Night Light

must've been something they read while they were waiting to meet with their local 'death panel'

Huh? Politico describes Al Franken as "newly appointed". But the court determined he was ELECTED. This makes it sound like he's not a legitimate Senator. That's spin, plain and simple.

calling all anthropologists

This document should be self-explanatory. The fact that for some people it's not is fascinating.

Sure, it could be a forgery.  So could the pink slip on your car.  When people choose to believe one document (or set of facts) is a hoax instead of all the others, the question must be asked:  Why is this set of evidence considered false and all others assumed to be true?

That's why the "birther" movement is a fascinating potential subject for anthropological study.  There seem to be a number of underlying forces at work:  racism, fear, rage, the need to connect with like-minded individuals.  Then there's the underlying sense of powerlessness in the face of overwhelming forces, a desire to make sense of a confusing world by creating simple conspiracies to explain complex events.

Did I mention racism?

And it occurs to me that I still haven't seen conclusive evidence that Lou Dobbs was born in this country.

Is Sarah Palin the First Post-Modern Politician?

Let's start with a multiple-choice question: Which answer is correct?

1. Sarah Palin's resignation less than two/thirds of the way through her term as governor is a violation of her compact with the voters, a flaky act that destroys her credibility as a serious politician.
2. Her resignation was a brilliant tactical move that makes her the de facto frontrunner for the GOP nomination.
3. Who gives a @#%$ @#$ about your traditional political conventions?

If you answered #1 or #2 you missed the point. Sarah Palin is not part of your frame of reference. She isn't participating in the worldview you share with your allies and opponents alike. If Obama is the Superego of American politics, the externalization of our idealized sense of who we are, Palin is its Id. She's the repository and expression of a deep-seated psychic urge to blow up the political world as we've come to understand it. She's the dark secret behind Door #3, the conjured vision of a deep-seated lurking anger that is greater than her own.

The "goshes" and "gollies" of the outgoing Alaska governor are a thin veneer for deep-seated rage, a spiderweb of resentment that captures every perceived insult and slight. That's a powerful motivator for a political career. It could resonate with a lot of voters, too, if their possibilities seem to shrink and the future remains shrouded in fear.

"We're not retreating," Sarah Palin quoted Gen. MacArthur as saying, "we're advancing in another direction." Anyone who doesn't recognize the essential truth behind that statement runs the risk of not only misunderstanding Palin, but of failing to foresee the threat she could represent. And those who judge her performance on traditional lines will overlook her genuine talent.

Palin may be as erratic as many people say. I wasn't the only observer who noted a hopped up, free-associating, almost amphetamine-like quality to the cadence of her resignation speech. But another way to view her speech is as the latest example of a style that could, in the end, prove revolutionary. Call it "post-modern" politics.

Look up postmodernism (or "PoMo," as some call it) and you'll get a broad range of definitions. It's almost like the Supreme Court definition of obscenity: You can't define it, but you know it when you see it. It was born of the sense that there are no underlying principles or conventions we can trust. It involves identifying, naming, and ultimately shattering the rules under which we've all been operating. It's related to the theater concept of "breaking the proscenium" or "knocking down the fourth wall," acknowledging that some of us are actors and some are spectators in what is, after all, only a performance.

Coherence? That's so yesterday.

It was very postmodern of Palin to characterize her resignation - an outrageous act by any reasonable standard - as a principled refusal to "go with the flow." Her vision of politics is so profoundly radical that even performing the duties of office becomes unimportant. The job you sought is no longer the point. It's all about the performance. It's politics as Conceptual Art.

Of all the Postmodernist movements, Palin most closely resembles the punk-rockers of the 1970's, especially the ones who insisted that having musical skill reflected an outmoded attachment to obsolete forms. Emotion was enough, and the dominant emotion was fury. A quick glance through Media Matters will illustrate the many forms of fury that are now bubbling on the Right.

Some say that there are more Palin scandals coming, although there's no evidence for that. In any case, scandals don't matter that much to a Postmodernist Politician. "Oh, sure," the PoMo Pol can say, "they care about those things, because that's how they've always operated. It's what they do." When they attack her she can kick through the Fourth Wall and claim it's all part of the show.

Politicians have always done that, to a certain extent. They've always claimed that they're not part of the system, and handled bad publicity by implicating their critics and the press. But Palin takes it to a new level, to the level of art form. It could be argued that the bipartisan outrage now being expressed toward her in Washington is directly proportional to the revolutionary nature of her words.

Sure, she's a long shot for President, but there are scenarios where she could win. Picture this: It's 2011 and unemployment is still high. The Democrats have been too cautious with their economic remedies, so lenders have pocketed bailout money without loosening credit for the average consumer. People are confused and frightened. Along comes Sarah with her Postmodernist neo-punk message: "The system is broken! Democrats, Republicans, all those guys in Washington have let you down. Let's really change things!" One or two moderate gestures to placate swing voters, and she could be the 45th President.

