Psychopolitik 2.0

George Will, in the process of trying to argue that Jeremiah Wright is somehow, and in fact ever was, relevant to the presidential election, says the following:

In yesterday’s speech at the National Press Club, Wright repeated — decorously, by his standards, but clearly — his accusation, made the Sunday after Sept. 11, that America got what it deserved. His answer yesterday to a question about that accusation was: “Whatsoever you sow, that you also shall reap” and “you cannot do terrorism on other people and expect them never to come back on you.”

As evidence that “our government is capable of doing anything,” he strongly hinted that he has intellectually respectable corroboration — he mentioned several publications — for his original charge that the U.S. government is guilty of “inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.” But yesterday he insisted that he is not anti-American: It is, he said, Americans’ government, not the American public, that is a genocidal perpetrator of terrorism. So, he now denies that America has a representative government — that it represents the public. He believes that elections constantly and mysteriously — and against the public’s will — produce a genocidal, terroristic government.

Perhaps George should look into a hearing aid, because if he was paying attention he would’ve known that Wright’s “reap what you sow” comment was a Bible quote — he is a pastor, after all*.  His point was clearly an attempt to make a religious example out of the event, alluding to the US government’s history of playing Risk for real as the sowing.  That this also has a secular meaning seems to confuse some people.

When I addressed Wright’s 9/11 comment before, I took issue due to the non-involvement of the innocents killed in the attack.  Now Wright clarifies, and turns out to agree with my view of it more than I thought, and Will takes offense with his explanation, lampooning it as crazy talk — “What?  How could this FOOL say that We The People did not and do not approve of absolutely everything that the government does?”.  This view explodes once you consider that the majority of people don’t actually pay attention to what’s going on in the world, the mass media shuns the idea that any government action can have bad intentions behind it, the political elite is single-minded on most issues (this is why “wedge issues” even exist: to amplify what little difference there is), and until rather recently background info on government actions didn’t come out until all the principle actors were dead.  By his logic, taking as a given that voting = the epitome of representation, then those Iraqi women selling butt for less than the average pizza in the US costs just to stay alive are simply entrepreneurs in action.

Terrorism, by the accepted common sense definition, is violence for political purposes.  To ignore states in this is to dismiss most of the terrorism that has actually been committed throughout history, as political violence is the essence of what they are.

(* - This would be a perfect example of something that much of the Right — and increasingly Wright himself, I might add — simply does not understand: a symbiotic relationship between religion and politics is stupid.  In that church where Wright first made this point, it was immediately understood as his interpretation of scripture; injected into secular politics in the form of a soundbite it looks like he’s cheering al-qaeda.  The two simply operate off of completely separate ground rules.  BTW: before anyone barks, the reason this is not equivalent to what the likes of Pat Robertson said about 9/11 is because he reversed the equation, claiming that legalized abortion & gay rights  — political decisions, both — pissed off Gawd.)

CNN has been showing this clip from a “first time voters” forum, discussing candidate preferences, reasons why, the usual. When the Iraq war came up as a subject, specifically “should we have invaded in the first place?”, some dude in the back gave the standard pseudo-humanitarian pro-war schpeil: “But it was run by a dictator who used WMDs on his own people!”

Question: How does someone flunk recent history so badly? You’re going to be helping pick the next person with access to The Button and you seriously think the purpose of the US military is to “liberate” people & don’t know that Saddam was a former friend of the US government? How do you manage to remember to breathe?

Memo to “old punk”:

1. There is a word for people who you consider to be assholes that just happen to be black other than the N-word. It is “assholes”.
2. Blaming blacks as a group for random characters that many blacks themselves don’t like isn’t smart.
3. If some black people defending O.J. gets your blood boiling, I’m puzzled as to what doesn’t.
4. To the rare extent race-based excuse-ism happens, it has no real effect on anything, and descends from long-held skepticism bred from years of whites doing the same. This does not make it right, it just is the way it is.
5. Your bit about blacks being a “5th column” smacks of thinking of black Americans as ungrateful bastards for not saying thank you for bringing our ancestors to this country. In case you forgot, they didn’t ask to be here. That we got to this point considering the circumstances is amazing, true, yet we do not have your ancestors to thank for it, as the few who actually saw us as equal human beings were seen as traitors and shunned or worse until fairly recently.
6. Criticizing single motherhood is nothing new. Some relationships simply do not work, and there will always be some irresponsible people. It is not just blacks dissolving “the family” anyway, one could argue it’s an American thing.
7. Deaths attributable to following Allen Iverson: far as I know of, zero. Deaths attributable to following George W. Bush: 4000 and growing…

