Thoughts on Blog Amnesty and the Mainstream Media

(cross-posted at The Smirking Chimp)

I enjoyed last week's Blog Amnesty. I don't get to spend a lot of time reading and commenting on other people's blogs, certainly not as much as I'd like, so it was a great opportunity for me to expand my blog horizons. Like many people, my life is filled up with family, work, friends and obligations, and I always feel 'behind the eight-ball' in regards to keeping up with my favorite bloggers, and discovering new blogs. Having a designated 'Blog Amnesty Day' made it easier to do that.

It also got me thinking about the phenomenon of blogging, and how it differs from the mainstream media. In the wake of the consolidation of media that has been going on for the last 20 years, blogging has stepped up as the 'adversarial' press envisioned by our founders in the First Amendment. The fact that bloggers are mostly unpaid and uncontrolled has freed them to a large extent from incestuous relationships with those they are supposed to be covering for the people. As the lines between 'journalism' and infotainment have blurred, it has become more difficult to separate truth from opinion on television, which is still where the majority of Americans get their news.

For many years, news was not obligated to support itself financially. A company fortunate enough to get a license to use a portion of the broadcast spectrum had practically a license to print money. As the spectrum is limited, only a lucky few were able to obtain these licenses. The broadcast spectrum, however, is a part of the 'commons' - common resources belonging to the people of the United States. No corporation is allowed to own the airwaves; they may only rent space on the spectrum. In return for the great privilege of being allowed to rent this access to the people of the United States for a trifling sum, the broadcast companies were expected to 'donate' news coverage as a public service. This news coverage was expected to adhere to strict journalistic standards, and was not to be responsible for 'paying its own way' through ratings and advertising, unlike other television and radio shows. However, in the last few years this has been dropped - but no one saw fit to inform Americans of this.

'News' is now expected to hold its own, financially and ratings-wise against entertainment - sitcoms, gossip shows, game shows, reality programming, night-time dramas, etc. - although its purpose is not entertainment. What has been true for other entertainment programs (that they are chosen by the networks to maximize ad revenue and target the advertisers' preferred demographic - young white males) has now been required of news, resulting in info-tainment rather than the obligation to inform the public. This means (and has meant for a while now) that the media and the press, specifically protected by the First Amendment for the purpose of advocating for the people rather than the establishment, are now beholden and obligated to the very institutions they have been entrusted with criticizing. But, somehow, no one got around to telling us that. Many people are still under the misapprehension that what we see on television news is unbiased, and must be by law. "They're not allowed to lie on TV!"

The reason that the press is singled out in the First Amendment is that they were expected to be advocating for the people who do not have access to the information that has an impact upon their lives. Can I be in Washington in the halls of Congress every day? Can you? I can't be where the decisions are being made. That's what the press is supposed to do for me. But when it's more important to sell products than give me unbiased information, my rights as a citizen are being infringed upon. The press is protected only upon the assumption that it is advocating for me; doing what I cannot do. The press is supposed to be adversarial, not complicit with power. But that is not the case any more.

One more time: the press is supposed to be adversarial to the powers-that-be.

That concept has been stood upon its head, and never more egregiously than during the Bush Administration. As media become more consolidated and power over it concentrated in a mere five corporations, the idea of media independence is a thing of the past. Opinions are being disseminated by only a handful of people, all in the same club.

Blogging has become a powerful antidote to the consolidation of media. While it is not always appropriate to call it 'journalism', it has become a voice for the voiceless. It is able to take an adversarial position precisely because it is mostly unpaid and therefore uncontrollable, and with the wide variety of opinion available, it's possible to compare different points of view and come to your own conclusion. If you read something that sounds like BS to you, you can search for other articles on that topic and see what the other arguments for and against it are. No one is prevented from saying anything they want, no matter how false or misleading or vile, but it has to stand up to the scrutiny of the rest of the blogosphere and will stand or fall upon its merits.

And, unlike traditional media, the aim of blogging is not to contract, but to expand. Blogroll Amnesty is a great example of this principle, and as some of the so-called 'A-list' blogs become more and more exclusive, and closer to the issues and people they cover, the rest of the blog community seeks to become more inclusive. Instead of jockeying for dominance and pushing little blogs aside, the spirit of the blog community attempts to broaden the range of voices. And a blog is judged on its own quality, rather than how much money has been put into it. If you have something to say that resonates with other people, you will find an audience.

To me, this is the democratic way, and closer to the meaning of what the First Amendment was written for. No, most of us aren't 'journalists'. But everything we say is subject to public scrutiny and debate, and if a post is flawed, you can be sure that someone will point it out. The beauty of blogging is that nothing is just accepted as gospel. If you want to make an assertion, it will not be uncritically swallowed. And any commenter worth paying attention to will have to demonstrate his or her competence in order to be taken seriously. It's a self-correcting system - a true 'meritocracy' of ideas.

It's also a community of people, personalities and relationships. We are often partisan and biased, but as humans the partisanship and bias are on the table, not hidden under a mask of false 'impartiality'. Then you can consider the source in making your decision as to whether you accept or reject that person's argument.

I treasure the friends I've met through blogging - people whose paths I would never have crossed in my daily life. I'm proud to be a citizen of Blogtopia, and I love the fact that it's our ideas and writing that give me and my cohorts a seat at the table, not money or influence. The very fact that I have gotten a book publishing contract from someone hearing something I wrote and e-mailing me out of the blue, and not because I 'knew somebody', had the 'right contacts' or was high-profile in any way, is a testament to the collective power of blogging. It wasn't the number of 'hits' on my site (which aren't huge), or advertising, or anything else but doing the work. 'Wingnut welfare' notwithstanding, so many of us are getting our voices heard based on our hard work and commitment to speaking out, instead of novelty, nepotism, notoriety or the lowest common denominator.

Your voices count. And we are changing things - not overnight, but we are changing things; you can be assured of that.

So, write on, my brothers and sisters! Enquiring Minds want to know!

'Maverick' Is The Name

(cross-posted at Capitol Punishment)

Bat Boy to Dick Cheney: "Don't You Love Me, Daddy?"

Over at Eli's -

Bat Boy To Dick Cheney: "Don't You Love Me, Daddy?"

MORGANTOWN, West Virginia - In the small mining town of Ticksville, West Virginia, population 357, a lonely little boy cries for the daddy he’s never seen. While other little boys he knows have fathers that play catch, take them fishing, and coach their Little League teams, this little boy has never known the love of the man responsible for bringing him into the world.

A fatherless boy is not unusual in this impoverished mountain town; a succession of unfortunate mining accidents has seen to that, and the difficulty in finding work in this once-booming area has driven many men away from their families in search of bigger and better things. But this particular boy is not like other boys, and the father he has never seen is not like other fathers.

This little boy’s name is Bat Boy, and his mother now claims that the father he has never seen is Vice-President Dick Cheney.

Little Bat Boy, part human, part bat, first gained national attention when he was found in a West Virginia cave in 1992. At first thought to be an abandoned orphan, his mother, Susan Boy, was subsequently located in a bar in Morgantown three weeks later, where she had “stopped on the way home from work, and just lost track of time.”

Professional recycler Susan Boy has refused to comment on the subject of her son’s father up until now, but in a sensational statement has named Vice-President Cheney as the real father of Bat Boy.
“I never wanted to make no trouble for Batty’s pa,” she said in an exclusive interview with the Weekly World News. “I figured my boy had enough unwanted attention as it was, and him and me have always made our own way. It ain’t that unusual round these parts to be a single mom anyhow, and I always told him his daddy was a no-account drunken bum. That seemed to satisfy him for a while. But now that he’s older, he’s askin’ more questions, and since his daddy is almost done being Vice-President, I think my son deserves to know who his father is.”

Ms. Boy asserts that there is no financial angle in seeking to reunite Batty with his dad. “I never asked Dick for no money. Even when times was tough, me and Batty had our pride. But it broke my heart to watch poor Batty trying to ‘prove himself’ to a daddy he’s never known. All he ever wanted was a father’s love, and I think it’s time he had it.”

Susan Boy claimed to have had a long affair with the Vice-President in the late seventies and early eighties. “We met in a bar in Morgantown,” she said. “The chemistry was undeniable after five boilermakers, and Dickie put me up in a motel room for the next four years. He came to see me every time he could get away from that ball-busting harpy he was married to.”

