the comment will prove damaging, but rather how much damage will be done by those who exacerbate the damage in direct relation to how long they talk about how much damage will be done.
The comment has been compared to images of John Kerry windsurfing, which was used by the Rove message machine to highlight the supposed "elitism" of the candidate in 2004. That the use of that image for that purpose was as ridiculous now as it was then is irrelevant because, it is now claimed, it worked. And who did it work with? Why, those bitter, frustrated, anti-immigrant and trade guns-‘n-god clingers, of course. And why are right-wingers spending all of their free radio time this week squawking about the exposure of Obama's supposed elitism? They know how well it plays with those bitter, frustrated...etc.
Obama’s astute assessment of the angry-white-male electorate actually comes fairly late in the day for the Democrats. Republican’s identified this group over 30 years ago, when manipulative paradigm-shifter Lee Atwater designed the win-at-all-costs scorched-earth campaign on behalf of Bush Senior against the supposedly "elitist" looks-funny-in-a-tank, Willie-Horton-loving Mike Dukakis. Karl Rove did nothing but exploit the bitter fear of these voters to put the incompetent Junior in the White House for eight years, with the willing help of the mainstream radio echo-chamber.
Those entities did nothing but encourage the base resentment of the working class backbone of the country, who saw their economic security pulled out from under them by the same elitist Republicans who now pretend to be their protector from "Democrat" designs on their guns, religion and racial purity. This was the message of Thomas Frank's seminal, now-historic What's the Matter with Kansas. The result of the relentless GOP campaign to disguise their economic thievery with irrelevant emotional "issues" like gay marriage, abortion and undocumented immigrants ("illegal aliens" to you, pal) has been more bitterness and more clinging to things that are not threatened by anybody.
Again, it was a little late, but Democratic consultants have been aware and strategized around the angry-white-male phenomenon for years. They just don’t want their clients out there blabbing about this kind of important but inside-baseball in public, where it can be mangled and manipulated for political advantage. If John McCain had praised the retreat of the disenfranchised working class to the phony safe harbor of, say, religion, he would be exalted by the MSM as keenly insightful. But Democrats are not allowed to celebrate the reciting of truth in this area. They still get defensive about just accurately discussing the lay of the land.
What Obama said just shows how smart he is about the political dynamics of America in a post-Rove world and the challenges that he would face in the general election and as president. He did not speak in disdain but, rather, in understanding. Republicans are shocked - shocked! - that anyone would think, much less say such a thing. But they have done nothing but exploit the angry-white-male reality for decades. And they are doing so with a vengance this week - unfortunately, with the help of too many Democrats, and that includes Hillary Clinton.
Now, this week, everyone has something to say – repeatedly – about Obama’s "gaffe" when he discussed "bitter" working-class people finding cold comfort in guns, religion and anti-immigrant xenophobia. You could hear Democratic consultants tearing their collective hair out from San Francisco to Washington as they braced for the inevitable onslaught from the right-wing echo chamber, who, after having great success parsing 30 seconds from various Jeremiah Wright sermons now have 30 more seconds – this time from the candidate himself – to amuse themselves with. "Elitist!" scream the elitist wing-nuts from their government-licensed radio studios and Scaife-and-Bradley-funded "think tanks".
Unlike the hysterical Wright red herring, however, this one has even Obama sympathizers running for their pacifiers. Even the usually reliable Eugene Kane checks in this morning, lamenting that Obama was "talking down" to small-town voters. On Slate, Melinda Heneberger deconstructs the statement phrase-by-phrase, concluding that "connecting the two [guns ‘n god]" is "belittling in the extreme to the ‘average white person’". In the MSM and cable commentariat, the question isn’t whether the comment will prove damaging, but rather how much damage will be done by those who exacerbate the damage in direct relation to how long they talk about how much damage will be done.