Honestly though, since he’s taking it there, I have some questions I’d like to ask white people: When you outnumber us, have had a cultural and economic head start on us, hold the majority of political power, and to this day dominate to the point where the popular image of “American” to the rest of the world is a square-jawed white male country boy, why the fuck are you afraid? Why is it such a shock that we say things among ourselves that we tend to not say to you, when you’ve done the same thing and to an extent every race does? Why does it seem like every toothless cracker (you wanna name call? Fine, we’ll play it your way) in a rusty trailer blames blacks (and mexicans) for their position, when we don’t have that power and probably wouldn’t use it that way if we did? For that matter, why do those same crackers politically support people that look at them no different than they look at us (if you don’t believe me, answer how Cletus in the trailer park benefits from a lower capital gains rate & Wall Street getting “liquidity” at the snap of their fingers)? Why do you insist on the same schpeil about “well the irish and the jews & the italians did it, why not the blacks?” when those groups can blend in to the point where they’re now considered “white” while we don’t have that luxury, and any hint of black self-determination talk gets branded as paranoid separatism? Shit, even if it were separatism, what’s it to you? Would it seriously damage your livelihood if from now on blacks deliberately tried as much as possible to only aid, buy from, hire, promote, and sell to other blacks?

Fuck it, I’m throwing down the gauntlet here. On the whole thing that spawned this mess, the stuff Jeremiah Wright was saying, other than the bit right after 9/11 (if it weren’t for the fact that civilians were involved I’d see it his way, but those people in the World Trade Center and on those planes had zilch to do with the global status quo of the time. You can pop politicians all you want far as I’m concerned, leave us out of it) and the part about AIDS (THAT I will say is just plain kook talk), he had a point. Furthermore, it’s sad as hell that Obama had to even address it, to explain that there are people that though they’re otherwise good folks have been soured so deeply on the ideals claimed in this country, and that rather than bark about them we should prevent more of them from being created. This should’ve been obvious all along, there is no such thing as a society where no one crosses the “fuck it” threshold.

It says a lot just how deep this subject runs that I’m even bothering with this. I, an atheist left-libertarian, am having to defend a preacher, and name check the argument of a fucking politician, especially one who I’ve already dismissed as being a hedge trimmer that thinks its an axe. Why? Because in one fell swoop, I am being co-blamed for the quirks and failings of an entire culture simply because what I see in the mirror every morning is the shade of the desk my computer sits on and not the computer itself.

Let’s see who this pisses off. Oh yeah, you can blame John Cole, a white guy, for bringing the comments of this dipshit to my attention. So I don’t hate white people, I hate stupid people.

Edit: one more thing.  Define “white”.  Because as previously noted, there are groups that are considered “white” now that were considered “not-white” for a long time.  There used to be signs saying “no Irish, Jews, or negros need apply”, if it is possible for people to be “white” that previously were not, then “white” as a race is a myth.  For that matter, “black” only exists in the minds of non-blacks when you think about it.  We only adopted it because sorting out the various parts of Africa our ancestors came from was too much of a hassle for all but that dude running for president until recently & we held no genuine culture from there anyway.  That cultural break would be the reason why you can see towns like this — a place that’s basically German w/ English signs — but there’s no “Little Nairobi” anywhere.

During a lull in the Cavs-Pistons game earlier, caught wind of Glenn Beck deliver roughly the following:

“If it seems like there isn’t much coverage of the Iraq war these days, you’re not just imagining things.  The media is avoiding it.  Not because they’re burned out on the story itself or because it’s too difficult to cover, no, but because WE’RE WINNING!!!”

Gee, by that logic they must’ve found a cure for AIDS.  I haven’t heard squat about that lately either.  Well, except for that episode of South Park, that was funny as hell.  Anyone see the one they had tonight?  I swear, I dunno how they do it after all this time, still fresh and still hilarious.  WTF happened to Kenny though?  Speaking of Kenny…that “Kenny vs Spenny” show is weird.  The torture competition one actually had me questioning my taste in entertainment, especially when Spenny tried to shove a huge frozen hotdog up his…waitaminute, where was I?

Oh yeah.  Glenn Beck is a fucking idiot.

I think it’s safe to say that Monday is already written off when this is the first thing I see:

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee hinted Sunday that a battle over an expired eavesdropping law might be moving toward a conclusion that gave phone companies the retroactive legal protections long sought by President Bush.

The chairman, Representative Silvestre Reyes, Democrat of Texas, said in an interview on CNN that the committee had been talking to the companies “because if we’re going to give them blanket immunity, we want to know and understand what it is we’re giving immunity for.”

