James Byrd has been dead 13 years. Mark MacPhail has been dead for 22 years. Both men were murdered and their killers were executed last night. This morning, both men are still dead and justice remains out of reach.
It's a funny phrase: "were executed." It's passive voice. We don't say "the state of Texas executed Lawrence Brewer." A state is a abstract concept not capable of action on its own. We don't say "the people of Texas killed Lawrence Brewer," although we damn sure did, through our viciousness and apathy. And we don't say "Jailer X and Dr. Y, who administered the 'lethal cocktail' (quickly becoming my favorite cliche) killed him," because, after all, they were only following orders.
Of course, the world is no worse off for the loss of Lawrence Brewer, truly a piece of shit if there ever was one. He was a racist, coked up caracature of a man and a great danger to the general public. His death will draw none of the angst that Troy Davis' has. Unlike Davis, there is no doubt about Brewer's guilt. There is no question of a truly guilty murderer wondering the streets.
But if you are truly against the death penalty — and I mean against it because it is wrong, not because it's applied racistly, costs more money, doesn't deter crime and runs the risk of killing an innocent man — if you are against it because the state doesn't give life and thus has no right to take it, then you should be as outraged at Lawrence Brewer's death as you are at Troy Davis'.
Davis' case is easy. There was no physical evidence to tie him to MacPhail's murder. No murder weapon every surfaced, no DNA, no blood. Nothing. There were witnesses, nine in all who testified against Davis. He was convicted quickly and sentenced to death in seven hours. But seven of those witnesses recanted, some saying they were threatened by police with jail time of their own if they didn't identify Davis. Of the two remaining witnesses, one was supposedly overheard bragging about the murder.
It's easy to be outraged that the people of Georgia killed Troy Davis last night. His guilt remains in doubt and the system simply said, "innocence or guilt is irrelevant." Davis' is the kind of case death penalty opponent dream about.
But the death of Brewer is no less wrong. There is no justice for James Byrd. His wife and children don't want to see Brewer executed. Doing so doesn't bring Byrd back. And, worse, it implies equality between the two. This ultimately is why I think we are so adamant about the death penalty in this country. We cannot abide a tragedy in which no one is responsible. We cannot stand loose ends. So we tell ourselves that once we stick the needle in the murderer the books are cleared and we can pat ourselves on the back for doing so. In the meantime we're telling the world that the two lives are the same, they are interchangeable. And most importantly we are absolving ourselves from any guilt. If you wipe the slate clean there is no need to look and see if society failed to protect the victim before he was killed.
And after all, that is when it would have mattered. We should have cared more about James Byrd when he was alive.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Monday, September 19, 2011
Romo revisted
But first a note. Today starts my new policy of beginning each post with the phrase "live nude girls" to see if it spikes my page views. Sorry, no photos, but we will speak of the manly arts today.
Romo was remarkable yesterday, from what I can tell from the highlights and the media coverage. (I'd like to thank the NFL, Congress and the idiotic, unAmerican policy of blacking out the Cowboys in Houston). Broken ribs are tough and I think he took a small step forward. As I said last week, it's easy to like this guy and it's easy to see why his teammates like him and his performance will help in the locker room.
Will it help him with the fans? Who cares? Doesn't matter what you think, doesn't matter what I think. What matters is if its really a step forward and if Romo will learn that winning can be painful, but it's worth going through that pain. He gave a Meredith-esque performance yesterday. Let's see if he keeps it going.
Romo was remarkable yesterday, from what I can tell from the highlights and the media coverage. (I'd like to thank the NFL, Congress and the idiotic, unAmerican policy of blacking out the Cowboys in Houston). Broken ribs are tough and I think he took a small step forward. As I said last week, it's easy to like this guy and it's easy to see why his teammates like him and his performance will help in the locker room.
Will it help him with the fans? Who cares? Doesn't matter what you think, doesn't matter what I think. What matters is if its really a step forward and if Romo will learn that winning can be painful, but it's worth going through that pain. He gave a Meredith-esque performance yesterday. Let's see if he keeps it going.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Romo
There are two kinds of Cowboys fans. There are those who scream "How 'bout them Cowboys" seriously consider the notion that Johnson might have been a better coach than Landry and wear jerseys to games. These guys disappear when the going gets tough, whether its losing or the sale of the team to Jones.
Then there are those of us who were raised Cowboy fans the way people in Iran are raised Muslim. We rarely scream anything. We don't get excited when Dallas wins, because that's what's expected. We go crazy when they lose (remind me one day to tell the story of Earl Wright, no relation). I suppose all of us who feel this way were fans in Staubach era, or at least the White era.
And that segs us nicely into the current era. Tony Romo has been reaped all the benefits of the Cowboy quarterback, as pointed out in this piece on the utterly wretched website Grantland. (I'll be writing about this tomorrow). Romo has dated pretty and famous women. He's grown to great fame himself, garnering invites to celebrity events that no other athlete in Texas gets and getting covered by national media for his hobbies.
Romo even carries himself like a Cowboy quarterback. His poise, his easy smile and his charm are that of a man comfortable with his place on top of the mountain. But one must look at this particular mountain. This is Romo's sixth year as the starter. Only two other quarterbacks have started as many years. They are both in the Hall of Fame. They won five Super Bowls between them.
Romo often talks of his desire to be in the Staubach/Aikman class and does so with an attitude that leads me to infer that he sees himself as approaching that level, just needing a couple of breaks here and there to make it. But Romo's not in that league and he's not in the Meredith/White league. He's closer to Hogeboom than White, to tell you the truth.
Which brings us to last night. I think my class of Dallas fans (we'll call us Landry fans) learned their lesson from the White/Hogeboom debacle (and our parents likely learned it from the Morton/Staubach debacle before it). My biggest gripe about Romo has always been that he seems like he's trying to be a good guy, rather than a good quarterback. Whenever someone kills a drive by making a boneheaded mistake, Romo has this goofy grin, as if to say "it's okay, it's just a silly game. I'm still your buddy." No one who has seen the clip of Aikman telling his line the previous series was a "Goddamn embarrassment" can imagine that Romo's approach is paying off.
When Staubach retired, Tony Hill said he was enjoying Danny White, because White was one of the guys. Hill said the pickup basketball games at Staubach's house always found Roger and Drew on the same, an attitude that carried over to the field when Roger would always look for Drew in the clutch. When Hogeboom was pushing White, one of the factors in Gary's favor was he was the kind of guy who would go drink a beer with the team. White was aloof. Meredith, of course, would drink a beer with anybody, but Meredith's hauling his rotting carcass out of bed to even play was enough to stamp him as something apart from the normal human being.
Simply put, one cannot simply imagine Romo telling the huddle what Seth Maxwell does at the :35 mark of this clip. And one senses that this is exactly what this team has needed for about 10 years.
Of course there is more to being a leader than being an asshole at the right time. And Romo certainly commands the loyalty of his players as Dez Bryant demonstrated last night in a clip I cannot find at the moment. But Bryant's defense is an indictment. One cannot imagine Butch Johnson needing to defend Staubach. Think about it. It boggles the mind.
If Romo wants to be a great quarterback in Dallas he needs to first realize what the standard is. Two Super Bowls, minimum. He's not close and he's not progressing. Last night was just the latest example. The Johnson-era Cowboy fans have been calling for Romo's head for a couple of years. But that's not a thoughtful move. Who is going to replace him? McGee? Kitna? Favre? Dallas has to start looking at what comes after Romo and it needs to start looking quickly. Unless he changes something about his fundamental approach to the game, he will never win in Dallas.
Then there are those of us who were raised Cowboy fans the way people in Iran are raised Muslim. We rarely scream anything. We don't get excited when Dallas wins, because that's what's expected. We go crazy when they lose (remind me one day to tell the story of Earl Wright, no relation). I suppose all of us who feel this way were fans in Staubach era, or at least the White era.
And that segs us nicely into the current era. Tony Romo has been reaped all the benefits of the Cowboy quarterback, as pointed out in this piece on the utterly wretched website Grantland. (I'll be writing about this tomorrow). Romo has dated pretty and famous women. He's grown to great fame himself, garnering invites to celebrity events that no other athlete in Texas gets and getting covered by national media for his hobbies.
Romo even carries himself like a Cowboy quarterback. His poise, his easy smile and his charm are that of a man comfortable with his place on top of the mountain. But one must look at this particular mountain. This is Romo's sixth year as the starter. Only two other quarterbacks have started as many years. They are both in the Hall of Fame. They won five Super Bowls between them.Romo often talks of his desire to be in the Staubach/Aikman class and does so with an attitude that leads me to infer that he sees himself as approaching that level, just needing a couple of breaks here and there to make it. But Romo's not in that league and he's not in the Meredith/White league. He's closer to Hogeboom than White, to tell you the truth.
Which brings us to last night. I think my class of Dallas fans (we'll call us Landry fans) learned their lesson from the White/Hogeboom debacle (and our parents likely learned it from the Morton/Staubach debacle before it). My biggest gripe about Romo has always been that he seems like he's trying to be a good guy, rather than a good quarterback. Whenever someone kills a drive by making a boneheaded mistake, Romo has this goofy grin, as if to say "it's okay, it's just a silly game. I'm still your buddy." No one who has seen the clip of Aikman telling his line the previous series was a "Goddamn embarrassment" can imagine that Romo's approach is paying off.
