Two Days to Go!

[Note: this is a deeply personal reflection about my life. I think that it is of general interest, but it doesn’t deal with the nuts and bolts of the world that is the mainstay of this site. It is a story that I fear many people share to one extent or another—either from my perspective or that of my mother. If it is from the latter, I am truly sorry; hell is not supposed to be for children.]

I just realized why I hate holidays. Will was telling me about how even if he became a member of the Jehovah’s Witness church (whose members do not celebrate religious holidays), he would still feel as though he had to do Christmas for his kids, because his parents did it for him. That really got me thinking. As a child, I tended to dread holidays—especially Christmases—because my mother would almost always ruin them.

I don’t mean to vilify my mother; she was in most ways a great woman. She was very loving and (before the ravages of alcoholism) very smart and knowledgeable (amazing when you consider that she had only a grammar school education). When my mother was young, she was also very beautiful—a hottie, in the modern vernacular. But she was also deeply scarred in an emotional sense. As a child, she was sent from relative to relative and was sexually molested repeatedly by at least one uncle and probably also by her step-father. As a result of the molestation and (perhaps equally important) the shuffling, which would certainly have given her the belief that she was unwanted and unloved, she turned inside and found comfort in literature and drink. Even in her final days, she was always reading a novel—usually with drink in hand. Her taste was not mine—she especially liked historical romances, but she read widely—non-fiction included.

I think that holidays brought out the worst in her for two reasons. First, she had the feeling that they should be wonderful days but they always disappointed—they couldn’t make up for the emotional pain she felt throughout her life. And second, she couldn’t handle the stress of the holidays. And so she would get drunk and lash out at others—usually my father and usually without good reason.

As a result of this, I don’t really like holidays. I do like personal holidays. I love it when out of the blue I get a package from Andrea, who I originally bonded with over our shared addiction to thrift shops. And I love it when I find something that I think my father, for example, would love that I can give as a present for no reason in particular. But these are no-pressure, no-expectation events. If you will, “Practicing random acts of kindness and senseless acts of beauty.”

So I am two days away from life returning to normal. I can hardly wait!

Update

In the mean time, follow the wisdom of Bill and Ted: “Be excellent to each other!”

Politics: 24 December 2010

Media Matters gives Sarah Palin Award

Media Matters for America gave Sarah Palin The 2010 Glenn Beck Misinformer Of The Year Award:

A Message from Mark Fucking Zuckerberg

Will was kind enough to send this excellent SNL clip to me. Let’s have a look, shall we:

It is absolutely brilliant, apart from being very funny. When Time gave “Person of the Year” to Mark Zuckerberg, I was not surprised. In 2001, they did not give it to Osama bin Laden—the clear choice. Instead they gave it to Rudy Giuliani—a lesser villain, but one with more power, I think. At that time, I decided that Time (never much more than a reasonable-sounding conservative mouthpiece—still the Faux News of its day), had lost all its credibility. Why does the mainstream media give a shit who Time thinks is person of the year? There is no doubt Julian Assange had a much greater impact on the world this past year than fucking Zuckerberg. In fact, I can’t think of anything particularly important that Zuckerberg did this year other than be the subject of a popular film.

Kory Stamper Lightens Hair!

Kory StamperFor those of you soulless masses who lead unimaginably boring lives, I will explain that Kory Stamper is an editor at Merriam-Webster. I have a terrible crush on her as well as her two colleagues at the dictionary company: Associate Editor Emily Brewster and Editor-At-Large Peter Sokolowski. How do I know about these people? Well, I might know Mr. Sokolowski because of his mention in a recent NPR article about the top ten words of the year. And I might know Ms. Brewster from her “Minced Words” column at CookThink. And I might have known about Ms. Stamper because she has her own fan club on Facebook. But I only found out about these things because I find myself on the Merriam-Webster website several times per day, and each of these editors is featured in short videos about word-related issues. I would embed one for you, but alas, Merriam-Webster is still living in 2001 in many ways.