She asserted that the real Dick Cheney was very different from the public’s perception of him. “He was just the sweetest thing,” she said. “Always bringing me flowers and Jack Daniels. He’d cry and cry about how no one really understood him except me. He was always crying around me, now that I think back on it. You might not know it, but my Dickie was a very emotional guy. Sometimes all he’d do when he came over would be to stay up all night, crying and cleaning his shotgun. He was sensitive like that. I think he could only be his real self around me.”

She claimed that one of the great disappointments of Cheney’s life was that he never had a son.
“I loved Dickie so much that I decided to make his dream come true and give him the son he always wanted.” But by the time she found ot she was pregnant with Bat Boy, she said, Cheney was “long gone. Lynne found out about me, and threatened to make a public spectacle and destroy his career if he didn’t break it off with me. It broke both our hearts, but I knew he was destined for greatness, so I let him go.” By that time Susan Boy was pregnant and homeless, and took up residency in a deserted cave.

“Times was hard, all right - real hard. But somehow I managed to get by and make a home for Batty. When he was born, it was all I could do to keep from calling his daddy and telling him that his fondest wish had come true. But I knew that I had to keep our secret.”

She kept that secret for twenty-five years, but now she feels that it’s time to break her silence.
“Batty did everything he could to impress his dad - he even joined the Marines and was a war hero in Iraq. He only did it hoping to make his daddy proud.”

She believes that the Vice-President will be proud when he meets his son at last.

“I just know that Dickie will be crazy about him,” she says. “What father wouldn’t be proud of a son like Batty? He’s a big celebrity now in his own right who made his own way without any help from his father, unlike those sorry coat-tail-riding daughters of his. He tried to make the second one into the son he never thought he’d have and look how that turned out. And the older Batty gets, the more you can tell that he’s Dickie’s son. He’s never without his shotgun, and he cries a lot, too.”

Bat Boy has a message for his father, too. “Daddy, I love you,” he said in a statement to the Weekly World News. “All I ever wanted was to make you proud of me, Daddy. I don’t want your money. Just a phone call, a hug, a father-and-son hunting trip - that’s all I want from you. I don’t need anything else - just my Daddy’s love.”

Both Bat Boy and his mother are willing to undergo DNA testing to prove that the Vice-President is Batty’s father. “Any time, any where,” says Ms. Boy. “Dickie, do the right thing. Don’t lose out on the love of the son you always wanted! If you need me to kick Lynne’s dried-up old ass, I will. I’m here for you, Dickie!”

When contacted for a response by our reporter, Vice-President Cheney neither confirmed nor denied the allegation, but in a statement said, “Go f*** yourself.”

New Feature - Monday Is Hooterville Hall O' Fame Day!

Blogroll Amnesty Day was so delightful that I have decided to make it a regular feature here at Hooterville. Every Monday, I'll welcome the new additions to the blogroll. How does one get included in the Hall O' Fame, you may ask? Easy as pie. You just request to be added, or comment and leave your blog address. A link back is appreciated but not required. Nothing could be simpler here at Hooterville, where 'simple' is our middle name!

And with that, let's kick off Monday Hooterville Hall O' Fame Day by welcoming Boxer Rebellion, ThePoliticalCat, Mad In the Middle and One Pissed Off Veteran!

Don't be shy about reminding me, as ThePoliticalCat did - I'm forgetful sometimes. And if you have linked to me and by some gross oversight I have not linked back, please know that it's just that - a gross oversight. Remind me and I'll fix it immediately.

Happy Hall O' Fame Day, y'all!

Update: Say hi to Bridget from ShortWoman (gotta love that name! There must be millions of envious 'shorties' out there that wish they had gotten that web name.)
Speaking of great names...the s.n.a.f.u. principle
Please welcome my homie from FL - RonD is the Man in the Street
and fellow bucolics from Heaven on the Hill

Bush is the Symptom - Conservatism is the Disease

As many of us have predicted, the Republican presidential candidates are in a knock-down, drag-out battle to claim the mantle of 'the most conservative ever'. McCain, indeed, is labeled by the other candidates as a 'liberal', the pinnacle of epithets. 'Pedophile' would not be a more derogatory, insulting term. You might as well call him a 'Satanist who bites the heads off of blastocysts' and get it over with.

Conservatives revere and revel in the label 'conservative' in a way that liberals ceased to do in the sixties, when conservatives began blaming liberalism for every evil under the sun. Before that, the majority of Americans self-identified as liberals; liberalism represented the things in society that Americans valued - equality, diversity, making sure that everyone had a chance at the "American Dream". The economic programs that gave us a middle class - strong unions, the GI Bill, Social Security, Medicare - are liberal programs. Liberals believe that you can't sacrifice people so that corporations can grow fat. Liberals know that the 'trickle down theory' is, as Dubya's father once rightly said, 'voodoo economics', and that the only boats that a 'rising tide lifts' are yachts. Liberals believe that we as a nation have a responsibility, not for, but to all of our citizens (there's a difference) and that government is not the enemy, but 'We the People'. It's not 'them', it's 'us'. But when conservatives, backed by the limitless coffers of Big Business Republican think-tanks who saw their vision of conservative financial and social dominance slipping away, decided to attack liberalism as the symbol of all that's wrong with America, liberals did not challenge this assertion and it became part of the national narrative without liberals quite knowing what happened.

So, while statistics show that the economy does better under Democratic leadership and worse under Republican leadership, conservatives brag about belonging to the party of 'fiscal responsibility.' While Republicans accuse Democrats of being 'soft on terror', their party and their President have increased and encouraged terrorism by attacking and occupying a sovereign nation without the resources to defend themselves, and created terrorism where there was none before. While Republicans consider themselves to be the party of Morality and accuse Democrats of having no values, in the most egregious examples of 'do as I say, not as I do', the overwhelming majority of sex and corruption scandals have involved Republicans, not Democrats. The party that supposedly believes in 'small government' inevitably bloats it to unprecedented numbers. The party that harps upon Personal Responsibility seems congenitally incapable of accepting responsibility for its failings, always blaming them on others.

Please note that I am not giving Dems a free pass here - no one can be in politics and keep their hands perfectly clean - no one. It's the way the system is set up. But the ones who claim to be more moral than everyone else because of their high religious principles and who are constantly pointing their fingers at others seem to be the ones that are doing every immoral thing they condemn others for.

And these are the people who are proudly claiming the mantle of conservatism.

For those conservatives who have reluctantly admitted that the Bush Administrtion has been, shall we say, less than stellar - is the reason for George W.'s failure as President simply that he is not conservative enough? Is that his problem? For the true believers, conservatism never fails - it is only failed.

Somehow, with a Republican president, complete Republican control of Congress, and a majority of conservative Supreme Court justices - as well as a religious right that has been calling the shots in Washington for almost eight years - conservatism has not been given a real chance!

Please pardon me if I'm not hopping on that particular bandwagon. Yes, the party with absolute control of everything, that left Democrats completely shut out and voiceless for six years and when they got the tiniest sliver of a majority back, filibusters them into irrelevance without a murmur of dissent - that party has not had a fair shot at giving conservatism a chance.

I beg to differ, comrades.

We have had the implementation of unfettered conservatism for the past twenty-five years. In my upcoming book the Price of Right I've set myself the task to make clear why it is not just George W. Bush that is the problem - it is the ideology of conservatism itself.

Bush is the symptom; conservatism is the disease.

Even as liberals debate conservatives, we cede them the ‘rightness’ of their basic tenets, which I think is a mistake. I hope to show that conservatism – both social and economic – is detrimental to a democratic society. By ‘conservatism’ I do not mean prudence and moderation - which is what many people take conservatism to mean – but the political and social meaning which includes the myth of the ‘free market’, the elimination of as much regulation and taxes as can be gotten away with, the myth that privatization is the best way to deal with society’s needs, and that government is in itself a bad thing. The (usually) unspoken corollary to this is the ‘Conservative Golden Rule’ – he who has the gold makes the rules. In other words, the people with money and power are the best and most deserving – simply because they have the money and power! This is a strongly-held belief of many people, but it is not acceptable to say in so many words, so there are many euphemisms to describe it - ‘meritocracy’, ‘pulling yourself up by your bootstraps’, ‘reverse discrimination’, and so on. Conservatism’s message is connected to some very powerful societal myths that resonate deeply in the subconscious mind, making it easier to believe in the myths than the facts.