Odds are she'll fade away the way most pundits are predicting. But there's a chance - call it one in five - that she could seize the moment. She seems ridiculous to most Washington insiders right now, but truly transformative figures often seem ridiculous ... until they change the world. Democrats who dismiss Palin do so at their own peril, particularly considering the risks involved.

It probably won't work - but it could. Think about it: She'd be the most revolutionary force to hit her profession since Huey Long. Or Johnny Rotten. And the country would never, ever be the same.

You betcha.

The "Beautiful Kidnapper" and Other Simple Responses to Torture Arguments

The ticking time bomb. We've been hearing about it for years, but it's never actually happened. Yet its constantly being brought up - to justify torture in thousands of situations where there is no ticking time bomb. What kind of sense does that make?

Here's an analogy: It's possible to imagine a scenario where the only way to free kidnapped children is by having sex with the beautiful woman who is holding them hostage. (Call it the 'beautiful kidnapper' scenario.) What we're seeing now is the moral equivalent of a roomful of cheating husbands, all citing the 'beautiful kidnapper' scenario - to justify their affairs with women they picked up in a bar.

The next time somebody mentions the 'ticking time bomb' scenario, hit 'em with 'the beautiful kidnapper' - then ask them if they believe in marriage and the family. Here are some other handy responses in case you, like so many other Americans, find yourself in a debate about torture policy:

Torture advocates say they're being more 'realistic' than torture opponents. Oh, really? Then why do the experts - the generals, the FBI, law enforcement officials - all say that torture is a bad idea? Short answer: The amateurs like torture. The professionals are against it.

Oh -- and a follow-up response: Why do you suppose all these amateurs are so excited about the torture scenario? Some psychological self-evaluation may be in order.

People who object to torture want to be 'nice to terrorists.' The people who make this argument are usually the same people who don't want you to even mention right-wing terrorism, much less use 'enhanced interrogation techniques' on far-right suspects. Remember, many of the people caught up in our Middle Eastern dragnets weren't terrorists. Some were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or were turned in out of personal vendettas or for bounty money. How would these American torture advocates respond if we started picking up right-wing militia types in the same sort of dragnets and using torture techniques on them?

What if there's a 'ticking time bomb' and (insert large number here) of children will die unless we find it? If there ever is a ticking time bomb scenario, torture is even more likely to yield bad information. The experts say people give false leads and bad information when they're tortured. In a 'ticking time bomb' situation, they'd only need to stall for 60 minutes, or six hours, or whatever's been set on the timer. We're more likely to rescue those children by using the techniques our military and intelligence experts tell us really work.

It's not really "torture." It's just 'getting wet,' or 'playing mind games,' or whatever else you'd like to say it is. Here's a simple thought experiment: Picture it happening to Americans. Does it seem like torture now? Right. That's one of the reasons the generals oppose it.

Obama's national security guy says torture works sometimes. Actually, what Dennis Blair said was far more parsed and wordsmithed than that. He said: "High value information came from interrogations in which [torture] w[as] used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa'ida organization ..." He's dancing around the subject, perhaps to appease the intelligence community. But he's not exactly saying that torture worked. And he was contradicted by an FBI interrogator who explained why torture doesn't work.

We got good intelligence at least once from torture. This is a variation on the Blair argument. Presumably it's true, too, although we don't know for sure. But the issue is probability. We're far more likely to get good intelligence from other techniques. I may drive drunk and get home safely, but that's not a defense for driving drunk. With torture we're more likely to get bad information than good -- and we're destroying our reputation, subjecting our citizens to greater risk, and lowering ourselves morally.

Oh, and we're breaking the law -- if anybody cares.

It's a "hard left" vendetta. First of all, there is no "hard left" in this country. I haven't seen any Trotskyites in the halls of Congress lately, much less Stalinists. Jon Meacham - and anyone else who uses that phrase - has tipped their hand with his choice of words. They're smearing people with whom they disagree, probably because they recognize the fundamental weakness of their argument.

Jon Meacham et al: Since when is obedience to the law "extreme"? And are those Army and Marine generals cited above members of the "hard left"?

An investigation would be Democratic partisanship. It's odd. A few months ago a bipartisan panel agreed that the Bush Administration's torture policies "redefined the law to create the appearance of (torture's) legality" and "damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority." Not a single Republican Senator objected. Now that investigations could begin - investigations that might embarrass the GOP - Republicans and their media allies are blocking it.

That sounds like Republican partisanship, doesn't it?

Jay Bybee and the other attorneys shouldn't be punished for holding different opinions than their peers. It's not about a difference of opinion. Bybee and the others had constitutional and professional responsibilities. If they deliberately wrote opinions they knew to be false just to create a legal-looking cover for illegal activities, they could be subject to disbarment and possible criminal proceedings. That's why we need an investigation.