The comment has been compared to images of John Kerry windsurfing, which was used by the Rove message machine to highlight the supposed "elitism" of the candidate in 2004. That the use of that image for that purpose was as ridiculous now as it was then is irrelevant because, it is now claimed, it worked. And who did it work with? Why, those bitter, frustrated, anti-immigrant and trade guns-‘n-god clingers, of course. And why are right-wingers spending all of their free radio time this week squawking about the exposure of Obama's supposed elitism? They know how well it plays with those bitter, frustrated...etc.
Obama’s astute assessment of the angry-white-male electorate actually comes fairly late in the day for the Democrats. Republican’s identified this group over 30 years ago, when manipulative paradigm-shifter Lee Atwater designed the win-at-all-costs scorched-earth campaign on behalf of Bush Senior against the supposedly "elitist" looks-funny-in-a-tank, Willie-Horton-loving Mike Dukakis. Karl Rove did nothing but exploit the bitter fear of these voters to put the incompetent Junior in the White House for eight years, with the willing help of the mainstream radio echo-chamber.
Those entities did nothing but encourage the base resentment of the working class backbone of the country, who saw their economic security pulled out from under them by the same elitist Republicans who now pretend to be their protector from "Democrat" designs on their guns, religion and racial purity. This was the message of Thomas Frank's seminal, now-historic What's the Matter with Kansas. The result of the relentless GOP campaign to disguise their economic thievery with irrelevant emotional "issues" like gay marriage, abortion and undocumented immigrants ("illegal aliens" to you, pal) has been more bitterness and more clinging to things that are not threatened by anybody.
Again, it was a little late, but Democratic consultants have been aware and strategized around the angry-white-male phenomenon for years. They just don’t want their clients out there blabbing about this kind of important but inside-baseball in public, where it can be mangled and manipulated for political advantage. If John McCain had praised the retreat of the disenfranchised working class to the phony safe harbor of, say, religion, he would be exalted by the MSM as keenly insightful. But Democrats are not allowed to celebrate the reciting of truth in this area. They still get defensive about just accurately discussing the lay of the land.
What Obama said just shows how smart he is about the political dynamics of America in a post-Rove world and the challenges that he would face in the general election and as president. He did not speak in disdain but, rather, in understanding. Republicans are shocked - shocked! - that anyone would think, much less say such a thing. But they have done nothing but exploit the angry-white-male reality for decades. And they are doing so with a vengance this week - unfortunately, with the help of too many Democrats, and that includes Hillary Clinton.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Classless with a "C"
The Mighty Mudhens are preparing for their second season in the Milwaukee Men’s Senior Baseball League, 48+ Division. Our first season was a gas, most of us – including me – playing real hardball for the first time since high school. I surprised myself by hitting pretty good, which I attributed to my five years of coaching Little League – I just did what I always told the kids to do and, son-of-a-gun, it worked. We were an expansion team in a six-team division and didn’t win one damn game, but a great time was had by all.
I was thinking of sharing some of the Mudhen experience with my readers this summer – you know, take a little of the edge off the political stuff that is bound to have us all tied up in knots until November with happy stories of older guys trying to play baseball. But then Jessica McBride pulled her little stunt yesterday and, well, I guess it’s best I not put too much personal stuff out there.
After giving all of us a break for the most part in the early part of the year from her ponderous and unintentionally hilarious postings, McBride the blogger lurched clumsily into the issues surrounding the Supreme Court race three weeks before the election by creating a second page called Election Watch Wisconsin. The page appeared to have two primary purposes: first, to conduct some extremely amateur and out-right wrong legal case analysis to try to prove that the Butler campaign was puffing up its estimate of how often the justice voted to uphold criminal convictions and; second, to promote her and her husband’s chosen candidate for the Second District Court of Appeals, who got thumped by incumbent Doyle-appointee Lisa Neubauer. It was an embarrassing, sloppy effort in all respects and a delight for those of us who like to watch arrogant no-talents get into slow-motion train wrecks.
The Second District electorate and anyone with any sense were rightly unimpressed with her hackneyed, embarrassing promotion of losing candidate Bill Gleisner. The series of comedic posts reached classic Soup-Nazi-like status when she offered a letter from Gleisner’s pastor to "prove" his anti-choice credentials, an event even more pathetic because Gleisner gave it to her.
