Monday, June 30, 2008

T-Bonehead Is Being Called Out Everywhere!

Another of T-Bonehead Pickens' great moves when he was the Marvel of His Age was to endow a geosciences scholarship for a graduate of the Collegium Excellens. The Great Man summoned my geology colleague to his grandiose office in lower downtown Amarillo. My colleague, Professor Rocky, was told by T-Bonehead to name the best student in geosciences at the Collegium each year and that student would receive a free ride to the transfer college of the student's choice. Wowee! What a grand gesture from The Prince of Darkness. Things clanked along for a couple of years: Professor Rocky named a student and T-Bonehead had a check issued each term by Mesa Petroleum. Then, Professor Rocky received a phone call from T-Bonehead hisself. Seems that T-Bonehead's administrative assistant (Also known as the poor woman who put up with T-Bonehead's bat guano behavior without complaint.) was the mother of a young woman who was a student in one of Professor Rocky's four geology 101 classes. Professor Rocky acknowledged that the young woman was one of his students. T-Bonehead cut right to the chase: that young woman was to receive the T-Bonehead Geosciences Scholarship for that year. Professor Rocky acknowledged that the young woman was a good citizen and a good student, but that the young woman was not even the best student in her class, let alone the best of all of his students that year. T-Bonehead rumbled on that this young woman was the most deserving and that was that. To his credit, Professor Rocky refused to name the young woman as the recipient of the scholarship and T-Bonehead Pickens rescinded the scholarship program right then and there. Given his track record, it should be no surprise that T-Bonehead would welsh on his offer to pay $1M to anyone offering proof of John Kerry's military career at odds with the bat guano claims of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Lo, and behold, the proof was supplied to T-Bonehead and he cut and ran. If this is (fair & balanced) pomposity, so be it.

[x Boston Fishwrap]
T. Boone, Show Us The Money
By Scot Lehigh

T. Boone Pickens, some angry Vietnam veterans would like a little of your time.

These are guys who served directly with John Kerry in Vietnam, and they have a T. bone to pick with you.

They're upset that you helped smear Kerry - and pollute the political discourse — in 2004 by donating $2 million to the inaptly named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

You need to sit down with them. And when you're done, it'll be time to reach for your checkbook once again — this time to give a cool million to the charity of their choice.

If you're a man of your word, that is.

Frankly, I have my doubts.

Last November, you certainly sounded like a standup guy. Speaking at a dinner for the conservative American Spectator magazine, you said that you'd give $1 million to anyone who could prove that anything the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (or SBVT, in political shorthand) had said about Kerry was false.

Given that media outlets from the Washington Post to The New York Times to the Chicago Tribune to "Nightline" to the Boston Globe have all highlighted the various ways that SBVT's anti-Kerry claims ran contrary to both official and eyewitness accounts, your challenge was more than a little foolhardy.

When it came to Kerry's attention, he wrote you to say he would be glad to point out their falsehoods. As for the $1 million, Kerry said he intended to donate it to Paralyzed Veterans of America.

That's when you began looking less like a straight-shooting Texan and more like the crafty little creature known in scientific circles as Mustela frenata. In plain Texas talk, that would be a long-tailed weasel. You began adding qualifications, saying Kerry first needed to provide you with copies of his complete military record, his wartime journal, and all the movie footage and tapes made during his service. And you tried to limit your challenge just to falsehoods in SBVT's ads.

No doubt you thought that you'd covered your tailbone, T. Boone.

But your challenge was your challenge — and now five former members of Kerry's second swift boat crew have sent you a letter taking you up on it. A letter that makes this offer: "We . . . will bring with us a Navy/Pentagon certified copy of Senator Kerry's full military record and his writings and the movie footage you have requested. We will sit with you while you go through them page for page, frame by frame and answer any questions you may have."

Kerry crew members also note, tellingly, that SBVT never interviewed any of them before launching its political attack.

"We know the truth because we were there on the boat," they write. "We believe you will find this truth unavoidable . . ."

So this is your chance to talk to guys who can tell you the real story, T. Boone; between them, they can give you multiple close-up eyewitness accounts of the missions that won Kerry his Silver Star, his Bronze Star, and two of his Purple Hearts. I've read their long and detailed letter critiquing some of SBVT's claims. It's persuasive stuff — and it comes with plenty of backup, including the signatures of five other vets who witnessed one or more of the events in question.

Yes, this is being done with the help of Kerry's office, but crew members insist the initiative was theirs.

You see, T. Boone, they are steamed. As far as they're concerned, in disparaging Kerry's medals and conduct, SBVT cast doubt on their honors and service too. Crew member Fred Short tells me that after SBVT started running its ads, a work colleague asked him if he was worried he would go to jail, apparently thinking he might have helped Kerry concoct a false account of wartime events.

"My grandchildren will grow up and say, 'Was grandpa a liar? What really happened?' " adds Del Sandusky.

So now Kerry's crewmates have called your bluff, T. Boone. If you're a man of your word, you should meet with them — and then put your million where your mouth was.

[Scot Lehigh has been a Boston Globe columnist since 2001. Lehigh, who graduated magna cum laude from Colby College in 1980, also has a master's degree from the University of Massachusetts at Boston. He has covered state and national politics since 1985. Lehigh came to the Globe in 1989 from the Boston Phoenix, where he was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in national reporting for his coverage of the 1988 presidential campaign. Before becoming a Globe columnist, he covered the 1992 presidential campaign as an on-the-plane reporter, and wrote about the 1996 and 2000 campaigns as the paper's Focus writer. He also spent more than a decade as the host of "Final Edition," a local (cable) TV talk show.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

T-Bonehead's Pocketbook Twitch

T.(homas) Boone Pickens, better known as T-Bonehead Pickens to me, grew up in Amarillo, TX where I witnessed his savagery and cruelty toward employees and townspeople alike. This Prince of Darkness began his career as a geologist for Phillips 66 Petroleum Company. In his self-serving autobiography, Boone, that should have been entitled, T-Bonehead, the Great Man mocked his Phillips 66 contemporaries for being afflicted with the "Bartlesville Twitch." Bartlesville, OK was the corporate headquarters of Phillips 66 and T-Bonehead was referring to the lack of courage shown whenever a decision was to be made in Amarillo. According to T-Bonehead, the Phillips employee would always glance over a shoulder in the direction of Bartlesville whenever a decision was to be made. Ironically, T-Bonehead ruled Mesa Petroleum (his Amarillo company) in a way that made the worst of the Robber Barons appear saintly. T-Bonehead's employees had their own twitch and it was aimed at the Great Man himself. The latest news about the Prince of Darkness relates to T-Bonehead's running off at the mouth about the Swiftboating of John Kerry in 2004. T-Bonehead offered $1M to the person(s) who could deliver proof that Kerry was falsely defamed in 2004. Now, T-Bonehead has reneged on his offer. No big surprise because the The Prince of Darkness was always big hat, no cattle. In fact, T-Bonehead has gone so far as to announce that he is not going to make any such offers in the future. In fact, T-Bonehead is not going to make any political contributions in 2008. If this is (fari & balanced) tartuffery, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
T. Boone Pickens Says No Deal On Swift Boat Bounty
By Kate Zernike

T. Boone Pickens is not giving up his million dollars.

That’s how much he had offered to pay anyone who could disprove any of the accusations the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made against Senator John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election — attacks Mr. Pickens, the billionaire Texas oilman, helped finance.

A group of Swift boat veterans sympathetic to Mr. Kerry sent Mr. Pickens a letter last week taking him up on the challenge. In 12 pages, plus a 42-page attachment of military records and other documents, they identified not just one but ten lies in the group’s campaign against Mr. Kerry. They offered to meet with him to provide Mr. Kerry’s journals and videotapes from Vietnam and a copy of his full military record certified by the Navy — a key demand of Mr. Pickens and veterans who believe Mr. Kerry lied about his service to win his military decorations.

Mr. Pickens replied with a one-page letter, thanking the veterans for their research and their service, but politely saying there had been a misunderstanding. “Key aspects of my offer of $1 million have not been accurately reported,” he wrote.

When he offered the reward at an American Spectator dinner in November, blogs sympathetic to Mr. Pickens reported that he challenged anyone to disprove “anything” the Swift boat group said.

In his letter, Mr. Pickens explained that his bet actually applied to only the television ads the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth bought, and not to their bestselling book or the media interviews that generated more attention than the ads themselves.

“In reviewing your material, none of the information you provide speaks specifically to the issues contained in the ads,” he wrote, “and, as a result, does not qualify for the $1 million.”

It was pretty much the same response he had given to Mr. Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat, who seized the challenge immediately after Mr. Pickens made it last year.

He offered more generous compliments in his letter to the veterans, and suggested that they take up their issues with John O’Neill, the founder of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. (Mr. O’Neill, who first debated Mr. Kerry about the war in Vietnam on the Dick Cavett show in 1971, does not cede anything.)

As for this this presidential cycle, Mr. Pickens says he will not give any money to partisan causes.

[Kate Zernike is a national correspondent for The New York Times.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Sunday, June 29, 2008

The Oddest Couple

I can't carry the water for either Honest Abe or the original Monkey's Uncle, but I can still make water. That's more than can be said for either of them. If this is (fair & balanced) urology, so be it.

[x Newsweek]
Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?
By Malcolm Jones

How's this for a coincidence? Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln were born in the same year, on the same day: February 12, 1809. As historical facts go, it amounts to little more than a footnote. Still, while it's just a coincidence, it's a coincidence that's guaranteed to make you do a double take the first time you run across it. Everybody knows Darwin and Lincoln were near-mythic figures in the 19th century. But who ever thinks of them in tandem? Who puts the theory of evolution and the Civil War in the same sentence? Why would you, unless you're writing your dissertation on epochal events in the 19th century? But instinctively, we want to say that they belong together. It's not just because they were both great men, and not because they happen to be exact coevals. Rather, it's because the scientist and the politician each touched off a revolution that changed the world.

As soon as you do start comparing this odd couple, you discover there is more to this birthday coincidence than the same astrological chart (as Aquarians, they should both be stubborn, visionary, tolerant, free-spirited, rebellious, genial but remote and detached—hmmm, so far so good). As we approach their shared bicentennial, there is already one book that gives them double billing, historian David R. Contosta's Rebel Giants, with another coming early next year from New Yorker writer Adam Gopnik. Contosta's joint biography doesn't turn up anything new, but the biographical parallels he sets forth are enough to make us see each man afresh. Both lost their mothers in early childhood. Both suffered from depression (Darwin also suffered from a variety of crippling stomach ailments and chronic headaches), and both wrestled with religious doubt. Each had a strained relationship with his father, and each of them lost children to early death. Both spent the better part of their 20s trying to settle on a career, and neither man gave much evidence of his future greatness until well into middle age: Darwin published The Origin of Species when he was 50, and Lincoln won the presidency a year later. Both men were private and guarded. Most of Darwin's friendships were conducted through the mail, and after his five-year voyage on HMS Beagle as a young man, he rarely left his home in the English countryside. Lincoln, though a much more public man, carefully cultivated a bumpkin persona that encouraged both friends and enemies to underestimate his considerable, almost Machiavellian skill as a politician.

