Night Light

Dukakis vs. Tyson

"FightTheSmears.com"?  Not good enough. It's time for "StartSomeShit.Com."

History doesn't just repeat itself. For the Democrats it's like a broken record. Once again the party's blowing a healthy lead by being reluctant to engage its opponent. It's Groundhog Day starring Michael Dukakis, and Obama's VFW speech yesterday could have come directly from the Dukakis playbook. 

Defensive plays like "FightTheSmears" are all well and good, but where's the offense? The GOP keeps throwing roundhouse blows. When they start to lose they make like Mike Tyson and bite somebody's ear off. Meanwhile Democrats fight by Marquis of Queensbury rules -- that is, if they deign to fight at all.

Some of us have been taught that it's wrong to speak harshly of others unless unless there's a higher purpose.  Well, there is a higher purpose: This country's on the ropes and a McCain victory could devastate it. But instead of a fight, for the last month we've been getting the same old Democratic listlessness -- and the same impulse to be overly conciliatory. Obama ran a tough, smart primary campaign. Where did that guy go?

Meanwhile McCain's been hitting below the belt, lashing out like a punchdrunk flyweight. And guess what? It's working. You're not going to stop Raging Bull's Mini-Me with oratory and Facebook pages.

Look at the parallels between that VFW speech and this 24-year old Dukakis ad.  First, Obama:

"... one of the things that we have to change in this country is the idea that people can't disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism. I have never suggested that Senator McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition. I have not suggested it because I believe that he genuinely wants to serve America's national interest. Now, it's time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same.

Let me be clear: I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America, so do you, and so does John McCain."

Now for the Dukakis ad. It shows him angrily turning off his television as a George Bush Sr. commercial is running, then turning to the camera and saying:

"I'm fed up with it! Never seen anything like it in 25 years of public life, George Bush's negative TV ads. distorting my record. Full of lies and he knows it. I'm on the record for the very weapons systems his ads say I'm against. I want to build a strong defense. I'm sure he wants to build a strong defense.  So this isn't about defense issues.  It's about dragging the truth into the gutter. 

And I'm not going to let them do it!  This campaign is too important.  The stakes are too high for every American family."

Why do Democrats feel the need to reassure voters of their opponent's noble intentions?  Who says they have noble intentions?  And something else:  What's striking about the Dukakis ad in retrospect is how good it is. His delivery is clear and forceful, and he seems to be making strong points. It's as good, in fact, as a defensive ad can get. And it didn't work.

That was the lesson of 1988, one that may have been forgotten: You can't land any punches from a defensive crouch. Dukakis is a brilliant man and he would have been a fine President. But he was painted as too cerebral, too passionless, and too remote from the occasionally atavistic impulses and emotions that drive us all. That was unfair -- but it's a candidate's job to triumph over unfairness.

Bernard Shaw's infamous "if Kitty Dukakis were raped ..." question was a low moment in American political journalism (up until then), and it set the tone this year's debate moderation. But you go to your campaign/war with the press corps you have, not the press corps you wish you had. You learn how to get your message across in a punchy way, even if -- especially if -- the questions are loaded.

Here's another problem with the defensive crouch:  The candidates are defending themselves. Voters don't care if somebody lied about a politician! They figure that comes with the job title. What they want to know is what that politician will do for them.

Then there's the fact that both Dukakis and Obama affirm their opponent's good intentions, even as that opponent goes about slandering them. Why? In this context that looks weak, not generous or gracious.

Books have been written about why these tactics don't work, but the real reason is as simple as the old adage about the best defense being a good offense. You won't knock an opponent out with FightTheSmears.com -- or, for that matter, with ruminative evenings like the one Sen. Obama spent last weekend with Rick Warren.

Obama has new ads attacking McCain's voting record. That's good, but it's not enough. As uncomfortable as it may make them, the Democrats are going to have to hit McCain on his seemingly endless list of vulnerabilities: The flip-flops. His laziness. His craven surrender on matters of principle. His lobbyist minders. His misunderstanding of basic facts. And then there are all those legitimate questions about his personal integrity and character.