But it was left to others to dig deep to expose McBride’s ham-fisted distortion of Justice Butler’s record on the Supreme Court. Although I read all the cases she initially cited and made an early effort to expose her deliberate cluelessness, learned counsel Illusory Tenant burned millions of pixels on his site during the last weeks of the campaign in an 11 (and counting) part series, coldly eviscerating, case-by-case, the lies of McBride and her fellow travelers in the "Coalition for Wisconsin Families", a nationally-funded advertising campaign disguised as an interest group. I personally wouldn’t spend that much time (even if I had it) dignifying McBride’s hack job with such an elaborate response, but, for anyone wondering if maybe she had stumbled onto some truth by accident, IT’s yeoman service exposed – alas, too late and too quietly – the lies for what they were.
Now, most nut-right operatives who had just gotten away with playing a part in a campaign of distortions that contributed, however minutely, to the defeat of the distinguished first African-American on the Supreme Court, would simply chalk up another one for their side and wait for their invitation to the WMC celebration, coming soon to an undisclosed country club near you. But not our Jess. Still stung by IT’s stellar posts during the campaign and the resultant mild celebrity that resulted in him being invited to chat for ten minutes on public radio, McBride decided to breach the unwritten and who-but-her-doesn’t-know-it rule that you don’t go around getting into personal lives of your opponents in the war of ideas. See, because of his radio appearance, McBride found out the formerly-anonymous IT’s name. The intrepid reporter googled and CCAPed him. She found out some stuff. Then she posted the results, employing the well-worn right-wing tactic of the politics of personal destruction in the hopes that people might forget or ignore how right he is and how wrong she is.
Now, if I were IT, I would be honored by a cheap hack like Jessica McBride flailing around and embarrassing herself in public just because she couldn’t take the heat. It’s like being on Nixon’s enemies list. But, really, none of us on either left or right out here should have to be looking over our shoulders to see who might be ready to expose our public-record weaknesses, much less our private ones.
McBride’s timing in her unwarranted personal attack is interesting, since it comes just after Owen Robinson bemoaned what he called "the decline of the Wisconsin blogosphere" into "insults and filth". I don’t agree with him necessarily. I think sharp language that keeps the focus on what people say and what they do to advance their own political agendas and those of others is fair comment. I say this knowing that I have been attacked for my own comments and characterizations. I try to challenge and engage people on the other side on their terms about what they are saying and doing on subjects they have chosen to engage in. For instance, when I call McBride a "cheap hack", that is judging her public persona, not her private one, about which I couldn’t care less.
Which brings us back to the Mudhens. The MSBL has a website, you see, and all my stats will be up there (not to mention my picture with the 38+/48+ All-Star team [scroll down on the main page], but I digress...). Although I batted a respectable .385 last year, what will happen if it goes south this year? If I go 0-for-4 early in the season, will McBride point to my inept hitting as analogous to my political swings-and-misses? If I go 0-for-May, will I be declared incapable of coherent political thought? I can’t risk losing my confidence at the plate, my spot in the batting order and my small niche in the blogosphere in this important season for the Mudhens and this important election in the fall. McBride, please stay away from the 'Hens. I can't take the pressure.
In the Information Age, we are all so vulnerable in so many ways. But none are so weak as those who exploit that information to prop themselves up.
I was thinking of sharing some of the Mudhen experience with my readers this summer – you know, take a little of the edge off the political stuff that is bound to have us all tied up in knots until November with happy stories of older guys trying to play baseball. But then Jessica McBride pulled her little stunt yesterday and, well, I guess it’s best I not put too much personal stuff out there.
After giving all of us a break for the most part in the early part of the year from her ponderous and unintentionally hilarious postings, McBride the blogger lurched clumsily into the issues surrounding the Supreme Court race three weeks before the election by creating a second page called Election Watch Wisconsin. The page appeared to have two primary purposes: first, to conduct some extremely amateur and out-right wrong legal case analysis to try to prove that the Butler campaign was puffing up its estimate of how often the justice voted to uphold criminal convictions and; second, to promote her and her husband’s chosen candidate for the Second District Court of Appeals, who got thumped by incumbent Doyle-appointee Lisa Neubauer. It was an embarrassing, sloppy effort in all respects and a delight for those of us who like to watch arrogant no-talents get into slow-motion train wrecks.