It is a measure of their accomplishments, of how much they changed the world, that the era into which Lincoln and Darwin was born seems so strange to us now. On their birth date, Thomas Jefferson had three weeks left in his second term as president. George III still sat on the throne of England. The Enlightenment was giving way to Romanticism. At the center of what people then believed, the tent poles of their reality were that God created the world and that man was the crown of creation. Well, some men, since the institution of slavery was still acceptable on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line—it would not be abolished in New York state, for example, until 1827, and while it had been illegal in England since 1772, it would not be abolished in English colonies until 1833. And Darwin, at least at the outset, was hardly even a scientist in the sense that we understand the term—a highly trained specialist whose professional vocabulary is so arcane that he or she can talk only to other scientists.

Darwin, the man who would almost singlehandedly redefine biological science, started out as an amateur naturalist, a beetle collector, a rockhound, a 22-year-old rich-kid dilettante who, after flirting with the idea of being first a physician and then a preacher, was allowed to ship out with the Beagle as someone who might supply good conversation at the captain's table. His father had all but ordered him not to go to sea, worrying that it was nothing more than one of Charles's lengthening list of aimless exploits—years before, Dr. Darwin had scolded his teenage son, saying, "You care for nothing but shooting, dogs, and rat catching, and you will be a disgrace to yourself and all your family." How could the father know that when the son came ashore after his five-year voyage, he would not only have shed his aimlessness but would have replaced it with a scientific sense of skepticism and curiosity so rigorous and abiding that he would be a workaholic almost to the day he died? Darwin was also in the grip of an idea so subversive that he would keep it under wraps for another two decades. But the crucial thing is that he did all this by himself. He became the very model of a modern major scientist without benefit of graduate school, grants or even much peer review. (It's hard to get a sympathetic hearing when your work, if successful, is clearly going to knock the blocks out from under civilization.) Darwin may have been independently wealthy, but in terms of his vocation, he was a self-made man.

Lincoln was self-made in the more conventional sense—a walking, talking embodiment of the frontier myth made good. Like Darwin, Lincoln was not a quick study. Both men worked slowly to master a subject. But both had restless, hungry minds. After about a year of schooling as a boy—and that spread out in dribs and drabs of three months here and four months there—Lincoln taught himself. He mastered trigonometry (for work as a surveyor), he read Blackstone on his own to become a lawyer. He memorized swaths of the Bible and Shakespeare. At the age of 40, after he had already served a term in the U.S. House of Representatives, he undertook Euclidean geometry as a mental exercise. After a while, his myth becomes a little much—he actually was born in a log cabin with a dirt floor—so much that we begin looking for flaws, and they're there: the bad marriage, some maladroit comments on racial inferiority. Then there were those terrible jokes. But even there, dammit, he could be truly witty: "I have endured a great deal of ridicule without much malice; and have received a great deal of kindness, not quite free from ridicule. I am used to it."

Perhaps the most mysterious aspect of this riddlesome man was just how he managed, somewhere along the way, to turn himself into one of the best prose writers America has produced. Lincoln united the North behind him with an eloquence so timeless that his words remain fresh no matter how many times you read them. Darwin wrote one of the few scientific treatises, maybe the only one, worth reading as a work of literature. Both of them demand to be read in the original, not in paraphrase, because both men are so much in their prose. To read them is to know these elusive figures a little better. Given their influence on our lives, these are men you want to know.

Darwin seems to have been able to think only with a pen in his hand. He was a compulsive note taker and list maker. He made an extensive list setting down the pros and cons of marriage before he proposed to his future wife. His first published work, "The Voyage of the Beagle," is a tidied-up version of the log he kept on the five-year trip around the world, and he is unflaggingly meticulous in his observations of the plant and animal life he saw or collected along the way. To live, for Darwin, meant looking and examining and then writing down what he saw and then trying to make sense of it.

In the Beagle log and his journals, Darwin is something like a cub reporter, asking questions, taking notes, delighting in the varieties of life he discovers, both alive and in the fossil record, in South America, Australia or the Cape Verde Islands. With Darwin there is no Eureka moment when he suddenly discovers evolution. But by the time he left the Beagle in 1836, he was plainly becoming convinced that, contrary to the prevailing wisdom, life is not static—species change and evolve. Shortly before the voyage was over, he mulled over what he had seen on the Galápagos: "When I see these islands in sight of each other, and possessed of but a scanty stock of animals, tenanted by these birds, but slightly differing in structure and filling the same place in Nature, I must suspect they are only varieties … If there is the slightest foundation for these remarks the zoology of the [Galápagos] will be well worth examining; for such facts would undermine the stability of Species." What he did not have was a controlling mechanism for this process. It was not until two years later that he conceived the idea of natural selection, after reading economist Thomas Malthus on the competition for resources among humans brought on by the inexorable demands of overpopulation. There he had it: a theory of everything that actually worked. Species evolve and the ones best adapted to their environment thrive and leave more offspring, crowding out the rest.

As delighted as he was with his discovery, Darwin was equally horrified, because he understood the consequences of his theory. Mankind was no longer the culmination of life but merely part of it; creation was mechanistic and purposeless. In a letter to a fellow scientist, Darwin wrote that confiding his theory was "like confessing a murder." Small wonder that instead of rushing to publish his theory, he sat on it—for 20 years. He started a series of notebooks in which he began refining his theory, recording the results of his research in fields as disparate as animal husbandry and barnacles. Over the next five or six years, he went through notebook after notebook, including one in which he began to pose metaphysical questions arising from his research. Do animals have consciences? Where does the idea of God come from?

This questioning spirit is one of the most appealing facets of Darwin's character, particularly where it finds its way into his published work. Reading The Origin of Species, you feel as though he is addressing you as an equal. He is never autocratic, never bullying. Instead, he is always willing to admit what he does not know or understand, and when he poses a question, he is never rhetorical. He seems genuinely to want to know the answer. He's also a good salesman. He knows that what he has to say will not only be troubling for a general reader to take but difficult to understand—so he works very hard not to lose his customer. The book opens not with theory but in the humblest place imaginable: the barnyard, as Darwin introduces us to the idea of species variation in a way we, or certainly his 19th-century audience, will easily grasp—the breeding of domestic animals. The quality of Darwin's mind is in evidence everywhere in this book, but so is his character—generous, open-minded and always respectful of those who he knew would disagree with him, as you might expect of a man who was, after all, married to a creationist.

Like Darwin, Lincoln was a compulsive scribbler, forever jotting down phrases, notes and ideas on scraps of paper, then squirreling the notes away in a coat pocket, a desk drawer—or sometimes his hat—where they would collect until he found a use for them in a letter, a speech or a document. He was also a compulsive reviser. He knew that words heard are not the same as words read. After delivering his emotional farewell speech in Springfield, Ill., in 1861, he boarded the train for Washington and, if the shakiness of his handwriting is any indication, immediately began revising his remarks prior to publication.

The Gettysburg Address apparently gestated in a somewhat similar fashion. The winter and spring of 1863 were one of the lowest points for the Union. In the West, Grant was bogged down in his protracted siege of Vicksburg. In the East, the South won decisively at Chancellorsville. Since the Emancipation Proclamation had been issued on Jan. 1, people in the North were wondering aloud just what it was they were fighting for. Was it to preserve the Union, or was it to abolish slavery? Lincoln was keenly aware that he needed to clarify the issue. The Northern victory at Gettysburg in early July gave him the occasion he was seeking.

Some witnesses at Gettysburg claimed to recall applause during the speech, but most did not, and Lincoln was already taking his seat before many in the audience realized he had finished. This was a time when speeches could last for four hours. Edward Everett, who preceded the president on the program, had confined his remarks to two hours. Lincoln said what he had to say in two minutes. Brevity is only one of the several noteworthy aspects of what is surely one of the greatest speeches ever made. Of much greater importance are what the president said and how he said it.

With his first 29 words, Lincoln accomplished what he had come to Gettysburg to do—he defined the purpose of the war for the Union: "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." He could have put this sentence in the form of an argument—the equality of all men was one of the things the war was about. Instead, he states his argument as fact: the nation was founded on the principle of equality; this is what we fight to preserve. There is a hint of qualification—but only a hint—in the word proposition: equality is not a self-evident truth; it is what we believe in. In the next paragraph, he continues this idea of contingency: "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure." In other words, republican democracy hangs in the balance. Before the speech, none of this was taken for granted, even in the North. In 272 words, he defined the national principle so thoroughly that today no one would think of arguing otherwise.

Lincoln's political genius stood on two pillars: he possessed an uncanny awareness of what could be done at any given moment, and he had the ability to change his mind, to adapt to circumstances, to grow. This is Lincoln in 1838, addressing the Springfield Young Men's Lyceum on a citizen's obligations to the legal system with such lines as, "Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap." Here he is not quite 30 years later in the Second Inaugural of 1865 (there's a mother and child in this one, too, but what a difference): "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just, and a lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations."

This is the language of the Bible, and if the rhetoric does not convince us of that, Lincoln mentions God six times in one paragraph. But what kind of God? Lincoln's religious history is perhaps the most tangled aspect of his life. His law partner, William Herndon, swore Lincoln was an atheist, and to be sure, there are plenty of boilerplate references to the Almighty scattered through Lincoln's speeches. But as the war wears on, and the speeches grow more spiritual, they become less conventional. Lincoln was a believer, but it is hard to say just what he believed. He speaks often of the will of God, but just as often adamantly refuses to decipher God's purpose. And he never, ever claims that God is on his side.

The God of the Second Inaugural is utterly inscrutable: "The Almighty has His own purposes." One of those purposes, Lincoln then suggests, may be to punish both North and South for permitting the offense of slavery. Then he delivers what biographer David Herbert Donald has called "one of the most terrible statements ever made by an American public official": "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether'." It is here, just when he has brought his audience to the edge of the cliff, that Lincoln spins on his heel in one of the great rhetorical 180s of all time and concludes, "With malice toward none; with charity for all …" Even today, reading that conclusion after what's come before is like coming out of a tunnel into bright sunshine—or out of a war that claimed more than 600,000 lives. Lincoln understood that language could heal, and he knew when to use it.

Lincoln, no less than Mark Twain, forged what we think of today as the American style: forthright, rhythmic, muscular, beautiful but never pretty. As Douglas L. Wilson observes in Lincoln's Sword, his brilliant analysis of the president's writing, Lincoln was political, not literary, but he was, every bit as much as Melville or Thoreau, "perfecting a prose that expressed a uniquely American way of apprehending and ordering experience." What Lincoln says and how he says it are one. You cannot imagine the Gettysburg Address or the Second Inaugural in words other than those in which they are conveyed.

Lincoln and Darwin were both revolutionaries, in the sense that both men upended realities that prevailed when they were born. They seem—and sound—modern to us, because the world they left behind them is more or less the one we still live in. So, considering the joint magnitude of their contributions—and the coincidence of their conjoined birthdays—it is hard not to wonder: who was the greater man? It's an apples-and-oranges—or Superman-vs.-Santa—comparison. But if you limit the question to influence, it bears pondering, all the more if you turn the question around and ask, what might have happened if one of these men had not been born? Very quickly the balance tips in Lincoln's favor. As much of a bombshell as Darwin detonated, and as great as his book on evolution is (E. O. Wilson calls it "the greatest scientific book of all time"), it does no harm to remember that he hurried to publish The Origin of Species because he thought he was about to be scooped by his fellow naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, who had independently come up with much the same idea of evolution through natural selection. In other words, there was a certain inevitability to Darwin's theory. Ideas about evolution surfaced throughout the first part of the 19th century, and while none of them was as cogent as Darwin's—until Wallace came along—it was not as though he was the only man who had the idea.