McCain's not reluctant to do whatever it takes to win. If his opponent is, the results will be all too predictable. If the past month's caution was born of a desire to protect Obama's lead, forget about it. That lead is gone. He may have hoped to avoid a brawl, but he can't. It's on.

But, some may ask, what about McCain's war record?  The answer is simple:  Stop bringing it up.  That's their job, not yours.  Remember, Bob Dole was a war hero too - and he lost.

Consensus is a beautiful thing, but it starts by forming a consensus around the understanding that we won and you lost. As for "FightTheSmears.Com" -- after watching McCain score with lowball tactics, I'm ready for a website that attacks rather than defends.

Is "StartSomeShit.com" taken?

(Note:  I see that Michael Lally and Josh Marshall are making similar points.)

_____________________

UPDATE: Some are saying that this is all premature panic, etc. etc., because the campaign's got a long-term strategy and they're holding the good stuff for the right time. In other words, we're told they're playing the old Rope-A-Dope.

But there's a difference between rope-a-dope and letting the other guy beat you senseless for the first three rounds. (Update 2: This guy used my boxing metaphor to defend Obama's strategy, but what he forgets is that Obama emerged from the primaries badly damaged. Anyone who thinks he benefited somehow from holding back wasn't really paying attention.)

Here's the bottom line: Obama's a relatively new national figure, which means first impressions count - a lot. He's been getting painted - successfully - as "just another wishy-washy Democrat elitist." He started going on the attack today, which is good. Let's hope he sticks with it, and that it undoes any damage done during the last few weeks.

As for those who are put out by these criticisms, a word: Now is not the time for Democrats to get defensive or turn Pollyanna-ish. It's time to point out, if only to beat a metaphor to death, that the bell has rung.

 

the real horror of joe lieberman becoming president and arresting bloggers would be ...

... that Jane's a Spring.    I'm an Winter. 

Orange is, of course, an Autumn color.

What season are you? 

Website Will Guess Your Gender Based On Your Surfing History

Take a minute and check it out to see if it's right.

It says I'm a guy.

Data are fun.

And a little scary.

going viral on youtube

This is an entertaining YouTube clip, in which John McCain learns about the Internet from the Video Professor:

I couldn't remember the Video Professor's name when I wrote this piece a couple of weeks ago and said "Why, even John McCain could learn. (He could get one of those pre-recorded courses they sell on late-night TV. You know ... "How to Use a PC" by The Computer Professor, that sort of thing ...)"

It's bad when you're satirizing somebody for being out of it and you're pretty out of it yourself.   Did that sentence inspire this video?  Probably not.  But somebody wrote me to say a piece of mine led to their YouTube on Hillary's Bosnia statement, and that got millions of hits.  So I've had my moment in the Viral Sun.   

And I appreciate this video because it has a light touch and isn't mean-spirited. 

don helms dies: a virtuoso and a living link

Steel guitar player Don Helms died on August 11.  As this well-written obituary in the Washington Post notes, he played a major role in making the steel guitar a lead instrument in postwar country/western music.  He could make that thing sing.

That's what made him a virtuoso.  What made him a living link was the fact that he played with Hank Williams and His Drifting Cowboys.  He was the last living member of that band. 

Note that we're not talking about the pedal steel, which has dominated country music since the late fifties or so.  That's a beautiful instrument, too, and about as complicated to operate as a 747.  Helms played the pre-pedal steel guitar, closely related to Hawaiian guitar.  Steel guitars were originally placed on the lap and played with a bar in the left hand.  Later versions stood on legs or sat on a tabletop. 

Steel guitars sound more trebly than pedal steels.  The latter is great for creating great cascades of weeping tone. Steel guitars tended to cut through the sound of a record like a hot knife through biscuit dough.  Nobody plays them on Nashville records anymore.

Here's the Don Helms myspace page, where you can hear the master at work.  He had a tough gig, backing old alcoholic/junkie Hank.  They say that Hank once got drunk in a seafood restaurant and shot up an oil painting of a sailing ship firing its cannons.  When the police came he said "it drew on me first."

Ray Price wound up with Hank's old band, including Helms, after he died.  Wound up with his wife, too.   Neither relationship lasted all that long, though I think the band outlasted the marriage by a few years.