The Second District electorate and anyone with any sense were rightly unimpressed with her hackneyed, embarrassing promotion of losing candidate Bill Gleisner. The series of comedic posts reached classic Soup-Nazi-like status when she offered a letter from Gleisner’s pastor to "prove" his anti-choice credentials, an event even more pathetic because Gleisner gave it to her.
But it was left to others to dig deep to expose McBride’s ham-fisted distortion of Justice Butler’s record on the Supreme Court. Although I read all the cases she initially cited and made an early effort to expose her deliberate cluelessness, learned counsel Illusory Tenant burned millions of pixels on his site during the last weeks of the campaign in an 11 (and counting) part series, coldly eviscerating, case-by-case, the lies of McBride and her fellow travelers in the "Coalition for Wisconsin Families", a nationally-funded advertising campaign disguised as an interest group. I personally wouldn’t spend that much time (even if I had it) dignifying McBride’s hack job with such an elaborate response, but, for anyone wondering if maybe she had stumbled onto some truth by accident, IT’s yeoman service exposed – alas, too late and too quietly – the lies for what they were.
Now, most nut-right operatives who had just gotten away with playing a part in a campaign of distortions that contributed, however minutely, to the defeat of the distinguished first African-American on the Supreme Court, would simply chalk up another one for their side and wait for their invitation to the WMC celebration, coming soon to an undisclosed country club near you. But not our Jess. Still stung by IT’s stellar posts during the campaign and the resultant mild celebrity that resulted in him being invited to chat for ten minutes on public radio, McBride decided to breach the unwritten and who-but-her-doesn’t-know-it rule that you don’t go around getting into personal lives of your opponents in the war of ideas. See, because of his radio appearance, McBride found out the formerly-anonymous IT’s name. The intrepid reporter googled and CCAPed him. She found out some stuff. Then she posted the results, employing the well-worn right-wing tactic of the politics of personal destruction in the hopes that people might forget or ignore how right he is and how wrong she is.
Now, if I were IT, I would be honored by a cheap hack like Jessica McBride flailing around and embarrassing herself in public just because she couldn’t take the heat. It’s like being on Nixon’s enemies list. But, really, none of us on either left or right out here should have to be looking over our shoulders to see who might be ready to expose our public-record weaknesses, much less our private ones.
McBride’s timing in her unwarranted personal attack is interesting, since it comes just after Owen Robinson bemoaned what he called "the decline of the Wisconsin blogosphere" into "insults and filth". I don’t agree with him necessarily. I think sharp language that keeps the focus on what people say and what they do to advance their own political agendas and those of others is fair comment. I say this knowing that I have been attacked for my own comments and characterizations. I try to challenge and engage people on the other side on their terms about what they are saying and doing on subjects they have chosen to engage in. For instance, when I call McBride a "cheap hack", that is judging her public persona, not her private one, about which I couldn’t care less.
Which brings us back to the Mudhens. The MSBL has a website, you see, and all my stats will be up there (not to mention my picture with the 38+/48+ All-Star team [scroll down on the main page], but I digress...). Although I batted a respectable .385 last year, what will happen if it goes south this year? If I go 0-for-4 early in the season, will McBride point to my inept hitting as analogous to my political swings-and-misses? If I go 0-for-May, will I be declared incapable of coherent political thought? I can’t risk losing my confidence at the plate, my spot in the batting order and my small niche in the blogosphere in this important season for the Mudhens and this important election in the fall. McBride, please stay away from the 'Hens. I can't take the pressure.
In the Information Age, we are all so vulnerable in so many ways. But none are so weak as those who exploit that information to prop themselves up.