Mr. Reyes did not specify what provisions a House bill might contain. But his use of the words “blanket immunity” suggested that he might be moving toward a Senate bill, backed by Mr. Bush, that would protect phone companies that assisted in a federal program of wiretapping without warrants after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. “I have an open mind about that,” Mr. Reyes said. (emphasis mine)

“Well, I’d like to know whether or not lube will be involved, if we’re going to receive involuntary buttsex. I have an open mind about lube, you can give us involuntary buttsex with it or without it, I’d just like to know that detail. While we’re at it, will it be going in our mouths before or after?”

Somebody tell me this fucker has a primary challenge coming up, please…

Edit: concerning the immunity itself, Kevin Drum & a Washington Monthly commenter “Bmaz” have some background even I wasn’t thinking about: Odds are rather good that the telecoms themselves really don’t care, because we could end up paying any damages anyway.  According to this, the real protection is for the Administration, as the telecoms already got theirs.

Argh…:

Sen. Barack Obama’s refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin along with a photo of him not putting his hand over his heart during the National Anthem led conservatives on Internet and in the media to question his patriotism.

Now Obama’s wife, Michelle, has drawn their ire, too, for saying recently that she’s really proud of her country for the first time in her adult life.

Conservative consultants say that combined, the cases could be an issue for Obama in the general election if he wins the nomination, especially as he runs against Vietnam war hero Sen. John McCain.

“The reason it hasn’t been an issue so far is that we’re still in the microcosm of the Democratic primary,” said Republican consultant Roger Stone. “Many Americans will find the three things offensive. Barack Obama is out of the McGovern wing of the party, and he is part of the blame America first crowd.”

Whoever had the bright idea that this was newsworthy should be fired.

First of all, it’s elephant-shit obvious: of course right-wingers are questioning his patriotism, they question everybody on that, every election year. For them if you disagree with them in the slightest, you’re anti-American, as they’ve defined their own ideology as what it means to be one. What would be a shock would be if they didn’t, because the day that claiming an opponent as unAmerican fell out of their playbook I would immediately jump out of the window, because that’s a sign the world has kicked into reverse and I’ve always been curious what it’d feel like if humans could fly.

Another thing they’ve missed here is that it helps the agenda of the wingers to have this get mainstream media play. See, our media, clinging to the idea that it is possible to be 100% objective, have a simplistic view of fairness. To them, every issue has two sides, no matter what, and both sides have to be treated as equally credible — “oh, they’re claiming a presidential candidate is anti-American, we must give their grievances a fair hearing!”. Because of this, claims that common sense would mercilessly rule out end up seen as debatable, and we hear them over and over again; unfortunately, some among us crack and accept it.

Even going by the most basic measure of value as news, one that even a toddler could agree to — freshness as a story — this fails. Funny thing is, the article itself acknowledges that!

Obama already is the subject of a shadowy smear campaign based on the Internet that falsely suggests he’s a Muslim intent on destroying the United States. Obama is a Christian and has been fighting the e-mail hoax, which also claims he doesn’t put his hand over his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance, and he’s been trying to correct the misinformation.

“Whenever I’m in the United States Senate, I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,” Obama frequently tells voters. “I’ve been going to the same church for 20 years, praising Jesus,” he adds.

Like I said, they define what it means to be American as synonymous with their ideology. There is no reason to care what religion any politician follows, or even if they don’t follow one at all, and not being Christian has zilch to do with patriotism. Even if someone is a muslim, it doesn’t follow from there that they’re in league with al-qaeda. Obama being a politician, he naturally is hesitant to give this the response it really needs: “why the fuck do you care who I pray to anyway?”

Besides, gestures like wearing a flag pin, holding your hand to your heart for the pledge, or standing for the national anthem are meaningless. I remember going to football games and hearing the national anthem before the teams took the field, and half the crowd didn’t stand up. Now, does this mean there’s a 5th column of terrorist sympathizers among football fans? Or does it mean that after all that time of being in lines, from getting their tickets, to getting food & drinks, to turning in their stub, to squeezing past strangers to find their seat, they’re really glad to be able to sit the fuck DOWN and don’t feel like moving?

Rather than just disseminating the same pointless blather for the umpteenth time, what would be more useful would be an analysis of what is really meant by these kind of charges, including a brief history and a couple examples of the type of scum that actually DID follow the Patriotism Rules to the letter. But that would be too much work, not to mention “unfair”…

Edit: John Cole & Josh Marshall have more on this.  Well, Josh has some background info on the “source” for this story, while John has more pictures of scumbags wearing lapel pins, but every bit counts.

The US Senate recently voted by a wide margin to excuse the phone companies that co-operated with the warrantless surveillance program, and to turn the FISA rules on their head.  Yet, every cable news channel is simulcasting Congress discussing Roger Clemens’ alleged steroid use.  Why?