But America as a nation was built on liberal and progressive values, rather than conservative ones. If by ‘conservative’ you mean the status quo – keeping things the way they are, rather than changing, then conservatives would be the Royalists and liberals would be the Revolutionaries. The United States of America was not founded by people who did as they were told by the authority in power – in this case George III, who considered his power directly God-given. In fact, every significant advance in this country for the betterment of its people – freedom for slaves, women’s rights, child-labor laws, civil rights, the American 20th-century middle class itself – came about as a result of liberal ideals and policies.

For much of the 20th century after World War II, American values were liberal values. The New Deal gave us the American Dream – a thriving middle class. But the paradigm began shifting in the sixties, when the plan to rebuild conservatism intersected with the disappointment of Vietnam, which put a damper on what it meant to be liberal. Powerful changes were beginning, but they were under the radar of American consciousness.

We began feeling the rumbles of this seismic shift in the late seventies, when Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority injected politics into religion, ushering in the so-called “Reagan Revolution”. The admixture of moral righteousness with conservative economic tenets begat a Republican mindset that allowed for little or no consideration of other points of view. With this new majority, conservatives could afford to ignore the bipartisanship which would normally force it to mitigate or dilute its objectives. The liberal view became, not just incorrect, but morally flawed as well in the eyes of this new political meld, the Christian conservatives. Each group had its own reasons for criticizing liberalism before, but, fused together as a political unit, the two groups reinforced each other’s beliefs synergistically. Traditional liberal values such as tolerance, diversity, empathy and compassion became evils to be rooted out instead of solutions to the ills of society.

This set of 'values' insists that "Government is the enemy and Big Business is your friend." They believe, incredibly, that tax cuts plus borrowing and spending equal prosperity! The sad truth is that our government (and the rest of the world) is run, not by Democrats, or even Republicans, but by multinational corporations. These corporations want Republicans in power because they fit the most easily into the authoritarian nature of conservatism, and are thus much easier to bend to their will.

I don't believe that most conservatives (our family and friends, many of whom are affected as adversely as the rest of us by unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism) understand what their policies really mean in terms of the economy, the so-called "War on Terror", jobs, education, health care, the deficit, civil liberties, and our relationships with the rest of the world. But, as most people know by now, the Republicans have been positioning themselves for this complete takeover of government for forty years. It has been carefully planned and massively funded. And the way they have captured the hearts and minds of the American fiscal and religious conservatives was not an accident. It has been done by playing into the deepest wants, needs, and fears of people who are the most comfortable with authoritarian structure. It has been done systematically through the use of language and framing, and using the same subliminal techniques that advertisers use when they want you to choose their product over a competitor's; not because of inherent differences between the products, but by applying motivational 'triggers' which have nothing to do with the product itself. That's where the media comes in, The average American, who works harder and longer for less and less, sits down for an hour, exhausted, in front of the television set and takes it on faith that what he or she is seeing on the news is true. And when the narrative is skewed to promote the ideas that those in power wish to have the public believe, most people are not in a position to judge how much is true and how much is spin. The line between 'news' and 'commentary' has been completely blurred to boost advertising revenue, and the American people - you and I - are paying the price.

George W. Bush certainly is the worst president in American history, but he could not have achieved that distinction without the conservative philosophy that says "What's good for business is good for America." It is conservatism that has created the monster that is George W. Bush, not the other way around.

I believe it is time for liberals to call themselves liberals, and be proud of being liberal. It is time to stop ceding conservatives the moral high ground and start pointing out where conservatism has had a direct and destructive effect on the United States and the rest of the world.

Conservatism is inherently anti-democratic. Conservatives do not believe that all men (and women) are created equal. Conservatives believe that some people are more equal, more deserving, more entitled than others, and it's the fault of the 'others' if they are shut out.

Folks, the principles that our nation was founded on are the exact principles that conservatives oppose! We as liberals need to begin pointing that out. Nothing would make me happier than to see a Democratic candidate boast about what a liberal he or she was. That would give me hope for our country.

Remember - Bush is only the symptom - conservatism is the disease. Let's work togther for a cure.

New Wednesday Feature at Multi Medium!

I've been graciously invited to write a Wednesday feature over at Eli's blog Multi Medium, which focuses on the role of media in our democracy, and why it is so imperative that it be held accountable to its First Amendment duty as truth-teller instead of the propaganda arm of the powers-that-be. Eli also is a front-pager over at Firedoglake.

I will be carrying on a feature that, alas, due to the demise of America's greatest newspaper, is in short supply these days. But America deserves to know the truth, no matter how few media outlets have the sack to tell it.

I am speaking, of course, of the Weekly World News, "The World's Only Reliable Newspaper."

Ever since its inception in 1979, it has been my dream to write for this forthright and formidable paper, to which I subscribed for many years. Although the WWN is no longer with us, Eli has allowed me to live that dream. Each Wednesday I will be bringing you the news no other paper has the courage to print courtesy of Eli's "Why-I-Love-The-Weekly-World-News Blogging" feature. In the spirit of the First Amendment, it is my great privilege to carry on this tradition.

Check out the first installation here!

Gig Alert - Sunday, Feb. 10

Hi all - here's more info about my Sunday night gig at Cozy's in Sherman Oaks.

It's basically a songwriter-in-the-round thing, with people in groups of 4 doing a round-robin for 45 minutes. I'll be going on between 9:00 and 9:45, then at 11:00 there will be a free-for-all jam with all the performers.

If you get there too much past 9 you'll miss me, so come early - the show starts at 8, and I'll be there listening to everyone else. The $5 cover is going to help special-needs kids, and it's going to be an amazing show. I hope to see you there. Just look for the big ol' blonde with the pink glasses!

(double-click on the flyer to see it full-size)

Mea Culpa

I'm so ashamed.

The lovely and talented Jon Swift, who has done yeoman's work on Blogroll Amnesty Day (actually Blogroll Amnesty Weekend, but 'BAW' just doesn't have the same punch) had to email me today to request a place on my blogroll. My only excuse is that I thought I already had; and while I was busy adding my many new friends whose acquaintance I have made due to hard work on Jon's part (as well as a lovely link on his post), I overlooked his own excellent and insightful blog.

So I would like to make a public apology, Jon, and beg your pardon. I am not worthy. You are now firmly ensconced in the Hooterville Hall o' Fame.

Bedlam for Bozo, or, Repub Debate at the Reagan Library

Wow - just wow.

I don't watch much Repub stuff firsthand, just because it's so damn crazy-making.

I'm watching the debate on the TV, and it's just plain nuts.

John McCain thinks we're better off now than we were eight years ago. Things have been peachy except for just lately - low unemployment, plenty of new jobs, a booming economy. Everything's been swell - except for the...the, uh sub-prime...uh - the housing problem. But he knows the answer to that - make the Bush tax cuts permanent! Look how well it's worked so far. Smoove, John!

Mitt Romney doesn't think that we are better off, but he wouldn't dream of blaming it on Bush. No, it's that lazy Congress that's been screwing up everything. "Facts are stubborn things" - name checking the Gipper. I'm the most conservative - John McCain is a liberal! The 'ultimate conservative', he calls himself. No more free rides, you lazy health freeloaders! Health care=creeping socialism.

Huckabee - no, I'm the most conservative! Even though Rush hates me, I can't afford to diss him. Hey - I'm here! Looky over here! I'm the conserviest! I hate the Democrats the most! He does talk about infrastructure. Bridges falling on people, and parents can't get to their kids' soccer games!

Ron Paul - hello? Who? He wants to talk but keeps getting shunted aside - "We'll get back to you, I promise!" Going on about "faith that the market works". Great. Faith-based economics - a Repub staple.

They're all going on about states' rights. Great - until a state claims a right they don't like, like medical marijuana or right-to-die - then listen to the tune change.

One thing I have to say that I would give anything to hear from our side is the pride they take in being conservative. I would love to hear liberals and progressives each try to out-progressive the other. I'd like to hear them bragging about how liberal they are. I'm proud to be a liberal, and I wish other liberals would stand up and say that, too.

McCain - I was a foot-soldier in the Reagan Revolution! (get it? Soldier? Warrior?)

Mitt Romney - the Bush Revolution - when Bush came into office, he was fighting off a downturn. Thank God Bush cut taxes and gave us these glorious eight years! What alternate universe does Max Headroom live in? Yeah, who needs all that crummy old peace and prosperity that Clinton dumped on his successor in the White House?