Lincoln, in contrast, is sui generis. Take him out of the picture, and there is no telling what might have happened to the country. True, his election to the presidency did provoke secession and, in turn, the war itself, but that war seems inevitable—not a question of if but when. Once in office, he becomes the indispensable man. As James McPherson demonstrates so well in the forthcoming Tried by War: Abraham Lincoln as Commander in Chief, Lincoln's prosecution of the war was crucial to the North's success—before Grant came to the rescue, Lincoln was his own best general. Certainly we know what happened once he was assassinated: Reconstruction was administered punitively and then abandoned, leaving the issue of racial equality to dangle for another century. But here again, what Lincoln said and wrote matters as much as what he did. He framed the conflict in language that united the North—and inspires us still. If anything, with the passage of time, he only looms larger—more impressive, and also more mysterious. Other presidents, even the great ones, submit to analysis. Lincoln forever remains just beyond our grasp—though not for want of trying: it has been estimated that more books have been written about him than any other human being except Jesus.

If Darwin were not so irreplaceable as Lincoln, that should not gainsay his accomplishment. No one could have formulated his theory any more elegantly—or anguished more over its implications. Like Lincoln, Darwin was brave. He risked his health and his reputation to advance the idea that we are not over nature but a part of it. Lincoln prosecuted a war—and became its ultimate casualty—to ensure that no man should have dominion over another. Their identical birthdays afford us a superb opportunity to observe these men in the shared context of their time—how each was shaped by his circumstances, how each reacted to the beliefs that steered the world into which he was born and ultimately how each reshaped his corner of that world and left it irrevocably changed.

Answer: Lincoln

[Malcolm Jones is Newsweek's arts editor.]

Copyright © 2008 Newsweek, Inc.


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Catch Me (& My Phrase) If You Can

Should "Fair & Balanced" be "thrown under the bus"? I would rather "cowboy up" than "man up" when confronted with a personal problem. I would rather "say what I mean and mean what I say" than "drink the Kool-Aid" or "jump the shark." I like to think that I am "simply en fuego" when I post to this blog. I would rather have "a knife in my brain" than have "a sharp stick poked in my eye." I guess this blog is doomed to "Catch" on too late, dude. If this is (fair & balanced) logorrhea, so be it.

[x Slate]
Notes on Catch: Which Catchphrases Should Be "Thrown Under The Bus"?
By Ron Rosenbaum

When Susan Sontag wrote "Notes on 'Camp' " back in 1964, she was foregrounding—to use a current catchphrase—something familiar but not yet defined.

"Many things in the world have not been named," her famous essay began, "and many things even if they have been named, have never been described. One of these is the sensibility—unmistakably modern, a variant of sophistication but hardly identical with it—that goes by the cult name of 'Camp.'"

I would choose nearly identical words to describe the phenomenon, the linguistic sensibility, that I'd name "catch": the way our language has become increasingly dominated by rapidly cycling catchphrases. Rapidly cycling because in blogospheric time, they speed from clever witticism to tired cliché in the virtual blink of an eye.

Look how long it took "jump the shark" to jump the shark. But "under the bus"—as in, "throwing someone under the bus"—got old from overuse in a matter of weeks.

I present these "Notes on Catch" in a Sontagian spirit: My thoughts thus far are preliminary, fragmentary, and digressive (some might say disjointed). I'm hunting for clues as to what makes a catchphrase catch on and which ones deserve to be cast aside. And I'd like to make distinctions among the welter of catchphrases in use today, to identify variations and to distinguish the ones that still have some life in them from those that are "past their sell-by date," as the catchphrase has it, and need to be thrown under the bus along with "thrown under the bus."

I'm interested in catchphrases because I think a case can be made that our language has become more catchphrase-driven, catchphrase-focused. So much so that catchphrase self-consciousness has become a phenomenon of its own.

In fact what prompted this essay was the convergence of three instances of catchphrase self-consciousness I came upon on a single day: Friday, June 20, 2008.

First, the estimable A.O. Scott in the New York Times noted that Mike Myers' talent for catchphrases is not in evidence in "Love Guru" the way it was in the undoubted classic "Wayne's World," which immortalized (if it didn't originate) "Party on." (Fave variation: "The party is now." Someone actually gave me a T-shirt with that on it, perhaps as a subtle hint to lighten up, but I think the phrase takes "Party on" to a whole new level of philosophical complexity if you think about it. It says: Don't wait for the party, or at least not for any particular party; the party—the best party you've ever been invited to—is the now, is "everything that is the case" as the philosopher Wittgenstein, a notorious party person, put it.)

Then there was a Gawker item that mentioned Tim Gunn's appealing "Project Runway" catchphrase "Make it work," which I hadn't been aware of but, belatedly, really like; it says a lot more than it seems to say. (Take-home test: Compare and contrast "Make it work" with "Fake it till you make it.")

Then, in the Times on the same day, David Brooks engaged in an emblematic struggle with catchphrase obsolescence. At least that's what I think it was. In a column on Obama's alleged Machiavellianism, Brooks used variations on "throw X under the truck" no fewer than six times! Was this a deliberate attempt to say, in effect: I know—as he must know, right?—that "throw X under the bus" has been painfully overused, so I'm making a joke about its overuse by switching "under the bus" to "under the truck." After all, they're both large motor vehicles, right? Except that a distinction is being lost. The admittedly overused "bus" carries with it the suggestion that the person thrown under it was originally on the bus, with the people doing the throwing, making it all the more stinging a rejection. Most trucks carry cargo, not passengers.

Why use the phrase, even a variant of it, at all? Well, the overuse of "under the bus" began with conservative blogs using the phrase (unfairly, I think) to describe the way Obama, in his Philadelphia speech on race, spoke about his white grandmother's occasional use of racial slurs. The resulting meme? He "threw his grandmother under the bus." The phrase recalls other transportation-related terms of abandonment, such as "threw her off the sled" (i.e., threw her to the wolves) and conjures up dim pop-culture memories of the Danny DeVito movie, "Throw Momma From the Train," I guess.

By changing "bus" to "truck," Brooks seemed to be trying to have it both ways: acknowledging the obsolescence of "under the bus"' while still attempting to reap the (now rather devalued) currency of the phrase. Or perhaps he was simply attempting what Henry Watson Fowler disapprovingly called, in his usage manual, an "elegant variation." Was it worth the trouble? Did he "Make it work"? Am I overthinking this?

But the whole phenomenon is worth thinking about more closely, because of the way catchphrases can become—through clever compression that verges on, or amounts to, distortion—political weapons. And the way the rapid cycling of catchphrases can confuse what is really being said or meant, obscure what stage, what flavor of irony is being employed.

It is possible to think of catchphrase use in stages. There's Stage 1, when you first hear a phrase and take pleasure in its imaginative use of language on the literal and metaphorical level. This may not be the most beguiling example, but consider "throw up a little in my mouth." I'm still kind of attached to it.

Then there's Stage 2, when you use it to establish "street cred" (time to throw "street cred" under the catchphrase bus?) or convey a sense of being au courant.

Then there's Stage 3, when the user acknowledges a phrase's over-ness and tries to extract some final mileage out of it by gently mocking it, usually by using ironic quotes, or adding "as they say" to the end.

Finally, there's Stage 4: terminal obsolence, dead phrase walking. Take "at the end of the day." It kind of stuns me whenever I find someone still saying "at the end of the day" with a straight face. What are they, stuck on stupid, as they say?

And then there's the danger that arises when Stage-4, zombie catchphrases that have previously been confined to a subculture escape their niche. We recently saw this happen with "It is what it is," which used to be an all-purpose coach-speak sports-night cliché. But since then, it's broken out and become a wise-sounding but profoundly empty surrogate for wisdom and perspective all too often used by idiot consultants and talking-head political pundits who seek to make themselves sound both worldly and gurulike: "It is what it is." To which one wants to say, using a monosyllabic catchphrase that is a particular favorite of mine and deserves its longevity: "Duh."

But if "It is what it is" is over and "broken"—a favorite catchphrase of Mitt Romney, who argued that "Washington is broken" (duh)—what about "It's all good"? This one belongs in the faux-mystical category I'd call BSBS: Buddhist Sounding Bullshit. I admit I still have a shameful fondness for "It's all good," although now mainly ironically. (Does anyone recall that "It's all good" can be traced back to a Hammer song circa 1994? The year of the Rwandan genocide. But, hey, "It's all good.")

At least "It is what it is" doesn't suggest that the is-ness in question is good or bad; it's just that you can't argue it doesn't exist. Is "It is what it is" pop existentialism, at once an acknowledgement of the tragic immutability of being and a challenge to us to "take arms against a sea of troubles," as some well-known guy once said? Or is it an Eastern quietism, a rationale for resignation?

A lasting catchphrase often earns its longevity because it has some philosophical question buried in it that hooks us. "It is what it is" is something I struggle with: How much should I accept in an "It's all good" way? Much of the time I'd much prefer if "it" isn't what "it" is. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. As they say.

And what about "not so much"? As in, I really admire Sontag's essays. Her novels, not so much. Has that moved from Stage 2 to Stage 3 or even the dreaded terminal Stage 4? I still like "not so much." Not as much now. But I liked "not so much" when I first began to come across it. And it still works for me if used skillfully.

In fact, about six months ago, I became slightly obsessed with "not so much"—so much so that at one point, I asked readers of my blog to see whether they could trace its earliest use. I was pleased when one commenter cited some research by my friend Jesse Sheidlower, the American editor of the Oxford English Dictionary and a witty writer on language, who weighed in with a 2004 citation that read, "A romantic thriller? Interesting. Starring Josh Hartnett? Not so much."

But then another commenter claimed that "not so much" had been used on the sitcom "Mad About You," which ran seven years starting in 1992. Anyone else have an earlier "not so much" sighting? I don't see it as likely to have been in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, but you never know.

And what does the success of "My bad" mean? It's brilliant in its way. I know I've been seduced by the way it infantilizes and trivializes whatever it ostensibly, forthcomingly apologizes for. Cheap absolution. (Check out Paul Slansky's great work of humor and moral outrage My Bad for hilarious examples of people finding the stupidest most self-incriminating ways possible to say, "My bad.") The culture of offense and incorrectness had created a counterculture of "My bad" bad apologetics.

"The optics"—as they say—don't look "all good" for the future of "My bad" (and "the metrics"—as they also say—probably don't, either), but I think it's still in Stage 3: a usable gray area.

Another blogospheric favorite that occupies that gray area: "Oh, wait ..." Proper usage: Something obviously wrong is attributed to an opponent and then a mocking "Oh, wait ..." is appended.

I like it and haven't gotten tired of Slate's Mickey Kaus using it (did he originate it?), but I feel as if I can't use it myself because it's one of those catchphrases that seems already to belong to other bloggers—branded, if you will. (Which brings up an issue for another day: Is using catchphases at all, if not plagiarism, then secondhand or second-level—or second-rate?—thinking and writing? Or is it just enjoyable swimming in the communal pool of culture?)

Then there's the whole category of commercial phrases that cross over into common speech. I promise not to mention the over-obvious "Where's the beef?" Oh, wait ...

More recently, we've seen the variations on "What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas," apparently destined for the Catchphrase Hall of Fame, as my friend Jaime Danehay pointed out to me. She found a scholarly blog that noted more than 100,000 variations on it. Why that phrase? Because it's a variation on "My bad," isn't it? The demand for clever-sounding ways of excusing bad behavior is as infinite as our capacity for bad behavior. As Mike Myers used to say: "Behave!"