Thursday, April 03, 2008
The WMC Unbound
The classless, gloating radio and blog wing-nuts are having great fun this week grinding the salt of Louis Butler’s defeat into the open wounds of Wisconsin’s lost independent judiciary. When they aren’t childishly calling us whining losers, they are feigning outrage that anyone who tried to protect the state from WMC’s stack-the-court campaign would imply that the result of the Supreme Court election was anything but a reasoned choice of one "judicial philosophy" over another.
But they know what they did and what they do. The popping of champagne corks in country clubs, gated-community mansions and right-wing radio studios could be heard throughout the state – or at least in the North Shore and western suburbs – and throughout the nation, where the attack on the independent judiciary is driven (and funded) by the same devious greed-heads who brought you Junior Bush and the war in Iraq.
Governor Doyle and Justice Butler himself have talked in recent days about the "tragedy" of the election results, and, indeed, it is. I think it’s the worst thing to happen in electoral politics since the ultimate "activist" 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore stopped the recount ordered by the Florida courts, thereby appointing Bush as president by judicial fiat (to everyone’s eternal loss). Tuesday’s results here were tragic for different reasons – the election was not "stolen" in any way that I’m aware of. Wisconsin’s electoral tragedy lies in the result – another success in the continuing court-stacking campaign by WMC and national right-wing business interests. This was a power-grab accomplished not with a sudden dramatic event, but in slow-motion, through the course of a long, deceitful, racist campaign conducted with the sole purpose of installing another willing supplicant on the Court in the place of a talented, independent voice.
Let’s start at the beginning. If job-hopping McCallum fund-raiser Michael Gableman had decided on his own to run for the Supreme Court on his decidedly unaccomplished record in far-flung Burnett County and was left to his own meager devices, he would have had the same success as the-guy-that-ran against Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett did on Tuesday. But, of course, that’s not how Gableman got involved. It has never been denied that Gableman was recruited by the WMC – supposedly their seventh or eighth option, if he was on the original list at all.
Any "conservative" with any accomplishment or dignity apparently passed on the WMC invitation this year, probably in deference to Justice Butler (who is universally well-liked and respected in the legal community), his fine reputation as one of the most talented jurists ever to sit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and his not unimportant historical status as the Court's first African-American. But the WMC, still feeling their oats after their successful installation of the ethically-challenged Annette Zeigler the year before, were not to be deterred just because Butler was a respected person of substance and stature or because they couldn’t find anyone who was qualified. They dragged Gableman out of his deserved obscurity, dressed him up and sent him out with a limited set of talking points. Gableman was all too willing to play along.
In the meantime, WMC surrogates went forth to poison the well of what passed for intellectual debate about the recent work of the Supreme Court generally and Justice Butler in particular. The Court was frighteningly "unbound", claimed a first-year Marquette law professor in a national Federalist Society-funded "white paper" that circulated predictably through the right-wing echo chamber. That professor spouted the same phony dire message in a video that was circulated throughout the nut-right bloggosphere and that was played at various WMC meetings with business people throughout the state.
While all this is going on, that same professor took an active part in the WMC’s campaign to make a pre-emptive strike against a State Bar committee that was created to try to keep the judicial campaign on a properly judicial keel. Knowing the virulent ads that were planned, a fair, judicial tone was the last thing the WMC wanted. By the time the shit really started to fly, the independent WJCIC was perceived and treated like Butler partisans by, at least, the Journal Sentinel, which only cited the committee if they were criticizing advertising by third-party groups friendly to Butler.
Finally, in a stroke of sheer genius, the most repulsive ad of this or any other campaign in Wisconsin – the racist Willie-Horton knock-off – was issued under the name of the Gableman campaign itself, thus limiting the focus on WMC’s primary role, which surely would have been more of an issue if the racist ad came from them. Gableman, having no shame or sense of judicial decorum, was all too happy to claim it as his own.
Given the fact that WMC and its nationally-funded surrogates probably outspent Butler-supporting third-parties by at least 3-to-1 and the hours and days of free advertising against Butler on mainstream radio for the entire campaign (Charlie Sykes even brags about how he uses his publicly-licensed soapbox to facilitate his undue influence on elections), it’s a wonder how the race got so close.