I have reflected on the fact that Kory Stamper has her own fan club (with 179 members, no less), while I have found no fan clubs for the other editors. In a general sense, Stamper is cute—a descriptor that I doubt she, or any intellectual would be terrible happy with. This is not to say that Brewster and Sokolowski aren’t also attractive; I doubt they would have been chosen to make the videos if they looked more like, say, me. Stamper also appears to be the youngest of the three and we all know how much we love youth. But I don’t think either of these are the main issue. The truth is that Stamper is, for reasons that are not at all clear to me, very real on camera. I get the impression that she is talking to me and not a camera. And thus, I think that a lot of people feel they really connect to her—even though they don’t, any more than they do with Peter Sokolowski and Emily Brewster.

Having said this, I find that I am very disturbed about what Stamper has done to her hair. Throughout our relationship, she has always looked like this:

Kory Stamper: Before

And then—suddenly, without any warning—she lightens her hair! Here she is now:

Kory Stamper: After

I shouldn’t care—I know. But hey, what’s going on here? There is so little stability in life. Is it really asking so much for the Merriam-Webster editors to ossify their appearances? Next thing you know, Sokolowski will grow a beard—going for that Shel Silverstein look, and Brewster will start wearing contact lenses, for whatever reason someone would do that. And I know how this all ends: just when I get used to Stamper’s new hair color, she’ll change it back. Thanks Kory! I really needed that!

Update

For those men and women pining away for Kory Stamper, I feel as a public service I must tell you that as of 2006 she was married to a man who is the very definition of cool: a jazz musician. I’m not sure of the etymology of “cool” used in this way—undoubtedly Ms. Stamper could help in this matter—but I always think of Miles Davis with Birth of the Cool and Kind of Blue as what defines “cool.” She also has two children.

I know all of this because of an article that she wrote for Knitty called Extreme knitting: 2 socks in 1. She also wrote a blog called Harmless Drudge: abusing of God’s patience and the King’s English, which she discontinued in early 2007. I have two things to say on this matter. First: she doesn’t seem to follow The Chicago Manual of Style or even Fowler for her titles—most disappointing, but forgivable. Second: I believe our own Andrea English has a better site for such matters—Needlecrafter.com—which she too has abandoned (as of late 2008). Of course, I’m not very clear on the differences between all these different needle-crafty sorts of things. I’ve been meaning to research it and write an article here. Soon perhaps. But in the mean time, I did explain how a sewing machine works.

Update: It’s Not Just Kory

I noticed that one person recently made it to this page by searching Google for, “Emily Brewster and Kory Stamper are hot.” Does this mean we will soon see an “Emily Brewster Fan Club” on Facebook? Let me know if this happens. In the mean time, I will be watching for anyone searching for, “Peter Sokolowski is hot.”


More Stamper! More Brewster!

Want to know more about Kory Stamper, Emily Brewster, and the whole Merriam-Webster crowd? Then you are in luck (and in need of a proper life). Here are some other articles that may interest you.

Politics: 23 December 2010

The Mendacity of Hope

Roger Hodge has a new book out called The Mendacity of Hope. I haven’t read it. I don’t even have it, but I will after the holidays and I’m sure I’ll write about it. Until then, I bring you a couple of videos of the former editor of Harper’s Magazine making a lot of sense about President Obama. Here’s the first clip; I will have something to say after it.

The one place where I disagree with him is in saying that the angry left (progressives?) and the angry right (tea-baggers) have much in common. I agree that when I talk to tea-baggers, they do pretty much agree with me on what the problems are. However, they have this great super-power that allows them to deflect any facts that come near them. The angry left is mad about what is actually happening in this country. The angry right is just mad (in both common senses of the word). I think it is possible to get the AL and the AR together on some issues, but not one on one. Perhaps in a group, we might find one tea-bagger who, for whatever reason has a weakened “fact deflector.” If you could convince this person that he or she should support something sensible, it might work its way through the group. Think of it as finding a back-door into a super-secure Unix system.