When Staubach retired, Tony Hill said he was enjoying Danny White, because White was one of the guys. Hill said the pickup basketball games at Staubach's house always found Roger and Drew on the same, an attitude that carried over to the field when Roger would always look for Drew in the clutch. When Hogeboom was pushing White, one of the factors in Gary's favor was he was the kind of guy who would go drink a beer with the team. White was aloof. Meredith, of course, would drink a beer with anybody, but Meredith's hauling his rotting carcass out of bed to even play was enough to stamp him as something apart from the normal human being.
Simply put, one cannot simply imagine Romo telling the huddle what Seth Maxwell does at the :35 mark of this clip. And one senses that this is exactly what this team has needed for about 10 years.
Of course there is more to being a leader than being an asshole at the right time. And Romo certainly commands the loyalty of his players as Dez Bryant demonstrated last night in a clip I cannot find at the moment. But Bryant's defense is an indictment. One cannot imagine Butch Johnson needing to defend Staubach. Think about it. It boggles the mind.
If Romo wants to be a great quarterback in Dallas he needs to first realize what the standard is. Two Super Bowls, minimum. He's not close and he's not progressing. Last night was just the latest example. The Johnson-era Cowboy fans have been calling for Romo's head for a couple of years. But that's not a thoughtful move. Who is going to replace him? McGee? Kitna? Favre? Dallas has to start looking at what comes after Romo and it needs to start looking quickly. Unless he changes something about his fundamental approach to the game, he will never win in Dallas.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
I'm not sure what it means
I am strangely uncomfortable with the commemorations of the attacks on Washington and New York. I'm not sure exactly what it is we're supposed to commemorate. I watched on television as 4,000 people were murdered in an act of madness so obscene it took Letterman to add any perspective. I keep reading admonitions to "never forget" as if I could somehow forget what I saw that day and what I learned about human nature since.
As I write this, a man is singing the national anthem at the Chicago-Atlanta game, a rendition that will surely be described as "stirring" (it was). I muted the TV and turned up Springsteen's "The Rising." The giant American flag, crisp and bright against Soldier Fields pastoral green seems to me an attempt to sanitize what's happened, as America always sanitizes its history. What's missing are the shots of desperate people leaping from the towers, taking a chance (in my mind) that a wind gust or an awning will give them the miracle that never comes. Perhaps if Marvin Gaye was singing the anthem it would seem less sterile. Where are the images of the dead. It seems its okay that we remember them as a prop to our greatness, but to show the awful ugliness is too much.
My memories of 9/11 are blurred because I was working at a newspaper that was literally in the shadows of a massive petrochemical complex, a complex that, to this day, could easily be lit up by one loon with an RPG. What I remember most is coming home about 2 a.m. and turning on the BBC coverage. After 18 hours of hysterical American reporting in my ear all day the BBC was strangely reassuring. It made no attempt to minimize the horror and the evil of what happened, but there was a perspective lacking. The overall theme seemed to be "Welcome, America, to the real word. It's horrible that you had to arrive, but know that we are with you." (Tony Blair's presence in Congress days later as Bush spoke re-emphasized this feeling). Britain had been through this. It had survived. Despite the '93 attacks, despite McVeigh and Koresh (who were after all loony Americans, familiar to anyone in the South who has more six relatives), America and never quite admitted that it too was vulnerable to acts of madness.
But we didn't join the rest of world, even though it was so desperate for us to do so (can anyone forget Iranians singing our national anthem outside the embassy they had stormed just 20 years prior). We instead gave in to that ugly anti-intellectual emotional streak that pervades so much of our history. Terrorists killed more Americans in the last 10 years than they did Sept. 11. Are we going to mourn them today as well?
So I am not sure what to commemorate. Because a group of madmen executed an act of madness, we turned our back on what made us great. The government can now spy on its citizens without cause and without an easily obtainable warrant. Our president approved "methods of interrogation" that would trigger an invasion if another nation used them on our citizens. Some of those methods, in fact, led to the execution of perpetrators when used against our soldiers. We have tortured innocent men, and we have gained nothing from the guilty ones we tortured, but we have given up a part of our soul in the process. Perhaps emboldened by the law's inability to be applied to those in power, the governor of Texas gleefully executed a man who is surely innocent and is fighting to execute a man who might or might not be cleared by DNA tests which haven't been performed.
Our national debate coarsened over the past 10 years. A president with a resume that reads like a Horatio Alger story is vilified as an alien, a traitor and worse by a significant segment of our population, a segment that once held respect for the presidency as a sacred. A large portion of the House of Representatives believes compromise (on which this nation was built) is a sign of weakness. Political differences are no longer treated as political difference, but as heresy. Something that must be rooted out and destroyed.
Not all of this is a result of 9/11. Much of the coarsening took place long before. (No one could be uglier than the Clintons). Many have used 9/11 to justify a massive expansion of the government's power and reach.
So I'm not sure what to commemorate today. The lose of 4,000 lives grieves me, but it grieves me no more than the 5,000 or so who were lost avenging 9/11 in a place that had no connection. The loss of our civil liberties grieves me even more. In a sense, Bin Laden has won. He never posed, nor do his followers now pose, an existential threat to this nation. But he has forced us to turn on ourselves. He has convinced us to give up our sacred protections against the government, a government that is a far, far greater threat to our freedoms than anything Al Qaeda ever did.
As we cast this as a religious war, and make no mistake, the wars that we are fighting are, at this point, nothing but Crusades, how long before the religious strife turns inward. Once the warmongers lose the ability to convince us that Islam is a threat, how long before various Christian sects are excluded from the big tent (I'm looking at you Gov. Perry). I will pray today. I will pray for those who lost their lives and for their families. I will remain in awe, as I have always been, of the men who raced into Armageddon to save others. But I won't pray that God is on our side.
Ultimately, 9/11 isn't about this country. It's about the individuals such as the one pictured above (the picture accompanied Tom Junod's remarkable story in Esquire)
I will pray that we are on His.
As I write this, a man is singing the national anthem at the Chicago-Atlanta game, a rendition that will surely be described as "stirring" (it was). I muted the TV and turned up Springsteen's "The Rising." The giant American flag, crisp and bright against Soldier Fields pastoral green seems to me an attempt to sanitize what's happened, as America always sanitizes its history. What's missing are the shots of desperate people leaping from the towers, taking a chance (in my mind) that a wind gust or an awning will give them the miracle that never comes. Perhaps if Marvin Gaye was singing the anthem it would seem less sterile. Where are the images of the dead. It seems its okay that we remember them as a prop to our greatness, but to show the awful ugliness is too much.
My memories of 9/11 are blurred because I was working at a newspaper that was literally in the shadows of a massive petrochemical complex, a complex that, to this day, could easily be lit up by one loon with an RPG. What I remember most is coming home about 2 a.m. and turning on the BBC coverage. After 18 hours of hysterical American reporting in my ear all day the BBC was strangely reassuring. It made no attempt to minimize the horror and the evil of what happened, but there was a perspective lacking. The overall theme seemed to be "Welcome, America, to the real word. It's horrible that you had to arrive, but know that we are with you." (Tony Blair's presence in Congress days later as Bush spoke re-emphasized this feeling). Britain had been through this. It had survived. Despite the '93 attacks, despite McVeigh and Koresh (who were after all loony Americans, familiar to anyone in the South who has more six relatives), America and never quite admitted that it too was vulnerable to acts of madness. But we didn't join the rest of world, even though it was so desperate for us to do so (can anyone forget Iranians singing our national anthem outside the embassy they had stormed just 20 years prior). We instead gave in to that ugly anti-intellectual emotional streak that pervades so much of our history. Terrorists killed more Americans in the last 10 years than they did Sept. 11. Are we going to mourn them today as well?
So I am not sure what to commemorate. Because a group of madmen executed an act of madness, we turned our back on what made us great. The government can now spy on its citizens without cause and without an easily obtainable warrant. Our president approved "methods of interrogation" that would trigger an invasion if another nation used them on our citizens. Some of those methods, in fact, led to the execution of perpetrators when used against our soldiers. We have tortured innocent men, and we have gained nothing from the guilty ones we tortured, but we have given up a part of our soul in the process. Perhaps emboldened by the law's inability to be applied to those in power, the governor of Texas gleefully executed a man who is surely innocent and is fighting to execute a man who might or might not be cleared by DNA tests which haven't been performed.
Our national debate coarsened over the past 10 years. A president with a resume that reads like a Horatio Alger story is vilified as an alien, a traitor and worse by a significant segment of our population, a segment that once held respect for the presidency as a sacred. A large portion of the House of Representatives believes compromise (on which this nation was built) is a sign of weakness. Political differences are no longer treated as political difference, but as heresy. Something that must be rooted out and destroyed.
Not all of this is a result of 9/11. Much of the coarsening took place long before. (No one could be uglier than the Clintons). Many have used 9/11 to justify a massive expansion of the government's power and reach.