Huckabee on immmigration - build a fence - a big fence! Quickly!

(other candidates eyeing him and smirking)

Looking out on the crowd at the Reagan Library, it's pretty much what Rick Nelson used to call a 'skull orchard'. Dour and silent.

February's Hooterville Post Office Newsletter

Hi friends and fam,

February is an interesting month this year. This first weekend coincides with Blog Amnesty Day, where bloggers link to off-the-beaten-path blogs and spread the linky love to encourage each other, get to know writers they wouldn't have known about, and keep the blogosphere from becoming 'corporatized' - dominated by a few huge blogs and off-limits for all practical purposes to the lesser-known or smaller blogs, like what has happened to our national media. And we see what happens, at least in the political arena, when media consolidates. I do read a few large blogs, and some of them, like Mike Finnigan at Crooks and Liars, make a point of calling attention to a few smaller blogs every day. They've been nice enough to give me a shout-out every once in a while, and it means a whole new bunch of people who have never read my stuff before. Of course, then it's up to me to give them a reason to come back.

But, in all honesty, I do like having a small blog. The main reason is that I can get to know every commenter that drops by for a visit, and I like the sense of community that it brings. I don't get troll-bombed. I don't get into flame wars. I can keep my place the way I like it - friendly, supportive, passionate about the issues I care about, snarky and fun sometimes - and I don't have to worry about pleasing (or pissing off) a bunch of different people or jumping through hoops to get my 'stats' up. I can curse if I need to - or not. I'm not looking for confrontation. And the readers and commenters I do have I consider friends. There are other blogs that thrive on the rough-and-tumble of battling ideas, but that's not my thing. Of course, I'm interested in other points of view than my own - I'm just not looking for drama. In the wide, wide world o' blogs, there's something for everyone and you can find a fight if you're looking for one, but that's not how I roll. I take my fights where they'll make a difference - in the real world. As Digby says, if you don't like what you read, you're free to go elsewhere.

*So What's Up With the Book?*

About my book - right now, it's being edited - that's all the news I have. It's a strange feeling to have finished with a year and a half of work, and then be in limbo - my part is done for now, and I'm not sure what to expect next. I still have this nagging feeling that I should be working on it - force of habit, I guess. And something about not working on it makes it feel as if it no longer exists. When I have any more news about it you all will be the first to know. Right now, it's available for pre-order on Amazon, and I keep going there to look at it and say to myself, "I have a book! I have a book!" I may just faint when I have it in my hands for real.

February is also Black History Month, Valentine's Day, President's Day. There's a meeting on the 7th for the San Fernando Valley chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, if any locals would be interested in checking out this fine organization. Email me for info.

* Gig Alert * Gig Alert * Gig Alert *

Gig alert! On February 10, I've been invited to participate in a Songwriter's Night at Cozy's in Sherman Oaks, for a great organization called Livin' the Music. They raise funds and awareness for a charity called the Lili Claire Foundation, which helps children with neuro-development conditions. The $5 cover goes directly to the Lili Claire Foundation. I hope to see some of you there - it's a little more notice than the last gig!

You can find out more at www.liliclairefoundation.org and myspace.com/livethemusictoday.

And of course, can't forget Super Tuesday. I was working at the Musicians Institute the day of the Democratic debate in Hollywood at the Kodak Theater - one block from my school. They had Hollywood Blvd. cordoned off and choked with satellite trucks - then across the street from us they were giving Suzanne Pleshette a posthumous star, which is always a major clusterf***. Sucked to be you if you were driving in Hollywood that day. I didn't really want to go to the debate anyway because it's still too soon after Edwards suspended his campaign for me to be interested in another Thrilla in Manila. But I'll be voting Tuesday and then after work heading on over to my local Drinking Liberally to hang out with my liberal buds and holler at the big-screen TV.

So, in conclusion - have a great February! Vote early and often! Come out to see me at Cozy's! Link to some bloggers that could use a boost if you blog. Support the Constitution - call your Congresscritters and don't let them roll over for telecom immunity. Show your love on V-Day - if you don't have a valentine, take yourself out and be sweet to you! Stand up and be somebody!

Or something like that.

Blogroll Amnesty Blowout!

Blue Gal sent me a heads-up that this weekend is designated as Blogroll Amnesty Weekend. It's a long story, and I'll let Skippy and Jon Swift tell you the details, but suffice it to say that it's the time of year that we give linky love to blogs that are smaller than we are. Now, you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find a blog with less traffic than mine. I don't advertise, I don't have a tip jar, I don't use tags or keywords and time constraints don't allow me to network and comment on other blogs as much as I'd like to. But, like Skippy, my policy is that I will link to anyone who links to me. In fact, I'll go further - I link to anyone who comments and leaves a website to link to!

I feel that the beauty of the blogosphere is that it doesn't matter who you are or how high-profile your blog is, there's a place for everyone. If you have something to say, there's a very good chance that there are readers out there to appreciate it. My blogroll has a few big kahunas on it, but that's because I read them and get something out of them, and would like to pass them on to others who might enjoy them also. I don't expect them to link to me. But we little blogs can help each other out by trading links, which is the coin of the realm here in Outer Blogistan.

I'm going to list a few of my favorites (it doesn't necessarily mean that they have less traffic than I do; I have no way of knowing!) and if you're not on my blogroll yet and would like to be, please leave your info on a comment.

Library Bitch
Mauigirl
Welcome to Pottersville
Physioprof
TwoTonGreenBlog
Political Teen Tidbits
TexBetsy's Blog
Crabbi
terryfaceplace

That's just a start, but feel free to peruse my blogroll, and if you'd like to be added there's always room at Hooterville!

Update: Meet my new friends!

Bad Attitudes - good writing!
The Crone Speaks - a sharp liberal, feminist blog
The Democratic Daily - the name says it all
Moue Magazine - a new and interesting blog
Kittywampus - another cool new blog with a great name (luv the kittehs!)
politickybitch - acerbic, aware and awake in San Diego
OB Rag - kickin' it old-school style, also from San Diego
Dyre Portents - a radical moderate! And a Texan!
Ragebot - my old friend Kvatch from Blognonymous with a fierce new blog

Goodbye, John Edwards. MSM - Mission Accomplished!

It is with a heavy heart that I say goodbye to John Edwards' candidacy.

I certainly can't say I didn't see it coming, but I now have to forego the luxury of feeling excited about the candidate I support.

Up until the last minute I held out hope for an Al Gore candidacy, but I had to let that go. Kucinich, who best represents my values, was kicked to the curb as a viable candidate early on. But Edwards' strength encouraged me. I have always liked him - I liked him in 2004 and I liked him better this time around. I think he would have made a great President. He is the candidate that talked about the elephant in the living room - the corporatocracy which is driving us towards feudalism and has turned the middle class into the working poor and the working poor into the indigent. He is a fighter who has taken on the big corporations and won. As I have said before, he's not perfect; but the perfect candidate for me could not get elected county dogcatcher - our sorry electoral system makes sure of that. Chris Dodd earned my respect by standing up for the rule of law - in the middle of his Presidential campaign! - enough to get some of my hard-earned money.

Yes, the mainstream media has done what it set out to do - they got their "Thrilla In Manila" on Pay-Per-View. By insisting that Edwards was a loser with no chance, and leaving him out of the discussion except to mention that he was not part of the 'historic' Steel-Cage Death Match, they made it happen. Bravo, fellas.

But the party's over for me. Now it's just a matter of doing what it takes to get a Democrat into the White House - more to keep the Repubs from adding any more right-wing fanatics to the Supreme Court than anything else. Emotion about politics is a luxury. When you can be enthusiastic about a candidate, it feels good and energizes you to work for them. Nothing wrong with being jazzed about your guy or gal, if I may be so bold. But it's not a necessity. And if it weren't for the justices and other appointments that are made by a President, I might not even care. Let the Repubs lie in the bed they made. Let them take on the disaster that the Boy King has saddled us with.

However, I can't go there. I have to work for a Democratic candidate. I can't sit back and leave my daughter with a Supreme Court that will take away her privacy and control of her own body. I can't sit back and leave my sons with the possibility of being drafted when we run out of volunteer cannon fodder (or my daughter, for that matter.) I have to stand up for Democratic values and hope that our nominee will stand up for them, too. All I can do is pressure them within the party structure to move towards our real American values - liberal values.