Just in case you think that Hodge (or I) think that all these relatively minor accomplishments this month make up for Obama’s betrayal of us progressives over the past two years, he’s a clip from The Last Word with Laurence O’Donnell. Not that Hodge doesn’t have much to say, but it is well worth hearing.

Freedom’s Just Another Word for Not Having a Party

Today, The Alaskan Supreme Court threw out Joe “I Desperately Need a Shave or a Time Machine” Miller’s challenge to Lisa Murkowski’s write-in win of the Alaska Senate race, according to The Washington Post. In their POLITICS Digest, they report:

The high court on Wednesday upheld a lower court’s ruling that dismissed Miller’s claims of impropriety in the state’s handling of the election and write-in ballots for Murkowski. It found “no remaining issues raised by Miller that prevent this election from being certified.”

That’s good news, of course; but the really good news is that Murkowski is “going rogue” according to Meredith Shiner at Politio—contrasting her sardonically with Palin by noting that Murkowski does not gun down, “caribou on national TV.” She’s gone rogue in a meaningful sense:

Murkowski is already showing a fierce independent streak, becoming the only Republican to cast votes on all four items on President Barack Obama’s wish list: a repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” a tax-cut compromise, the START deal and cloture for the DREAM Act.

The election it would seem, has freed Murkowski from the need to vote in lockstep with the Republican leadership and vote the way politicians in the minority used to vote. You know: before Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay, and Karl Rove gave us the modern Republican Party.

Take the Millions, Skip the Thousands

One of the Deficit Commission’s ideas for saving Social Security was to means test it. But by this, they didn’t mean depriving rich people from getting it. Instead, people making over a million dollars per years (not made: currently making) would not get Social Security benefits until they were 70 and then they might not get as much as they normally would. Gasp! Say it ain’t so! The people who have made the most money already pay the least as a percentage of their income. Then, when they retire, they get the maximum benefit amount. In other words: from each according to the inverse of his ability, to each according to the inverse of his needs.

How about this as a Social Security reform (I make no claims to this being original to me, not that I didn’t come up with it on my own): no cap on the Social Security tax (there is currently no tax on income above $106,800—making it a highly regressive tax); means test the hell out of the program: if you are making a bunch of money (amount to be determined), you don’t get any benefits; and means test the hell out of it again: if you have a bunch of money, you don’t get any benefits. Similar changes could be made to Medicare, but since I believe in a single-payer—Medicare for all—system, I’m not going to get into it.

Review of C Street: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy

Jeff Sharlet’s C Street, the follow-up to his best-seller The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power is a must-read, even though it is not as good as it should be nor what its title implies. The book is not tightly written, and not really about C Street, the $2 million three-story brick building in Washington D.C. Nor is it primarily about The Family that runs C Street—legally as a church, but practically more as a boarding house and bordello. The book starts and ends with C Street and The Family, but its heart is only interested in this subject on the margins. Still, the follow-up to The Family is frightening, motivating, and informative—the best researched political book I’ve read since Naomi Klein’s 2007, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. But C Street is better thought of by it’s subtitle: The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy.

C Street begins with an overview of The Family, which explains more about the Christian Conservative movement than any book in recent history. The guiding philosophy of this secret and powerful group is an interpretation of the Bible that is not only bizarre, but also counter to what the vast majority of Christians (liberal and conservative) believe. To members of The Family, Christianity has nothing to do with the poor, the needy, the marginalized—not directly, anyway. Instead, it is all about helping “the chosen” (read: “the powerful”) create a Christian world.

In one of the clearest examples of this mentality, Sharlet explains why Family members reject welfare programs. If the government takes care of the poor, how can the chosen show their worthiness by feeding crumbs to the poor? Sharlet destroys such thoughts with great ease:

The idea that the powerful are powerful because they have been “given” their rank and position—that they did not grasp for it, that they did not politick—is as deceptive as “noblesse oblige,” a moral sleight of hand that exists to preserve social class. So, too, its corollary, that the poor should be grateful for whatever blessings trickle down to them.