To my mind the most unfortunate recent catchphrase is also the title of the new public-radio show: "The Takeaway." Excellent show from what I can tell, but that title! So Dilbert! So Seven Habits of Highly Effective People. So sales-boosting seminar at the airport Marriott.

Really, if you "drill down," to use another corporatism, there's something kind of industrially extractive about "takeaway," isn't there? The impulse to reduce everything to a PowerPoint action item? All the most interesting things in life are the things you can't extract and "take away."

Please don't try to defend it, public-radio people. Please just take it away.

Then there's the case of "teh." I'm sure Susan Sontag would have a "note" on "teh." I'm sure there will be academic studies on it if there aren't already. (Just as there has been a proliferation of academic studies of "dude," a subject I first wrote about in 2003.)

"Teh" is unique because it's such a purely blogospheric phenomenon. "Teh"—the deliberate misspelling of "the"—already has … wait for it (as they say) … its own Wikipedia entry. Its meaning, though, is still fluid and fungible. But there's something appealing about it as a specifier with more character than plain old "the." It has a kind of self-deprecating delicacy to it. "Teh" calls attention to a word in a subtly more tentative way than just "a" or "the" does. It's the third specifier. It's a little fey, a little twee, a little "teh" goes a long "weh," you might "seh." But I wouldn't vote it off the island, so to speak.

I don't mean this to be an exhaustive study, just notes. But I hope that it will start a conversation about how to decide when a phrase should be thrown under the bus.

Here are some I'm on the bubble about, as they say, because they have some virtues that make up for the feeling they've been overused. Or maybe there's a good reason they get overused. I'd be interested to see which ones Slate readers would want to preserve or make disappear. Gawker has "commenter executions." I'd like to see occasional Slate "Phrase Purges," "Bus Tosses," or something like that, so we can identify at what points a phrase goes from buzz to buzzkill (as "buzzkill" is due to) and from buzzkill to roadkill (which still rocks). (By the way, what about the formulation "X rocks a retro '90s look"? Roadkill?)

So, thumbs up or thumbs down:

stay classy
up in your grill
overshare
tell us something we don't know
man up
go-to
drinking the Kool-Aid
mad props

I still like "mad props." I'm a sucker for anything with "mad" in it, basically. It's a great praise word. And "stay classy" still feels new and still performs a useful function. I'm on the bubble on "drank the Kool-Aid," which has been used unfairly on Obama supporters by those who bought the Clinton talking points, but you've got to respect that it's been around for a quarter-century now and still has "punch," so to speak. Mass cult suicide will do that for ya. But, seriously, "Kool-Aid" must speak to an enduring concern: lemminglike destructive cult behavior, an unfortunately recurrent, if not always deadly, cultural phenomenon. As for the others: under the bus.

Finally, "Dude." Sorry, guys, but the whole "Lebowski" cult just killed it with its heavy-handed attempt at lightheartedness by geek dudes who—how shall I put this delicately?—don't do lighthearted well. Sorry dude geeks: I now pronounce "Dude" over.

[Ron Rosenbaum grew up in Bay Shore, New York. He graduated from Yale University in 1968 and won a Carnegie Fellowship to attend Yale's graduate program in English Literature, though he dropped out after taking one course. He wrote for the The Village Voice for several years, leaving in 1975 after which he wrote for Esquire, Harper's, High Times, Vanity Fair, and New York Times Magazine. Ron Rosenbaum is the author of The Shakespeare Wars (2006) and Explaining Hitler (1998).]

Copyright © 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Saturday, June 28, 2008

The Great Equalizer Of '08

Poor John Kerry was done in by the Swift Boaters and Turd Blossom. Poor Michael Dukakis was done in by the Willie Horton ads and Lee Atwater. In 2008 will The Geezer be done in by a bunch of YouTube outlaws and 64-year-old Robert Greenwald? If this is the (fair & balanced) future of campaign media, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
Political Freelancers Use Web to Join The Attack
By Jim Rutenberg

The video blasted across the Internet, drawing political blood from Senator John McCain within a matter of days.

Produced here in a cluttered former motel behind the Sony Pictures lot, it juxtaposed harsh statements about Islam made by the Rev. Rod Parsley with statements from Mr. McCain praising Mr. Parsley, a conservative evangelical leader. The montage won notice on network newscasts this spring and ultimately helped lead Mr. McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee, to reject Mr. Parsley’s earlier endorsement.

In previous elections, an attack like that would have come from party operatives, campaign researchers or the professional political hit men who orbit around them.

But in the 2008 race, the first in which campaigns are feeling the full force of the changes wrought by the Web, the most attention-grabbing attacks are increasingly coming from people outside the political world. In some cases they are amateurs operating with nothing but passion, a computer and a YouTube account, in other cases sophisticated media types with more elaborate resources but no campaign experience.

So it was with the Parsley video, which was the work of a 64-year-old film director, Robert Greenwald, and his small band of 20-something assistants. Once best known for films like “Xanadu” (with Olivia Newton-John) and the television movie “The Burning Bed” (with Farrah Fawcett), Mr. Greenwald shows how technology has dispersed the power to shape campaign narratives, potentially upending the way American presidential campaigns are fought.

Mr. Greenwald’s McCain videos, most of which portray the senator as contradicting himself in different settings, have been viewed more than five million times — more than Mr. McCain’s own campaign videos have been downloaded on YouTube.

“If you had told me we would have hit one million, I would have told you you were crazy,” said Mr. Greenwald, who said he had no ties to the Democratic Party or Senator Barack Obama’s campaign.

Four years ago, the Internet was a Wild West that caused the occasional headache for the campaigns but for the most part remained segregated from them. This year, the development of cheap new editing programs and fast video distribution through sites like YouTube has broken down the barriers, empowering a new generation of largely unregulated political warriors who can affect the campaign dialogue faster and with more impact than the traditional opposition research shops.

Already there are signs that these less formal and more individual efforts are filling a vacuum created by a decline in activity among the independent advocacy groups — so-called 527s and similar operations — that have played a large role in negative politics in the last several election cycles. Especially on the conservative side, independent groups have reported trouble raising money, and some of the biggest players from 2004 have signaled that they will sit it out this time around.

The shift has by no means gone unnoticed by the campaigns. And while strategists in both parties suspect that traditional political operatives affiliated with the campaigns or parties frequently pose as independent grassroots participants by hiding behind anonymous Web identities, few have been caught this year.

The change has added to the frenetic pace of the campaign this year. “It’s politics at the speed of Internet,” said Dan Carol, a strategist for Mr. Obama who was one of the young bulls on Bill Clinton’s vaunted rapid response team in 1992. “There’s just a lot of people who at a very low cost can do this stuff and don’t need a memo from HQ.”

That would seem to apply to people like Robert Anderson, a professor at Elon University in North Carolina whose modest YouTube site features videos flattering to Mr. Obama and unflattering to Mr. McCain, or Paul Villarreal, who from his apartment in Wilkes-Barre, Pa., has produced a harsh series of spots that attack Mr. Obama and make some claims that have been widely debunked.

Counting the audience for such videos can be tricky, as sites like YouTube list only the number of times they have been viewed, not the number of people who view them. That said, according to YouTube, Mr. Villarreal’s video was viewed about 50,000 times. And it cost him just $100 to produce, for software, he said. He said he had no connection to the Republican Party or the McCain campaign, though he said he had reached out to them and not heard back.

The better-circulated political videos have generally come from people with some production experience. One of the most widely seen anti-Obama videos was created by Jason Mitchell, who produces evangelical Christian programming in Durham, N.C.

A conservative-leaning version of YouTube called Eyeblast.tv has recorded millions of hits on the video. But as is often the case with such videos, how many of the viewers come to sneer rather than applaud is hard to tell.

“Four years ago I would just be a ‘political activist,’ ” Mr. Mitchell said. “Now, they call me a ‘communications political strategist,’ and that’s only because of the Internet.”

Mr. Mitchell, 29, said his cash expenses to make and distribute the segment were about $50, a fraction of the roughly $100,000 that it would cost to broadcast a 30-second spot on a television news program with an audience of a few million, like “Meet the Press.” “That’s dirt cheap for an ad,” Mr. Mitchell said.

Mr. Mitchell said he was motivated by what he said were deep-rooted misgivings about Mr. Obama on social issues, his level of experience and background. But it is unlikely any television station would have accepted the video if he had tried to run it.

The segment’s announcer notes that Mr. Obama’s father was Muslim, asserts that the candidate attended a Muslim grammar school in Indonesia for two years, and asks, “When we are at war with Islamic terrorism, can Americans elect a man with not one, not two, but three Islamic names?” One onscreen image shows Mr. Obama’s face morphed with that of Osama bin Laden.

Mr. Mitchell says he sticks close to the factual record, but the video has been widely criticized as over the line. Mr. Obama is a Christian. The school he attended in Indonesia was secular.

Three weeks ago, the Obama campaign started a Web site called “Fight the Smears” to, among other things, debunk portrayals of Mr. Obama as Muslim. It allows its users to e-mail the information easily to friends.

“What we’re really trying to do is knock down important things that are wrong, which also diminishes the power of the next set of rumors,” said Mr. Carol, the Obama aide.

With Web-based attacks proliferating, campaigns are leaving behind the assumption that to respond to highly negative or false accusations is to needlessly publicize them. “It poses a more complicated version of the age-old dilemma that campaigns always find themselves in,” said Phil Singer, who was the press secretary for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign. “Do you address something head on and risk making it a mainstream phenomenon? Or ignore it and risk allowing it to take on a life of its own?”

The presidential campaign of former Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts developed an effective if labor intensive technique. It flooded YouTube with positive videos of Mr. Romney. “The new model of response is to dominate the market share of information about your candidate,” said Kevin Madden, Mr. Romney’s former press secretary.

Several Republican communications strategists, speaking on condition of anonymity, said that was precisely what Mr. McCain might have to do. He is coming under harsh attack on YouTube in videos that, some Republicans say, take his words out of context. A simple search of his name automatically produces several negative videos. Mr. Greenwald, whose shop is responsible for many of them, said he was determined to keep it that way.

With a budget of $900,000 from donations, Mr. Greenwald has built a mini-factory of anti-McCain propaganda at his firm, Brave New Films. He takes no payment for his efforts, which are regulated by laws governing nonprofit groups and include other subjects, like critiques of Fox News.

In a darkened room here, three young assistants edit digital images on equipment that barely takes up a full desk, trolling the Web for political news and culling through Mr. McCain’s past and present statements. A system of hard drives catalogs cable news.

Mr. Greenwald was not always so politically active. He gave money to politicians or groups sporadically, but was not among Hollywood’s elite donor class.

Mr. Greenwald said he had a political awakening after Sept. 11 and dedicated himself to making liberal films, an endeavor he said he could afford having been “lucky enough to have been majorly overpaid in commercial film and television relative to any rational measure.”

His highest impact has been with his video about Mr. Parsley. The montage was created with help from David Corn, Washington Bureau chief for Mother Jones, who unearthed video of Mr. Parsley inveighing against Islam and saying, “America was founded in part with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed.”

