My Predictions Ohio State Buckeyes 28, Washington Huskies 12. Also, I predict that Karl Rove will be "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs" (former ambassador Joseph Wilson's words) for his part in blowing the cover of Wilson's wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame.
UPDATE: Ohio State 28, Washington 9. No update on Rove. I'd love to see the loathesome butterball in a federal prison.
Can The GOP Lay A Glove On Him? I Think Not. I believe that Wesley Clark would be an impressive candidate not only because his resume is impressive and he's a good leader, but because he can beat Bush. I'm not the only one impressed with Clark. Tapped has a few links to some informative articles on Clark.
As I promised, I will give an explanation behind my choices for worst Americans (scroll down to August 8). Right Wing News published its survey of left-leaning bloggers regarding whom they thought were the worst Americans in history. When I listed Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest (who was responsible for the Fort Pillow massacre and was later involved in the Ku Klux Klan), I thought he was a rather obscure figure (the way I found out about Forrest was several years ago at an Ohio swapmeet, Forrest’s picture was on a “Legends of the Confederacy” shirt at a pro-Confederacy booth manned by a gap-toothed man); other bloggers didn’t think so because Forrest was number 3 on the list.
The top vote-getting was Joe McCarthy; I don’t think Joe McCarthy was the worst American, even though he was on my list; he’s just the type of person who would be on a lot of top twenty lists of worst Americans; McCarthy even made honorable mention on the list of right-wing bloggers.
Let me explain my rationale for each of my choices:
Jefferson Davis: Traitor who was president of the illegitimate, despotic, and slave-based confederacy. Trent Lott was able to pass a bill in Congress to get Davis back his American citizenship.
Strom Thurmond: A horrible politician. A demagogue who bolted the Democratic Party in response to Truman’s modest civil rights proposals and ran for President in 1948 on an anti-civil rights agenda (including the opposition to the anti-lynching laws). In 1964, he bolted the Democratic Party to the supposed party of Lincoln in opposition to the civil rights agenda. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Richard Nixon: Where to start. A dirty tricks operator from way back. Now it has been revealed that Nixon okayed the Watergate burglary. Disastrous foreign policy. Started the modern day war on drugs.
Richard Mellon Scaife: A paranoid lunatic, Scaife, with his inherited million, began a long dirty tricks campaign against Bill Clinton whom he thought was responsible for the murder of dozens of people. This man is sick; the people who took his money such as Christopher Ruddy and Joseph Farah have no souls.
Benedict Arnold: Traitor during the Revolutionary War.
Joe McCarthy: Gave anti-communism a bad name.
George Lincoln Rockwell: Founded the American Nazi Party.
John C. Calhoun: Popularized the doctrine of nullification. His ideas led to the Civil War.
Henry Wirz: Barbarian who was the warden of the notorious Andersonville prison camp. He was hanged after the war. The Daughters of the Confederacy, one of Jesse Helms’ favorite groups, erected a monument for Wirz.
Aldrich Ames: CIA spy.
Nathan Bedford Forrest: Confederate general responsible for the Fort Pillow massacre. Helped found the Ku Klux Klan; should have been hanged along with Wirz.
Katherine Harris: racist policies of disenfranchisement responsible for the theft of the presidency.
Rush Limbaugh: A lying bully and thug.
John Walker: Spy who gave vast amounts of intelligence to the Soviets.
John Wilkes Booth
Timothy McVeigh: American terrorist.
George Wallace: Hateful demagogue; he also ran Alabama into the ground.
Harry Anslinger: responsible for the early anti-drug hysteria.
The soon-to-be-indicted member(s) of the Bush regime who blew the cover of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame (who was responsible for preventing the proliferation of WMDs): who ever did this should be tried for treason.
The Rosenbergs: gave atomic secrets to the Soviets.
Worst resident alien: Sun Myung Moon: a hateful megalomaniac.
How Progressive Talk Radio Can Succeed Whenever I listen to non-musical radio, I find that my views are not represented—much less treated fairly. Most of talk radio is dominated by right-wing hatemongers and juvenile “morning zoo” types. I was happy to hear that some rich businesspeople were putting up the seed money to start a progressive talk radio network. If progressive talk radio is to succeed, it must not make the mistake of becoming the mirror image of right-wing talk radio; an analysis of the composition of right-wing talk radio shows is needed. Here is what you’ll find on right-wing talk radio:
1) Slander and character assassination.
2) Advice for the non-hip. Listening to talk radio lets me know how the people listening to it are not with it. For instance, Dr. Laura Schlessinger tells her callers/submissives not to have sex before marriage; she also tells them that they shouldn’t get married before their late twenties. It follows logically that Schlessinger wants people to spend the first quarter of a century of their lives as celibate. Ick!