If this line of reasoning sounds repulsive to you, then you are a long way toward understanding The Family. But if you wish to fully understand The Family, you are better to read Sharlet’s earlier book, The Family. (There is surprisingly little over-lap between C Street and The Family, so there is no reason not to read both.)

After the brief introduction to the group and the building, Sharlet spends a chapter on the sex scandals that brought The Family out of the shadows. It is basically his take on this recent history. The chapter unfortunately assumes that the reader is already well aware of the cases of Senator John Ensign, Governor Mark Sanford, and Representative Chip Pickering; I was not; conservative sexual hypocrisy is not exactly news. So I was often confused, and it was only thanks to many Internet searches that I got things sorted out. After this, however, I found Sharlet’s treatment wonderfully humane—especially in the case of Mark Sanford.

The core of C Street is contained in the next two chapters that have relatively little to do with The Family and nothing to do with C Street itself. The first is the heartbreaking story of the anti-gay movement in Uganda, where David Bahati—a Family apostle in the Ugandan Parliament—is trying to make homosexuality a capital offense. It has been widely reported that Bahati’s bill is dead. This is largely due to Peter Boyer’s whitewash of The Family in his 13 September 2010 article, Frat House for Jesus in the New Yorker Magazine. This is not the case as discussed on Jeff Sharlet’s blog, Call Me Ishmael (with a follow-up the next day) and elsewhere.

Sharlet reports on a conversation he had with “a pretty girl named Sharon, at a weekly abstinence rally” at Uganda’s premiere college:

  “Have you ever met a homosexual?” I asked.
  “I have never!”
  “If you meet one, would you kill him?”
  “It’s hard for me to kill.” That smile. Those teeth. “It is hard for me to do it alone.”
  “But together?” She giggled and nodded.

Those claiming that this anti-homosexual legislation comes from “the people” are clearly wrong. How is it that this young girl believes it is right to kill a “homosexual”—a creature she has never even seen? Her understanding of this mythical creature is highly reminiscent of Borat’s understanding of Jews with their horns that he can “hardly see.” But this is not parody; this is reality in Uganda and Sharlet reports on it brilliantly.

The second important chapter concentrates on evangelicalism in the U.S. Military. It focuses on Mikey Weinstein of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) and its work to protect the rights of military personnel of all faiths. Most of those who the MRFF helps are Christians—96% of them, in fact. They are simply not the right kind of Christians. Sharlet explains the origins of the problem:

In the mid-1980s the Pentagon began accrediting hundreds of new evangelical and Pentecostal “endorsing agencies,” allowing graduates of fundamentalist Bible colleges trained to see those from other faiths as enemies of Christ to fill up nearly the entire allotment for Protestant chaplains. As a result, more than two-thirds of the military’s 2,900 active-duty chaplains today are affiliated with evangelical or Pentecostal denominations.

These two chapters make up almost half of C Street, and they bring vividly to light major problems we face today, moving forward: one domestic and one international. Both are related directly to The Family, but Sharlet never makes the case that this relationship is primary. He takes it as given that the philosophy of The Family is at the root of these problems, and that it is only at the margins (outside the United States and in the military) that this philosophy can be seen in its uncensored form.

C Street ends by coming back to where it started: the red-brick “church” on C Street in Washington, D.C., and a symbol for the all but invisible attack on the principles that we were taught to believe the U.S. stood for. And it gives us hope in the form of two unlikely Christian protesters at the 2004 RNC convention in New York City. One of them wears a paint-by-numbers Jesus, saying, “That’s not what I meant.” It serves as a perfect symbol of what is wrong with The Family and C Street. It also provides a relatively hopeful ending to a book that is relentlessly disturbing.