I still say that torture works. Did we mention that the experts say that it doesn't?

Well, it works on '24.' 24 is a show with a partisan right-wing ideology. Imagine how people would react if a West Point general had gone to "The West Wing" or "The Daily Show," told them their program was endangering our troops, and asked them to stop - and had been blown off. Well, that's what 24 did to Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan after he asked them to tone down the torture porn. Too bad the show's producers aren't patriotic Americans who want to support our troops ...

___________

I saw an old friend last week who's a World Trade Center survivor. He told me that he doesn't object to 'a little rough treatment' of the people who carried out that attack. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about people who had nothing to do with it. And this 'rough treatment' is helping Al Qaeda recruit thousands of new people willing to carry out just those kinds of attacks.

And we're not even getting good information out of it. The fact is, nobody's defending these torture policies except the amateurs. And the partisans. And those who don't want lawbreakers brought to justice.

Who's "tough on crime" now?

Lone Wolves and Missing Bodies: Denying the Reality of Rightwing Terrorism

Mike Allen of The Politico has impeccable credentials as a mainstream journalist. So what are we to make of the statement he made the other day on Hugh Hewitt's show, after a DHS report said there was a risk of increased rightwing terrorism?

"... I think some bureaucrat who wrote this report, like, misstated in a way that doesn't comport with your or my observations about the real America. I think it was somebody who, written inside the Beltway, who maybe has fantasies about what happens outside in the real America."

Let's leave aside the implicit political pandering in the Palinesque "real America" construction, or the supplicating Hewitt flattery in that "... your or my observations" phrase (because "we" know what's really what, right?)

Let's just stick with the facts, a journalist's stock in trade: Isn't Oklahoma City in that "real America" of Mike Allen's? And doesn't the death of 168 people, some of them children in a day care center, rise above the status of a "fantasy"?

But wait, someone is saying. One terror incident in Oklahoma, however horrifying, does not mean there is an ongoing threat of "rightwing terrorism." That's true. So let's recall the 1984 machine-gun assassination in Dallas of talk show host Alan Berg by a rightwing paramilitary group called The Order. And the conviction of white supremacist Demetrius"Van" Crocker in 2004 for trying to purchase sarin gas and C-4 explosives from undercover agents. Then there's Chad Conrad Castanaga, who was arrested by the Joint Terrorism Task Force and charged with mailing fake anthrax to Nancy Pelosi and other public figures. (Mr. Castanaga was a frequent and enthusiastic commenter on right-wing blogs.)

And let's not forget Jim Adkisson, who killed a roomful of Unitarians he perceived as "liberal" while they were staging a children's musical version of "Annie." Adkisson had books by Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Savage on his bookshelf at home.

More recently, an extreme rightwinger named Richard Poplawski was arrested after allegedly calling police officers to his apartment so that he could shoot three of them. He was reportedly a fan of far-right radio host Alex Jones, and espoused widely-disseminated conservative disinformation about Obama's plans to "confiscate guns."

Thought Experiment: What would you do if you wrote angry books about a group of people and then one of your readers shot a few of them down? Wouldn't you express some remorse, and perhaps reconsider your rhetoric? Not these guys. And now that rightwing extremism has been identified as an ongoing terror concern, is the supposedly "tough on terror" Right acknowledging the violent acts of a few and applauding our law enforcement officers for protecting us? Not at all.

Strange ... very strange.

Not that we're indulging in guilt by association. (Let's leave that to David Horowitz and his ilk.) And we can sympathize with conservative concern about the potentially chilling effect reports like this could have on free speech. It's a legitimate issue, which is why many of us objected when the DHS discussed left-wing groups in a previous report - one that was applauded by many of the same conservatives who are now expressing outrage. (Hypocritical speech deserves protection, too.)

But why aren't we hearing from responsible voices on the Right - people who understand the genuine security concerns and who, while defending their colleagues' freedom of speech, deplore incitements to hatred or violence? And why has the long history of rightwing terrorism disappeared down a journalistic memory hole?

Thought Experiment #2: If Michael Moore had written a book calling conservatives "evil" (which unlike Hannity he has never done), if Al Franken had publicly called for Al Qaeda to blow up landmarks in a conservative city (as Bill O'Reilly has done with San Francisco), if Keith Olbermann had suggested that conservative be beaten with baseball bats ... if after all of that a left-leaning psychopath had then shot up a church full of people he considered "conservative," with their books on his shelf, what do you think the public reaction would have been?

What do you think the conservative reaction would have been? Do you think they would have taken the position that the act was not "terrorism"?

And if somebody then shot some cops while repeating conspiracy theories they'd heard on, oh, let's say MSNBC, there would be calls to shut the network down. Not so with Fox News and Poplawski, however. All we hearing instead is fury at the very idea that rightwing violence might ... just might ... be a real threat.