Mr. Greenwald’s team combined it with video of Mr. McCain calling Mr. Parsley, “one of the truly great leaders in America, a moral compass, a spiritual guide.” The montage spread quickly across liberal Web sites, and made its way onto ABC News. Mr. McCain released a statement rejecting Mr. Parsley’s endorsement shortly thereafter.

“For years I sat in conversations with people who said the only way we can be effective is we have to raise $1 billion and buy CBS,” Mr. Greenwald said. “Well, Google raised a couple of billion and bought YouTube, and it’s here for us, and it’s a huge, huge difference.”

[After attending New York University, Jim Rutenberg joined the New York Daily News in 1993 as a gossip stringer, later becoming a general assignment reporter. Rutenberg was hired on staff in 1996 and became a transit beat reporter a year later. In 1999, he left the Daily News to go to the New York Observer, where he worked as a TV reporter. In 2000, Rutenberg moved over to The New York Times, where he covered media, and for the past several years he’s covered local politics, currently serving as City Hall Bureau Chief. Currently, Rutenberg reports on national politics at the Times.]


Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Lead, Follow, Or Get Out Of The Way, Madame Speaker

The earliest editorial cartoonist in my memory was Paul Conrad who skewered President Dwight Eisenhower in the Denver Fishwrap (afternoon version). Conrad portrayed Ike as an addled Mr. Clean; a bald guy with his eyes rattling around in his head. Conrad left Denver at about the same time as I did (1964). He moved on to the LA Fishwrap and won two additional Pulitzer Prizes. Conrad's a geezer-cartoonist now, but he hasn't lost his bite. Nor has he lost sight of the fact that the Idiot in Chief should be be removed from office through impeachment. Dennis the Menace (Kucinich) has tried to do the right thing, but another She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) — will have none of it. Rather than end our long national nightmare, Speaker Pelosi wants to keep The Dubster in office so that the Donkeys will be able to run against another Bush presidency even though the Dumbo candidate is The Geezer. If this is (fair & balanced) political cynicism, so be it.

[x Tribune Media Services]



[Paul Conrad started cartooning at the University of Iowa for the Daily Iowan. After receiving his B.A. in art in 1950, he worked for the Denver Post, where he spent 14 years before joining the Los Angeles Times.

Three-time Pulitzer Prize-winner Paul Conrad, one of the most distinguished political cartoonists in the world, was chief editorial cartoonist of the Los Angeles Times from 1964 to 1993. His trenchant political observations appear in newspapers nationwide and abroad, and are syndicated four times a week by Tribune Media Services.

In addition to three Pulitzers (1984, 1971 and 1964), Conrad has won two Overseas Press Club awards (1981 and 1970). In 1997, the Society of Professional Journalists/Sigma Delta Chi (SDX) honored him with his seventh Distinguished Service Award for Editorial Cartooning, making him the only journalist to win that many SDX awards in any category since the annual competition began in 1932 (he also won in 1988, 1982, 1981, 1971, 1969 and 1963).

Paul Conrad's favorite distinction: His 1973 inclusion on Richard Nixon's Enemies List.

Paul Conrad's favorite irony: Holding the Richard M. Nixon Chair at Whittier (Calif.) College (1977-78).]

Copyright © 2008 Paul Conrad


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Give The Dubster And His Gang Some Good Ol' Old Testament Justice!

Bob Herbert speaks truth to power, no matter where it resides: in Swisher County, Texas in the Texas Panhandle, a renegade undercover narc virtually fingered 15% of the African American population as drug dealers. The result, in 1999, was one of the most massive violations of civil and legal rights in this country's history. The travesty went on until Herbert blew the whistle in the NY Fishwrap. Not a single news source in the Texas Panhandle raised an eyebrow at the wholesale miscarriage of justice in Swisher County. Prompted by the outcry, the DOJ (Department of Justice) investigated and found a rotten mess in Tulia, TX. The result brought the reversal of the phony drug convictions and the perjury conviction of the narc and the dissolution of the Panhandle Drug Trafficking Task Force (a collection of Barney Fife-wannabes from the region's police and sheriff departments). The Swisher County DA was voted out of office in the following election. However, the voters of Swisher County were more outraged by the DA's DWI arrest than for the false arrest and imprisonment of 39 innocent African American neighbors. The victims of this monstrous miscarriage of justice have been compensated for their suffering to the tune of $5M from the State of Texas and the municipalities who furnished the Keystone Kops to the so-called Task Force. Governor Goodhair has issued pardons. Life has gone on in Swisher County, Texas.

Now, Bob Herbert has focused his hot gaze upon the tender mercies of the Bush (43) Administration. There is still time to indict and convict The Dubster, The Slickster, and all of their minions (including Black Addington and Wassamatta Yoo) for crimes against humanity. Lock 'em up and throw away the key (a favorite legal remedy among the Righties) and administer some of the "procedures" described by Bob Herbert to the bastards on a daily basis. If this is (fair & balanced) eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth, so be it.


[x NY Fishwrap]
All Too Human
By Bob Herbert

Thursday was the 21st anniversary of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.

It was also the same day that two Bush administration lawyers appeared before a House subcommittee to answer questions about their roles in providing the legal framework for harsh interrogation techniques that inevitably rose to the level of torture and shamed the U.S. before the rest of the world.

The lawyers, both former Justice Department officials, were David Addington, who is now Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, and John Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. There is no danger of either being enshrined as heroes in the history books of the future.

For most Americans, torture is something remote, abstract, reprehensible, but in the eyes of some, perhaps necessary — when the bomb is ticking, for example, or when interrogators are trying to get information from terrorists willing to kill Americans in huge numbers.

Reality offers something much different. We saw the hideous photos from Abu Ghraib. And now the Nobel Prize-winning organization Physicians for Human Rights has released a report, called “Broken Laws, Broken Lives,” that puts an appropriately horrifying face on a practice that is so fundamentally evil that it cannot co-exist with the idea of a just and humane society.

The report profiles 11 detainees who were tortured while in U.S. custody and then released — their lives ruined — without ever having been charged with a crime or told why they were detained. All of the prisoners were men, and all were badly beaten. One was sodomized with a broomstick, the report said, and forced by his interrogators to howl like a dog while a soldier urinated on him.

He fainted, the report said, “after a soldier stepped on his genitals.”

Officials at Physicians for Human Rights said extensive medical and psychological examinations were conducted — and in two cases prior medical records were consulted — to help corroborate the testimony of the detainees. The organization has a long and credible history of documenting such abuses.

Leonard Rubenstein, president of Physicians for Human Rights, said: “In doing the evaluations, we used international standards, medical assessments of torture and ill treatment, and meticulously assessed physical and psychological evidence of torture and ill treatment, and the long-term physical and mental health consequences.”

The most effective element of the report is the way in which it takes torture out of the realm of the abstract to show not just the horror and cruelty of the torture itself, but the way in which it absolutely devastates the body, soul and psyche of its victims.

The detainees profiled in the report were abused at facilities in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Three said they had been subjected to electric shocks. One said he was stabbed in the cheek with a screwdriver and hit in the head and in the jaw with a rifle.

In an example of how medical evidence was used to back up a detainee’s account, the report said scarring on one of the prisoner's thumbs “was highly consistent with the scarring caused by electric shock.”

In addition to the physical mistreatment, the detainees reported that various gruesome forms of humiliation, including sexual humiliation, were pervasive. They said men were paraded nude in front of female soldiers, forced to watch pornography, and forced to disrobe before female interrogators.

The sheer number of different ways in which detainees were reported to have been abused was mind-boggling. They were deprived of sleep, forced to endure extremes of heat and cold, chained in crouching positions for 18 to 20 hours at a time, told that their female relatives would be raped, that they themselves would be killed, and on and on. All to no good end.

The ostensible purpose of mistreating prisoners is to inflict pain and induce disorientation and despair, creating so much agony that the prisoners give up valuable intelligence in order to end the suffering. But torture is not an interrogation technique; it’s a criminal attack on a human being.

What the report makes clear is that once the green light is given to torture, the guaranteed result is an ever-widening landscape of broken bodies, ruined lives and profound shame to all involved.

Nearly all of the detainees profiled in the report have experienced excruciating psychological difficulties since being released. Several said that they had contemplated suicide. As one put it: “No sorrow can be compared to my torture experience in jail. That is the reason for my sadness.”

Congress and the public do not know nearly enough about the nation’s post-Sept. 11 interrogation practices. When something as foul as torture is on the table, there is a tendency to avert one’s eyes from the most painful truths.

It’s a tendency we should resist.

[Bob Herbert joined The New York Times as an Op-Ed columnist in 1993. His column comments on politics, urban affairs and social trends. Herbert received a B.S. degree in journalism from the State University of New York (Empire State College) in 1988. He has taught journalism at Brooklyn College and the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Friday, June 27, 2008

THE Question O'The Day: Where's The Outrage?

Q: How does The Dubster lie? A: When his lips are moving.

Wow, the Dumbos spent tens of millions trying to oust The Slickster on a morals charge. Sleazy as it was, The Slickster and The Intern were consenting adults and no one died because of The Slickster's dalliance in the White House. On the other hand, The Dubster has perjured himself tens of millions of times and he will ride off into the sunset so that the village of Crawford, Texas at last will have an idiot on fulltime duty. Where's the outrage over the waste of life and limb in Iraq and Afghanistan where Osama still roams free?

If this is the (fair & balanced) mystery of the day, so be it.


[x LA Fishwrap]
How Does President Bush Lie?
By Cy Bolton

In the face of overwhelming evidence, it’s astounding that people such as James Kirchick, in “,” continue to defend the president against accusations that he intentionally misled and outright lied to the American people in making the case for war with Iraq.

Consider first the implications of the famous Downing Street memo from July 23, 2002. Briefing Tony Blair about his recent talks with Washington, Britain’s top intelligence officer stated that U.S. “military action was now seen as inevitable. … But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

A month later, in August 2002, the administration set up the White House Iraq Group, designed solely to sell the public on the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In essence, it was a marketing campaign to sell the war by escalating the rhetoric and misleading the public. And lying.

And boy, did they. Here are statements from the administration in 2002 as they beat the drums for war. Dick Cheney said: “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use … against us.” Condoleezza Rice: “We do know that [Hussein] is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon.” Donald Rumsfeld: “[Hussein’s] regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of chemical weapons.”

These statements were designed to cultivate in Americans fear of Iraq’s imminent threat, the keystone of Bush’s push to war. They were grossly and intentionally misleading, suggesting that the administration possessed incontrovertible facts on which were drawn these definitive conclusions. In reality, the facts were known to be ambiguous at best. Absolutely no intelligence existed at the time that would allow anyone to reach such concrete conclusions.

And Bush advisors aren’t the only ones. His assertion on Oct. 7, 2002, that Iraq posed an imminent threat was beaten into the nation’s psyche: “Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof.” Yet the president possessed directly opposing information from the top-secret National Intelligence Estimate, released days earlier. Prepared by the CIA with input from 16 U.S. intelligence agencies: “Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional CBW [chemical and biological weapons] against the United States.”

The declassified summary of the NIE — released by the administration for public and media review shortly after the full report — was another lie in that it was grotesquely altered. The above point was not included. Also missing were several forceful statements from other intelligence agencies disputing the CIA’s horribly overblown and inaccurate assessments. Finally, in at least half a dozen instances, conclusions were altered to make Iraq’s threat more compelling. Language was added or omitted that changed CIA opinions to incontrovertible facts

Conclusion: The public document was rigged to support the push for war. The president intentionally misled the public. The intelligence and facts were fixed around the policy.