So I'm not sure what to commemorate today. The lose of 4,000 lives grieves me, but it grieves me no more than the 5,000 or so who were lost avenging 9/11 in a place that had no connection. The loss of our civil liberties grieves me even more. In a sense, Bin Laden has won. He never posed, nor do his followers now pose, an existential threat to this nation. But he has forced us to turn on ourselves. He has convinced us to give up our sacred protections against the government, a government that is a far, far greater threat to our freedoms than anything Al Qaeda ever did.
As we cast this as a religious war, and make no mistake, the wars that we are fighting are, at this point, nothing but Crusades, how long before the religious strife turns inward. Once the warmongers lose the ability to convince us that Islam is a threat, how long before various Christian sects are excluded from the big tent (I'm looking at you Gov. Perry). I will pray today. I will pray for those who lost their lives and for their families. I will remain in awe, as I have always been, of the men who raced into Armageddon to save others. But I won't pray that God is on our side.
Ultimately, 9/11 isn't about this country. It's about the individuals such as the one pictured above (the picture accompanied Tom Junod's remarkable story in Esquire)
I will pray that we are on His.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Roger has stepped in it.
Joe Posnanski makes a good point about Roger Goodall looking the part, but being totally over his head during the NFL lockout.
For the newcomers, let's review.
The owners and players agreed to a deal in 2006. The owners decided they weren't making enough money and tore up the deal. The players said "open your books and prove your claims are true." The owners said "Kiss our collective asses." Then they locked the players out.
Now Goodall has written an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that's the biggest load of shit this side of Jim Tressel.
"For many years, the collectively bargained system—which has given the players union enhanced free agency and capped the amount that owners spend on salaries—has worked enormously well for the NFL, for NFL players, and for NFL fans.
For players, the system allowed player compensation to skyrocket—pay and benefits doubled in the last 10 years alone. The system also offered players comparable economic opportunities throughout the league, from Green Bay and New Orleans to San Francisco and New York. In addition, it fostered conditions that allowed the NFL to expand by four teams, extending careers and creating jobs for hundreds of additional players.
For clubs and fans, the trade-off afforded each team a genuine opportunity to compete for the Super Bowl, greater cost certainty, and incentives to invest in the game. Those incentives translated into two dozen new and renovated stadiums and technological innovations such as the NFL Network and nfl.com."
So, I have one question Roger. If they collective bargaining deal was so great, why did the owners tear it up?
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Lance Armstrong retires, hold on to your wallet
Lance Armstrong, the seven-time Tour de France Champion, and suspected PED user is calling it quits to his bike career. Armstrong, 39, was clearly done at last year's Tour where he finished just three spots ahead of two French kids riding their bikes to school. He's going to retire and raise more money for cancer, um, awareness I guess?
Armstrong says he wants to work with California lawmakers to create a cigarette tax to fund more research on cancer. He did similar work in Texas and we're going to be paying for it here for the next decade. In 2007 Armstrong shepherded a bill authorizing $3 billion in bonds to fund research here. As testimony showed, the money would do little to nothing to advance a cure. What it would do is allow Texas to pay higher salaries to researchers and attract them. That's right, the taxp
ayers of Texas are on the hook for $3 billion to increase the odds that a cure for cancer is found here. As if a cure found in California wouldn't be available everywhere. That's less than 10 percent of what the NCI alone spends each year. I can't find the numbers from CDI, states and other nations, but it's clear that Texas' $300 million a year is a drop in the bucket.
Now Armstrong is going to push his shell game to the Golden State. I guess we'll have a bidding war, but other than enriching the researchers, it's hard to see the benefit to cancer patients or their families. But Armstrong, who was a mediocre biker until he contracted a disease linked to PED's, has never been shy about pushing himself to the front. Whether it's dumping the wife who stood by him through his cancer, or dumping the fiance who contracted cancer herself, the Armstrong behind the headlines has never been worthy of the Armstrong the media created.
Armstrong will continue to push to keep his name out there. But it will be at the expense of the cause he claims to care about. Texas agreed to borrow the money before there was a $27 billion deficit. California's woes are already legendary. How much meaningless money will taxpayers want to spend while schools are being closed?
Armstrong says he wants to work with California lawmakers to create a cigarette tax to fund more research on cancer. He did similar work in Texas and we're going to be paying for it here for the next decade. In 2007 Armstrong shepherded a bill authorizing $3 billion in bonds to fund research here. As testimony showed, the money would do little to nothing to advance a cure. What it would do is allow Texas to pay higher salaries to researchers and attract them. That's right, the taxp
ayers of Texas are on the hook for $3 billion to increase the odds that a cure for cancer is found here. As if a cure found in California wouldn't be available everywhere. That's less than 10 percent of what the NCI alone spends each year. I can't find the numbers from CDI, states and other nations, but it's clear that Texas' $300 million a year is a drop in the bucket.Now Armstrong is going to push his shell game to the Golden State. I guess we'll have a bidding war, but other than enriching the researchers, it's hard to see the benefit to cancer patients or their families. But Armstrong, who was a mediocre biker until he contracted a disease linked to PED's, has never been shy about pushing himself to the front. Whether it's dumping the wife who stood by him through his cancer, or dumping the fiance who contracted cancer herself, the Armstrong behind the headlines has never been worthy of the Armstrong the media created.
Armstrong will continue to push to keep his name out there. But it will be at the expense of the cause he claims to care about. Texas agreed to borrow the money before there was a $27 billion deficit. California's woes are already legendary. How much meaningless money will taxpayers want to spend while schools are being closed?
Friday, February 11, 2011
Wail of a tale
Anyone else sick of Yankee media ripping Dallas for the weather? Gene Wojciechowski of ESPN has been the worst of the bunch, though Bill Simmons has made a strong run at biggest whiner. Simmons even ripped Dallas for not having enough strippers. Of course, when the Super Bowl was in Houston, the best stripper town in America, the luckiest writer in the business didn't like that either.
Let me explain it to y'all. I'll type slowly so you can understand. Dallas gets three or four snows a year on average. We don't buy snow tires. We don't use chains and we don't salt the roads. Those things cost money and the snow will be gone in three days. What are we supposed to do with them the other 355 days of the year? I'm sorry you're stuck in your hotel, having to live off an obscene expense account while you write for four hours a week to promote the most over-hyped, overrated, corporate whoring convention in the world. But that is the career path you chose.
Let me explain the facts of life. We have a $27 billion budget deficit here. We don't get much snow or ice. When we do, we're perfectly content to stay home until it melts. We're not going to go spend a bunch of money on snow plows so the idiots who bought hotel rooms in Dallas can have an easy trip when they learn the game isn't being played in Dallas, or that the strippers are on the other side of town. We don't do winter here. We do summer. It starts about April 23rd and goes through Halloween. We're going to spend our money on freon. The next time I read about people dying in Boston because the temperature hits 90 and they don't have air conditioning, I'll try to stifle a laugh.
Let me explain it to y'all. I'll type slowly so you can understand. Dallas gets three or four snows a year on average. We don't buy snow tires. We don't use chains and we don't salt the roads. Those things cost money and the snow will be gone in three days. What are we supposed to do with them the other 355 days of the year? I'm sorry you're stuck in your hotel, having to live off an obscene expense account while you write for four hours a week to promote the most over-hyped, overrated, corporate whoring convention in the world. But that is the career path you chose.
Let me explain the facts of life. We have a $27 billion budget deficit here. We don't get much snow or ice. When we do, we're perfectly content to stay home until it melts. We're not going to go spend a bunch of money on snow plows so the idiots who bought hotel rooms in Dallas can have an easy trip when they learn the game isn't being played in Dallas, or that the strippers are on the other side of town. We don't do winter here. We do summer. It starts about April 23rd and goes through Halloween. We're going to spend our money on freon. The next time I read about people dying in Boston because the temperature hits 90 and they don't have air conditioning, I'll try to stifle a laugh.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Meanwhile, real reporters are doing great work
Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times has slipped past the barricades and his tweets alone are quite moving. He's told us of an 80-year-old woman prepared to sleep in Tahrir Square. The Great Christiane Amanpour has interviewed Mubarak.
Meanwhile, Anderson tells his van got attacked again and as I write this CNN is reporting on Charlie Sheen. But Anderson also tells us everything is okay. Might be time for him to take a step back and look beyond himself.
Where is Buzz Bissinger when you need him?
Meanwhile, Anderson tells his van got attacked again and as I write this CNN is reporting on Charlie Sheen. But Anderson also tells us everything is okay. Might be time for him to take a step back and look beyond himself.
Where is Buzz Bissinger when you need him?
Anderson Cooper is an idiot
CNN's top throat got beat up yesterday. No word on whether the blows to his face will cost him his job, but if they don't heal, Cooper certainly doesn't have any journalistic acumen to rely on. His beating brings journalism's main problem to the fore.
Cooper might or might not be a good anchor. I don't watch television news unless there is something live happening, because I can read. Thanks to the Internet, I've been watching Al-Jazeera's outs
tanding coverage of Egypt. Cooper's trip to Egypt isn't unusual. Rather, Brokaw and the boys were all at Tienanmen Square and we all remember Bernard Shaw's wonderful reporting from Baghdad when the first Gulf War started.