DHS isn't talking about Glenn Beck here, by the way. It is talking about truly dangerous people, and not merely to themselves. Consider this account of right-wing radio host Hal Turner from the Southern Povery Law Center's Intelligence Project:

""I advocate using extreme violence against illegal aliens. Clean your guns. Have plenty of ammunition. Find out where the largest gathering of illegal aliens will be near you... scope out several places to position yourself and then do what has to be done."

Turner [writes the Law Center] linked the post to a website titled "Ka-Fucking-Boom!" that provides detailed instructions on constructing pipe bombs, ammonium nitrate "fertilizer bombs," car bombs, chlorine gas bombs, and dozens of other homemade explosive devices.

... Turner promoted a survey on his website that asked, "What method of 'communication' would be best understood by members of the United States House of Representatives and The United States Senate so they know not to give ILLEGAL ALIENS Amnesty?"

Get it? He's advocating assassination of Congressmen and Senators. Whether or not you believe such speech should be censored, it certainly demonstrates there's a reason for DHS to be concerned about violence from the right, don't you think?

Conservatives who object to the report also complain that it doesn't mention specific rightwing groups as threats. But there's a reason for that, as this sentence from the report indicates:

"DHS/I&A assert that white supremacist lone wolves and small terrorist cells embracing extremist rightwing ideology are the most dangerous terrorism threat in the United States."

The lack of group names isn't an oversight, nor does it disprove the report's validity. The report is saying that "free agents" and unaffiliated groups are the danger. Seems reasonable, especially given the horrendous attacks already carried out by far-right "lone wolves" and "terrorist cells" in North America.

And "lone wolf" isn't a phrase the government made up. White Aryan Resistance (W.A.R.) leader Tom Metzger wrote that "The most feasome pack of wolves are (sic) a collection of cells."And Christian Identity leader Louis Beam added, "Leaderless resistance presents no single opportunity for the Federals to destroy the Resistance." There is, in fact, a violent rightwing movement that has outlined a terrorist strategy precisely as it is described in the DHS report.

So tell me again: What is everybody so angry about?

To repeat, I do have some concerns about potential impact some government activities could have on civil liberties for the right, just as I did when they were directed exclusively toward the left. Everyone has a right even to hateful speech, and to speech that - like Hannity's and O'Reilly's -may have ghastly consequences. That's the price we pay for living in a free society.

(Interestingly, I'm told that Sean Hannity went on a radio tirade about I piece I wrote stating what should be obvious - that there's a connection between the hateful speech he and his colleagues produced and the killings carried out in Knoxville by their fan Mr. Adkisson. But, despite the fact that I've appeared on his show, his tirade wasn't directed against me - but against Arianna Huffington for publishing me. Two instincts of Sean's were thus displayed: the urge to censor speech, and the bullylike impulse to find a Mommy Figure and complain to her when criticized.)

The rapidly spreading trope that conservatives are being targeted for their beliefs is absurd - unless by "targeted" you mean given massive media exposure, while journalists like Mike Allen come on their broadcasts and forget the long and bloody legacy that gave rise to the Department of Homeland Security's concerns. Notions that the report "clearly appears to censor right-wing opinion," as the Hudson Institute's Herb London states, are nowhere to be found in the actual report itself (which is available publicly). The report never suggests any form of censorship.

These angry conservatives seem to think the report overstates the impact President Obama's election might have on rightwing terrorism, too. Maybe they missed this report:

Police say a man in Brockton, Massachusetts, allegedly targeted minorities after President Obama's inauguration. They say the man raped a woman, killed her sister and another man after several months of researching white supremacist groups on the Internet.

Newt Gingrich doesn't seem interested, however. He 'tweeted' a Twitter message that read ""the person who drafted the outrageous homeland security memo smearing veterans and conservatives should be fired." It's as if that rape victim in Brockton didn't exist. It's as if her sister's corpse didn't exist, either, or that of the murdered man.

In fact, it's as if the bodies of the Oklahoma dead had disappeared too. And the Knoxville Unitarians. And Alan Berg. It's as if the "lone wolves" aren't out there, as if Tom Metzger and Louis Beam and Hal Turner hadn't made their intentions and their plans perfectly clear. It's as if all of them, lone wolves and victims alike, had suddenly turned invisible.

But terrorists want to be seen. When they think their work has become invisible... they strike again.

'Detroit' Country Song Could Mean Rehab For Republicans

A couple of years ago some of us took Merle Haggard's rejection of the Bush Administration and the Iraq war as a sign that disaster was imminent for the GOP. A new country hit doesn't spell the same kind of doom for Obama and the Democrats - yet - but it reveals a vulnerability that they'd be foolish to ignore.