Don Helms was 81 when he died.  If you don't think he was a true maestro and a man with deep soul, try playing like him.  Can't be done.  As they used to say: Often imitated, never duplicated.

Bayh Now, Pay Later

Ellen links to a Wes Clark for VP petition that a lot of bloggers are promoting.  I signed it.  Meanwhile, an equal or greater number of bloggers are condemning the rumored selection of Evan Bayh as VP.  I agree with them, too - not so much because I disagree with Bayh ideologically (though I do) as for practical reasons.

If Obama selects Bayh, he will be undercutting the core rationale behind his candidacy.  He's been telling voters he should be President because, where McCain and the other 'insiders' were wrong, he was right.  He's saying that this shows judgement, and that judgement trumps Washington experience.

But ... If he chooses Bayh he'll be making a very different choice than the one he's asking voters to make.  He'll be choosing an insider who not only was wrong about Iraq, but was aggressively and stridently wrong about it.  Which leads to the core question:

If Obama himself doesn't use the question of 'judgement vs. experience' in making his 2008 decision, why should the voters?

There are other reasons not to choose Bayh, too, besides the fact that it undercuts Obama's pitch to the electorate.  These include the fact that it would de-energize Obama's base, reducing turnout and volunteerism in November. 

But the other big reason to avoid Bayh is that it would read as weakness.   Obama would be telegraphing to the electorate that he doesn't think his own talents or his "new Democrat" approach are enough to win the day.  He would be saying that he doesn't believe he can make it without having someone on the ticket who represents the timorous Democratic politicking of the past eight years. 

That gets us to Clark.  Sure, they'll howl over Clark's allegedly unreasonable comments about McCain's war experience (which were actually completely fair; it was a press mugging).  With this choice, Obama would be saying that Republican-driven press spin doesn't sway him. 

Where the selection of Bayh would read as weakness on Obama's part, a Clark choice would read as strength.  The refusal to cave to media hype is a minor part of that message of strength.  More importantly, Obama would be demonstrating that he knows he's a strong leader, and that he has enough confidence to choose a five-star general as his second in command and know he'll still be in charge.

If he chooses Bayh he'll have to give up all those ads that say "John McCain represents the old Washington politics."  If he chooses Clark, he'll be saying that he values ability and directness over DC insiderhood.  There are other good choices he could make, too, but Clark would be a smart way to go.

two spiritual comix

The Tibetan Book of the Dead has been published online in graphic novel form (that's comic book to you).

So has Robert Crumb's illustrated version of Philip K. Dick's 'revelation', which Dick beleived revealed an underlying hidden reality (others call it a symptom of schizophrenia).  Per Dick's vision, we are all Roman Christians, on the run and living in a dream.

Happy reading!

japanese jukebox of the dead

It was bound to happen, given the spiraling cost of land in Japan and that country’s technological creativity:

For 79-year-old Shinya Shimada, paying his respects around the time of Japan’s annual Bon festival, when the spirits of ancestors are believed to return home, means a visit to a modern vault rather than a traditional graveyard.

“Initially, I was a bit uncomfortable with a high-tech grave. But now, I have come to see it positively,” Shimada said.

At the nondescript three-storey building alongside a Buddhist temple, Shimada uses an identity card to dial-up the gravestones and urns carrying his ancestors’ ashes.

A library-stack-like machine behind altars transports them, complete with accompanying music and pictures of the deceased on a TV monitor.

It’s a kind of jukebox for the dead. Another “vault,” maintained at the Banshoji Temple, is even using RFID chips - tiny embedded transmitters - to keep track of the deceased:

When a relative visits the “Crystal Hall” on the third floor of the temple, they will scan an RFID-enabled card which first causes images of their loved one to appear on a screen while the deceased’s preferred musical selections play in the background. Then a wall-mounted LED system will guide the visitor to the correct area among the 2,000-capacity vault, where the card will open the appropriate ashes vault.

Banshoji is in Nagoya - where, many years ago, the relative of an old friend of mine left his life as a Buddhist priest to open up a Grateful Dead theme bar.  Japan’s an interesting place.