WMC, in the end, got what it paid for. When public-interest litigants come into the Supreme Court chambers in the fall to argue in a case involving a business, they will find at least two justices on either sides of the bench – Zeigler and Gableman – who might as well have a big yellow sticky-pad on their forehead that simply says "NO". And, no doubt, we’ll be right back here this time next year, after they have a crack at putting some lackey in the place of distinguished Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. It’s all too easy for them. Why stop now?
In the end, people get the government and – in this case – the justice they deserve. Some of the same people who believed the lies of the WMC and its surrogates may find themselves injured by the deliberate or negligent acts of a corporation; or damaged by a malpracticing doctor; or wrongly accused and convicted of a crime. They might find themselves before the Supreme Court, trying to right a wrong or correct an injustice. With Justice Butler there, they would have found someone who they could not predict, but at least someone who would give them an independent review of the facts and the law and a fair shake. Now, with Zeigler and Gableman, they have a known quantity – they’ll know what to expect. They should expect and they will get exactly nothing.
When that happens, I’m tempted to say "don’t come crying to me". But, it’s my job and my passion to help those who come crying to me. When it comes time for that crucial case analysis – what are your chances? – it might not be pretty. But, as bad as it may be with a WMC court stacked against you, I won’t make it worse. I promise not to ask how you voted this week, in the sad turning-point election in the once-proud history of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
But they know what they did and what they do. The popping of champagne corks in country clubs, gated-community mansions and right-wing radio studios could be heard throughout the state – or at least in the North Shore and western suburbs – and throughout the nation, where the attack on the independent judiciary is driven (and funded) by the same devious greed-heads who brought you Junior Bush and the war in Iraq.
Governor Doyle and Justice Butler himself have talked in recent days about the "tragedy" of the election results, and, indeed, it is. I think it’s the worst thing to happen in electoral politics since the ultimate "activist" 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Bush v. Gore stopped the recount ordered by the Florida courts, thereby appointing Bush as president by judicial fiat (to everyone’s eternal loss). Tuesday’s results here were tragic for different reasons – the election was not "stolen" in any way that I’m aware of. Wisconsin’s electoral tragedy lies in the result – another success in the continuing court-stacking campaign by WMC and national right-wing business interests. This was a power-grab accomplished not with a sudden dramatic event, but in slow-motion, through the course of a long, deceitful, racist campaign conducted with the sole purpose of installing another willing supplicant on the Court in the place of a talented, independent voice.
Let’s start at the beginning. If job-hopping McCallum fund-raiser Michael Gableman had decided on his own to run for the Supreme Court on his decidedly unaccomplished record in far-flung Burnett County and was left to his own meager devices, he would have had the same success as the-guy-that-ran against Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett did on Tuesday. But, of course, that’s not how Gableman got involved. It has never been denied that Gableman was recruited by the WMC – supposedly their seventh or eighth option, if he was on the original list at all.
Any "conservative" with any accomplishment or dignity apparently passed on the WMC invitation this year, probably in deference to Justice Butler (who is universally well-liked and respected in the legal community), his fine reputation as one of the most talented jurists ever to sit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court and his not unimportant historical status as the Court's first African-American. But the WMC, still feeling their oats after their successful installation of the ethically-challenged Annette Zeigler the year before, were not to be deterred just because Butler was a respected person of substance and stature or because they couldn’t find anyone who was qualified. They dragged Gableman out of his deserved obscurity, dressed him up and sent him out with a limited set of talking points. Gableman was all too willing to play along.
In the meantime, WMC surrogates went forth to poison the well of what passed for intellectual debate about the recent work of the Supreme Court generally and Justice Butler in particular. The Court was frighteningly "unbound", claimed a first-year Marquette law professor in a national Federalist Society-funded "white paper" that circulated predictably through the right-wing echo chamber. That professor spouted the same phony dire message in a video that was circulated throughout the nut-right bloggosphere and that was played at various WMC meetings with business people throughout the state.