Country singer John Rich helped change the sound of country music as half of the duo "Big and Rich" ("Save a Horse, Ride a Cowboy") and as part of the "Muzik Mafia" production team. He and his partners modernized country's soundwith hip-hop and modern rock textures while staying true to its rural roots. John Rich isn't the icon that Merle is, although he's a huge star in country circles. Nor is he an unpredictable "antipartisan" like the Hag. In fact, Rich is a committed Republican activist. While his "Raising McCain" theme song didn't exactly turn the tide for his candidate last year, he's found his voice now. Democrats should sit up and take notice.

"Shuttin' Detroit Down" is a strong tune with emotional appeal and a blunt message: "While they're livin' it up on Wall Street in that New York City town/here in the real world they're shutting Detroit down." The lyrics evoke images of homeless farmers and retired auto workers whose pensions plans are slashed "while the boss man takes his bonus pay and jets on out of town."

"I see all these big shots whining on my evening news,
About how they're losing billions and it's up to me and you
To come running to the rescue.

Well pardon me if I don't shed a tear.
their selling make believe and we don't buy that here."

Is the song playing on the same "us-vs-them" regional loyalties that Sarah Palin tried to tap in the last election? Absolutely. In the song's world, "DC" and "New York" are places of privilege while Detroit and the rest of the country are "real." But where Gov. Palin sounded strident and unsympathetic, John Rich comes across as warm and empathetic.

Why should the President and Congress take note of a hit country song? Because music can be a glimpse into the national psyche, even in this age of prefabricated pop and country. Because music can reshape the national psyche, by taking powerful emotions and channeling them for or against political parties. And because the Administration has been sounding a series of wrong notes where the bailout and the stimulus plan are concerned.

There are three ways the Administration's economic rescue plan could have been designed and presented, after all: as helping the economy, as aiding major financial institutions, or as helping bankers themselves. While the first would have been ideal, the Administration chose to target institutional bailouts rather than consumer rescue. And their reluctance to fire Wall Street executives, even after giving GM's chief the heave-ho, gives added weight to the perception that DC loves Wall Street fatcats.

It didn't help that agreements with AIG Financial executives were deemed sacrosanct by Geither and Co. even after union workers were forced to amend their contracts. Democrats might be frustrated by the idea that Republicans could benefit from the resulting frustration. After all, many GOP leaders spread anti-union misinformation in order to encourage the "shuttin' down" of Detroit. That led unlikely populist Dick Cheney to warn Republicans against becoming the Herbert Hoover Party.) But it's happened before.

So when John Rich argues that "they're bailing out them bankers," the Administration hasn't made it easy to argue with him. Maybe that's why he was able to recruit Mickey Rourke and notorious country music leftist Kris Kristofferson - bless his soul, that can't be easy - to act in the song's as-yet-unavailable video (there's a "lyrics video" out, which can be seen at the end of this post).

"Shuttin' Detroit Down" winds up sounding like a mash-up of "Okie From Muskogee" and "Roger and Me." Here's a idea for the next bailout song: In our world, the American worker is "too big to fail."

Ladies and gentlemen: In this corner, Mickey Rourke and Kris Kristofferson. In that corner, Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers (with his hundreds of thousands in speaking fees to Wall Street firms). Who do you think is going to win that bout?

Some of us keep waiting for the President and his team to summon their legendary communications skills and do a better job of selling their plan. We're still waiting. Overconfidence would be a grave mistake on their part. Sure, the President's approval numbers are still high - but not dazzlingly so when compared to other Presidents at this point in their terms.

"Shuttin' Detroit Down" gives voice to the growing perception that the Admininstration's plans favor wealthy investors over Mr. and Ms. Main Street America. The song points the way toward what could be called Rehab for Republicans. They've won elections before by posing as the party of the people with "calloused hands" who, per John Rich, "can't afford to die." They could do it again.

Democrats celebrated when President Obama won Indiana last year. "Shuttin' Detroit Down" is the opening shot in the next battle for Indiana, and all the other places just like it. The Democrats needs to show that they can win there again - and that they deserve to win there.

(originally written for The Huffington Post)

High-Tech Luddites and Stupid Number Tricks

Guess what? That volcano in Alaska just exploded again - twice, in fact. The Associated Press reports that "the larger burst (sent) an ash cloud 65,000 feet in the air." Oh ... and the ash was "razor-sharp."

No doubt some will renew their carping about Bobby Jindal's use of "something called volcano monitoring" as a laugh line in his response to the President's speech before Congress last month. "What Congress should be monitoring is the eruption of spending in Washington," he said. Some will point out that airliners could have flown into these ash clouds had there been no monitoring, causing considerable loss of life.

Critics may well add that the self-proclaimed 'pro-business' party seems unaware that businesses need some warning in order to protect their inventory from a rain of "razor-sharp ash." Otherwise they could experience billions in losses.

But I'm struck by something else: These anti-technology sentiments were delivered with the finest technology known to humanity. From teleprompters to television cameras, the GOP used countless scientific discoveries in order to get Gov. Jindal's message to the American public. Why, they even used the Internet, which was created as the result of a government-funded research project to improve the flow of data traffic between computers (back when computers were rare).