We may someday see these “jukebox graveyards” someday in the coastal areas of the United States.  Those areas already face land scarcity in places, and that could someday be aggravated by rising coastlines caused by global warming.

Personally, I don’t care where, how, or if my remains are preserved.  Others may feel differently.  To paraphrase Olivia Newton-John:  Please Mister, please.  Don’t make me B-17.

2 million people like me!

Just got an Obama email with the subject line "2 million people like you."    As I suspected, it wasn't claiming that 2 million people think I'm a nice guy.  It was  saying that 2,000,000 people - "like me" - will soon "own a piece of the campaign."  (By which they mean "will have donated money."  If I actually owned a piece of the campaign I'd have some say in their decision-making, which I don't.)

Is it just me?  I've never liked ad campaigns that talks about "millions of people just like you!"  Maybe it's an old idealistic fantasy of human uniqueness, or just plain old ego.  I don't want to believe that anybody is just like me, much less 2 million people.

I've never liked being addressed in the collective form in advertising, either:  "Hey, America!  You'll love our new rough and ready pickup truck!"  Please don't address me as "America" until you know me better.

Is this a generational thing?  Do young Obama supporters love knowing that there are "2 million people just like them"?  Does this go along with the hive-mind aspects of Facebook and blogswarms and massively multiplayer games?  (All of which I do, by the way.)

Or do I just think too much?  Chinese medicine says that thinking too much depletes the liver and makes the ear canal itch.

And my ear canals are itching like crazy.

Is Karl Rove the Anthrax Killer?

(Caution:  Irony alert.)

Okay, I know it's a surprising conclusion, but hear me out.

As far back as April of 2001, the man some call "The Architect" wrote in a memo to Paul Wolfowitz that the anthrax vaccine was "a political problem for us."  That's right.  Rove was worried about the very same thing Bruce Ivins was allegedly worried about:  the anthrax vaccine.

And consider the targets of those anthrax attacks: As Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschle was the Democrat most strategically placed to block Rove's political agenda. Then there's Patrick Leahy. As chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Leahy was in an excellent position to investigate whatever shenanigans Rove was already planning over at the Justice Department. (That attack was a rare tactical error on Rove's part, however. As a longtime Grateful Dead fan, Leahy is unusually drug-resistant.)

Tom Brokaw at NBC was yet another target.  Rove was publicly embarrassed on NBC during the 2000 election when he claimed Florida for Bush and was contradicted on-air by Tim Russert. And who was NBC's anchor that night? Chill alert: Tom Brokaw.

(People, including me,  gave NBC's David Gregory a hard time for "dancing" with Rove last year. But if we knew then what Gregory knew - about what the man is capable of doing when angered - well, heck, son. You'd dance too.)

The there's the Big One, of course: These attacks contributed to an atmosphere of terror that allowed Rove to win (at least temporarily) the political dominance he'd always craved.

Okay, that pretty much covers motive. Then there's the matter of character. Our suspect, a man in his fifties, has a history of grievous misbehavior that dates back to his college days. He acknowledges entering a Democratic politician's office at the tender age of 19 and stealing materials in order to carry out an elaborate deception.  And accounts of his high school student years characterize him as "a nerd and a motor mouth,"  which covers the "weirdness" angle that all these accusations of high-profile murder require.

Did I mention that he likes to go quail-hunting?  With a rifle?  A deadly weapon?  And now our potential "perp" is under investigation by the Congress of the United States for a number of alleged crimes.

So let's see: We've covered "motive" and "character." That leaves "opportunity," which is an easy one. As a close confidant of the President, Rove had access to pretty much every government resource (civilian or military) that he wanted.  That would include grades of anthrax that, unlike those discussed by the FBI yesterday, were powdered and weaponized.

Do we really believe Karl Rove is the anthrax killer?  Of course not.  This is satire, not some wacky conspiracy theory. And after all, who in their right mind would accuse someone of something so serious with such sketchy and circumstantial evidence?

Oh.  Right.

Sir Elton Wants to Shut Down the Internet!

Did you know Elton John wants to shut down the Internet? He said so last year and I missed the whole story.