Hillary? Barack? Who knows? Who cares? It's back to business as usual.

The Bush Residency - A Perfect Storm

(cross-posted at the Smirking Chimp and Daily Kos)

If you, like me, have been wondering how this incredibly grotesque, outrageously pig-ignorant President was forced upon us, and why it's so difficult to stop him, I've given some thought to the matter.

Remember when he was running in '99? He was so uninformed and bumptious it was laughable. Especially since we had been used to having an intelligent President with an active brain for the eight years before. Lined up against the other candidates, he looked like a pimply-faced frat boy at a VFW lodge.

But, with hindsight being 20/20, it now seems inevitable. The stars were in alignment, and a peculiar set of circumstances were in place to insure an unstoppable Republican juggernaut.

First of all, no candidate in recent history has been the son of a President - and Bush Senior was not just a President, but the son of a Senator (Prescott Bush) as well as the scion of an international financial powerhouse - generations of power and influence whose tentacles reached into every nook and cranny of American finance and government. You'd have to go back to John F. Kennedy to find a similar lineage. LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton - all self-made men who did not have family ties to power. What power they had they forged themselves (with the possible exception of Reagan, but his advocates were financial and corporate, not familial, and it was his own celebrity which made him a desirable candidate.) They could be taken down without reprisal. And the Kennedys, the other political dynasty, unlike the Bushes, have not fared well. Their lineage was also of more recent date, and their Catholicism somewhat suspect. The Bushes not only had financial, social and government capital, but they married into more, joining forces with the Walkers, who controlled the Harriman investment firm. Both Bush 43 and his father were named for George Senior's maternal grandfather George Herbert Walker. Dubya's great-grandfather Samuel Prescott Bush, the patriarch of the Bush dynasty, was a wealthy industrialist who was appointed to the War Industries Board in 1918 by banker Bernard Baruch, and from then on, the Bushes were inextricably connected to the forces that pulled the strings and dictated the policy in the United States.

George Senior was not only vice-president and President, but also briefly the head of the CIA. He was chairman of the Republican National Committee during Nixon's presidency, and the men he worked with from that time would go on to infest his hapless son's Administration - Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, John Negroponte, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, to name a few. And in what can only be viewed as the most bizarre of coincidences, most of them happened to be signatories to the document known as the Project for a New American Century - the neoconservative blueprint for permanent military dominance abroad, and permanent conservative dominance at home. Other signatories included Dan Quayle, George Sr.'s vice-president and Jeb Bush, Dubya's brother.

The other factor besides, or I should better say intertwined with, the government influence was oil money influence. The Bush family, as everyone now knows, has had a thirty-year relationship with the House of Saud - so close that they considered each other practically family. And with oil, of course, comes the servicing of oil, and the defense of oil - and vice-president Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton, one of the largest and most powerful oil servicing companies in the world. Although he resigned shortly before selecting himself as George W.'s vice-president, he still receives deferred compensation and stock options. Speaking of Halliburton stock, there's an interesting relationship between the price of Halliburton stock, the number of American soldiers killed, and Halliburton's Iraq revenue. George Sr. struck out West, far from his preppy Connecticut roots, to make his fortune in oil, and after his presidency joined the powerful venture capital Carlyle Group, made up of the world's most powerful people. His son became the fortunate recipient of millions of dollars in oil money toward his Presidential campaign, as well as the influence that only the son of another President can guarantee.

Scores of books have been written about the Bush family and their connections, so I don't really need to elaborate much more, but my point is this:

Unlike most presidential races, George W. Bush's 'Presidency', I believe, could not have been stopped. It didn't matter whether it was George W. Bush, Jeb Bush, or Neil Bush - or Barney Bush, for that matter. In fact, the smart money was on Jeb (his parents certainly thought so, and were shocked when the idiot wastrel took the prize) and if it were not for Karl Rove's man-crush on Dubya, I believe it would have been. But I do not doubt that it would have been a Bush.

We are not up against just one person, but the entire military/industrial/corporate complex that spins the wheels of the world - the 'shot-callers', as they're known in the gang world. Bushes do not pay for their mistakes - others do, always. When a Bush fails, he fails upwards. And no one has failed better or higher than George Walker Bush.

The reason that Dubya is able to get away with thumbing his nose and giving the middle finger to Congress, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and to the American people - and the world, for that matter - is that when you cross Dubya, you're not just crossing one person. You're crossing the entire military/industrial/corporate complex - he's just the smirking, simian face of it. And you'd better believe he relishes every second of it. When Bill Clinton was president, he could be crossed with impunity, because he did not have what the Chimperor has - the family, money and power going back almost a hundred years. So, while I am not giving the Dems a pass for not standing up to him, I can understand what makes it so very difficult. By defying the Bush machine, you may very well be writing your own financial and career epitaph for decades to come, and a lot of people are simply not ready to do that.

I believe that it is going to take a grass-roots progressive populist groundswell, because there may not be enough political will to make it happen. John Edwards' media black-out is one indication of how afraid, how very afraid, those at the mercy of these corporations are of what they know to be true - that these powers-that-be are willing to take down anyone that threatens their dominance, and can do so with impunity.

It's the elephant in the middle of the room, and atop it sits a grinning little monkey.

Last Minute Gig Pimping!

Sorry for the late notice, but tomorrow night (Tuesday, Jan. 22) I will have the pleasure of playing with some of my favorite people at the Lighthouse in Hermosa Beach. I'll be playing keyboards and singing with the fabulous blues guitarist/singer Dave Widow, along with the baddest rhythm section I've ever had the privilege to work with - the legendary James Gadson on drums and the world-famous Gerald Johnson on bass. If you don't know who these guys are, just Google. If you're a blues fan or just a music fan, treat yourself to an evening at the Lighthouse - I would love to see you there, and you can hear some living legends (whose records you've listened to a million times) doing their thing up close and personal.

We start at 9:30 and end at 1:30. Hope to see you!

30 Pier Ave
Hermosa Beach, CA 90254
(310) 372-6911

You Heard It Here First, Folks!

Great minds think alike... and here too - 2 days later, that is!
(except, I originally had it incorrectly as the Thrilla From Manila - still...)

Run For Your Lives, Conservatives – the Populists Are Coming To Get You!

Conservatism is anti-American.

That’s right. I said it.

But don’t take my word for it; ask conservatives themselves.

They’ll tell you straight out.

That towering colossus of intellectual rigor, Jonah Goldberg, puts it out there, and openly says what most conservatives believe in their hearts but dare not say in the public sphere (emphasis mine):

David Frum has an interesting column on the limits of populism and the upside of elitism. These are two of my favorite themes. And since Huckabee seems to be a champion of the former and a foe of the latter, I thought (in the spirit of bloggy self-promotion) I’d call attention to one of my broadsides against populism and one of my defenses of elitism.

Regardless, I agree with David that populism is a useful and healthy passion when aimed at the liberal elite. But conservatives can get drunk on it when they proclaim that elites are bad simply because they are elites. Conservatives respect authority — the authority of ideas, traditions, morals, religion, customs, reason, law, excellence and so on. One cannot believe in this kind of authority while having a blanket hostility to elitism in any form.

The privileged son of Lucianne “Linda Tripp” Goldberg, a lifelong suckler at the conservative ‘wingnut welfare’ teat, is only echoing the tenets of the neoconservative movement, as articulated in the ideas of political philosopher Leo Strauss of the Chicago School of Economics. The basic idea is that the ‘masses’ must be controlled by the imposition of religion, authority and morality, for the sake of social stability, but that the ‘elites’ – meaning the conservative intellectuals – need not be bound by those pedestrian ideas, which are only needed to keep the rabble controllable. The fact (to them) that there really is no overriding morality would be too much for the feeble-minded public to handle without descending into anarchy and chaos, but intellectual giants such as themelves are rugged enough to withstand the mental turbulence. This means, of course, that they believe in a two-tiered morality for society – one for the ‘masses’ and one for the ‘elites’ – which, conveniently enough, always seem to include themselves! There’s nothing they like better than to sit around on their not-inconsiderable behinds and tell other people to go out and fight and die in wars that they would not for a second get personally involved in. Because, you see, it’s good for the 'little people'. Builds character and backbone. And war also presents many fine punditry and scholarly opportunities for themselves, as well as marvelous opportunities to brush aside those inconvenient and pesky notions of ‘democracy’ and ‘civil rights’ that the little people insist on yammering about. Not to mention that the warmongering (which they have no need to physically participate in, thank you!) is their method of choice to establish the United States as the lone superpower in the world, with the rest of the world our cowering subjects.