I can just imagine what Bobby Jindal would've said back then: "Congress would be smarter to improve the flow of data traffic between its ears."

And John McCain's been using Twitter, the latest fad technology from that silly traffic-flow machinery, to make fun of scientific allocations in the Federal budget. "900,000 for fish management - how does one manage a fish?"

Note to Sen. McCain: Americans spent $42 billion last year for recreational fishing, and the NOAA says commercial fishing contributed $28 billion to the U.S. economy. Fish imports are second only to oil. We import more than 60% of our seafood, creating a trade deficit of more than $7 billion annually.

Sounds like a little "management" is in order, don't you think?

But it's the Twitter part of this story that gets me. Once again the anti-science crowd is using the fruits of scientific labor to get its message out. It's as if the original Luddites, those factory-destroying rebels from 19th Century Britain, decided to destroy those industrial looms ... with a steam engine.

And the Luddites had a genuine economic complaint. These folks are just doing it to get votes. Here's a suggestion: If you don't like science, send your next anti-science message by carrier pigeon.
________________

They're playing games with numbers, too. I just heard it again: Congress has voted so much money for the stimulus bill that you would have to spend a million dollars a days since Jesus was born just to match it.

This is what we might call a "stupid number trick." It's a way of taking figures from one class of measurement - in this case, a calendar - and combining them with another for simple shock effect. In the case of this video, they also juxtaposed well-loved Jesus images with a clip of Sen. Chuck Schumer, who has a pronounced New York Jewish accent.

(Hmm ... wonder why they picked him?)

The "every day since Jesus was born" idea makes it sound really big. But let's play with it a little: Let's suppose you started a town and added one person for every single day since Jesus was born. What would you get? You'd get a city smaller than Charlotte, NC. And what if you bought 18 cars a day, every day since ... well, you know when. You wouldn't have as many cars as pass over the freeways of Los Angeles in a typical 24-hour period.

Let's do a little more with numbers. The "million dollars a day since Jesus" comment was first made by Sen. Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. 18,000 Americans die every year from lack of health insurance, according to the National Academies of Science. McConnell and his allies have been fighting universal coverage since he entered politics in 1967.

So if you allowed a sick man, woman, or child to die in front of your eyes every day since Jesus was born, you still would not have caused as many deaths as have been caused by GOP policies during Mitch McConnell's career.

Remind me: What did Jesus say about the Good Samaritan?

Then there's the cost of the Iraq war. If you spent a million dollars a day killing people in the Nazarene's part of the world you still wouldn't have spent as much as we've spent on this war. And while we're on the subject, nearly two million Iraqis have become war refugees and half of them are children.

If you drove one child from his home every day since Jesus was born, that still wouldn't be as many children as have been made homeless by this war.

Then there's the $12 billion in cash that the Bush Administration lost to corruption during the occupation (and that's just what we know about). If you lost $18,000 in cash from your wallet every day since Jesus was born ... Yep. You guessed it. That's how much they lost in this snafu alone.

Let's do one last number trick. Let's calculate what it will cost per person for all of us to pay for that "fish management" project that Sen. McCain mocked, and what it has cost so far for us to pay for the war that he so strongly supported:

Estimated per-capita cost of Iraq war (to date): $1,975.63
Estimated per-capita cost of fish study: $0,000.03

And the fish study may actually make us safer.

Revolt 2009! Computers Rise Up, Force Improved Health Care Upon Anxious Population

We see Freder descend into the underground city.   There he watches workers frantically push dial hands back and forth.  A valve shows the great machine building up steam. Finally it explodes.  Freder sees the machine transformed into a giant demon, spewing fire and devouring workers.

"Moloch!" he exclaims as columns of workers march into its gaping, fiery mouth.

- Fritz Lang's "Metropolis," 1927

From Ezra Klein we learn of the continued use of a discredited story: that Obama created the post of "National Coordinator of Health Information Technology," presumably for sinister reasons. Improved health IT is actually one of the few issues where left and right - at least the reasonably informed left and right - agree. The position was actually created by President Bush in 2004. Its Republican-appointed prior occupant and his Republican-appointed boss (HHS Secretary Mike Levitt) both did some good work. Better health information is not a partisan issue - or at least it wasn't until now.

The latest appearance of this folktale - call it "Obama's Health Big Brother" - comes in a Bloomberg News editorial by Amity Shlaes that compares the current Administration to the best-known works of the Wachowski Brothers. "Barack Obama has dropped us all into The Matrix," writes Ms. Shlaes. She continues:

In the Obama Era, it seems, we all pick our way through anxious lives that have something to do with software. Like Keanu Reeves' Neo, we realize hour-to-hour that we are being manipulated by a system that has its own larger plan.