But all those men had extensive experience reporting. Not just reporting, but reporting from war zones. Cooper is a news reader. His performance in New Orleans during Katrina showed how bad he is at collecting information. And reporting a hurricane is fairly simple. Reporting a revolution from the ground, I would guess, is next to impossible. There would be nothing wrong with Cooper sitting above it all and bringing all the reports together. It's not something he can do from the middle of a riot.
The reason Al-Jazeera is killing CNN is they have people on the ground. CNN seems to have three reporting teams there. Al-Jazeera is everywhere. CNN has a talking head (a throat in print speak). AJ has a team of hardened reporters. And this begs the point. Cooper is making $7 million a year. He's grossly overpaid. What if CNN paid him $2 million a year and used that other $5 million to hire 25 more reporters. I'm guessing on the market value, but for six figures and a good benefits package, I'd take the job. We'd all be better off and poor Anderson wouldn't have to risk having his only asset smacked with a stick.
Cooper might or might not be a good anchor. I don't watch television news unless there is something live happening, because I can read. Thanks to the Internet, I've been watching Al-Jazeera's outs
tanding coverage of Egypt. Cooper's trip to Egypt isn't unusual. Rather, Brokaw and the boys were all at Tienanmen Square and we all remember Bernard Shaw's wonderful reporting from Baghdad when the first Gulf War started.But all those men had extensive experience reporting. Not just reporting, but reporting from war zones. Cooper is a news reader. His performance in New Orleans during Katrina showed how bad he is at collecting information. And reporting a hurricane is fairly simple. Reporting a revolution from the ground, I would guess, is next to impossible. There would be nothing wrong with Cooper sitting above it all and bringing all the reports together. It's not something he can do from the middle of a riot.
The reason Al-Jazeera is killing CNN is they have people on the ground. CNN seems to have three reporting teams there. Al-Jazeera is everywhere. CNN has a talking head (a throat in print speak). AJ has a team of hardened reporters. And this begs the point. Cooper is making $7 million a year. He's grossly overpaid. What if CNN paid him $2 million a year and used that other $5 million to hire 25 more reporters. I'm guessing on the market value, but for six figures and a good benefits package, I'd take the job. We'd all be better off and poor Anderson wouldn't have to risk having his only asset smacked with a stick.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Live blogging the SOTU
10:20 Wrap up:
9:55 Did you know that Iwo Jima was a battle Americans won against all odds? Do these people have the first freaking clue about history? Are you kidding me?
9:54 Michelle Bachmann, who can't take her eyes off the teleprompter believes in American exceptionalism. So does Obama.
9:53 How is medical malpractice reform a free market solution?
9:51 Obama's added less to the deficit than Bush. She did say that Bush's spending was unacceptable. Don't recall her saying that at the time. I could be wrong. Continues to repeat the lie about health care reform increasing the deficit. Cap and trade? Isn't that dead?
9:49 Bachmann starts. Deficit was 10.6 trillion. How much lower would unemployment be without the stimulus? She doesn't mention that. Then she says Obama promised lower unemployment after saying he promised 8 percent. Which is it?
9:38 Thank God. A poll. I was worried we'd have to wait. CBS isn't running Bachmann.
9:36 Ryan is saying we want to work with the president. But he's pointing out that the GOP has cut the House budget is restoring "spending discipline" to the way it was in 2006. Great, more Bush spending. Ryan is doing a good job of explaining why the debt is a problem and framing it as a children's issue "no one person or party is to blame. Then goes right on attacking Obama on spending increases during a recession.
Ryan is blaming healthcare costs on a law that hasn't taken effect yet. Saying people are losing coverage under a plan that mandates coverage. Now I'm waiting to see what the GOP plan is to reduce health care costs and insure the uninsured. Nope he just repeats the lie that health care reform will increase the deficit. He ignores the fact that repeal will add to the deficit. Ryan offers no specifics whatsoever. So far, more of the same from the GOP.
Ryan: "We need to chart a new course." That's conservative? Is he promising that we won't have to impose painful austerity measures? He's calling for us to avoid the fate of Greece. How exactly can we avoid tax increases and painful austerity measures. He also bemoans the actions that broke our economy, just minutes after bemoaning the fixes that were required.
Now Bachmann. This should be fun.
9.18 SHELIA JUST GOT TOTALLY DISSED!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
9:15 I love Bob Schieffer and he's the reason why I'm on CBS. But he's gone a little soft on the reconciliation.
9:14 Before I forget. Shelia Jackson-Lee is a aisle hog and a camera whore (hat tip to Banjo Jones) and I love it that Obama blew her off on the way in. Now if he would just slap her on the way out, he'll lock up my vote. Katie Couric is calling him Reaganesque, that will be tomorrow's blog. Beaumont folks need to know that Ted Poe is kissing up to the president. Jeff Greenwald is saying Reagan was non-partisan. More on that in tomorrow's post as well.
9:13 "The state of our union is strong." Love it, from a style standpoint that he held that to the end.
9:07 "It will be harder, because we will argue about everything." Let's face it, we don't want to hear that. But he turns it into a national strength, which it should be, of course, then panders to American exceptionalism for some cheap applause. "We all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution." He is arguing that we all agree on the goals, just differ on the means. I'm not sure that's true anymore. (Boehner is about to cry). If we haven't crossed the Rubicon, there is a large faction of the body politic looking for a place to ford.
9:04 We stand with Tunisia and support hopes of democracy from all people. Egypt? Egypt? Anyone? Egypt?
8:59 Respect for the rule of law might carry more weight if he would not attempt to assassinate U.S. citizens with no judicial or congressional check. And actually use our Constitution to fight terror instead of trying to get around it.
8:56 Wants meetings with lobbyists on line. I'm laughing my ass off. Everyone in that room just shat themselves.
8:47 The debt. Deficit is "not sustainable." Freeze domestic spending for next five years. Gets a bogey clap. Reduction of 400 billion and lowers deficit to Ike levels in relation to GDP. Cuts to community action programs. 10s of billions in spending from defense. "I'm willing to eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do without. Let's make sure we're not doing it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens." Decries any plan to cut deficit by cutting investments in education and innovation. Admits cuts are in 12 percent of our budget and here we go. "We have to stop pretending that cutting this kind of spending will be enough. It won't."
He just put the GOP in the corner. He has endorsed the methods of the debt commission and points out that repealing health care will add $250 million (or billion missed that). He is taking the first step across the aisle by offering to work on tort reform.
The GOP simply cannot brand him a tax and spender in response to this. He is willing to cut. But he also says it's more important to educate our kids than to give millionaires tax breaks. How, exactly, is one going to argue against this? He again comes back to tax code reform. This is the candidate who ran for president, who befuddled Hillary and destroyed McCain. Government must be more affordable and efficient. He's now listing inefficiencies in government, giving salmon as an example. Pretty good line.
8:44 So Boehner doesn't clap when the president talks about preventing insurance companies from exploiting patients. Is he pro-patient exploitation? Can't wait for Jon Stewart's take on this.
8:41 Tax code reform. Yes! He's calling for a simplified system that will lower the corporate rate without adding to deficit. Again, no specifics.
8:37 Immigration. Willing to take it on after a call for allowing children raised to be safe from deportation and pointing out it's idiotic to educate foreign students then kick them out to compete against us. But again, I have to point out there are no specifics. This is along the same lines as health care. He's setting the goal and leaving the means to reach that goal open.
Now he's on to infrastructure. This is an issue on which the GOP is vulnerable if it gets pressed. Private firms aren't going to build the new rail and new roads that we need.
8:31 Interesting note about Race to the Top. Texas is one of the 10 states that refused the money, citing the strings that would be attached. The strings, of course, are higher achievement standards. At least one school board and superintendent in my area asked that they be allowed to compete. Their explained to their (Republican) reps that they had no problem meeting the standards. They felt that they should have the option to go after the money, and that doing so would be consistent with Republican rhetoric about local control. They were turned down cold. There was no interest in leveraging federal money to help schools in Texas, even when it cost nothing because of the fear that it would help the other side. That it would help the children and the state was irrelevant.
8:29 Talking about importance of education. Wonder if Perry is listening? Points out that families and communities are responsible for their children's education. Gets standing O on science fair line. Wonder if those are the same folks ripping him for being an Ivy League elitist? No specific proposals at this point.
8:27 Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's. Calls for ending subsidies to oil companies. Got claps from the audience. Not sure they meant it. But that's one point for a specific proposal. Or semi-specific anyway.
8:24 "This is our sputnik moment." Calls for investments in things we desperately need. But no word on how we pay for them while heeding his call to reign in the deficit.
8:23 Nice golf clap. GOP seems to be waiting for the other shoe to drop. I think they like what they hear so far, and that scares them.
8:16 America is a "light to the world." So much for the lie that Obama rejects American exceptionalism.
Indications are the president will call for a five year freeze on discretionary spending. I don't see how that is possible with the infrastructure challenges that are facing us unless we're going to seriously rethink our military presence in the world.