As much as I am sure that Jeff Sharlet is not interested in the C Street sex scandals, he is most assuredly using them to get an audience for a subject he is interested in—a subject we should all be interested in: the future of our secular democracy. The lurid appeal of these scandals certainly caused the book to be rushed to print before it was ready. There is no question that Sharlet did an impeccable job researching this book. But its prose is bloated and sometimes confusing; its style makes sudden changes from objective journalism to autobiography to awkward polemic; and its structure is a mess that never manages to coalesce into a cohesive whole. These are all editorial problems, of course; C Street reads like a first-draft—but a first-draft of a very good writer. The book still manages to be an engrossing and entertaining read. What is most important, however, is that the content is vital—even explosive: news we should use.

Politics: 1 December 2010

John McCain Was Never a Maverick, but He Was Always…

For years, I’ve been saying that John McCain is no maverick. He’s vengeful: after losing to George W. Bush, he did what he could to poke him in the eye, and that sometimes meant not holding extremist conservative views—which were and still are his stock and trade. But this made him look like a maverick when, in fact, he was just pissed off. Last night on Countdown, Dan Savage said something that McCain is, however. When Keith Olbermann asked Savage why the military leaders’ opinions and this huge military study are not enough for McCain on the issue of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” Savage responded bluntly, “Because, not to put too fine a point on it, McCain is a bigot.”

Perhaps the McCain/Palin ticket would have done better if they had not stressed what mavericks they were—since that was clearly bullshit—and instead have gone with, “We’re the bigot team! Vote for us! Vote for intolerance!” Gooo team!

Thirty Days Hath September Bollocks

My mother was very fond of poetry and other “intellectual” pursuits. In fact, she was a good deal smarter than I am, but she did not have the advantages that I have had. In a fair world, she would be Professor Emeritus of Latin at Harvard. Instead, she’s just dead. But being smart doesn’t make you perfect. For example, she could always remember the number of days in the month by using the following rhyme from The Real Mother Goose Treasury (I think):

Thirty days hath September,
April, June and November;
February has twenty eight alone
All the rest have thirty-one
Except in Leap Year, that’s the time
When February’s Days are twenty-nine

With all due respect to my mother (which is substantial), this poem really sucks. It has never been of any use to me. In fact, when I started to write this article, I titled it, “Thirty Days Hath November.” So there you are. It could just as easily be:

Thirty days hath November,
April, June and September;

And the last four lines? Are they awkward or what? This is poetry even Shakespeare would be embarrassed by, and regular readers will know what high esteem I hold that bard in.

There have been other important women in my life, one of the most (if not the most) being the Grande Dame of NASA at Sonoma State University (yes, I know, she could have done better), Lynn Cominsky. I worked for Dr. Cominsky for two years, I published a paper with her (the paper I am proudest of except for my primary Master’s Degree paper which is often cited—without attribution!—and generally misunderstood), and she, more than anyone else taught me what it was to be a scientist. She is an amazing woman. If she were evil, she would be Phyllis Schlafly. But so far as I can tell (just lunch, really), she has not turned to the dark side.

At this point in my life when I spend more time talking to Latin scholars than physicists, the most important way that Dr. Cominsky has improved my life is that she taught me how to remember how many days there are in a given month! She didn’t invent it, I assume. But I have shown it to very many people over the last twenty years and no one has known it. And now, I am going to show you.

Make two fists and put them together as in the photograph below:

Days of the Month

All you have to do is count from the little-finger knuckle of either hand. The first knuckle is January, the space between the first and second knuckles is February, the second knuckle is March, and so on. This is printed on the photo above. The knuckles (that are higher than the inter-knuckle space) are all the 31-day months. The inter-knuckles are the 30-day months, except for February. February (the month in which I was born) is, of course, totally bizarre. Although I’m sure you know it in general, it is 28 days unless the year is divisible by 4. Except when it is also divisible by 100. Unless it is also divisible by 400. But don’t worry about that! You’ll be alerted by the news. The thing is that the months are up-down-up-down-up-down-up and then they repeat.

If you can’t remember that February is a mess, you probably don’t visit this website! As for Dr. Cominsky, she’s pretty weird herself.