If only we keep a cool head, we tell ourselves, our powers of logic will help us escape the web. But each move we make, even the one that feels independent, takes us deeper into the Matrix ...

President Obama's $634 billion, 10-year health-care plan undoubtedly appeals to would-be Neos out there ... As in "The Matrix," freedom is a mirage ... and there's no escape.

If I tell you that before she's done she compares Peter Orszag to Agent Smith, you'll get the general idea. America reads this and wonders: Do I take the blue pill or the red pill?

(Think I'll take a Tylenol capsule. It's blue and red.)

Ms. Shlaes has more, like this line: "There was discussion during the campaign of tax breaks for employers for providing health care." (Actually, employers already have a tax break for providing health care. But let's not dwell on the details ...)

There's a pattern developing. It's the outline of a new politically-motivated mythmaking that's about finding spooky sounds on the organ, then playing them over and over until (they hope) the audience runs screaming from the theater. Why pick on the "national coordinator for health information technology"? Because that pedal might sound scary if it brings up memories of all those computers-are-taking-over movies from the seventies. Because some partisans believe that we all share a general anxiety about everything digital, that we all "pick our way through anxious lives that have something to do with software.'

Picture Julie Christie, cowering from a giant mainframe like she did in "Demon Seed." Except, instead of impregnating her with a human/machine hybrid, this computer wants to provide information about methodologies for the treatment of orthopedic injuries ...

Frightening, isn't it?

The problem is that, judging from the poll numbers, they're grinding away at the old pipe organ but nobody's listening. All of which gives me an idea ... how about a piece comparing criticism of health reform to 'Phantom of the Opera'? I could wring 1,000 words out of that one, easy. Think I'll pitch it to Bloomberg News.

In the meantime, I look forward to Amity Shlaes' next piece, in which she warns of the enslavement of humanity that's sure to come if people don't stop forwarding that cute video of a dog cleaning your computer screen from the inside.

Aerosmith? No Way! Help the GOP Pick a Better Theme Song

So the House Republicans are bragging about their opposition to the stimulus bill ... with a video that uses Aerosmith's "Back in the Saddle"? And they're bragging about ... doing nothing? America deserves a better opposition party than that, and the opposition party deserves a more appropriate theme song.

The role of the opposition is to present different ideas, propose alternatives, challenge the party in power to think differently. You know - all that civic stuff. Instead we get a song selection that's as poorly thought out as the party's platform. I mean, have they even listened to "Back in the Saddle"? One of its more printable lines is "four bits gets you time in the racks." That's right. Eric Cantor, the man who took Tom DeLay's old job, has just chosen for his battle cry a tune about prostitution in the Wild West.

Is this a theme song or a cry for help?

We, like the American people, are charitable and generous by nature. We therefore assume that any overtones of irony are unintentional. So, in the bipartisan spirit of the times, let's help the online community come up with a better song choice for the Republicans in Congress. (And, no ... it wouldn't be very bipartisan to suggest "Fool On the Hill.")

If the GOP wants to stay within the Aerosmith oeuvre, may we suggest "Love In An Elevator?" That's the one whose chorus summarizes our last eight years of governance: "Livin' it up while we're going dooown ..."

Or how about "Tell Her No"? Here's the chorus to that sixties nugget:

No no no no no no no no
no no no no no no no no no
no no no no no no

The word "no" is repeated 23 times. Seems appropriate, doesn't it? What's more, the group that performed it is "The Zombies," which brings to mind that persistent (though disproved) "zombie lie" that the stimulus bill will "dictate how health care is provided" (a topic we'll return to in a more serious moment).

Meanwhile, the GOP and its media enablers insist that its far-right views represent "the center," despite polls that have consistently disproved that. So there's always "Stuck in the Middle With You," I guess. (The group's name was "Stealer's Wheel," but we don't have to draw any conclusions from that.)

Then there's that Joan Jett song, the one that says "I don't give a damn about my bad reputation." Maybe you've heard it:

The world's in trouble
Theres no communication
An everyone can say
What they want to say
It never gets better anyway
So why should I care ...

Personally, I'd go with the Joan Jett. It has just the right combination of self-mythification, cynicism, and what used to be called enlightened self-interest. (And its crunching guitars will please those Republicans who want you to know that underneath that pinstripe-clad exterior they were born to rock you.)

But here's what I worry about: What if the Republican Party figures our that it might actually stage a comeback by becoming the party of populism? Yesterday we saw Republican Senator Lindsey Graham state the near-obvious - that nationalizing banks should "not be off the table" - while Democrat Chuck Schumer said he'd be against it. Sen. Graham was doing what someone in the opposition party should do: say things that it's difficult for the party in power in express. And Sen. Schumer was running the risk of being outmaneuvered to the left on the subject of a very unpopular bailout.