The core dimensions of conservative ideology, which according to a study analyzing 50 years’ worth of research on the conservative personality called "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," are acceptance of inequality and resistance to change. Neoconservatism departs from the second definition in its radical approach to imposing its vision on the rest of the country, but the ‘acceptance of inequality’ is the linchpin that binds all lines of conservatism together and differentiates them from liberalism.

‘Acceptance of inequality’ – if I had to pick only one description of the difference between the liberal and conservative outlook, this is the one I’d choose. Every conservative thought, conservative feeling, conservative policy, can be boiled down to its essence here. “There have to be poor people so there can be rich people, and that’s only natural – just as long as it’s not me!” The conservative outlook is hierarchical in nature. They really don’t believe ‘all are created equal.’ They believe that ‘some are more equal than others.’ There have to be losers in order for there to be winners. And to try to work towards everyone being winners is just plain wrong – even immoral.

Immoral – just like those pinko Founding Fathers.

Somehow, conservatives seem to have missed the message about America. America’s vision is a liberal vision, a progressive vision. The people who refused to accept the yoke of tyranny and the idea that God had placed some people above others were the people who fought for a radical new form of government – democracy of the people, by the people and for the people. The idea that all people are created equal was shocking and unheard-of. But the idea of God-given authority of a chosen few over the powerless many – this was the status quo. Acceptance of inequality and resistance to change. Back then, the Revolutionaries were progressive, and the Royalists were conservative. And it continues to this day.

Conservatives vehemently oppose anything so democratic, so American, as ‘populism’. The idea that the ‘rank and file’ should decide how they are governed is anathema to these people.That’s why they are becoming unglued at the very whiff of populism in their own ranks, as can be seen in the way that the Chattering Teeth in the conservative punditry are descending upon evangelical science-hater Mike Huckabee like a school of underfed pirhanas for even whispering about economic inequality and the problems of the working man, even when the rest of his message is everything the Religious Right could ask for. Bad enough that John Edwards is calling out the greedmeisters. That’s to be expected – he’s a left-wing lunatic. But one of their own? Heresy!

Well, guess what, conservatives? The populists are coming to get you!

You can run, but you can’t hide. We do not ‘accept inequality.’ And we are eager for change. America’s vision will not be denied forever. The economic and social Royalists and their sovereign, King George, have had their way long enough. If the definition of freedom is ‘nothing left to lose’, then we’re almost there. You’ve taken just about all there is to take.

And that’s a dangerous place to be in.

Run, conservatives, run for your lives!

The populists are coming!

(also on Smirking Chimp - thanks, Jeff! BTW, it's fundraising time over at the Chimp, so if you're inclined, it would be great if you could kick in a little to support this fine site.)

What Would I Do Without Someone Telling Me How To Vote?

Whew!

Thank goodness that someone so much smarter than I am is here to set me straight. Lawrence O'Donnell has just informed me that the candidate who comes the closest to representing my views is a loser, and I shoud not vote for him.

Wowzers.

By voting for my candidate, John Edwards, I am subverting the democratic process and depriving Hillary or Obama of a vote that is rightfully theirs. After all, it's really a two-horse race. Everybody says so. It's two 'historic' candidates. And they 'deserve a one-on-one contest.'

What is this? ESP-fucking-N?

Time for the white guy to get out of the way? Make way for the Thrilla In Manila?

Just one more reason for me to hate the media.

Well, Larry, you've just convinced me - to send some more money (that I don't have) to John Edwards.

John Edwards - The Invisible Man

Night before last, I went to a little bar in Santa Monica to watch the Iowa caucuses on MSNBC with Drinking Liberally. I saw some old friends (Skippy, Shockwave), met some new friends (dday, occam's hatchet) and checked out the show on the big-screen TVs. Most of the time it was difficult to hear what was going on, but we could see the numbers going up - Obama at 38%, Edwards at 30%, Clinton at 29%. (For a rundown on the numbers and the money spent in Iowa, check BruinKid's DailyKos post here.)

The big news, of course, was that Obama beat Hillary.

According to the MSM, there are only two horses in this race.

Listening to all three of the candidates' speeches afterwards, I was struck by the non-specifics of Obama. For all his talk about 'change' and 'hope' and making things better, I did not hear anything other than vague feel-goodies. What I have not seen, other than his initial opposition to going to war with Iraq (which I commend) has been leadership in the sphere where he is currently working - the Senate. When Chris Dodd stood up against amnesty for the telecoms in the FISA bill, we got Obama (and Hillary's) hearty good wishes and nothing more. In many other places where he could have stood up for something, he votes 'present' without committing himself. Dodd's stance alone made me send him money and support. I want a candidate who's going to fight for something other than caucus votes. I was disappointed when Dodd dropped out, becuase he has shown me that he has principles that he is willing to stand up for - even at the expense of his Presidential campaign.

Also, I think Obama is dead wrong when he talks about 'bipartisanship' and ending the rancor between the two parties. He does not seem to notice that in taking that position, he is stabbing the Dems in the back, and is falling into the trap that the Repubs have laid - that of equating the relentless attacks on Dems with the idea that both parties are equally culpable. The Republicans have been doing this since Bill Clinton got into office - see Digby. He is either unaware of it - which is not a quality I want in the next President - doesn't care about it, or is part of it, which is not what I want in the next President either.

For Hillary to have the machine she has, and the money and effort she's put into Iowa, and still trail Edwards, does not augur well for the viability of her message. She, also, has not stood up for things I think are important when they come before Congress - unless she thought she could get away with it without ruffling any corporate feathers. She's disappointed me with too many votes for me to get behind her for President. I don't have the Hillary-hate that many people have, but I think her views are incompatible with mine on too many issues. I see the desecration of the Constitution and the death-grip of corporatism (both of which are culpable for the Iraq debacle) as the biggest issues we have facing us, and she does not strike me as a candidate that will fight for either of those, as well as being far too hawkish for my taste. We don't need a Maggie Thatcher as our first woman President.

So, yes, I support John Edwards. No, he's not perfect; the 'perfect candidate' could never hope to be elected to so much as neighborhood dog-catcher in our hopelessly unworkable election system. But I think that John Edwards 'gets it'. I thought so in 2004 also, and supported him then.

And I think the proof that his message is hitting home is the virtual media blackout around him.

Even though he was vastly outspent in Iowa by his Democratic rivals -

Obama (more than $9.5 million)
Clinton (more than $7.5 million)
Romney ($7 million-plus)
Edwards ($4 million)
Huckabee ($1.4 million).

- he was the second-place winner, beating someone who outspent him almost 2-1. But as far as the media were concerned, he might as well have stayed home. He is not a part of the History-In-The-Making® narrative of the first African-American President Candidate vs the First Woman President Candidate Death-Cage Smackdown. He messes up their nice little World Premiere Television Event.

BruinKid writes:

Of all the multi-candidate headlines on Google News, Edwards appears in just 8%, compared to 97% for Obama and 95% for Clinton.

In other words, out of 2,901 multi-candidate headlines, Edwards appeared in only 228. Obama appeared in 2,813. Hillary, 2,761.

But it's his message that makes the establishment shake in their Ferragamos and Bruno Maglis. He openly talks about takng on the corporations. What's more, he's done it successfully as a (...dum dum dum...straight from the bowels of hell...) trial lawyer. He understands that there are, indeed, Two Americas. And that's the last thing that the plutocrats want us to know. The more they hammer on about 'personal responsibility', the less they have to worry about corporate responsibility. But it seems that, somewhere, somehow, a few Americans are starting to 'get it' also - Republicans as well as Democrats. As David Sirota points out, populism is on the rise. The media is attempting to spin Huckabee's win in Iowa as merely an evangelical phenomenon. But Huckabee is also the only Republican who talks about poverty, job outsourcing, CEO overindulgence, and other economic concerns. And having people start worrying about those issues instead of the War on Terra, Islamo-Fascism™ and 9/11-24/7 is to be avoided at any and all costs.