He's starting out where he left off in Tuscon. I'm waiting to find out what's going to happen with the deficit. I'm hoping he'll take the commission's recommendations as a starting point. Let's see, shall we?
Good speech. Not on the level of his Philadelphia speech, but a solid effort that sets the stage for the months to come. It will be interesting to see what the GOP says about the investment. The problem with all our overspending the last 30 years is that most of it's been wasted. The roads, the bridges the rails have been falling apart.
I’m not all that thrilled by cuts in discretionary domestic spending, but Obama met the GOP on that one, but the pointed out that’s just 12 percent of the budget and will not get us anywhere near the goal.
Obama did not go into detail, but he did offer specific plans. Most importantly, he endorsed the debt commission's approach. The GOP cannot get away with shouting from the rooftops that things need to be cut, but fail to offer any specifics or offer the Ryan plan that will balance the budget by 2069. Obama is following the same model he did with health care. He's setting the target. How we hit that target is going to be up to Congress.
Will the GOP take that bait? They can either rise to the challenge and genuinely work with him to reach these goals, or they will refuse to work with him. If they choose the former, they're going to have a hard time running against Obama in two years. How can they do that if they've worked with him? If they choose the later then they are going to have to explain why they've pissed away another two years, when they had one house. Will voters continue to support a party that offers nothing but criticism?
Obama's approach of leaving the detail work to others has several advantages. One is that it gets everyone involved. The door is open for the GOP, just as it was for health care. If they refuse to walk through the door this time, they are going to have to explain it. The other advantage is that Obama maintains his leverage. By setting the target he becomes the parent. If things bog down he can step in if the opportunity is there. If not, the blame doesn't fall on him.
Bachmann gave him a huge boost. She offered nothing but cheerleading, a word I choose after giving careful though to the potential for sexist connotation. But Bachmann’s speech was nothing but “Yay America, Boo Obama.” She can’t even do basic math. She pointed out that Obama promised (he actually predicted, but let’s not get bogged down in facts, right Michelle?) unemployment would be capped at 8 percent by the stimulus. Then she claims that Obama said unemployment would actually go down from 2006 levels. Which is it?
Bachmann simply isn’t serious about governing, and neither is the tea party. Obama on the other hand has made the necessary pivot from staving off economic collapse to dealing with the issues that he ran for, namely the deficit. Tonight’s endorsement of the debt commission’s approach and his reach across the aisle on tort reform and spending freezes is a good start.
9:55 Did you know that Iwo Jima was a battle Americans won against all odds? Do these people have the first freaking clue about history? Are you kidding me?
9:54 Michelle Bachmann, who can't take her eyes off the teleprompter believes in American exceptionalism. So does Obama.
9:53 How is medical malpractice reform a free market solution?
9:51 Obama's added less to the deficit than Bush. She did say that Bush's spending was unacceptable. Don't recall her saying that at the time. I could be wrong. Continues to repeat the lie about health care reform increasing the deficit. Cap and trade? Isn't that dead?
9:49 Bachmann starts. Deficit was 10.6 trillion. How much lower would unemployment be without the stimulus? She doesn't mention that. Then she says Obama promised lower unemployment after saying he promised 8 percent. Which is it?
9:38 Thank God. A poll. I was worried we'd have to wait. CBS isn't running Bachmann.
9:36 Ryan is saying we want to work with the president. But he's pointing out that the GOP has cut the House budget is restoring "spending discipline" to the way it was in 2006. Great, more Bush spending. Ryan is doing a good job of explaining why the debt is a problem and framing it as a children's issue "no one person or party is to blame. Then goes right on attacking Obama on spending increases during a recession.
Ryan is blaming healthcare costs on a law that hasn't taken effect yet. Saying people are losing coverage under a plan that mandates coverage. Now I'm waiting to see what the GOP plan is to reduce health care costs and insure the uninsured. Nope he just repeats the lie that health care reform will increase the deficit. He ignores the fact that repeal will add to the deficit. Ryan offers no specifics whatsoever. So far, more of the same from the GOP.
Ryan: "We need to chart a new course." That's conservative? Is he promising that we won't have to impose painful austerity measures? He's calling for us to avoid the fate of Greece. How exactly can we avoid tax increases and painful austerity measures. He also bemoans the actions that broke our economy, just minutes after bemoaning the fixes that were required.
Now Bachmann. This should be fun.
9.18 SHELIA JUST GOT TOTALLY DISSED!!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
9:15 I love Bob Schieffer and he's the reason why I'm on CBS. But he's gone a little soft on the reconciliation.
9:14 Before I forget. Shelia Jackson-Lee is a aisle hog and a camera whore (hat tip to Banjo Jones) and I love it that Obama blew her off on the way in. Now if he would just slap her on the way out, he'll lock up my vote. Katie Couric is calling him Reaganesque, that will be tomorrow's blog. Beaumont folks need to know that Ted Poe is kissing up to the president. Jeff Greenwald is saying Reagan was non-partisan. More on that in tomorrow's post as well.
9:13 "The state of our union is strong." Love it, from a style standpoint that he held that to the end.
9:07 "It will be harder, because we will argue about everything." Let's face it, we don't want to hear that. But he turns it into a national strength, which it should be, of course, then panders to American exceptionalism for some cheap applause. "We all believe in the rights enshrined in our Constitution." He is arguing that we all agree on the goals, just differ on the means. I'm not sure that's true anymore. (Boehner is about to cry). If we haven't crossed the Rubicon, there is a large faction of the body politic looking for a place to ford.
9:04 We stand with Tunisia and support hopes of democracy from all people. Egypt? Egypt? Anyone? Egypt?
8:59 Respect for the rule of law might carry more weight if he would not attempt to assassinate U.S. citizens with no judicial or congressional check. And actually use our Constitution to fight terror instead of trying to get around it.
8:56 Wants meetings with lobbyists on line. I'm laughing my ass off. Everyone in that room just shat themselves.
8:47 The debt. Deficit is "not sustainable." Freeze domestic spending for next five years. Gets a bogey clap. Reduction of 400 billion and lowers deficit to Ike levels in relation to GDP. Cuts to community action programs. 10s of billions in spending from defense. "I'm willing to eliminate whatever we can honestly afford to do without. Let's make sure we're not doing it on the backs of our most vulnerable citizens." Decries any plan to cut deficit by cutting investments in education and innovation. Admits cuts are in 12 percent of our budget and here we go. "We have to stop pretending that cutting this kind of spending will be enough. It won't."
He just put the GOP in the corner. He has endorsed the methods of the debt commission and points out that repealing health care will add $250 million (or billion missed that). He is taking the first step across the aisle by offering to work on tort reform.
The GOP simply cannot brand him a tax and spender in response to this. He is willing to cut. But he also says it's more important to educate our kids than to give millionaires tax breaks. How, exactly, is one going to argue against this? He again comes back to tax code reform. This is the candidate who ran for president, who befuddled Hillary and destroyed McCain. Government must be more affordable and efficient. He's now listing inefficiencies in government, giving salmon as an example. Pretty good line.
8:44 So Boehner doesn't clap when the president talks about preventing insurance companies from exploiting patients. Is he pro-patient exploitation? Can't wait for Jon Stewart's take on this.
8:41 Tax code reform. Yes! He's calling for a simplified system that will lower the corporate rate without adding to deficit. Again, no specifics.
8:37 Immigration. Willing to take it on after a call for allowing children raised to be safe from deportation and pointing out it's idiotic to educate foreign students then kick them out to compete against us. But again, I have to point out there are no specifics. This is along the same lines as health care. He's setting the goal and leaving the means to reach that goal open.
Now he's on to infrastructure. This is an issue on which the GOP is vulnerable if it gets pressed. Private firms aren't going to build the new rail and new roads that we need.
8:31 Interesting note about Race to the Top. Texas is one of the 10 states that refused the money, citing the strings that would be attached. The strings, of course, are higher achievement standards. At least one school board and superintendent in my area asked that they be allowed to compete. Their explained to their (Republican) reps that they had no problem meeting the standards. They felt that they should have the option to go after the money, and that doing so would be consistent with Republican rhetoric about local control. They were turned down cold. There was no interest in leveraging federal money to help schools in Texas, even when it cost nothing because of the fear that it would help the other side. That it would help the children and the state was irrelevant.
8:29 Talking about importance of education. Wonder if Perry is listening? Points out that families and communities are responsible for their children's education. Gets standing O on science fair line. Wonder if those are the same folks ripping him for being an Ivy League elitist? No specific proposals at this point.
8:27 Instead of subsidizing yesterday's energy, let's invest in tomorrow's. Calls for ending subsidies to oil companies. Got claps from the audience. Not sure they meant it. But that's one point for a specific proposal. Or semi-specific anyway.
8:24 "This is our sputnik moment." Calls for investments in things we desperately need. But no word on how we pay for them while heeding his call to reign in the deficit.
8:23 Nice golf clap. GOP seems to be waiting for the other shoe to drop. I think they like what they hear so far, and that scares them.
8:16 America is a "light to the world." So much for the lie that Obama rejects American exceptionalism.