Eric Cantor's Aerosmith gambit is nearly as clueless a move as all those "parody songs" the would-be party leaders were playing a few weeks ago. But if the day ever comes when the Republicans stop playing "Back in the Saddle" and start playing "Working Class Hero," the Democrats may find themselves facing the music.

(UPDATE:  We've gotten some great suggestions in the Comments section of the Huffington Post, where this is cross-posted.)
________________________________________

(You can help the GOP by voting in this online poll. Norm Coleman's attorneys are standing by to tabulate the results.)

Wait ... Didn't Michael Steele Just Say My Parents Never Had Jobs?

My mother and father were teachers. My father worked his way up and eventually ran a community college. My mother was paid by the county and my father was paid by the state. So, according to the head of the Republican Party, they never had "jobs."

Here's what Michael Steele told George Stephanopoulos yesterday:

STEELE: You've got to look at what's going to create sustainable jobs. What this administration is talking about is making work. It is creating work. What this administration is talking about is making work. It is creating work.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But that's a job.

STEELE: No, it's not a job. A job is something that -- that a business owner creates.

Somebody's going to have to break it to my parents that they they've never had a job - not even back in the 1940's. While they went to college my father worked nights in a shipyard as a welder while my mother picked up cigarette butts in the parking lot of a defense plant.

I guess those weren't jobs either, because both of them were funded by government contracts. Then my Dad joined the service. That was government "work," too. I wonder if Michael Steele wants to break it to these two people that they didn't really have sixty years of productive service to society. (And, well into their eighties, they're not done yet.)

While he's at it, he could also talk to my childhood friend Billy. Bill and I had a rock and roll band together when we were teenagers. His Dad used to like to have a few beers and then sit around with us, hammering away at the guitar and singing "I'm going to Chicago, but I won't take you ..." Mr. M was a good guy. He worked thirty years for the Thruway, dealing with accident scenes. Sometimes he'd tell us the grisly details.

Well, Mr. M never had a job either, as it turns out. The Thruway Authority's a government agency. That means we'll have to tell Bill the bad news about his late father. Last time I saw him he told me he works for the county now, inspecting sewers and that sort of thing. It's a decent job, he said ... oh, wait. That's right: It's not a job.

Who knew? Before Michael Steele and the Republicans, that is ...

This isn't about playing "gotcha" with some obstructionists. Well, okay, maybe it is a little ... But mostly it's about the economic ignorance, real or feigned, underlying most GOP objections to this stimulus package. Steele seem like an intelligent man. I honestly don't know if he and the other Republicans really believe what they're saying, or if they've just made a tactical decision to oppose the stimulus and then hope it fails. It's starting to look like it's the latter.

Either way, the rest of the Steele interview illustrates a level of confusion that makes his problem with the word "jobs" seem minor. He talks, for example, about "correcting those rules in the markets that have hindered and frustrated the banking process, that have lent itself to drying up the credit markets as we see them."

No, Mr. Steele. There has been a lack of rules in the market - one that led to too much credit being extended in irresponsible ways. Then the money was all gone. And then we got in trouble.

And it gets worse. Steele asks: "How does -- how does -- I mean, I'm all for Pell Grants, but how does a Pell Grant, increasing funding for Pell Grant get me a job when I just lost mine?"

Here's how, Mr. Steele: A Pell Grant provides funding for someone to get a college education. More students can go to college, which provides more jobs to teachers. And the businesses that serve the college community make more money, so they can hire more people. Then, after the student gets a degree, they can get a job and earn a better income. That means they spend more. So businesses make more more money then, too, and then they can hire more people.

Like the guy with the cellphone says: Can you hear me now?

We're going to be hearing a lot more of this kind of obstructionist talk in the next few days and weeks, so here's what's worth passing on to politically noncommitted friends and relatives: Government-funded jobs are real jobs. They're jobs for cops, firefighters, construction workers ... all sorts of folks. And Steele's not the only one playing games.

Now, people like Billy's father and my parents weren't big political donors. They didn't have that kind of money. But they had good jobs - government jobs. Yes, some of the jobs in this stimulus package will "go away" when contracts end, just like my parents' first jobs did in the forties. But they worked their way through college on those jobs. So will some of the people who get jobs under the stimulus plan.

And all of the people who get jobs because of this bill will spend money,which will stimulate the economy. (Hence the word "stimulus," which obstructionists either don't comprehend or choose to ignore.) That means that the economy will grow and there will be more private-sector jobs available by the time the government-funded jobs come to an end. That's how it worked under FDR. (And, yes, it did work under FDR. Read the history, Mr. Steele, not the talking points.)

The final stimulus bill may be imperfect. But if it gets the economy moving again, everybody will benefit. Pretty soon enough Republicans in Congress are going to realize that. They will put their country's interest above their party's and vote for this bill, and then it will pass. There will be a side benefit when that happens: My parents, and millions of others like them, won't have to go through retirement with a blank sheet of paper for a resumé.