It's true. If he could, Elton John would take a broom and sweep away the entire World Wide Web. And while that may strike you as cranky, he's also channeling a visionary story from 100 years ago. He might not be as crazy as he sounds. Wrong, maybe. But not crazy.

If my concentration wasn't zapped from so much surfing I could write about it.

Elton says that "the internet has stopped people from going out and being with each other, creating stuff ... People sit at home and make their own records, which is sometimes OK but doesn’t bode well for long-term artistic vision."

Rupert Murdoch's tabloid The Sun, which brought us this news, points out (bitchily, if you ask me) that Sir Elton's "latest album barely shipped 100,000 copies." But is illegal downloading the only reason he's anti-Net? No. He's not fond of bloggers, either:

“We’re talking about things that are going to change the world and change the way people listen to music and that’s not going to happen with people blogging on the internet.

“I mean, get out there and communicate ... Let’s get out in the streets and march and protest instead of sitting at home and blogging."

Now, let's be clear:  He's not talking about shutting down the Internet forever:

“I do think it would be an incredible experiment to shut down the whole internet for five years and see what sort of art is produced over that span ...

“I’m sure, as far as music goes, it would be much more interesting than it is today.”

If you think he's just another old guy who's cranky because the good old days are gone, that's probably not completely fair. I know, I know. You can't turn back the clock. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. You can't ... (well, you know as many cliches for the irreversibility of progress as I do, so insert some of your own. This is the Internet! It's interactive, right?)

Elton seems to be channeling E. M. Forster's 1909 story "The Machine Stops," which forecast a very Internet-like future. (Maybe something was in England's air back then. H. G. Wells was already forming his idea of a "World Brain," another Net-like idea, which he finally published in book form in 1937.) In the story a son complains to his mother about their physical and emotional isolation. He'd rather meet face to face rather than talk to each other's image on a "tiny metal plate." She thinks that's a waste of time.

In the end somebody rebels, the machine is destroyed by an "airship" crashing into it (heads up, Google!), the son is glad ... Then everybody dies. Or it's great that the machine is gone. Both, maybe. I don't know. I can't remember. Read it yourself, if you can still focus that long.  I know I can't.

Where was I? Oh, yeah. The Internet. I'm a big fan, myself - it's the next step in human evolution etc. etc. - but I still see his point. There's been a lot of crap music lately, and it's hard to survive making good music.  But shut it down for five years?  You couldn't shut it down for five days without collapsing the world's economy.

I don't really know why Elton John's against the Internet, actually.  Maybe it's those "faceless aliens" that showed up at his white tie ball.  Faceless and alien:  Very Web 2.0, don't you think?

Elton John's written some great songs. He's got a lot of soul. Here's what I think he should do about the Internet: He should forget it. He should go into a studio with a great R&B band. In fact, he should be locked into the studio, and told he can't come out to go to any society events until he's ready to overdub the horn parts.

Then we can talk about the Internet, the future, and E. M. Forster.  And I promise to buy the album.  Elton singing soul?  It'll be awesome.  I'll download it from iTunes.

born left-handed in august

As this astrologer says in this astrological analysis, both of this year's Presidential candidates "chose to incarnate in the month of August."  So did I.  Hmm. 

What I could never get about astrology was the argument that the "gravitational pull" of the planets explains their influence over our lives.  Traffic in the street has far greater gravitational pull on us than any planet does.  So you shouldn't need an astrological chart to tell your future.  You could just get a bus schedule.

But ... I saw an Indian astrologer once and it was uncanny.  There are more things ...

Black Observation:  Astrologers in India sometimes predict the date of their own death.  Occasionally they've been killed by angry crowds when they didn't die on schedule.  What a bad move.  You lose either way.  Call it "career suicide."

Oh, another thing:  Both candidates are left-handed.  As was Bill Clinton.  And Ronald Reagan.  And Bush I.  And Gerald Ford.  As am I. 

A far greater percentage of  Presidents and Presidential candidates have been left-handed than is true of the general population.  Says one researcher:

Scientists and historians agree that being left-handed, which is often associated with outside-the-box thinking, can be a political strength.

"They have a wider scope of thinking," said Amar Klar, a biologist who has done breaking research on handedness. "I know among scientists their numbers are really high. There are more Noble Prize winners, writers and painters. We need more people like that."