Indications are the president will call for a five year freeze on discretionary spending. I don't see how that is possible with the infrastructure challenges that are facing us unless we're going to seriously rethink our military presence in the world.
He's starting out where he left off in Tuscon. I'm waiting to find out what's going to happen with the deficit. I'm hoping he'll take the commission's recommendations as a starting point. Let's see, shall we?
Boomer bust
It might help to read William Strauss and Neil Howe's book Generations: The History of America's Future, but it takes a while, so slog on.
Our political discourse is uglier than it has been in my memory (which stretches back to Watergate as a young lad). I don't know why it's popped up in the blogsphere today, but here is Glenn Beck's exhortation for the tea baggers to shoot in the head, anyone with whom they disagree because they are the enemy and trying to destroy this nation. Of course Palin claims that liberals are trying to bring this country to its knees.
So what the fuck is happening here? How did we get so far apart? Growing up in a Goldwater household I always thought that liberals were folks who wanted this country to be great, but were silly and ignorant about how to make it happen. I never realized they were bent on the destruction of everything we hold dear.
But now, I'm not so sure. Not about liberals, but about what Andrew Sullivan defines as the Christianist right. You have to ask yourself, which party has decided it's okay for the president to do as he damn well pleases, regardless of constitutional checks? Which party has run on a platform of imminent da
nger to this nation? Which party has decided it's okay to spy on citizens without a warrant? Which party has decided it's okay to torture? And most importantly, which party automatically vilifies as weak, dumb and un-American, anyone who dares oppose those positions.
But this isn't a left/right issue. The left is just as immobile, if not as dangerous at the moment. This is a generational thing. With credit to Mr. Strauss and Mr. Howe, let me explain. The boomers are an idealistic generation (much as FDR's generation, or Ben Franklin's generation was). Fueled by the type of religious awakening that occurs every 80 years or so in this country, they have come of age believe with religious fervor that they are right.
When we 13 genners were coming up (GenX is a term hung on us by a boomer that we learned to despise 25 years ago) we thought of our parents' generation as a bunch of hippies, weird, but harmless. Well, not harmless, but well meaning. They had Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll. We got AIDS, crack and Madonna. We resigned ourselves early to cleaning up their mess. But we assumed the Boomers' dominant trait was a leftist outlook toward politics and society. That turned out to be a crucial mistake.
Boomers dominant trait (other than group narcissism) is idealism. They simply take it as an article of faith that they are correct. This explains the how rise in fundamentalism that started in religion 25 years ago has spilled over into politics, as Sullivan so eloquently explains. And if you believe you are right based on faith (and from Todd Willingham to global warming to levitating the Pentagon, we've seen Boomers constantly ignore empirical evidence in favor of what feels right), then any disagreement isn't opposition, it's heresy and must be destroyed.
So it doesn't matter if death panels or a lie or not. It doesn't matter that there is no government takeover of healthcare. It doesn't matter that they impeached a president for lying about a blow job. "We're right Goddamnit, it doesn't matter if we lie to save they country from evil."
Boomers cannot compromise. Look at health care. You've seen the extreme right and the extreme left go absolutely batshit over the bill that came out. Have you seen any room for compromise? Here in Texas, look at Voter ID, which the state senate is debating today. Every senator has seen the estimates of zero impact on turnout for either party, but it's a matter of life and death for both sides.
I think we are going to see something different tonight. President Obama is on the cusp of the Boomer/13Gen divide. In temperament he is certainly one of us. If you step back and look at what he's done, not what its said he's done, he's shown the ability to compromise over and over. He's been painted as a hardcore liberal (or sellout) by people who simply cannot understand any narrative but the one that's been going on for 40 years. The boomers got control of the media early and they continue to hold it. Obama isn't one of them. He understands the Boomers, but they don't understand him. And that's why I think he'll prevail in the end. That's why I think Gary Johnson is the GOP's best hope.
The Boomers are too old to change, and — as Strauss and Howe point out — they don't have the numbers every one assumes. They have become monolithic and predictable. Flexibility and pragmatism will always win that battle. We got a president long before anyone thought we would. That doesn't mean we won't bear the brunt of whatever cuts and reforms are necessary to fix things, just as The Lost Generation went and voted for medicaid and medicare even though they would never get it. It certainly doesn't mean the Boomers won't overtake the so-called Greatest Generation in enriching themselves off the public teat. But it does mean that doctrinaire solutions that place more value on orthodoxy than effectiveness will lose out to things that really work.
And we can go on to the next crisis.
Our political discourse is uglier than it has been in my memory (which stretches back to Watergate as a young lad). I don't know why it's popped up in the blogsphere today, but here is Glenn Beck's exhortation for the tea baggers to shoot in the head, anyone with whom they disagree because they are the enemy and trying to destroy this nation. Of course Palin claims that liberals are trying to bring this country to its knees.
So what the fuck is happening here? How did we get so far apart? Growing up in a Goldwater household I always thought that liberals were folks who wanted this country to be great, but were silly and ignorant about how to make it happen. I never realized they were bent on the destruction of everything we hold dear.
But now, I'm not so sure. Not about liberals, but about what Andrew Sullivan defines as the Christianist right. You have to ask yourself, which party has decided it's okay for the president to do as he damn well pleases, regardless of constitutional checks? Which party has run on a platform of imminent da
nger to this nation? Which party has decided it's okay to spy on citizens without a warrant? Which party has decided it's okay to torture? And most importantly, which party automatically vilifies as weak, dumb and un-American, anyone who dares oppose those positions.But this isn't a left/right issue. The left is just as immobile, if not as dangerous at the moment. This is a generational thing. With credit to Mr. Strauss and Mr. Howe, let me explain. The boomers are an idealistic generation (much as FDR's generation, or Ben Franklin's generation was). Fueled by the type of religious awakening that occurs every 80 years or so in this country, they have come of age believe with religious fervor that they are right.
When we 13 genners were coming up (GenX is a term hung on us by a boomer that we learned to despise 25 years ago) we thought of our parents' generation as a bunch of hippies, weird, but harmless. Well, not harmless, but well meaning. They had Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll. We got AIDS, crack and Madonna. We resigned ourselves early to cleaning up their mess. But we assumed the Boomers' dominant trait was a leftist outlook toward politics and society. That turned out to be a crucial mistake.
Boomers dominant trait (other than group narcissism) is idealism. They simply take it as an article of faith that they are correct. This explains the how rise in fundamentalism that started in religion 25 years ago has spilled over into politics, as Sullivan so eloquently explains. And if you believe you are right based on faith (and from Todd Willingham to global warming to levitating the Pentagon, we've seen Boomers constantly ignore empirical evidence in favor of what feels right), then any disagreement isn't opposition, it's heresy and must be destroyed.
So it doesn't matter if death panels or a lie or not. It doesn't matter that there is no government takeover of healthcare. It doesn't matter that they impeached a president for lying about a blow job. "We're right Goddamnit, it doesn't matter if we lie to save they country from evil."
Boomers cannot compromise. Look at health care. You've seen the extreme right and the extreme left go absolutely batshit over the bill that came out. Have you seen any room for compromise? Here in Texas, look at Voter ID, which the state senate is debating today. Every senator has seen the estimates of zero impact on turnout for either party, but it's a matter of life and death for both sides.
I think we are going to see something different tonight. President Obama is on the cusp of the Boomer/13Gen divide. In temperament he is certainly one of us. If you step back and look at what he's done, not what its said he's done, he's shown the ability to compromise over and over. He's been painted as a hardcore liberal (or sellout) by people who simply cannot understand any narrative but the one that's been going on for 40 years. The boomers got control of the media early and they continue to hold it. Obama isn't one of them. He understands the Boomers, but they don't understand him. And that's why I think he'll prevail in the end. That's why I think Gary Johnson is the GOP's best hope.
The Boomers are too old to change, and — as Strauss and Howe point out — they don't have the numbers every one assumes. They have become monolithic and predictable. Flexibility and pragmatism will always win that battle. We got a president long before anyone thought we would. That doesn't mean we won't bear the brunt of whatever cuts and reforms are necessary to fix things, just as The Lost Generation went and voted for medicaid and medicare even though they would never get it. It certainly doesn't mean the Boomers won't overtake the so-called Greatest Generation in enriching themselves off the public teat. But it does mean that doctrinaire solutions that place more value on orthodoxy than effectiveness will lose out to things that really work.
And we can go on to the next crisis.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
Texas' war on science has a victim
Cameron Todd Willingham is dead and I doubt anybody misses him much. He was, by all accounts, a genuine piece of shit who beat his wife, ran around, used drugs and got tatted up. If Willingham had been shot in the street, it’s likely his assailant would have gotten off on the old Texas defense of “he needed shootin’.”
But Todd Willingham wasn’t killed by somebody in street. The State of Texas killed him, despite having no significant evidence he was guilty. In fact there is no significant evidence that a crime even occurred.
The short version is this. Willingham’s three children died Dec. 23, 1991 in a house fire at the Corsicana home he shared with them and his wife. A jury convicted him of killing them by arson based on testimony from the fire inspector — who had little formal training — that there was evidence of accelerants present and a burn trail that followed the path Willingham took out the door.