Amongst Us, Among Them

Based upon the title of this article, regular readers of this site will most likely think that I am here to kill off “amongst.” Or maybe “among” if I am in one of those moods. But both assumptions are wrong. I think there is good reason to keep both words around—the same reason that we keep “a” and “an” around: euphony!

Let us start with where we should always start: Fowler’s Modern English Usage I actually use the Second Edition, edited, with typical controversy, by Ernest Gowers, who died a year after its publication in 1965. The original, all-Fowler all the time, First Edition was published in 1926 (7 years before he died). Unfortunately, I have never even see this original, despite the fact that it has been reprinted. It is now available in old-fashioned book form and 21st century electronic form for those interested. (Strangely, it is more expensive electronically.)

Fowler writes:

There is certainly no broad distinction either in meaning or in use between the two. The OED illustrates under amongst each of the separate senses assigned to among; it does, however, describe amongst as “less usual in the primary local sense than among, and, when so used, generally implying dispersion, intermixture, or shifting positions.” Such a distinction may be accepted on authority, but can hardly be made convincing by quotations even on the liberal scale of the OED. It is remarkable, at any rate, that one of the forms should not by this time have driven out the other.

That really is all that must be said. Under normal circumstances, I would just say we kick “amongst” out of our language and let that be that. “Amongst” has always sounded pretentious to me anyway. And if anyone wants to simplify their writing and speaking, they can simply forget that the word “amongst” ever existed—with much justification, I might add.

The problem is with how these two words combine with other words. In general, when either is followed by a word that begins with a vowel, “amongst” just sounds better. “We appreciate those amongst us” just sounds better than, “We appreciate those among us.” On the other side, “We hate the villains among them” sounds better than, “We hate the villains amongst them.” Try it out yourself. The difference is not as big as it is between “a” and “an,” but it is still there. Thus, it really does make sense to keep “amongst” around so that we can use it when we follow it with a vowel.

I must note, however, that there is something to be gained by using “among” when “amongst” is called for: crispness. Even though I found, “We appreciate those among us” jarring at first, on repetition, I find I like it more. Yes, it reads a little like advertising copy, but it also sounds a little like early Hemingway. It is nice—even comforting. What’s more, it is something that we could get used to very quickly.

For the time, I plan to use both approaches. In general, I will use “amongst” when it is followed by a vowel sound. But sometimes, I will use “among” in the same situation when I want a crisp, modern sound. Obviously, I am being very liberal on this matter—but it only goes so far. “We hate the villains amongst them” is always wrong. It sounds pretentious and dumb. So if there is ever a question of which to use, the answer is always “among.”

Important Update

I went to check out America’s own simulacrum of Fowler (Ha!), Bryan A. Garner in his Garner’s Modern American Usage. It has the following to say:

Most such forms ending in -st, such as whilst and amidst, are ARCHAISMS in AmE. Amongst is no exception: in AmE it is pretentious at best. E.g.: “Imagine a city where the electricity and water companies are owned by the local authorities and, thanks to progressive planning and construction, prices are amongst [read among] the lowest in the country.” Michael Dibdin, “Seattle Is the America Thatcher Ignored,” Seattle Times, 17 Jan. 1997, at B5. [Like he couldn’t have found a far shorter sentence to make this point? -FM]

Amongst is more common and more tolerable in BrE, where it doesn’t suggest affectation…

“More tolerable”?! What is this anti-English prat on about? Obviously, I take the side of Fowler—for two reasons. First, it’s Fowler. Second, it is just like Americans to hold on to old ways of doing things so as to seem cultured. At best, we can say that both the English and the Americans are trying to distance themselves from “amongst.” But I can’t leave the subject without noting that Garner does not discuss the euphonious aspects of the words. The king (Fowler) is dead; long live the king! (I hope to God it isn’t Garner!)