Ahem.

Two of the four Beatles were left-handed, too - Paul and Ringo.  That makes 50% of Beatles, as opposed to 9-10% of the general population.  (To add to the coincidence, Ringo is also named Richard.  I'm getting chills.)

About that "outside the box" thinking, though - I'm not that organized.  I lost the box.

OK, so I'm not a Beatle or a Presidential candidate.  But like they say, all that really matters is whether you're a good person.

What?  Oh.  Never mind.

Third Eye on the News: Talking to Buddhists About the '08 Race and the "Rough Old Trade" of Politics

 

Serenity? Yeah, that would be good. Some sense of what happens when I die? That would be nice, too, as the decades whirl by. But there's a world on fire out there - and anyway, some of us aren't made for the monastic life. These election years are especially challenging: One candidate plays dirty, the other occasionally disappoints, and the media rig the game.

Same old same old.

It seemed like a good idea to ask some Buddhists for guidance.  So I did, in my second piece for the Buddhist magazine Tricycle.  It's called "Election Returns:  The Politics of Karma, the Karma of Politics."  A number of wise people gave me real wisdom - far more than I could fit into a 2500-word piece.

Am I a Buddhist? I don't feel completely comfortable saying so. That's certainly how I roll meditation-wise, and Buddhism makes sense to me metaphysically. But I feel some loyalty to my Jewish upbringing. And to the Christians who took me in and showed me love. And to the agnostics and nonbelievers, including the one who raised me. Question: Does calling yourself something make you disloyal to everything else?

And I don't think people should have to label themselves religiously. But if I had to state my religion on a passport or a hospital admission form, then yeah, I'd put "Buddhist." But which kind? There are so many flavors: Zen, Tibetan, Vipassana. I don't know. And on second thought, I've stopped caring what happens when I die, anyway. If it's oblivion, fine. If it's reincarnation or some other continuance, fine. I lean toward the latter, but as Bob Hope said when someone asked if he'd rather be cremated or buried: Surprise me.

As I was saying, I learned a lot. I especially liked what Thai activist Sulak Sivaraksa told me: "You (Americans) must try to help each other fight structural violence. It's not Buddhist to pursue a selfish Nirvana." (The other Buddhists I spoke with liked it too.) And Robert Thurman was especially taken with a little problem I was having seeing a certain prominent Republican (and Halliburton executive) in meditation.

Vipassana teacher Jack Kornfield "encourages political engagement as a dimension of spiritual life." Wes Nisker helped with my burning resentments and provided a bright vision of the future. Roshi Bernie Glassman talked about social engagement as a reflection of inner states. Radio host Thom Hartmann (somebody else who doesn't label his beliefs) reflected on the optimism he has felt in different political movements.

Poet/activist Anne Waldman, speaking during the primary contest, reflected on Hillary Clinton's siddhis (abilities) and hoped she would put them to good use after the "grasping" of the primaries ended. (She has, and Bill will hopefully follow.)

Many of the Buddhist teachers I interviewed were enthusiastic Obama supporters, seeing in him a certain balance, focus, and ability to create reconciliation. I started to wonder if there had been a meditators' caucus somewhere ...

British practitioner/activist Ken Jones discussed the "vortex of party politics ... a rough old trade, and not for any of our co-religionists who crave Purity and Perfection." That's the real question: How can a person be politically effective without becoming trapped in that eternal cycle of resentment and payback? Otherwise we remain enslaved to the never-ending conflicts, generation after generation and life after life.

Same old same old.

The folks I interviewed gave me so much good material that I'll be excerpting more of it shortly.  If you have a chance to read the Tricycle piece in the meantime, let me know what you think.