The mainstream media, with its incestuous relationships with those in power, are desperately trying to pretend there's no such thing as John Edwards. The intrepid Elizabeth Edwards, however, ain't havin' it, and calls out the Tweetmeister, Chris Matthews on Hardball. (h/t Crooks and Liars) When he inevitably goes after Edwards for taking money from the dreaded trial lawyers (the bane of the corporatists' existence, and the only line of defense for an individual who has been wronged by an entity much bigger and richer than he or she could ever hope to be), calling them an 'interest group', she neatly disposes of his talking points, one by one. He weasels, she hones in. But Tweety's telling phrase is this:

"I mean, he’s not the first woman president, first African American president—this is exciting history. John Edwards is just another white Protestant from the South."

Gee, Tweety. What a shame a great candidate has to go and ruin your frickin' "Movie of the Week." God forbid that a candidate with the interests of the American people at heart, not just the 'haves and the have-mores', should gum up the works when you have your Sweeps Week mini-series so neatly planned out. Perhaps it would be more interesting if, say, Edwards were to come out in a dress and pearls? The First Cross-Dressing President? (Never mind - Julie-ani's already covered that.) Or, maybe if Criss Angel were to have him materialize onstage in a puff of smoke, maybe with some devil-horns for good measure?

Won't somebody please think about the ratings?

(Update: for more in-depth analysis of the Incredible Shrinking Edwards, see JedReport.)

The Old Gray Mare, She Ain't What She Used To Be - more thoughts on NYT

(Welcome to the folks at Crooks & Liars! Thanks, Mike!)

DistributorcapNY wrote a great post on the hiring of Billy 'the Kid' Kristol - much better researched than mine (although in my defense, I wrote mine after coming home from my New Year's gig at 3:00 in the morning...)

Here's what I thought:

Have you noticed that all of the 'responses' to the people who write or e-mail the NYT with the complaint, not about Kristol's conservatism, but about the fact that he's Wrong. About. Everything. are answered with 'we want a variety of viewpoints'!

Yes, you must always balance truth with a lie - or it wouldn't be
'balanced', would it?

That non-answer is completely ignoring the question asked, which has nothing to do with what side of the political spectrum one is on, and everything to do with credibility. These buffoons refuse to address that issue, but switch their answer over to something that wasn't asked.

What, couldn't they get Katherine Harris?

The Old Gray Mare, she ain't what she used to be...

Happy New Year from Hooterville and Alicia!

Hi friends and fam,

It seems fitting to start my Hooterville Post Office Newsletter today.

2007 has been a year of ignition and transition; I'm hoping 2008 will be a year of fruition.

Although I started my book 'The Price of Right' at the end of 2006, last year was the year I really became a writer. It was a long, hard slog - especially trying to balance writing along with my first priority - my family - and my music work. My heartfelt thanks go out to my publisher, Drew Nederpelt at Sterling and Ross, because if it were not for his interest in my writing, I would not have written a book. Period. A note to my fellow bloggers out there: you can do it, too! As most of you know, I began blogging in 2004 after the debacle that was the Residential Selection. I did not start blogging because of any great conceit that I was a fabulous writer - I started blogging to save my sanity. I have no writing background; my 'higher education came to an end 3 months into my freshman year of college, when I got a road gig, and never looked back. But I was so 'shaken and stirred' by the outcome of the election that I had to find a vent for my thoughts and feelings, and that's when I became a blogger.

I had started a Wordpress blog earlier that summer, more to indulge my 'inner geek' and find out what this 'blog' thing I'd heard of was about, than to write about anything in particular. In fact, I think my first post was something along the lines of "Umm, this is my blog, and it's eleven o'clock at night, and I can't think of anything to write about." But the morning after Nov. 3rd, I was ready to spew, and started a Blogger blog just to say what I had to say. I didn't necessarily think I would write a second or third post, much less make it a regular part of my life. In fact, after my first couple of introductory posts, I didn't write again until the Bankruptcy Bill of 05 raised its ugly head on the scene. Furious, I threw myself back into blogging, which meant, of course, reading, researching, networking, and I've been reading, writing and researching ever since.

I would also be remiss if I didn't give props to my blogfather* Kyle E. Moore of Comments From Left Field, who was the first person that I actually had a blog conversation with, and who encouraged me to improve my writing. Thought of the day: you never know where a supportive word will take someone, so if you notice someone or something worth encouraging - do it!

Of course to Mike Malloy, whose radio show gives voice to what so many of us are thinking and feeling, whose outrage helps us by knowing that we're not alone in our own outrage, and who has been kind enough to read some of my articles on the air, including the one that caught the attention of my publisher.

And to you all - my family and friends, both blog-wise and in person, who have been along on this ride with me, thank you so much. As I said earlier - if you're a blogger (or even if you're not!), you can do this too. If you've learned to write something every day, that's 90% of the battle. Your voices are needed. Blogging for me was the first step that led to local activism, and then to a book. Blogging doesn't just have to be sitting in front of a computer and ranting to other bloggers - it can be a catalyst for change. It has been for me. As progressives,we may not have the luxury of being babysat by wealthy think-tanks to get our message out there. The Conservative Book Club is not going to buy a gazillion of our books to propel us onto the best-sellers lists. But it is absolutely imperative that everyone with something to say takes the opportunity to say it - while we still have that luxury.

It's difficult to keep up an optimistic viewpoint when we're faced with the daunting opponents of Big Money, Big Media, Big Guns and Big Religion, but as far as I'm concerned, apathy or 'opting out' are luxuries we simply can't afford. We must keep putting one foot in front of the other, regardless of whether we can see a light at the end of the tunnel or not. We have to ask ourselves "What's the right thing to do?" - not the easy thing or the thing that stands the most chance of success. And then we have to do it.

That's my resolution for 2008. I hope that the hard work of so many progressives will come to fruition, and that we will take courage from each other, and give support to each other. This is the only way we can win.

peace, Alicia

*he hates it when I call him that!

Bite Me, New York Times.

(Update: Front-paged on the Chimp again! Thanks to whoever does that!)
(Update 2: FP on Buzzflash! Wow, folks - thanks!)

On the last day of 2007, the New York Times published an editorial, titled "Looking at America," bemoaning what the nation has come to. It starts out like this:

"There are too many moments these days when we cannot recognize our country. Sunday was one of them, as we read the account in The Times of how men in some of the most trusted posts in the nation plotted to cover up the torture of prisoners by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening behavior. It was impossible to see the founding principles of the greatest democracy in the contempt these men and their bosses showed for the Constitution, the rule of law and human decency."

It's a great editorial, and I agree with pretty much every word in it.

So why am I so pissed off?

Because the NYT was no small contributor to the state of affairs in which we find ourselves today. In fact, this little tid-bit:

"We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant."

was information that the Times knew about before the 2004 election - and sat on so as not to hurt George W. Bush's chances for re-election! Like the Supreme Court in 2000, who delivered a ruling that only applied to Bush to guarantee his civil right to be President by not counting votes, a lot of institutions seem dedicated to protecting at all costs one man's divine right to the Presidency. Funny - I thought the first responsibility the press has (and the reason that it is the only profession singled out in the First Amendment for special protection) is to the public interest and the public's right to know the truth - not covering the President's rear end. But the New York Times held back what they knew about warrantless wiretapping, and Dubya was able to weasel into another deadly term.

This supposed 'liberal rag' was a cheerleader for this war that they are now wringing their hands about. Judith Miller delivered article after article filled with 'information' trumpeting 'weapons of mass destruction', which gave credibility to the Bush Administration's insistence that Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat who could only be dealt with by pre-emptive military attack.

Every time the Times had a chance to stand up and tell the truth, they cravenly rolled over for their corporate masters. Now they're blubbering about how awful these last seven years have been.

Boo hoo hoo.

You can bite me, NYT.

The editorial finishes up like this:

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.

Unlike 2004? You mean when you kept vital information from the American voters so as to assure another Bush presidency? How about looking in the mirror as a newspaper, instead of a propaganda mouthpiece?

And, to add insult to injury, at the same time you're sniveling into your hankie about how horrid it's all been, you serve up more of the same, hiring Bill Kristol, neocon war-monger extraordinaire, as your newest 'columnist'. Could you possibly find a more credibility-challenged candidate? Practically every word out of his mouth has been proven wrong, and yet he continues to be treated as an 'authority' of some kind. David Corn writes in the Nation:

On March 5, 2003, Kristol said, "I think we'll be vindicated when we discover the weapons of mass destruction and when we liberate the people of Iraq."