Politics: 18 November 2010

Juan Williams: Pure Liberal

In an interview with Howard Kurtz, Roger Ailes calls NPR, “the left wing of Nazism.” In this, I pretty much agree. This country is not Nazi, but it is highly fascistic, and I mean this literally—so think Mussolini, not Hitler. Political discourse in this country has been dragged so far right, that NRP is basically the liberal voice of fascist political discussion. Note that Ailes didn’t say that NPR was the left wing version of Nazism—just the left wing itself. This was no slip of the tongue. He knows well what he has helped this country become.

What I really want to talk about is Juan Williams though. I never get tired of talking about this shit-sack. Ailes said, that Williams was, “a pure liberal.” Now, I’m not sure what that means. It makes it sound like Roger Ailes used to pay Dungeons and Dragons. Maybe in his mind Williams is pure good and Sean Hannity is pure evil. Regardless, Williams is not liberal at all. From his reporting and commentary, he is right of center. Sure, on Faux News, he will come off as extremely liberal. That’s why Ailes hired him, not because, “I didn’t want him to have to call his wife and say we lost money.” Give me a fucking break! I do still listen to NPR from time to time and I am so glad that I will not have to hear Juan Williams pretending to be reasonable when he is spouting typically disproved conservative talking points.

Sound Familiar?

Have I been saying this for as long as I’ve been saying anything?

Politics: 16 November 2010

Casino Writ Large

I just watched part of Martin Scorsese’s Casino. There is a very famous scene in the movie where two card cheats are discovered. The casino management break one of the guys’ hand with a hammer and tell the other that he can leave with the hammer and the money or with neither. He picks neither. Ace—the casino owner—sees guys like this as the real problem he faces. But the fact of the matter is that these thieves are the little guys. This is also true of Lester Diamond, who Ace hates so much. As Jules says in Pulp Fiction, “You’re the weak.”

The main characters in Casino are horrible thieves and worse. But they are high up the food chain, so they’re okay. Steal fifty grand, get every bone in your hand broke with a hammer. Steal fifty million dollars, get a school named after you. It really comes down to Hitler’s idea (which he deals with in more depth in Mein Kampf) that people will “readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie.” And so it is in our society as a whole. Other than the occasional Bernie Madoff (funny name), big thieves make out just fine in America. So if you are going to be a thief, think big; don’t rob a bank; rob the Public Employees Pension Fund. You not only won’t be arrested, you’ll be a fucking hero!

More False Equivalence from Jon Stewart

On last night’s The Daily Show, Jon Stewart correctly pointed out the hypocrisy of Republicans claiming that Clinton was a compromiser and that Obama just won’t budge on any policy. But then he mocked Democrats who rightly point out that Reagan wasn’t so bad. Guess what, Mr. Stewart? Obama is more conservative than Clinton and Reagan is less conservative than the current Republican Party. So Democrats looking back fondly on Reagan makes sense: those were the good old days when even the most extreme Republicans were reasonable. Republicans looking back fondly on Clinton are doing it purely to score political points against Obama. It’s as simple as that.

Politics: 15 November 2010

Democratic Party Losses: The Real Lesson

I am reading all over the Internet that Obama lost the independent voters in this election and similar statements about how this election was some kind of mandate and that people’s opinions of Obama have changed. There are so many such articles that I’m not even going to provide any links. Here’s the thing: this isn’t true. This election was all about who voted. More independents voted Republican in 2010 than in 2008. This is not because independents are more conservative than they were; it is because the more liberal independents didn’t vote. Every bit of polling I’ve seen has shown the same thing: everyone voted the same way in 2010 as they did in 2008. What changed was who voted. Of people under 30 years old, 13 million who voted in 2008 did not vote in 2010. This and this alone is the reason that the Republicans did well in this election. This is also why Republicans always want to discourage people from voting: if voting were mandatory, Democrats would win landslide after landslide.

The lesson of this election is that conservatives vote no matter what; liberals, not so much. And that’s it.

Keith Olbermann Dissects the Myth of Journalistic Objectivity

Watch it; you’ll be cheering!