(crossposted at Arianna's )

friday random 10

Boubacar Diagne

Under-the-weather days like this one are good for Friday Random 10's, where - as our regular players know - the mp3 player makes random selections from the Night Light collection of 21,000 digitally-encoded songs:

1. "Am I That Easy to Forget," Johnny Rodriguez - The late country singer 70's-era cover of the 50's Carl Belew classic, sung partly in Spanish.
2. "I'm Gonna Break Every Heart I Can," Hag - Off-label early Merle Haggard track, from the early dusty Bakersfield days.
3. "Everybody Cares, Everybody Understands," Eliot Smith - I liked Eliot Smith a lot.  But I think maybe he's to blame for emo.  May he rest in peace anyway.
4. "I've Got a Crush On Us," Teenage Fanclub - I'll always be a power-pop junkie.
5. "Dembe," Boubacar Diagne - Senegalese Sufis self-hypnotize with percussion, leading to increased closeness with the One.  At least, that's how I understand it.  Works for me ...
6. "The Truth," Lloyd Price - Late-era reggae-flavored track by the New Orleans singer who sang "she's got personality (walk, talk)" and "Just Because," among other great songs known and unknown.
7. "Toccata," Bakfart Balint Lute Trio - From a collection of renaissance Transylvanian music I bough in Hungary.  Never understand how a lute trio's track could feature only solo organ, but there it is.
8. "She Belongs to Me," Bob Dylan (alternate take) - Nice version.  I prefer the one that made it onto vinyl.
9. "Planet Queen," T. Rex - He was a creature of his time ...
10. "Remember," John Lennon - Why does anybody nowadays use this kind of stripped down arrangement and production?  Doesn't anybody trust the song and the performance to get the job done anymore?  Rhetorical questions, of course ...

I like Lennon's Guy Fawkes ending, too.  Wish I could do something like that to end this post.

The Online War the Democrats Are Losing: Where's the Strategy?

The Internet's had some great successes on behalf of Barack Obama. But net-savvy Democrats are being beaten by the simplest of all online technologies, and nobody to my knowledge is designing a response.

Building on models like MoveOn to Facebook, the Obama campaign and its supporters have raised huge sums of money and built impressive virtual organizations in support of his candidacy. Groups like ActBlue have created fundraising clearinghouses, which bloggers like Howie Klein, Jane Hamsher, Digby and Crooks and Liars have in turn used to create effective fundraising tools for Congressional Democrats. 

With all this expertise, digital campaigning should be asymmetrical warfare. After all, these forces are lined up against a candidate who seems to resent newfangled contraptions like computers. If God didn't want us to write with feather pens he wouldn't have made birds.

But the Right's winning one war: the email war. That could prove decisive. It would be ironic if, after all these innovations, Democrats were beaten by a tool that's so crude yet effective. Nothing to join, no links to follow: just read the email, hit "forward," and enter all your friends' names.

Case in point:  I received the "Captain Jeffrey Porter" email yesterday  -- the one that says Obama snubbed the troops in Afghanistan -- even though its been discredited by the Army Times. Capt. Porter has admitted he was wrong and apologized. Still, emails like this one keep getting distributed anyway. Most recipients -- and many senders -- don't know these emails are false. They probably never will.

Emails have the added impact of appearing intimate, friendly, and truly "social." For example, read the header on this one, with its informality (complete with reassuringly casual errors):

Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:09:34 -0400
From: xxxxxx@gmail.com
To: xxxxxx@hotmail.com
Subject: Fro my ex-soldier's wife

    From: XXX XXX

    Subject: ok, rare to get a fwd from me...so read it :)
    To: 'XXXX XXXX'

    Date: Tuesday, July 29, 2008, 9:16 AM

    Hi all   FYI--for what freedom is worth.

    T------- and Jeff Porter are our friends who were in our ward when we
    lived in Provo.  They now live in Virginia.

    I don't know each of your personal political convictions, and appologize
    if anyone finds this offensive.  I thought it was important enough to
    share.  This is Jeff's first hand view of Senator Obama. 

A copy of the now-discredited email then follows. I've received quite a few others, too. Several are blatantly racist "jokes" that have Obama speaking in an Amos-and-Andy dialect. A few others have been targeted toward Jewish recipients, sent by people who know my Jewish background. These emails include "guilt by association" articles by right-wing smear artist Debbie Schlussel -- "Obama knows a guy who knows a guy who met Louis Farrakhan's mother," that sort of thing -- as well as the usual "he really is a Muslim but won't tell you" stuff. 