Another example is the now infamous nuclear reference from Bush’s 2003 State of the Union address: “Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Not only was this refuted twice in early 2002 — by former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV and by French intelligence — but the CIA’s National Intelligence Council investigated and told the White House four days before the address that “the Niger [Africa] story is baseless and should be laid to rest.” So the administration knew the claim was false, used it anyway and when caught, issued a collective “oops.” Although these speeches are vetted by Bush staffers, State, Defense, National Security and the CIA, it just slipped through. Riiiiight.

Two weeks before the war, the president echoed statements made in January’s State of the Union: “I’ve got a good evidence to believe that. [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass destruction,” and “Iraqi operatives continue to hide biological and chemical agents to avoid detection by inspectors.” Ah yes, the mobile labs. And your evidence was from whom, sir? Curveball? The now fully discredited Iraqi chemical engineer who defected in 1999 and claimed to have worked in the labs? In 2002, German intelligence — who debriefed Curveball — told the CIA that the guy was “crazy” and “a fabricator.”

Yet in his push for war, Bush chose to voice the Iraqi defector’s claims over proof offered by U.N. weapons inspectors who, with eyes and ears on the ground, represented the best possible intelligence. From November 2002 to March 2003, they were granted unprecedented freedom and conducted more than 700 no-notice inspections all over Iraq and found nothing. No mobile labs, no underground storage facilities, nothing. This should have been great news, but not for a president looking to go to war. Indeed, U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix flat out accused Bush and Blair of lying when he stated: “The Americans and British created facts where there were no facts at all. … The Americans needed [to find] weapons of mass destruction to justify war.” So Bush was creating facts to justify war.

If there remains any equivocation of Bush’s propensity to lie, consider the Jan. 31, 2003, meeting between Bush and Blair. In a summary, Blair foreign policy advisor David Manning wrote that there was tension between the two over finding some justification for the war. In fact, Bush was so concerned about the failure of the weapons inspectors to find WMD that the president floated three possible ways to “provoke a confrontation” with Hussein. So here’s your president very publicly using self-defense to sell a war while quite privately discussing how to provoke one — with an allegedly dangerous foe who poses an imminent threat. Either Bush lied or he put us at grave risk. Or both.

Space constraints don’t allow for a refutation of all the lies the president told about Iraq’s threat, their weapons and their link to Osama bin Laden. However, consider this final point: Our government spent nearly tens of millions of dollars to try to impeach a president for lying about consensual sex between two adults. Compare that to this abomination: George W. Bush knowingly lied to the American people in selling his case for a war that has directly led to the deaths of more than 4,000 Americans. They are deaths brought about by his lies, deceit and deception. It is an American atrocity of monumental proportion, followed closely by the heinous fact that no one has held him accountable. Where is the outrage?

[Cy Bolton is a former news anchor and military affairs reporter. His coverage of defense-related issues and conflicts in the Balkans and the Middle East has appeared on NBC Nightly News, MSNBC, CNN and affiliates across the country.]

Copyright © 2008 Los Angeles Times


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Another Pair Of Rats

In the alternate universe that Stephan Pastis, attorney-cum-cartoonist, has created in "Pearls Before Swine," the resident who serves as an attorney (as needed) for the denizens of "Pearls" is Rat. Pastis knows whereof he speaks. Two real-life Rats who think that waterboarding is akin to surfing and that torture is no big deal, are The Dickster's chief aide, David Addington, and a former Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo. This pair could open a partnership specializing in subverting the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. Waterboarding is too good for either of these creeps. If this is (fair & balanced) verminology, so be it.

[x Boulder (CO) Fishwrap]

Copyright © 2008 John Sherffius

David S. Addington is chief of staff and former legal counsel to Vice President Dick Cheney. He was appointed to replace I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby Jr. as Cheney's chief of staff upon Libby's resignation after being indicted on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice on October 28, 2005. Addington was described by U.S. News and World Report as "the most powerful man you've never heard of."

John Choon Yoo is a professor at the Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley. Yoo is known for his work from 2001 to 2003 in the United States Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, assisting Attorney General John Ashcroft in his function as legal advisor to President Bush and all the executive branch agencies. Yoo contributed to the PATRIOT Act and wrote memos in which he advocated the possible legality of torture and that enemy combatants could be denied protection under the Geneva Conventions.]

[John Sherffius has been capturing the issues of the day in pen and ink since his college years at the University of California, Los Angeles. Sherffius has been honored in recent years with national cartooning awards from the Robert F. Kennedy Foundation, the National Press Foundation, the Society of Professional Journalists and the Scripps Howard Foundation. He is the 2008 winner of the Herblock Award. His home paper is the Daily Camera in Boulder, Colorado.]


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

E.T. Has Outdone Kenny Boy!

Former Senator Phil Gramm (R-TX) bears an uncanny resemblance to E.T., Stephen Spielberg's lovable visitor from outer space. The uncanny similarity stops at the heartlight, though, because Senator Gramm doesn't have a heart, let alone one that glows through his chest. Senator Gramm received enormous campaign contributions from Enron while his wife, Wendy Gramm, served on the Enron Board of Directors up to the end of the Enron Corporation. After Enron went belly-up, Senator E.T./Gramm worked in behalf of the sub-prime mortgage industry and gained the loopholes for those sleazeballs that brought about an Enron-like collapse of the home mortgage industry. Now, thanks to Timothy Egan's curiosity about the skyrocketing price of gasoline, we learn that Senator E.T./Gramm was instrumental — before he left office (with the Enron money in his pocket) — in creating the "Enron loophole" that permits speculation in gasoline futures. Surprise, surprise, surprise. On top of that, Senator E.T./Gramm is The Geezer's top advisor on economic policy. If this is (fair & balanced) outrage, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
The Petro-Manipulators
By Timothy Egan

Anyone who lived on the West Coast during the phony energy crisis of 2000 and 2001 cannot help thinking of Texas and two of its worst products — Enron and a politician not named George Bush — as gas creeps up toward $5 a gallon this summer.

What happened during the great energy heist at the start of the new century was like an extended bad dream, part “Twilight Zone” and part “Chinatown,” the extraordinary 1974 film about water manipulation and long-buried secrets.

The price of energy spiked — tenfold, a hundredfold — despite low demand. Californians became the most efficient users of power in the nation, and still suffered through dozens of rolling blackouts. None of it added up.

And into the worst energy crisis since the Arab oil embargo of 1973 came Vice President Dick Cheney, blasting conservation as a sissy virtue and saying the nation needed to build a new power plant every week for the next 20 years.

The administration’s neglect was breathtaking, a harbinger of what was to come when a natural disaster, Hurricane Katrina, would do to Louisiana what a man-made disaster had done to California. We now know, of course, that the problem eight years ago was caused by manipulation by Enron and other speculators who gamed a faulty system, sticking it to Grandma Millie while laughing at how easy it was to rob 40 million people.

Now consider the present dilemma: oil doubling over the last year, gas at $4.50 a gallon in places and the oversized influence of speculators in a market where few used to tread. Big investors are free to run up oil futures contracts thanks in part to former Senator Phil Gramm. He is the Texas Republican who co-sponsored the so-called Enron loophole in 2000 at the behest of what was later found to be one of the nation’s biggest criminal enterprises.

Enron may be gone, but its legacy lingers in the work done by politicians who did its bidding. And Gramm, who once told corporate contributors, “I have the most reliable friend you can have in American politics, and that’s ready money,” is now the chief economic adviser to Senator John McCain.

Gramm’s role in helping to unleash energy speculators has been well-documented in recent months, and Senator Barack Obama has made an issue of it. Both Obama and McCain have called for closing the loophole. But just how big a role that kind of global gambling plays in the overheated commodities market is only now coming to light.

Testifying before the Senate on Wednesday, the ever-knowledgeable Daniel Yergin blamed speculation for part of the run-up. Yergin, an author and the chairman of Cambridge Energy Research Associates, pointed to numerous other causes, as have other experts.

But he also noted that 2007 may have been the peak year for oil demand in the United States. In other words, the world’s largest energy consumer has reached the height of its gluttony, and will be using less oil from here on out.

Keep that in mind when thinking of the parallel to California. Less demand from the biggest consumer, yet record high prices. Why? Yes, tight supply during the end stages of the 200-year reign of fossil fuels, higher use by China and India, and global troubles all contribute to the bloat of oil prices.

But market manipulation seems obvious.

Over the last five years, investment in index funds tied to commodities like energy and food has gone from $13 billion to $260 billion. At the same time, the prices of those commodities have risen 200 percent.

Take away the excess speculators who are in the market purely for the ride, and oil prices could drop by half. That’s the view of Michael W. Masters, a hedge fund manager who’s been advising Congress this year.

“There are no lines at the gas pumps and there is plenty of food on the shelves,” said Masters, whose testimony has been widely discussed in financial circles but rarely in the political realm. What has changed, he said, is the presence of big speculators making futures bets.

“If Wall Street concocted a scheme whereby investors bought large amounts of pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices in order to profit from the resulting increase in price, making these essential items unaffordable to sick and dying people, society would be justly outraged,” he said.

This testimony came before a committee chaired by Senator Joseph Lieberman, the former Democratic vice presidential candidate who is now one of John McCain’s biggest boosters. If you want to see the effects of McCain’s top financial adviser, look no further than the hearing run by McCain’s top ally in the Senate.

With five months to go, it looks like energy will dominate the presidential campaign. Nutty ideas will abound, from the gas tax holiday to $300 million prizes for wonder batteries.

And just as in California eight years ago, the oil industry’s most devoted politicians will use this troubled time to advance a tired agenda – more drilling for the last of the nation’s oil, in distant, fragile corners of the earth.

If nothing else, we should remember the lesson from that debacle: When something smells this bad, look for rotten fish as well.

[Timothy Egan worked for 18 years as a writer for The New York Times, first as the Pacific Northwest correspondent, then as a national enterprise reporter. In 2006, Egan won the National Book Award for his history of people who lived through the Dust Bowl, The Worst Hard Time. In 2001, he won the Pulitzer Prize as part of a team of reporters who wrote the series "How Race Is Lived in America." Mr. Egan is the author of five books, including The Good Rain: Across Time and Terrain in the Pacific Northwest," and Lasso the Wind, Away to the New West. Timothy Egan lives in Seattle, WA.]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Why We're Stupid?

In his riff on "Common Experiences," the late, great Geroge Carlin asked: "Did you ever look at your watch and then forget what time it is?" And, "Did you ever find yourself in a room and couldn't remember why you walked into that room?" Brain science now gives us "source amnesia" as an explanation. We don't remember how or where we learned something but we believe it with all of our little hearts. If this is (fair & balanced) cerebration, so be it.

[x NY Fishwrap]
Your Brain Lies To You
By Sam Wang and Sandra Aamodt

False beliefs are everywhere. Eighteen percent of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth, one poll has found. Thus it seems slightly less egregious that, according to another poll, 10 percent of us think that Senator Barack Obama, a Christian, is instead a Muslim. The Obama campaign has created a Web site to dispel misinformation. But this effort may be more difficult than it seems, thanks to the quirky way in which our brains store memories — and mislead us along the way.

The brain does not simply gather and stockpile information as a computer’s hard drive does. Facts are stored first in the hippocampus, a structure deep in the brain about the size and shape of a fat man’s curled pinkie finger. But the information does not rest there. Every time we recall it, our brain writes it down again, and during this re-storage, it is also reprocessed. In time, the fact is gradually transferred to the cerebral cortex and is separated from the context in which it was originally learned. For example, you know that the capital of California is Sacramento, but you probably don’t remember how you learned it.