Prior to his execution numerous arson specialists, men with PhD’s who had actually done experiments, came forward and said there was no evidence of accelerants, no evidence, even, of arson. But the appeals court and our fine governors have all ignored the science and Willingham lies buried far from his children, his last wish — to have been buried next to them — denied by an ex-wife who first defended him, then claimed he confessed.
For the best account of the case, read David Grann’s piece in the New Yorker. I’m not here to debate guilt or innocence of Willingham. There is a darker force at work than just a bad verdict. Even after the New Yorker police brought the science to national attention, folks worked diligently to suppress it. Our fine governor applied a little extra mousse to his coif and pronounced Willingham a monster, as if he’d ever met the man. Then Governor Fonzerelli fired the head of the commission appointed to investigate forensic science in order to push back hearings till after the election, as though the news that Bush killed an innocent man would impact Fonzie’s re-election chances. Or surprise anyone. The commission did meet, the man sent to defend the science was a lawyer, a sure sign that you haven't a leg on which to stand. (
Correction. Willingham was executed in 2004, under Perry's governorship).
Now I’m against the death penalty. Forget all the arguments about how it fails to deter and is more expensive than life in prison and is racistly applied. Bottom line is this: State doesn’t give life. State shouldn’t take it.
But Willingham shouldn’t threaten death penalty supporters. Because the biggest threat to the death penalty in Texas isn’t my view. There are only about six of us in the state against the thing and we ain’t casting our votes on it. The biggest threat, the only threat is if the state executes innocent people, then turns around and says, so fucking what?
No, the darker side to this is the rejection of science. Texans, when confronted with a conflict between what we know and what the evidence shows, have long disregarded the evidence. When faced with 7,000 professional soldiers in San Antonio, the 187 volunteers said, “Fuck it. We can take them.” Faced with the chance to fill state coffers at the expense of 49 other states by taxing all oil that crosses the Sabine, Red or Rio Grande, Texans said, “Fuck it, we don’t need the money.”
And faced with evidence that what had traditionally been regarded as signs of arson, was in fact evidence of a flashover, evidence that had been demonstrated in actual fires designed to test the science, the state of Texas and most Texans said, “Fuck it.”
It was painful to watch the Frontline piece on Willingham. The investigators convicted him immediately. The lead investigator decided he was a loser. Who gives a shit what happens to a loser? They could tell he was guilty by the way he acted. Guilty, not of being a damn coward who let his children burn, but of setting the fire. So anything that didn’t fit with that theory was rejected. The prosecutor followed suit. Even his defense attorney piled on. It’s a sorry Cover Your Ass spectacle by all involved.
And where does that leave us? It leaves us with two public Tier One universities when California has nine. It leaves us with a woefully underfunded public school system that faces $5 billion more in cuts this session because lawmakers, evidently products of that failed system, couldn't do basic math when they were designing a new tax system and ignored those who could add and subtract. It leaves us with a school board that believes the earth is 6,000 years old and that brown people had no impact on the history of this state or this nation. It leaves us with a Legislature that thinks dropping Medicare might be a good idea.
We, as a state and as a people simply reject whatever facts don’t fit our prejudices. If we don’t learn to respect science and to respect intelligence, it’s not just Todd Willingham that will get tossed into an early grave. It’s the future of the state of Texas.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Trouble for Lance Armstrong
Sports Illustrated will hit the stands Wednesday with an investigative piece on Lance Armstrong and it doesn't look good for the 7-time Tour de France winner.
Armstrong has steadfastly denied any doping, but blood samples and witness testimony have contradicted his claims. He's the subject of a grand jury investigation looking into whether the $31 million he took from the Post Office was fraud. If they find he was doping, he's in big, big trouble.
My feeling on Armstrong is this: He was a middle of the packer. Then he got a disease that is caused by PED use. Then he was the best in the world. Too much smoke. He's also basically argued his it's not in his character to cheat. I'm guessing his first wife and Sheryl Crow might disagree with that.
Armstrong has steadfastly denied any doping, but blood samples and witness testimony have contradicted his claims. He's the subject of a grand jury investigation looking into whether the $31 million he took from the Post Office was fraud. If they find he was doping, he's in big, big trouble.
My feeling on Armstrong is this: He was a middle of the packer. Then he got a disease that is caused by PED use. Then he was the best in the world. Too much smoke. He's also basically argued his it's not in his character to cheat. I'm guessing his first wife and Sheryl Crow might disagree with that.
Why not hire George Allen and get it over with
Jerry Jones's lack of respect for the traditions that made the Cowboys great is little secret. From his firing of Coach Landry (and that's really the fault of Bum Bright, who turned down a higher offer so Landry would get axed, Thanks Aggies) to letting Texas Stadium rot so he could get the taxpayers to build him a new stadium to his continual meddling in areas that Mr. Murchison didn't know existed, Jones has shown little respect for the old traditions.
As much as that pisses me off, it's fair. After all, Jones is little more than a yokel who got lucky on some gas leases. You shouldn't expect him to appreciate anything he didn't have a hand in. But Jerry doesn't respect his own legacy either. He's won with two coaches, Johnson and Parcells. He won by getting the hell out of Jimmy's way and letting him coach. But he'd rather lose than see someone else get the glory.
And then there is Owens. Jones signed him after this man practically took a shit in the star in Texas Stadium. But as long as he can give Jerry a quick tingle, doesn't matter. This week he might have hit rock bottom. Rob Ryan is not only a loud mouth braggart in the mold of his brother, he's the son of Buddy Ryan. Remember Buddy? Forget that he refused to call off the dogs in 1985 when the Bears were crucifying Dallas. Buddy was the one who put bounties on Cowboy players.
And this happened on Jerry's watch. But Jerry doesn't care. Ryan is a hot name. So Jerry will ride it for a while. I guess he plays a 3-4, since that's what the team is built for, though his daddy thought that defense was for powder puff games. And since George Allen is dead and his son is an idiot, I reckon we can look forward to Dick Vermeil's tenure as head coach.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Two quarterbacks
Cam Newton is going pro. Case Keenum is staying amateur. I've crossed the paths of both quarterbacks, indirectly with Newton, who has held my nephew at a team function my brother catered, directly and fairly often with Keenum, who quarterbacks my Alma mater and my wife's employer. I can't say I know him well, and I cannot say I know Newton at all.
But there is something about Newton that shines false, false as Hal Chase's charm. His announcement this week that he was turning pro after winning a meaningless exhibition game, er, national title, was no surprise. Newton has always seemed to me, even before the allegations of pay for play arose, to be the ultimate mercenary football player. Hotly recruited, he chose Florida then left when he realized Tebow was coming back and knowing he couldn't compete. He played at Blinn then, according to his own account, he allowed his father to pick Auburn for him. While none of that is endearing, it certainly doesn't make him the poster child for NCAA hypocrisy.
What bothers me is his preternatural smoothness in the face of all allegations. There was something about that smile that seemed so fake. It was a smile folks my age will remember on Jimmy Swaggart and Jim Bakker in the 1980s as all was beginning to fall around them. It's a smile that seemed to say "you can't touch me. I did it, you know it and there is nothing you can do about it." (which isn't to say I think the NCAA treats its players with even a modicum of fairness). It was the smile of your daughter's suitor who says "I'll be sure and have her home by 11 because I'll be done by then."
I don't want to act as though Case Keenum is a saint. His public displays of piety are the type that have always grated on me, the more so because I know they are sincere. I know of instances in which he's acted less than perfect in dealing with some people. But I also know that no one was bidding for his services. Art Briles was the only coach in America who thought he could play at this level. I know that it was his dream to play college football, not to use it as stepping stone to something more lucrative.
Case isn't immune to the lures of the lucre. He's tested the waters to see where he would fall in the draft. If he had been advised he was a first round pick, there's a good chance he wouldn't have come back this year, much less next year. But there is a dignity surrounding Keenum's efforts to return, to finish what he started. I don't think he cares much for the records. He realizes that much of that is the system. I think he realizes that he's the second-best quarterback that UH has had since 2003. But that is what makes Case such a great role model and a great quarterback. He's not quarterbacking against Kevin Kolb, or Tim Tebow. He's quarterbacking against the defense in front of him.
He has a task to do and he knows damn well it can go bad. With a porous defense and the world's most delusional fan base, Houston has far bigger holes to fill than quarterback. Keenum could be great and they could still be a .500 team and the people posting with orgasmic joy on coogfans today will be calling him a choking dog. I don't know if Cam Newton could handle that (more on that in a moment) but I know that Case Keenum will be able to.
To me, the difference between the two quarterback was summed up before Newton's announcement that he was leaving the NCAA's that Keenum would not be. Newton did not have a good game Monday. Oregon hit him hard and hit him often. They determined they would not let him beat them with this feet and dared him to beat them with his arm. He could not do it. And that smile disappeared. His body seemed slumped every time he walked off the field. On the penultimate play, he should have scored. It was set up for the best player to make the best play. Instead, he got hit once then crumpled backwards unlike any other time I've seen him. I'm not sure anymore that he's a great prospect. I wouldn't take him in the first round. I think there is equal chance he'll be great or he'll be Vince Young.