3) Ads for expensive baldness and impotence cures, “no-money-down” real estate, miracle diets, and gold as an investment.
That’s why there’s no Rush Limbaugh on the left. If someone tried to do the same stuff as Limbaugh but with a left-wing bias, then that person would be excoriated not only by the right but also by the left. The left doesn’t want to hear bullshit. Sadly, much of the right does (click here for the experiences of an exasperated rumor-debunker).
I think if progressive talk radio is to succeed, here are some things it should do:
1) Politics should be a major point of discussion, but it should be in a truly “fair and balanced” manner. It should hit hard but fair against the forces of reaction. This is not a difficult task, because the American right is so extreme.
2) It should have an investigative/journalistic component. It should do some real muckraking—unlike the faux muckraking of people like Drudge.
3) It should have celebrity guests. The right has few celebrities (and they’re usually lame; Tom Selleck and Pat Sajak come to mind). We have the interesting stars who could be interviewed and get big ratings.
4) Sex. Sex sells and people want to hear about sex. Not in a juvenile smutty way like Howard Stern’s show but it should be about erotica a la Nerve.com. There’s not much talk about sex on right-wing talk radio (what do you expect from a guy like Limbaugh who had to drop 150 pounds in order to physically be able to consummate his marriage to his trophy wife?). In fact, much of right-wing talk radio is anti-erotic. Perhaps it’s because I’m on the out-of-touch left coast, but am I the only one who views the Dr. Laura radio show as being kinky in an overwhelmingly unpleasant and anti-erotic way? The way this Alpha-Bitch hectors her callers—it seems to be a sick kind of dom/sub relationship.
5) It must be an alternative to the mainstream media. It must use its voice to hold the media’s feet to the fire.
6) It must be cosmopolitan. Have smart and witty people on as guests. This would give it a big advantage over right-wing talk radio. When I listen to talk radio, I’m amazed at the high percentage of mouthbreathers who are on as guests and callers.
If progressive talk radio incorporates these elements, it can get an audience that has not only progressives but also a lot of independents who would see it as a breath of fresh air to the talk radio status quo. There are niches in radio that need to be filled and these are just a few ideas to help fill those niches.
My Letter to the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority My first words when I got onto the bus: Ay Caramba!
Dear Sir or Madam,
I am writing because I am concerned about an incident that occurred on a number 20 MTA bus near 4th and Wilshire in Santa Monica on the evening of 8/19/03. When I and other bus patrons got on the bus, we noticed an overpowering stench from a man who had gotten on just before us who was seated in the back. The man also had gotten on at Wilshire and 4th and he went to the back of the bus. His stench was so bad that I was able to smell him when I was in the front of the bus. The only explanation I have for the overpowering nature of the odor is that apparently sometime ago, the man pinched a loaf in his shorts and didn’t bother to do anything about it. A passenger complained to the driver and the driver ordered the man off at the next stop. The man said that he was going to contact MTA and complain. In case he did, I would like to give my support to the driver.
I don’t know if the driver acted according to regulations but he did act with common sense and good judgment. The driver was not trying to be punitive of the man; I’m sure he only wished that the man had cleaned his butt prior to getting on the bus. In my opinion, the driver acted properly: this man’s right not to wipe his ass ended when he attempted to share an enclosed space with other people. Nobody wanted to smell this guy’s crusty butt. Airlines have the right to refuse service to passengers who have offensive body odor. MTA drivers should have that right also.
I don’t want to appear too critical of a guy who is obviously down on his luck, but he seemed to be coherent and able-bodied. There were plenty of places in Santa Monica to take care of one’s hygienic needs. In fact, before I got on the bus, I was swimming in the ocean and used the public changing facility that had showers, toilets, and paper. It only takes a second to keep one’s butt region clean and I believe that artist Robert Crumb hit the nail on the head in his famous poster that addressed the issue.
Article Soon I've been busy but I had to chuckle when I read Bill O'Reilly's column in the Daily News whining about Al Franken. I'll write a larger piece soon.
Must Read This week Salon is giving readers bits and pieces of Joe Conason's new book Big Lies. Check it out; more importantly, buy the book. It's important.
Where's The Outrage? The Valerie Plame scandal seems to have died down (though the FBI is investigating). As others have noted, when there were some FBI files that were mistakenly sent to the Clinton White House, there was a tidal wave of outrage by America's self-appointed guardians of patriotism; there was talk about dirty tricks by the Clinton White House and they even gave the incident a name: filegate. Of course, when numerous investigations found no wrongdoing, there were no retractions or apologies.