This phenomenon, known as source amnesia, can also lead people to forget whether a statement is true. Even when a lie is presented with a disclaimer, people often later remember it as true.

With time, this misremembering only gets worse. A false statement from a noncredible source that is at first not believed can gain credibility during the months it takes to reprocess memories from short-term hippocampal storage to longer-term cortical storage. As the source is forgotten, the message and its implications gain strength. This could explain why, during the 2004 presidential campaign, it took some weeks for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth campaign against Senator John Kerry to have an effect on his standing in the polls.

Even if they do not understand the neuroscience behind source amnesia, campaign strategists can exploit it to spread misinformation. They know that if their message is initially memorable, its impression will persist long after it is debunked. In repeating a falsehood, someone may back it up with an opening line like “I think I read somewhere” or even with a reference to a specific source.

In one study, a group of Stanford students was exposed repeatedly to an unsubstantiated claim taken from a Web site that Coca-Cola is an effective paint thinner. Students who read the statement five times were nearly one-third more likely than those who read it only twice to attribute it to Consumer Reports (rather than The National Enquirer, their other choice), giving it a gloss of credibility.

Adding to this innate tendency to mold information we recall is the way our brains fit facts into established mental frameworks. We tend to remember news that accords with our worldview, and discount statements that contradict it.

In another Stanford study, 48 students, half of whom said they favored capital punishment and half of whom said they opposed it, were presented with two pieces of evidence, one supporting and one contradicting the claim that capital punishment deters crime. Both groups were more convinced by the evidence that supported their initial position.

Psychologists have suggested that legends propagate by striking an emotional chord. In the same way, ideas can spread by emotional selection, rather than by their factual merits, encouraging the persistence of falsehoods about Coke — or about a presidential candidate.

Journalists and campaign workers may think they are acting to counter misinformation by pointing out that it is not true. But by repeating a false rumor, they may inadvertently make it stronger. In its concerted effort to “stop the smears,” the Obama campaign may want to keep this in mind. Rather than emphasize that Mr. Obama is not a Muslim, for instance, it may be more effective to stress that he embraced Christianity as a young man.

Consumers of news, for their part, are prone to selectively accept and remember statements that reinforce beliefs they already hold. In a replication of the study of students’ impressions of evidence about the death penalty, researchers found that even when subjects were given a specific instruction to be objective, they were still inclined to reject evidence that disagreed with their beliefs.

In the same study, however, when subjects were asked to imagine their reaction if the evidence had pointed to the opposite conclusion, they were more open-minded to information that contradicted their beliefs. Apparently, it pays for consumers of controversial news to take a moment and consider that the opposite interpretation may be true.

In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes of the Supreme Court wrote that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” Holmes erroneously assumed that ideas are more likely to spread if they are honest. Our brains do not naturally obey this admirable dictum, but by better understanding the mechanisms of memory perhaps we can move closer to Holmes’s ideal.

[Sam Wang is an associate professor of molecular biology and neuroscience at Princeton University; he came to Princeton in 2000. Wang received a B.S. with honors in physics and the California Institute of Technology (1986) and a Ph.D.in neurosciences at Stanford University (1993). Sandra Aamodt, Ph.D., is a freelance science writer. From May 2003 to April 2008, she was the editor in chief of Nature Neuroscience, the leading scientific journal in the field of brain research. Before becoming an editor, she did her graduate work at the University of Rochester and was a postdoctoral researcher in neuroscience at Yale University. Wang and Aamodt are the authors of Welcome to Your Brain: Why You Lose Your Car Keys but Never Forget How to Drive and Other Puzzles of Everyday Life (2008).]

Copyright © 2008 The New York Times Company


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

The Dream Team: Barack & Bubba (Not The Slickster)!

No wonder Senator James Webb was insulted by The Dubster's arrogance in asking about Webb's "boy," serving in Iraq at the time. The Dubster is not fit to kiss Senator Webb's shoes (or the younger Webb's combat boots). Senator Webb's boxing record at the Naval Academy was besmirched by a loss to the likes of Oliver North (Webb's despised classmate), but Webb redeemed himself by working for the reelection of Senator Charles Robb to deny Oliver North a U.S. Senate seat. Then, Webb achieved an upset of another Dubster-wannabe when he defeated George Allen, Jr. for the U.S. Senate in 2006. Put The Dubster, Ollie, and Allen, Jr. in a bag and shake it. Reach in and pull out any of the three and you'd have a handful of loser. James Webb will very likely not be The Hopester's running mate. Webb is a man of principle and a man of strong beliefs. Webb does not turn with the prevailing wind. Also note that Webb, a warrior, urged diplomacy (without conditions) as a first response to Iran. James Webb was a real hero in Vietnam. The Geezer was shot down and captured in North Viet Nam because The Geezer disobeyed orders and flew at a lower altitude and was shot down by enemy missiles. Even worse, The Geezer's arrogance resulted in the death of The Geezer's wingman on that ill-fated mission. Give me James Webb over 10,000 Geezers. if this is (fair & balanced) appreciation of genuine heroism, so be it.

[x Rolling Stone]
Virginia Senator James Webb: Washington's Most Unlikely Revolutionary
By Jeff Sharlet

As night settles between the mountain ridges that rise on either side of Lebanon, Virginia, a rough little strip of a town in the state's southwestern corner, Sen. James Webb's people assemble in the Russell County Courthouse. They're coal miners and miners' wives, a third of them in the camouflage strike gear of the United Mine Workers, many of them wearing ball caps declaring them veterans of Korea, Vietnam or Iraq. A leather-skinned veteran named Eldridge tells me in a raspy whisper that he voted for Webb because Webb, a novelist and historian, had gotten these people, mountain people, right in his most recent book, a best-selling history of the Scots-Irish in America called Born Fighting. "We've got our own ghosts and goblins," Eldridge says, and he thinks Webb sees them. "He has the Second Sight."

Eldridge is the third person this evening to cite the supernatural — a kind of cultural memory, maybe — as a reason for supporting Webb, a fact that doesn't surprise Virginia's new Democratic senator. "My grandmother taught me my ghosts," he tells me, his voice a low, considered rumble.

The miners file into the courtroom, and Webb takes his place at the front, his hands in the pockets of his jeans. His natural expression is one of restrained anger, his ruddy face tucked into a bull neck as if to emphasize the glower of his foggy blue eyes. He's handsome like Jimmy Cagney, but with a jaw that would dent an anvil. For years he kept a punching bag close to his desk, and at sixty-one he still looks like he could, and gladly would, hold his own in a bar brawl. Earlier that day, he'd donned a headlamp for a quarter-mile descent into Laurel Mountain Deep Mine, and at the courthouse his neck is still gray with coal dust from his trip underground.

A local politico, ballooning out of a Kelly green blazer, asks the Russell County Democratic Committee to stand. Up rise the miners in their labor fatigues. "We're all claiming cousins with you now," says green blazer, and Webb blushes and smiles; three of his actual cousins, including a small-town big named Jimmy Webb, are in the crowd.

Webb's family — his "blood," he says — has lived in the hollows of Big Moccasin Gap, as the area is called, for more than 200 years, but Webb grew up on military bases all over the country. When he entered the U.S. Naval Academy in 1964, he listed thirty-three home addresses on his application. His father was an Air Force officer and a veteran of World War II; Webb was a Marine officer in Vietnam; and his son, Jimmy, is a Marine just returned from Iraq, where he fought in Ramadi. Last year Webb campaigned wearing a pair of Jimmy's combat boots to remind himself why he was running: to end the war. He refuses to talk to the public about his son. When asked about the boots, he'd say that was the wrong question: "It's not why I'm wearing the boots, it's why I'm wearing the necktie."

When he ran for public office, Webb didn't campaign on his military record, he simply offered himself as a fighter. In Fields of Fire, Webb's first novel and one of the best depictions of combat in Vietnam, the protagonist, Lt. Robert E. Lee Hodges, sums up his approach to confrontation: "I fight," the character declares, "because we have always fought. It doesn't matter who." In Vietnam, Webb became the most highly decorated Marine from his Naval Academy class: two Purple Hearts, two Bronze Stars, the Silver Star and the Navy Cross, second only to the Medal of Honor. He's enamored of what he calls the "warrior aristocracy" tradition of the Scots-Irish, and he made captain at age twenty-three, though he thinks of himself as an enlisted man — one soldier among many.

Webb loves war. He's been studying military history as long as he can read. He loves war so much he can't stand to see one bungled as badly as Bush has the one in Iraq. In place of a plan, Bush offers a posture; where there should have been a strategy, there was only ideology. That's what makes Webb so angry about Iraq. It's not a fight, it's a cause, either a wonk's dream or an oilman's conspiracy, depending on how worked up Webb is when you ask him. There's only the cause driving this stupidity into the sand, not the needs of a nation. It's the work of the elites Webb has always hated. "America's top tier . . . are literally living in a different country," Webb charges. "Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to war."

Just a few years ago, Webb described America's elites in terms that might be familiar to the fans of Fox News. Liberals were "cultural Marxists," and "the upper crust of academia and the pampered salons of Hollywood" were a fifth column waging war on American traditions. But Iraq has refocused his views. Now when he speaks of the elites he more often means "the military-industrial complex," and "the Cheney factor," the corporate chieftains he describes as the new robber barons. The war and the crimes of class -- sending Americans to Iraq and their jobs to China -- are becoming interwoven in his mind. Iraq has aligned his angers.

For years Webb worked for Republicans, a career that culminated in a stint as Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Navy. But when his old nemesis Oliver North, a Naval Academy classmate whom he has despised for decades, ran for Senate in 1994, Webb campaigned for Democrat Chuck Robb just to stop him, and he started identifying himself as an independent. For his own campaign in 2006, he billed himself as a Reagan Democrat. Barely a year later, he's a "Jacksonian Democrat," after Andrew Jackson — another man of war who went to Washington at the head of a populist crusade. His authorial "James" shortened now to a folksy "Jim," Captain Webb is marching leftward, and he's taking many of his old views with him: his dedication to military power, the chip he carries on his shoulder on behalf of the Southern white man he believes is the "whipping boy" for American racism, and most of all, the populism that hates both the Democratic and Republican upper classes.

In Lebanon, Webb starts his speech perfunctorily, talking about bipartisanship and finding common ground on the war, but then he seems to hear himself going Beltway. His voice jumps up a note; in creeps scorn for his own compromises. "This isn't about bipartisanship," he says. "It's not about Iraq." He glares around the room. "It's about 9,000 votes in Virginia." Fuck, yes, nod the miners and their wives. It's about the people who put Webb over the top by less than one half of one percent.

Webb shouldn't have won — he started with no money and no support, not even from the Democrats, who backed a telecommunications lobbyist named Harris Miller. He upset Miller in the primary only to face Republican Senator George Allen, then considered one of the front-runners for the 2008 presidential nomination. But he beat Allen, too, and the men and women in this room were the reason: Conventional wisdom held that Webb, as an anti-war Democrat, would take Northern Virginia and get slaughtered in the rest of the state. Webb did win the North, but he also won more of the Southern vote than anyone expected. They didn't elect Webb to compromise; they sent him to fight. Not for the Democratic Party, for them. Webb campaigned on two main themes, foreign policy and "economic fairness," a term he's still defining. To him it means an increased minimum wage, which the new Democratic Senate promptly passed; a commitment to health insurance for all, if not a plan to make it happen; the conviction that "free trade" is not "fair trade," even if he hasn't decided what constitutes the latter; and most of all, a simmering fury that CEOs make on average 400 times more than the typical worker.