I've seen Keenum fail in that situation too. Against Alabama, Oregon, Colorado State, ECU. I've seen him get his ass kicked against Air Force. Somehow he came out of those games with his dignity enhanced, rather than diminished. He did not slump off the field. He had not been beaten, he just ran out of time. I put Case's chances of success in the NFL with Newton's. But Case's chance of failure is nil. If he doesn't make a roster, he'll still be in the game coaching, at some level. And if he's carrying a clipboard, he'll still be learning, still be preparing, still be surviving, extending the play as he has done so often, just waiting for the slightest chance, then feathering a pass, a taking off to keep the drive going. Two quarterbacks. One, out of time on the college level, one getting that most precious gift back.
Good luck to them both.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Two statements
We saw two visions of leadership yesterday and taken together they were extremely instructive of where we are as a nation.
In the morning, Sarah Palin offered her statement, her defense, really, on the Giffords shooting and the fears that it sprang from the violent political rhetoric she and her ilk have employed so liberally. Not surprisingly, Palin rejected the notion that martial imagery might lead to violent actions. As one wag put it, "Today has been set aside to honor the victims of the Tucson massacre. And Sarah Palin has apparently decided she's one of them." Palin issued all the platitudes about the criminal bearing responsibility for his actions, not society. She quoted Reagan, and threw up some straw men about her own persecution.
But one must wonder why Bill Ayers' crimes didn't end with him. One must wonder why the books we read and the movies we see do so much to promote violence, while the words that are spoken on the campaign trail and the images posted from there, words and images that are about real people doing things that directly touch our lives, do so little.
"Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible," Palin writes on her facebook page.
Reprehensible (and we'll leave the reprehensibility of her use of the term "blood libel" for to others). A strong word. A very strong word coming from a woman who has decided that large swathes of this nation are not "real America." Palin clearly has no problem with the violence used in political rhetoric, as long as it's directed outward, at the "other," which is a disturbingly large group for the erstwhile governor of Alaska.
"We certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good." I wonder, just who does Palin believe is embracing evil and calling it good? Loughlen? Gifford? Obama? The media?
"There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated?"
That question was answered last night when Palin's great nemesis spoke. Unlike Palin, the president's choice of adverbs was not limited to "they" and "those." Instead he used "we," "us," and "our." And therein lies the difference between the two visions for this nation that have been put forward in the past decade. One vision refers to the days when politicians settled their arguments with duels. The second refers to scripture, to unity and, through Lincoln, to the better angels of our nature.
The president, aging faster than any president I can remember in my lifetime, did not point fingers. He did not defend anything, but instead tried to lift up this nation, tried to get it to see that through tragedy lies the path to a slightly better world. While the organized right focuses on ensuring that government does nothing to better the world, Obama wants all of us to better the world. While Palin threw blame, Obama sought unity.
"We must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.
In the morning, Sarah Palin offered her statement, her defense, really, on the Giffords shooting and the fears that it sprang from the violent political rhetoric she and her ilk have employed so liberally. Not surprisingly, Palin rejected the notion that martial imagery might lead to violent actions. As one wag put it, "Today has been set aside to honor the victims of the Tucson massacre. And Sarah Palin has apparently decided she's one of them." Palin issued all the platitudes about the criminal bearing responsibility for his actions, not society. She quoted Reagan, and threw up some straw men about her own persecution.
But one must wonder why Bill Ayers' crimes didn't end with him. One must wonder why the books we read and the movies we see do so much to promote violence, while the words that are spoken on the campaign trail and the images posted from there, words and images that are about real people doing things that directly touch our lives, do so little.
"Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn. That is reprehensible," Palin writes on her facebook page.
Reprehensible (and we'll leave the reprehensibility of her use of the term "blood libel" for to others). A strong word. A very strong word coming from a woman who has decided that large swathes of this nation are not "real America." Palin clearly has no problem with the violence used in political rhetoric, as long as it's directed outward, at the "other," which is a disturbingly large group for the erstwhile governor of Alaska.
"We certainly must not be deterred by those who embrace evil and call it good." I wonder, just who does Palin believe is embracing evil and calling it good? Loughlen? Gifford? Obama? The media?
"There are those who claim political rhetoric is to blame for the despicable act of this deranged, apparently apolitical criminal. And they claim political debate has somehow gotten more heated just recently. But when was it less heated?"
That question was answered last night when Palin's great nemesis spoke. Unlike Palin, the president's choice of adverbs was not limited to "they" and "those." Instead he used "we," "us," and "our." And therein lies the difference between the two visions for this nation that have been put forward in the past decade. One vision refers to the days when politicians settled their arguments with duels. The second refers to scripture, to unity and, through Lincoln, to the better angels of our nature.
The president, aging faster than any president I can remember in my lifetime, did not point fingers. He did not defend anything, but instead tried to lift up this nation, tried to get it to see that through tragedy lies the path to a slightly better world. While the organized right focuses on ensuring that government does nothing to better the world, Obama wants all of us to better the world. While Palin threw blame, Obama sought unity.
"We must examine all the facts behind this tragedy. We cannot and will not be passive in the face of such violence. We should be willing to challenge old assumptions in order to lessen the prospects of violence in the future.
"But what we can't do is use this tragedy as one more occasion to turn on one another. As we discuss these issues, let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together"
I suspect that Palin will simply fade away in the wake of the two statements. I believe that Americans will embrace bitterness for a time, but I don't believe Americans are willing to permanently embrace her dark vision of division for the long term. In the end, we are a nation of optimists and we will buy the vision of the candidate who can best tap shine the light on the city on the hill. As he showed in 2008, and reminded us last night, no one does this better than Obama
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Scattershooting on othering ...
While wondering whatever happened to Blackie Sherrod?
I'm going to leave the Palin bashing to Andrew Sullivan. He seems to have a better read on her than just about anyone else and you can click on his blog to the right.
But the idea that the rhetoric we've seen the past few years doesn't contribute to a culture of violence and of othering of those with whom we disagree is, at best naive, and at worst just a continuation of the incitement. There was a time when we realized the political opposition sought the same end for this country as we did, they just believed in a different mean to get there. There was a time when you could have friends of different political persuasions and as long as they weren't communists or Redskin fans it was okay.
But we don't merely disagree with our opponents anymore, we disavow them. The opponent isn't refuted (and by the way, refute doesn't mean to disagree, it means to prove wrong so stop using it copy editors). He must be othered. We see parts of this country labeled "Real America" we see some of it's people labeled patriots. Well if you are a patriot and I disagree with you, what does that make me? It makes me a traitor, a lesser American, a lesser human and it's not far from subhuman.
And I am not optimistic that Congresswoman Giffords' shooting will be the end of it. We've seen the right leap to defend it's choice of martial rhetoric. Jack Shafer claimed that violent language is healthy. Limbaugh claimed that the shooter was working for the Democrats. All have railed against the idea that anyone has committed a crime by placing cross hairs over an opponents district or claiming the president is a foreigner not fit to hold office.
But the fact is, no one has called for any of these people to be charged with any crime. There is no attack on the First Amendment. There is no doubt that the rhetoric is heating up the reality in the political arena. Conservatives, who claim to stand for personal responsibility, are, in this matter, attempting to wash their hands of any responsibility. Just as they have nothing to do with the budget deficit, the economy or the war in Iraq.
No one is asking anybody to give up any rights. We're just asking for the leaders of the debate to act like adults.
I'm going to leave the Palin bashing to Andrew Sullivan. He seems to have a better read on her than just about anyone else and you can click on his blog to the right.
But the idea that the rhetoric we've seen the past few years doesn't contribute to a culture of violence and of othering of those with whom we disagree is, at best naive, and at worst just a continuation of the incitement. There was a time when we realized the political opposition sought the same end for this country as we did, they just believed in a different mean to get there. There was a time when you could have friends of different political persuasions and as long as they weren't communists or Redskin fans it was okay.
But we don't merely disagree with our opponents anymore, we disavow them. The opponent isn't refuted (and by the way, refute doesn't mean to disagree, it means to prove wrong so stop using it copy editors). He must be othered. We see parts of this country labeled "Real America" we see some of it's people labeled patriots. Well if you are a patriot and I disagree with you, what does that make me? It makes me a traitor, a lesser American, a lesser human and it's not far from subhuman.
And I am not optimistic that Congresswoman Giffords' shooting will be the end of it. We've seen the right leap to defend it's choice of martial rhetoric. Jack Shafer claimed that violent language is healthy. Limbaugh claimed that the shooter was working for the Democrats. All have railed against the idea that anyone has committed a crime by placing cross hairs over an opponents district or claiming the president is a foreigner not fit to hold office.
But the fact is, no one has called for any of these people to be charged with any crime. There is no attack on the First Amendment. There is no doubt that the rhetoric is heating up the reality in the political arena. Conservatives, who claim to stand for personal responsibility, are, in this matter, attempting to wash their hands of any responsibility. Just as they have nothing to do with the budget deficit, the economy or the war in Iraq.
No one is asking anybody to give up any rights. We're just asking for the leaders of the debate to act like adults.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