Why isn't the supposedly liberal media not jumping on this as they did with the filegate nonscandal? Why aren't the right wing commentators and bloggers expressing outrage? I have an idea: someone should ask Ann Coulter what she thinks about this--her book is called Treason. She will be a guest on Duffy & company in Los Angeles today (apparently the listed time is wrong; I think that Coulter will be on the show from 6:00 to 6:30 Pacific Time). I won't be around to call but someone else can. The call-in number is 1-800-LA TALKS.
American Splendor: A Must See Film Last week, I got to see American Splendor's Harvey Pekar and his wife Joyce Brabner speak at the Barnes & Noble in Santa Monica. Apparently, B & N didn’t publicize the discussion very well because there were only about twenty people who showed up. Harvey was just as morose as he is on the pages of his comic books so I wasn’t disappointed. There was ample time to ask more than one question, so one of my questions was about my personal favorite Jack T. Chick. Harvey said that Chick amused him but that the Chickster didn’t influence him. This didn’t surprise me because both Pekar and Chick are gloomy in their outlook but in very different ways.
For those of you who don't know, American Splendor was made into a film (one that did very well at Cannes and Sundance). I went to an advance screening in Santa Monica last night. Now first let me segue into a rant. Those of you familiar with me know that I hate it when people talk during a movie. Usually I am the first one to tell the offending party to quit talking. I’m a muscular jock-type and usually telling a person once is all that it takes. I’ve never had to deal with this situation with serious films; the types of people who attend these films tend to be older and tend to know that it’s rude to disturb other moviegoers. This wasn’t the case with American Splendor and I was caught flatfooted. First, there was some clown who didn’t turn off his cell phone, even after it ran once. Second, someone kept tapping something. Third, a couple near me was talking. Usually, I don’t hesitate to tell people to shut up but this was different. I employ a utilitarian calculus: I usually don’t tell people to be quiet until their talking becomes more disruptive to moviegoers than my telling them to be quiet. Also, there is a deeply ingrained principle of mine not to confront another man when he’s with a woman—it’s something I try to avoid if possible. So I and a couple other people would periodically “shhh” the couple. Unfortunately, this couple could not take a fucking clue. After the movie was over, I heard the couple talking and realized that these two didn’t even know each other; they had struck up a conversation during the movie. Telling by the looks of the two, they didn’t get out much. What should I have done? Email me if you have any ideas.
Anyhow, back to the film. I thought it was quirky and a lot of fun to watch. It’s a great film. I think comics are an underutilized medium and Pekar has contributed to making comics a more expressive medium. The acting is good and the story was funny and moving at times. The paper of record has a good review. On the topic of comics, Tom Tomorrow’s latest book The Great Big Book of Tomorrow: A Treasury of Cartoons is out; he sent me an advance copy but I had it sent to a friend because I was moving so I haven’t read it yet. Salon had an interesting profile.
Fair and Balanced At Heart I tried to change my settings so that I too could be "fair and balanced" but it wouldn't let me. I think it's great that the Fox Propaganda Network sued Al Franken over his book. The lawsuit made the book a bestseller before it was published and it gives Franken a chance to use his smartass wit to counter Roger Ailes' claim that his network is indeed fair and balanced. One more thing: buy Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.
In a broad, rambling lecture that began with and returned many times to Iraq, former Vice President Al Gore toyed with some of the very same conspiracy theories peddled by the crazies outside. In 35 minutes, he managed to squeeze in several bizarre and acidic accusations directed at the Bush administration--recycling the blood-for-oil claim, suggesting the Iraq war was conceived and conducted to "benefit friends and supporters," labeling the administration "totalistic," and, in a reprise of an argument he made last fall, claiming that the Iraq debate had been cooked up to get Republicans elected.
REALITY: Here's what Gore said regarding oil: "Ironically, the principal cause of global warming is our civilization's addiction to burning massive quantities carbon-based fuels, including principally oil -- the most important source of which is the Persian Gulf, where our soldiers have been sent for the second war in a dozen years -- at least partly to ensure our continued access to oil. ..We need to face the fact that our dangerous and unsustainable consumption of oil from a highly unstable part of the world is similar in its consequences to all other addictions." Does this sound like the ravings of a conspiratorial blood-for-oil nutcase? No, it sounds like the truth.
However, Hayes doesn't even address the most important part of Gore's speech: where he addresses the Bush regime's dishonesty:
In any case, what we now know to have been false impressions include the following:
(1) Saddam Hussein was partly responsible for the attack against us on September 11th, 2001, so a good way to respond to that attack would be to invade his country and forcibly remove him from power.
(2) Saddam was working closely with Osama Bin Laden and was actively supporting members of the Al Qaeda terrorist group, giving them weapons and money and bases and training, so launching a war against Iraq would be a good way to stop Al Qaeda from attacking us again.
(3) Saddam was about to give the terrorists poison gas and deadly germs that he had made into weapons which they could use to kill millions of Americans. Therefore common sense alone dictated that we should send our military into Iraq in order to protect our loved ones and ourselves against a grave threat.