While all this is going on, that same professor took an active part in the WMC’s campaign to make a pre-emptive strike against a State Bar committee that was created to try to keep the judicial campaign on a properly judicial keel. Knowing the virulent ads that were planned, a fair, judicial tone was the last thing the WMC wanted. By the time the shit really started to fly, the independent WJCIC was perceived and treated like Butler partisans by, at least, the Journal Sentinel, which only cited the committee if they were criticizing advertising by third-party groups friendly to Butler.
Finally, in a stroke of sheer genius, the most repulsive ad of this or any other campaign in Wisconsin – the racist Willie-Horton knock-off – was issued under the name of the Gableman campaign itself, thus limiting the focus on WMC’s primary role, which surely would have been more of an issue if the racist ad came from them. Gableman, having no shame or sense of judicial decorum, was all too happy to claim it as his own.
Given the fact that WMC and its nationally-funded surrogates probably outspent Butler-supporting third-parties by at least 3-to-1 and the hours and days of free advertising against Butler on mainstream radio for the entire campaign (Charlie Sykes even brags about how he uses his publicly-licensed soapbox to facilitate his undue influence on elections), it’s a wonder how the race got so close.
WMC, in the end, got what it paid for. When public-interest litigants come into the Supreme Court chambers in the fall to argue in a case involving a business, they will find at least two justices on either sides of the bench – Zeigler and Gableman – who might as well have a big yellow sticky-pad on their forehead that simply says "NO". And, no doubt, we’ll be right back here this time next year, after they have a crack at putting some lackey in the place of distinguished Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson. It’s all too easy for them. Why stop now?
In the end, people get the government and – in this case – the justice they deserve. Some of the same people who believed the lies of the WMC and its surrogates may find themselves injured by the deliberate or negligent acts of a corporation; or damaged by a malpracticing doctor; or wrongly accused and convicted of a crime. They might find themselves before the Supreme Court, trying to right a wrong or correct an injustice. With Justice Butler there, they would have found someone who they could not predict, but at least someone who would give them an independent review of the facts and the law and a fair shake. Now, with Zeigler and Gableman, they have a known quantity – they’ll know what to expect. They should expect and they will get exactly nothing.
When that happens, I’m tempted to say "don’t come crying to me". But, it’s my job and my passion to help those who come crying to me. When it comes time for that crucial case analysis – what are your chances? – it might not be pretty. But, as bad as it may be with a WMC court stacked against you, I won’t make it worse. I promise not to ask how you voted this week, in the sad turning-point election in the once-proud history of the Wisconsin Supreme Court.
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
The Lost World
There was this guy I knew when I was a kid.
Pillar of the community – the only lawyer in town, actually. Always in a suit, even hanging around in his own house. Real straight up guy – MC’d everything from the Holy Rosary athletic banquet to the Kiwanis Club Christmas night. Nixon Republican, Vietnam War supporter, fiscal conservative. He was pretty cool, though. Coolest guy I ever knew.
When I stride into the courthouse every morning, I think about him. He was gracious to everyone, friend and foe. He stood tall in that conservative suit. I can’t say I ever saw him actually practicing law, although I knew that’s what he did. But he brought his kind bearing with him everywhere he went. People may have disagreed with him, but nobody didn’t like him.
The Vietnam era was ugly and, with me as a teenaged know-it-all, we had some very intense conversations about the war and all of the other extraordinary issues of the day. He was a WWII veteran, serving in a boat on the Pacific for some very long years. He respected authority and often seemed bewildered by the freedom my generation felt and exercised. We talked and yelled and vented – understanding each other more than we could admit at the time.
I learned from him the bearing of a true professional man, the respect for opposing views, the value of informed argument and fair play. It was he who first got me interested in the law and the interplay of facts and precedent, even though we didn’t talk much about the details of his work and I never saw him appear in court.
The only case we ever discussed was a client of his who was charged with littering, raising the following issue: if you pick up a can on the side of the road and throw it into a nearby river, can you yourself be charged with littering for simply moving something that had already been littered? 40 years later – 22 as a lawyer – and I still don’t know the answer to that one.