Callin’ it as you see it: still taboo:

Angered by an MSNBC correspondent’s demeaning comment about Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s daughter, aides to her presidential campaign said Friday that she might pull out of a debate planned by the cable network this month in Cleveland.

Howard Wolfson, Clinton’s communications director, cast as “beneath contempt” an on-air comment Thursday by MSNBC’s David Shuster, who said Chelsea Clinton is “sort of being pimped out” as she intensifies her campaigning for her mother.

NBC News announced Friday afternoon that Shuster had been suspended indefinitely over the remark, which a release called “irresponsible and inappropriate.”

Well damn, the way she’s reacting makes it seem like she doesn’t understand what that remark means.  Those kind of terms are rather common now — “media whore”, using “pimpish” as a synonym of cool, to customization of an item being described as “pimping” it (I distinctly recall seeing once at a bookstore while walking past the magazine rack a cover reference to “pimp your stroller” on a magazine for expectant & new mothers.  Seriously.) — so it’s not like he was saying they’re having Chelsea have sex with strangers for money.  They asked her to offer herself up on the campaign trail on her mother’s behalf, she accepted, where’s the offense in the description?

Sure, Hillary is probably thinking of this as an example of bias or something, like if they’ll say this about her then she can’t get a “fair” shot.  Hilarious, since prior to the actual voting the mainstream media spin was that she was The Inevitable.  Another thing she leaves out of her irrational stab at victimhood:

Shuster apologized Friday morning on MSNBC for the term he applied to Chelsea. He issued a second apology on the MSNBC show “Tucker,” where he had uttered his comment while acting as guest host.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign staff has been critical of what it considers a hostile attitude toward her in MSNBC’s coverage, and the Shuster incident brought matters to a head. […]

Last month, another MSNBC talk show host, Chris Matthews, apologized after suggesting Clinton owed her political success to her husband’s philandering. “The reason she may be a front-runner [in the presidential race] is her husband messed around,” Matthews said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” (emphasis mine)

At the time David Shuster made the comment that Hillary is so angry about, he was acting as guest host on “Tucker”.  That show is not meant to be a straight-up news show, focusing more on analysis and discussion.  Tucker Carlson is not expected to be unbiased, so whoever fills in for him is also not expected to be either, since otherwise the entire point of the show changes — this would be the reason why when  over on CNN Lou Dobbs goes off on vacation to have the stick reinstalled up his ass, one of the random morning anchors doesn’t take it over.  Chris Matthews likes to occupy a grey area where he sometimes poses as a mere journalist, but his main duty to MSNBC is “Hardball”, a show where he discusses topics with guests & shares his own opinion.   So, if she sees their comments as failing their alleged duty to be neutral, detached observers, the only reasonable reply would be “well no duh, Hillary.  You want a cookie?”

My personal view is that neutrality is a fairy tale.  Everyone has their opinions, no matter how mundane or sloppily thought out, and unless all you report is the weather, you’re going to have some sort of built-in spin to it.  Acknowledging the bias makes it a lot easier to filter out and judge for yourself, whereas pretending none exists just writes it deeper into the story.  Besides, no one in politics actually wants an honest portrayal of themselves, they want as much glowing praise as possible, Hillary’s definition of neutrality would probably look like ass-kissing to Obama, and vice versa.  Realize you’re expecting the sky to rain candy and shut up.

If there’s no expectation of privacy in a public bathroom, then why are there locks on the doors?  Hell, why do the stalls even have doors at all?

Yeah, I’m kinda late with this, but it’s been grating at me this long.  All things being equal, I’d rather endure the remote chance of someone fucking in the next stall than open the door for the flourishing of toilet-watching warrants.

I notice during the speeches with loyal supporters, every candidate makes reference to winning “with your help”, addressing the crowd.  This makes no sense whatsoever, and here’s why:

Now, relatively few people vote in elections at all.  Even fewer vote in primaries.  A number smaller than THAT actually pay attention enough to actively support a candidate and show up at those damn rallies.  Regardless of their reasons, these are inherently folks who have made up their minds — the converted, if you will.

Among the reasons people have for voting for someone, whether sensible (support their policies, find them to be the most capable person for the position) or not (reflexive support of their particular tribe in the Culture War), none are controllable by the dedicated supporters at all.  As such, they are functionally irrelevant to whether or not their pick wins.  No doubt they’d respond to that with “but we’re spreading the word, getting the message out!”.  However, depending on how you define the communication, they’re either being passively dragged along in denial (donating to a campaign doesn’t mean they’ll use it to communicate what you think they will, if anything.  Besides, it doesn’t require showing up in person.), or they’re the political equivalent of Amway salesmen.