(4) Saddam was on the verge of building nuclear bombs and giving them to the terrorists. And since the only thing preventing Saddam from acquiring a nuclear arsenal was access to enriched uranium, once our spies found out that he had bought the enrichment technology he needed and was actively trying to buy uranium from Africa, we had very little time left. Therefore it seemed imperative during last Fall's election campaign to set aside less urgent issues like the economy and instead focus on the congressional resolution approving war against Iraq.
(5) Our GI's would be welcomed with open arms by cheering Iraqis who would help them quickly establish public safety, free markets and Representative Democracy, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US soldiers would get bogged down in a guerrilla war.
(6) Even though the rest of the world was mostly opposed to the war, they would quickly fall in line after we won and then contribute lots of money and soldiers to help out, so there wouldn't be that much risk that US taxpayers would get stuck with a huge bill.
Sad When Morton Kondracke wrote for the New Republic, he was a must read for me. I once remember seeing him on television saying how he was saddened how young people in this country were so cynical and that we needed idealistic people to get into politics. In recent years, Kondracke has not been taking his own advice--he has been a hack. The Daily Howler (who else?) has the latest evidence of Kondracke doing the bidding of the Fox News Propaganda Machine. How sad.
My Two Cents I and other left-leaning bloggers were surveyed by John Hawkins of Right Wing News about who we thought were the worst figures in American history (the results will be published on Tuesday). We got to choose up to 20 people. Here is the list I submitted (in no particular order regarding harm I believe they committed against this great country):
Jefferson Davis
Strom Thurmond
Richard Nixon
Richard Mellon Scaife
Benedict Arnold
Joe McCarthy
George Lincoln Rockwell
John C. Calhoun
Henry Wirz
Aldrich Ames
Nathan Bedford Forrest
Katherine Harris
Rush Limbaugh
John Walker
John Wilkes Booth
Timothy McVeigh
George Wallace
Harry Anslinger
The soon-to-be-indicted member(s) of the Bush regime who blew the cover of CIA covert operative Valerie Plame (who was responsible for preventing the proliferation of WMDs).
The Rosenbergs
Worst resident alien: Sun Myung Moon
I'll give my reasons for each later. There are some people I wanted to include such as not-my-president George W. Bush and brother Jeb but I figured that other bloggers would pick up the slack and vote for them. Another good choice that I didn't include is David Horowitz. Horowitz violated the Espionage Act and weakened America's defenses and then he became one of Richard Mellon Scaife's monkeyboys. Talk about a True Believer. By the way, last year, George W. Bush invited Horowitz--who is still subject to criminal prosecution for espionage--to his Crawford ranch/stage prop; I broke the story but the national media was not interested. Am I the only one who thinks it's odd that the currant occupant of the Oval Office would seek advice from an admitted traitor and spy who, let me repeat, is still subject to criminal prosecution for the violation of the Espionage Act---which he has admitted violating? Email me if you think I'm right or wrong about this.
Poor Arnold It was fun, nay comical, listening to Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich talk about Arnold being pilloried on the radio today. Hannity said he had "never seen such a vicious smear campaign" because Dems are pointing out the Terminator's womanizing, drug use, etc. Perhaps, Hannity had forgotten the years 1992-2000. I thought it was funny that Hannity was telling this to Gingrich who had, among other things, orchestrated a whisper campaign that Tom Foley was gay. Without any irony, Gingrich's response was that he was "a little sick" and wondered what would have happened if this were a liberal Democrat who was being treated this way.
James Taranto: Objectively Pro-Osama Amazingly, James Taranto has not apologized for his McCarthyite smear that Moveon.org is "pro-Saddam." Here is Taranto's muddled logic:
As for "pro-Saddam," we suppose some clarification is in order. We will concede there is no evidence that MoveOn's members are admirers of Saddam Hussein himself, his ideology or his style of tyranny. Very few Americans are pro-Saddam in that sense...But MoveOn is, or at least was, pro-Saddam in this sense: Its position on the major issue of the day, whether to effect "regime change" in Iraq through military force, was essentially indistinguishable from that of Saddam himself. MoveOn advocated continuing a 12-year standoff whose central feature was that it left Saddam in power.
This is interesting logic. However, Taranto himself agreed with the Bush regime's decision to divert resources from finding bin Laden to finding a nonexistent link between bin Laden and Saddam in order to divert more resources from rooting out bin Laden's cadre groups to fighting the war in Iraq; this is precisely what bin Laden wanted. Taranto's view was essentially indistinguishable from that of bin Laden himself. Tarnanto advocated a policy whose central feature was that it left bin Laden free to commit more terrorism. By his own logic, Taranto is pro-Osama.