He died in 1971, when I was 16.
I think he would have been surprised and saddened by the nasty partisan tone that politics and, now, the law has taken. He certainly did the best for his clients and his friends, but he was not a win-at-all-costs kind of guy. He would have expected better than Republicans and self-appointed conservatives have behaved in recent years. If Nixon’s crimes didn’t do it, the machinations of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove may have well turned him into a Democrat.
But, I like to think that he would be saddest about the state of the legal profession – the crumbling of impartiality, the selling of the state Supreme Court to monied interests. He would want to have his arguments rise and fall on their own merits, not because any court had been stacked for or against him. He would have been outraged by the racism used against the first African-American on the Supreme Court. He would have been sickened by an electorate that bought the lies of an out-of-state band of profiteers who propped up a disgraceful empty suit to carry their water.
I would have liked to have introduced him to my friend, Louis Butler. I know they both would have enjoyed each other’s company; the banter of engaged, open minds; the laughter of recognition of experiences somehow shared in dramatically different lives. Both would have met gladly on the field of intellectual debate. Louis probably would have "won" on points, but both would have reveled in the lost art of respectful disagreement and the meeting of the minds.
That guy was my dad. His memory is just one of the thousands of reasons that I'm sorry Louis Butler lost tonight.
Pillar of the community – the only lawyer in town, actually. Always in a suit, even hanging around in his own house. Real straight up guy – MC’d everything from the Holy Rosary athletic banquet to the Kiwanis Club Christmas night. Nixon Republican, Vietnam War supporter, fiscal conservative. He was pretty cool, though. Coolest guy I ever knew.
When I stride into the courthouse every morning, I think about him. He was gracious to everyone, friend and foe. He stood tall in that conservative suit. I can’t say I ever saw him actually practicing law, although I knew that’s what he did. But he brought his kind bearing with him everywhere he went. People may have disagreed with him, but nobody didn’t like him.
The Vietnam era was ugly and, with me as a teenaged know-it-all, we had some very intense conversations about the war and all of the other extraordinary issues of the day. He was a WWII veteran, serving in a boat on the Pacific for some very long years. He respected authority and often seemed bewildered by the freedom my generation felt and exercised. We talked and yelled and vented – understanding each other more than we could admit at the time.
I learned from him the bearing of a true professional man, the respect for opposing views, the value of informed argument and fair play. It was he who first got me interested in the law and the interplay of facts and precedent, even though we didn’t talk much about the details of his work and I never saw him appear in court.
The only case we ever discussed was a client of his who was charged with littering, raising the following issue: if you pick up a can on the side of the road and throw it into a nearby river, can you yourself be charged with littering for simply moving something that had already been littered? 40 years later – 22 as a lawyer – and I still don’t know the answer to that one.
He died in 1971, when I was 16.
I think he would have been surprised and saddened by the nasty partisan tone that politics and, now, the law has taken. He certainly did the best for his clients and his friends, but he was not a win-at-all-costs kind of guy. He would have expected better than Republicans and self-appointed conservatives have behaved in recent years. If Nixon’s crimes didn’t do it, the machinations of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove may have well turned him into a Democrat.
But, I like to think that he would be saddest about the state of the legal profession – the crumbling of impartiality, the selling of the state Supreme Court to monied interests. He would want to have his arguments rise and fall on their own merits, not because any court had been stacked for or against him. He would have been outraged by the racism used against the first African-American on the Supreme Court. He would have been sickened by an electorate that bought the lies of an out-of-state band of profiteers who propped up a disgraceful empty suit to carry their water.
I would have liked to have introduced him to my friend, Louis Butler. I know they both would have enjoyed each other’s company; the banter of engaged, open minds; the laughter of recognition of experiences somehow shared in dramatically different lives. Both would have met gladly on the field of intellectual debate. Louis probably would have "won" on points, but both would have reveled in the lost art of respectful disagreement and the meeting of the minds.
That guy was my dad. His memory is just one of the thousands of reasons that I'm sorry Louis Butler lost tonight.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)