"After 9/11," Webb tells the miners, "the old labels don't apply. The country is just a different place. And now we can remake the party system in these United States if we can get Reagan Democrats — or whatever you want to call 'em — if we can bring them back, we will remake politics. You don't measure the health of a society from the top down, but from the bottom up."

Before Born Fighting, Webb's books were animated by a critique of cultural snobbery, not capitalism. Then the war in Iraq revealed a new enemy to Webb: the system itself, the distortion of democracy that makes the poor fight wars from which only the wealthy benefit. "Class law," he calls it, is "a disguise that allowed certain privileges to flow to a few dominant groups at the expense of the many." The system, he concluded, needs to be turned upside down. "That's economic fairness," he tells the miners. "We have lost the formula. But this is the place, here in Virginia, this is the place where we are going to remake it."

It's time for questions. Several are about Iraq. One man has three sons in the Marines and worries about the health care they'll receive when — not if, in his mind — they are wounded. A mother with a son overseas wants to know if we're going to fight Iran. Another man's son's tour has been extended, which seems to him akin to the bullying the miners get from the coal companies.

"That's right," is the sum of Webb's answers. He wants more money for vets, and he's introduced a bill to stop Bush — or Hillary — from rushing into Iran without congressional approval, and he's fighting for a cap on deployments; beyond that, answers are lacking. Webb the novelist sees the problem: This story doesn't have a happy ending. But Webb the politician toes the Democratic line, declaring Iraq "solvable," as if it were a crossword, while Webb the warrior's plan for Iraq is diplomacy. He's been quietly meeting with Condoleezza Rice, he'll tell me later, urging talks with the Iranians. Meanwhile, the bodies are piling up, there and here: "We got people dying in the mines," says one woman. Dozens every year in preventable accidents and 1,500 every year of black lung, more than the annual U.S. death toll in Iraq. "That's right," says Webb again, and that seems to please the miners and their wives. They know they're right, but it's been a long time since a U.S. senator said so.

"We've got people in desperate need right here," announces one woman. "I'm talking about water." Towns like Lebanon used to get federal grants for basic services, but under Bush they're offered only loans. Their pipes are rusting, their kids are getting sick from dirty water. Another woman speaks up about oxygen concentrators, a crucial piece of medical equipment in coal country. The Bush administration slashed federal aid for the machines, says the woman, and people will die gasping for breath in their own beds. What will Webb do for them?

"I can look into that," he says, then checks himself. These are his people, and now "looking into that" will not be enough. This is the paradox Webb faces: He's been elected as an old-school populist in a two-party system that has little room for or interest in his crusade. And here are Webb's troops: Men in need of oxygen concentrators, women who can't pay their bills, miners in union-issue camouflage leaning hard on canes or on big, sturdy wives who pretend for their broken husbands' sakes that it's they who cling. The last big strike by the United Mine Workers is nearly two decades past, which was when they took up the faded fatigues that some of them are wearing tonight.

One of the strike's leaders is in the courtroom, a man named Jackie Stump. I ask if he thinks Webb will help the union push back against the bosses. He shrugs. He doesn't expect another big labor fight in his lifetime. The union won that strike — preserving health benefits for disabled miners — but lost the war, not on the picket line but in the courtrooms, where what Webb now calls "class law" crippled the union with fines in retribution for its revolt.

The mine into which Webb descended is one of the last three union coal operations in Virginia. The sons and daughters of Lebanon leave Russell County, some for Iraq, and at least one didn't come back: a former valedictorian and all-region defensive end from Lebanon High named Donald Ryan McGlothlin, who was killed November 16th, 2005, in Al-Anbar province. McGlothlin's father had already decided to support Webb's campaign when he learned that, like him, the candidate was wearing his son's combat boots in tribute. Ryan didn't believe in the war in Iraq, feeling the real war was to be fought in Afghanistan, but he felt a powerful duty to his mission.

"I would never vote for George Bush," he told his father, "but I'd take a bullet for him." Bush recruited the fallen Marine's memory for a speech "to scotch up support for the war," his father says. The family gave Bush's speechwriters their consent. "The person was not who you owed your loyalty to," McGlothlin says, recounting his son's view. "It was the leader in the abstract."

There is the war over there, and a different kind of war over here. What will happen in coal country, Jackie Stump predicts, is that the union will get weaker and weaker until someday some kids who've never heard of organized labor will look around at their working conditions and say to each other, 'We'd better get together and do something about this.' And when they do, the bosses will try to knock them down. "If they're hungry enough," says Stump, "they'll hit back."

That's why he likes Webb, he says. Webb understands the fight must continue, even if you're not sure what you're fighting for.

Democracy in Iraq, or clean water in Virginia?

Old men in jungle fatigues, or young soldiers in desert camouflage?

Body armor? Or oxygen machines?

In February of 2006, Webb called the Democratic political strategist Dave Saunders, and together they plotted to end the career of Senator George Allen, a handsome dunce in the model of George W. who stood to be re-elected by thirty-three points. The Democrats planned to run Harris Miller, an anti-labor lobbyist dedicated to outsourcing IT jobs overseas. Saunders, his drawl as deep and wide as his connections in the tough little Dixie towns where most Democrats fear to tread, persuaded Webb that he was the man to take out first Miller -- who outspent Webb three to one -- then Allen. Saunders, known as "Mudcat" throughout the state, has for years been working on rebuilding Democratic strength in the South through an alliance of African-Americans and the Southern white men he calls "Bubbas." "We were in the same place in terms of 'How do you help people down here?' " says Webb. "How do you get the good out of this culture? At the end of this conversation, I said, 'I'll do this. Let's test the theory.' "

Webb is so white he wrote a book about it; Saunders quickly realized Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America could become the rare campaign book voters might actually read, one that doesn't pull punches. In its opening pages, Webb lists the slurs by which his people are known: "Rednecks. Trailer-park trash. Racists. Cannon fodder." The Scots-Irish — Protestant Scots who fought the British in Scotland, then in Ireland, then in America — have indeed died disproportionately in America's wars. But the Bubbas, Webb argues, were and are not so much cannon fodder as a warrior caste. He considers poor white Southerners victims of the "monstrous mousetrap" they themselves built for African-Americans. "The Southern redneck" he writes, has become the "veritable poster child of liberal hatred and disgust . . . the emblem of everything that had kept the black man down. No matter that the country-club whites had always held the key to the Big House . . . at the expense of disadvantaged blacks and whites alike."

Why did liberals ignore class? In part because Bubbas so often played the role assigned to them, but also because the poor whites, "Jacksonian populists," as Webb likes to call them, "are the greatest obstacles to what might be called the collectivist taming of America, symbolized by the edicts of political correctness."

It's not that Webb is racist, he'd just like to afford poor whites the status of victim too. In fact, he descends from a line of Southern whites at odds with the region's racist traditions, and he's especially proud of his fight in 1982 to get a representation of a black soldier added to the statue at the Vietnam Memorial in Washington. "I put a black man on the Mall," he said in 1991, "and they" — bigots and the art snobs who preferred Maya Lin's abstract wall — "can kiss my ass."

Webb believes that a re-energized army of Bubbas will remake American politics, restoring gun lovers, hunters and NASCAR fans to the place they once held at the heart of American populism. "Fight. Sing. Drink. Pray," he titled one chapter in Born Fighting, describing a culture that at its best created country music and at its worst invented the lynch mob.

But Webb is as aware of the dangers of populism as he is of its potential. "On the one hand," he says, "populism created American politics. On the other it created a formula that's been continuously abused from that time forward. The notions that went into Jacksonian democracy are so commonly turned into rhetoric rather than substance. You know, the log cabin, 'We're for the little people.' " Webb rolls his eyes. "The emotional buttons."

When Webb decided to run, no one but Mudcat Saunders and his friend the writer Tom Wolfe (who insists Webb will be president one day) thought he could wage more than a symbolic fight. Sometimes it seemed he wouldn't even manage that. When Mudcat arranged for a band to play for the campaign, Webb overheard him telling the musicians to learn the Marine Corps hymn. "Jim never screamed at me," Mudcat remembers. "He just takes me outside and he stares at me and he says, 'One thing I want to make very clear to you. In no way, shape or form is the Marine Corps hymn to be used in my campaign. I will never use that song for political gain.' " Yessir, said Mudcat: "I thought, 'Well, fuck, we just gave up our own best ace card.' "

They didn't need it; George Allen charted his own demise. Re-election to the Senate seemed like such a sure thing that he began smirking during his speeches, as if aping Bush's worst qualities would make him the president's heir. He called an Indian-American Webb volunteer "macaca," and then he took offense at the news that his mother had been born Jewish, defiantly proclaiming his determination to eat a ham sandwich to prove his Christian bona fides.

Webb isn't a natural campaigner; he didn't have to be. When he defeated Allen in one of the slimmest, and certainly the most unexpected, Democratic victory of 2006, pundits didn't declare him a giant-killer. Instead, they ruled it victory by default — curmudgeon beats boob.

A few weeks into his term, though, those same pundits were beginning to see in Webb what Mudcat and Wolfe recognize: the politician, yes, but also the soldier and the storyteller to whom voters thrill. In January, the Democratic Party tapped him to respond to Bush's State of the Union address. Halfway through his speech, he pulled out an old black-and-white photograph and held it before the camera as if politics were show-and-tell. "This is my father," he said, pointing at a barely discernible figure in the center, "when he was a young Air Force captain, flying cargo planes during the Berlin Airlift. He sent us the picture from Germany as we waited for him back here at home. When I was a small boy, I used to take the picture to bed with me every night, because for more than three years my father was deployed, unable to live with us full-time, serving overseas or in bases where there was no family housing. I still keep it, to remind me of the sacrifices that my mother and others had to make, over and over again, as my father gladly served our country."

It was brilliant, and it had the added advantage of being true. "I was proud to follow in his footsteps," he continued, grabbing hold of every macho American man within earshot of a television, "serving as a Marine in Vietnam. My brother did as well, serving as a Marine helicopter pilot. My son has joined the tradition, now serving as an infantry Marine in Iraq." Webb's fighting family had trusted America's elected leaders, he said. "We owed them our loyalty," he said, "but they owed us sound judgment."

Webb was almost shaking with his sense of betrayal. Here was the synthesis of his three identities -- warrior, poet and politician -- bound up in one angry man voted up to the big house by Bubbas with guns, pissed off about losing their jobs to China and their children to Iraq. Lest the lesson be lost, he closed with a warning, recalling a time a hundred years ago when "the dispossessed workers at the bottom were threatening revolt." Once again, he seemed to be saying, such a time is at hand.

[Jeff Sharlet is a journalist and author best known for writing about religious subcultures in the United States. He is a contributing editor for Harper's and Rolling Stone. His work has also appeared in The Washington Post, Mother Jones, New York, The Chronicle of Higher Education, Columbia Journalism Review, Oxford American, New Statesman, Forward, Nerve, and The Baffler.]

Copyright © 2007 Rolling Stone


Get an RSS (Really Simple Syndication) Reader at no cost from Google. Another free Reader is available at RSS Reader.