Such vindication never came. Kristol was mistaken about the justification for the war, the costs of the war, the planning for the war, and the consequences of the war. That's a lot for a pundit to miss. In his columns and statements about Iraq, Kristol displayed little judgment or expertise. He was not informing the public; he was whipping it. He turned his wishes into pronouncements and helped move the country to a mismanaged and misguided war that has claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. That's not journalism.

This is someone who should be writing for the 'Paper of Record'?

So pardon me, NYT, if I'm not buying your sob story. Save it for some other chump.

The Gray Lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Peggy Noonan - Reasonable? Doubt.

I try not to comment on things that my betters (Jane Hamsher, Glenn Greenwald) have already cleaned up on, but the discussions on today's Peggy Noonan WSJ opinion column led me to one of the points I talk about in The Price of Right - the demonization of intelligence, which may be one of the most dangerous conservative myths out there; certainly one that has wreaked havoc upon the running of our government. Usually, too, I tend to stay away from people like Miss Peggy because it just riles me up unnecessarily. Why invite the aggravation? Two sentences in and I'm spluttering.

Noonan insists she (and the thousands, millions that she speaks for) wants someone 'reasonable' in the White House in 2008. She (that is, 'we') "would like a candidate who does not appear to be obviously insane." (She says this, ostensibly, with a straight face.) She proceeds to enlighten us in her seventh-grade 'slam book' way as to who she thinks is 'reasonable' and who she does not think is reasonable. She's generous to Biden and Dodd, positively swoony over McCain ("He makes me proud. He makes everyone proud." Yes, Peggers, you speak for all of us, dear.) Romney? He's a keeper, too, in spite of his flip-flopping. When Al Gore was accused of changing a position, she called him a liar - even when he was misquoted. ("His lying looks at this point not like a foible but a compulsion, a tendency that is ungovernable, like a tic. He doesn’t have to do it. He can always make his point without telling stories that aren’t true. Seeing Mr. Gore lie in speeches is like seeing a rich kleptomaniac stealing things he doesn’t need...") But when Mittens does it, it's OK. "I personally am not made anxious by his flip-flopping on big issues because everyone in politics gets to change his mind once. That is, you can be pro-life and then pro-choice but you can't go back to pro-life again, because if you do you'll look like a flake." Everyone in politics, that is, who's not a Democrat. Huckabee doesn't make the cut in spite of being God's Best Friend because he has the temerity to challenge the trickle-down corporatist mentality that Peggy equates with Republican Saintliness. Obama she likes cuz he's cute and smart (in that really-cute-guy-way kind of smart - not all arrogant), but her analysis of him is hard for me to parse - she thinks he's too young because men in their forties are on fire and like drama - but in the same sentence she says he's not on fire enough. You go figure - I can't. Edwards she summarily dismisses because of his hair. (Now, we're talking Reasonable with a capital 'R'!) And do I need to even mention Hillary? I don't believe I do.

Nevertheless, in reading a number of her articles, I was struck by a common theme that runs through her wet, sloppy junior-high kisses to Dubya and Saint Ronnie - and that is that the dumber they are, the harder she falls! If you have a brain in your head, P-Noonie has no use for you. Here's how she describes Bush's strengths (emphasis mine):

Mr. Bush is the triumph of the seemingly average American man. He's normal. He thinks in a sort of common-sense way. He speaks the language of business and sports and politics. You know him. He's not exotic. But if there's a fire on the block, he'll run out and help. He'll help direct the rig to the right house and count the kids coming out and say, "Where's Sally?" He's responsible. He's not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world. And then when the fire comes they say, "I warned Joe about that furnace." And, "Does Joe have children?" And "I saw a fire once. It spreads like syrup. No, it spreads like explosive syrup. No, it's formidable and yet fleeting." When the fire comes they talk. Bush ain't that guy. Republicans love the guy who ain't that guy. Americans love the guy who ain't that guy.

There you have it. There's the crux of the matter. The more marbles Reagan lost (not that he was chock-full to begin with), the better President she thought he was. And as for Dubya - well, she can't praise his stupidity enough. She's written paeans, odes, hymns, to the glory that is Bush's stubborn refusal to know anything about anything. He 'speaks the language of business and sports and politics'? Sure he does - if by 'speaks the language' you mean 'miserably fails at until rescued by his daddy's powerful connections'. And she uses a completely fallacious analogy to try to equate 'intellectual' with 'inaction'. Really, when I read that, I had to go back to make sure I read that correctly - that someone paid her to write that. Yes, Peggo, that's just what us pointy-headed liberal eggheads do - stand around discussing the distinguishing characteristics of fire while little Sally's burning to death. Good thing you've pointed that out, or maybe someone might actually get the notion that some pinko chemistry egghead invented a fire extinguisher that could save little Sally's life. But I digress. The point is that she conflates stupidity with goodness, and intelligence with badness.

In an article she wrote about the 2000 race titled "Dumb-Good vs. Evil-Smart", she talked about a Dem friend of hers:

Both in New York and in the presidential race, she announced, we have been given a choice between a candidate who’s nice and not smart, and a candidate who’s bright but not nice.

I said yes, you get the impression it’s a battle between Dumb-Good and Evil-Smart. That’s exactly it, she said.

Honestly, she didn't even need to bother to write the article - the title pretty much sums it up. According to Peggy and to many, many other conservatives, these are your choices. You want bright, you get evil. You want good, you take dumb. As in so much of the Manichean thinking of the conservative mindset, it's either one or the other. No smart, good people; no stupid, bad people. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world. The deep distrust and disgust that many conservatives feel for intellect and intellectuals is, sadly, reflected in the screamingly, staggeringly inept and unqualified people who have been put into positions of influence in this government. And, speaking of running out and helping when there's a fire on the block, what happened there on September 11? When informed of what was arguably the biggest fire on the biggest block in America, did President Duncecap immediately rush into action? We both know the answer to that one. His stupidity did not translate into instant response, that's for sure. And what about Katrina? His stupidity did not budge his butt off his vacation one second earlier than he had planned.

Noonan wants to come off all seriousness ("We are grown-ups" - well, Peggy, you're a grown-up; I'm an adult. People use the word 'grown-up' when speaking to children) but 'reasonable' is not the operative word in your particular paradigm. Faith is better than reason; human beings 'reason' but God is The Truth. In fact, the more preposterous the claim, the more 'faith' you have for being able to swallow it. To use reason to make decisions is hubristic; it's a slap in the face to the Almighty. Just ask Galileo. Humans are fallible; God is not. And the more money you have, the more God approves of you. So, come off of this 'reasonable' stuff. We know you don't like the smarty-pants know-it-alls.

Embrace the stupid, Peggy! You know you want to.

Update - I cross-posted this at The Smirking Chimp (one of my daily must-reads) and it got front-paged! Check it out!

Benazir Bhutto Assassinated

Benazir Bhutto was assassinated this morning by a shooter who then blew himself up, killing at least fifteen others in the process.

Juan Cole has analysis, via Digby.

Dubya Bush Superstar - over at Pottersville

I had a lovely Christmas - lovely, that is with the exception of a vile and foul stomach flu, which has had me bedridden for two days, and thus unable to be timely about telling you all about Dubya Bush Superstar, the epic rock opera by my brotha Jurassic Pork over at Welcome to Pottersville. It has become an annual tradition between Hooterville and Pottersville to produce a Xmastravaganza featuring JP's razor-sharp writing and my Photoshopping - see last year's "It's A Blunderful Life". We are already plotting next year's festivities.

Stop on by Pottersville for a post-Xmas treat!

"The Price of Right" - My Book Is Available For Pre-Order!

FYI - my book "The Price of Right" is now available for pre-order! You can order yours at one of these fine outlets:

Amazon.com
Barnes and Noble (pay no attention to the synopsis - it's a mistake!)
Tower Books

I'm still in shock! Me - write a book? I think it does say pretty much what I want it to say - anything beyond that, I have no idea. The official publication date is the end of February 2008, so look for it sometime after that. And thanks to my friends who have already pre-ordered (bless you, Maria!)

Let's take back our democracy!

Must...Lighten...Up...For Christmas

I laughed my *ss off at this last year, because it's so unbelievably true to life - if you've ever done an ad session. Watch Santa's face as he goes from merry to murderous...