There's an organizational lesson to be learned here -- one that should be studied by political researchers, consultants, and campaign managers.

The Jewish-targeted emails I've received are an especially interesting lesson. Without any social networking technology, these emails are successfully being custom-designed for a specific demographic group. Then they're delivered to that group in a targeted way, using only the pre-digital power of existing social relationships. After the Debbie Schlussels of the world write the content, members of any number of social networks (Jewish, Christian, business-oriented, etc.) go to work on an all-volunteer basis. And it only takes a minute to do your part ....

Email: It's a digital pyramid scheme, with words instead of money as the currency. it's hard to beat the logarithmic power of multiplying the number of all your friends by the number of all their friends, and all their friends' friends ... ad infinitum. And so easy to do! Why, even John McCain could learn. (He could get one of those pre-recorded courses they sell on late-night TV. You know ... "How to Use a PC" by The Computer Professor, that sort of thing ...)

How should Democrats and the Left respond? They can hit "reply all" and send a debunking note, as I do. But that's a defensive play, a tiny holding action. There's no overall email strategy, or even a counter-strategy to what's being done now. There are only questions: Is the right response for Democrats to send their own emails? Shouldn't they show a greater dedication to the truth than these right-wing emailers do? But if they do that, won't they be much less effective?

Ethical Democrats wouldn't feel very good about being part of an email army that floods the nation with tales of Vicki Iseman or the Keating Five. But if not that, then what? Maybe someone can kick-start some discussions about the political email wars: what's happening, who's losing, and what can be done to turn it around. There should be a way to use the power of emails more effectively without compromising basic ethical principles.

appearance on air america show

Ron Kuby is a lawyer whose the name I'd heard years ago, in association with Bill Kunstler.  Didn't realize they picked him to replace Randi Rhodes. 

It also turns out that my appearance on his show today was an attempted sandbagging, where the host doesn't tell you he's going to attack you beforehand but tries to surprise you instead.  A couple folks from Air America contacted me afterwards to apologize for his behavior, but no problem - it worked out fine.   

At least as far as I'm concerned.

Kuby pulled some quotes of mine and tried a lawyerly defense of right-wing extremists and their rhetoric.  For some reason he focused on Sean Hannity and not anyone else I'd named in my first post. That was a poor choice tactically, since it turns out that one of Hannity's books was in the killer's house when police searched it.  He could've picked someone else and had a slightly stronger argument - although it still would've been a weak one from my point of view.

Kuby seemed to be arguing for the man he kept referring to as "Sean" on free speech grounds.  This, despite the fact I had specifically written that nobody's freedom of speech should be abridged. 

One of many ways Kuby goes wrong, in my opinion, is in claiming that on the Right don't bear moral responsibility for a consistent pattern of violent rhetoric  - even if someone reacts to that violent rhetoric with actual violence.  Nope.  No responsibility of any kind, says Kuby. 

Ironic.  Kuby defends Hannity et al. and their violent language.  Yet if Randi hadn't been fired for using harsh language Kuby wouldn't even have the gig.  (They don't carry his show on Air America here.  They carries Randi's from Nova M.)

Air America posted a version of our discussion on their website, but it's been cut by three or four minutes.  I was on the phone and Kuby interrupted/spoke over me a lot - so their version, which also deletes my closing statement, doesn't fully get my points across.  I've posted an unedited version of the exchange below.

You can evaluate it for yourself without the suppression of anyone's speech - his or mine:

Air America Interview

I'll be interviewed today at 5:30 pm EST, 2:30 Pacific, on Ron Kuby's Air America show.  I'll be talking about the Knoxville church shootings.

If you don't get the show, they stream it here:

http://airamerica.com/listen

blogger get angry, blogger get mad - blogger helps other guy's argument

Someone wrote about my first Knoxville piece in the Huffington Post with a post entitled "I Hate This Shit."  Eloquent, huh?  His objection:  "I really can not stand bullshit like this."  That's why America loves bloggers.

He continues, "Every time there is a tragedy, some jackass is out there trying to exploit it, attempting to validate or air their petty political grievances ... Just stop.  The details are just becoming clear about this tragedy, and I assure you- the blame lies with Jim Adkisson, not Pat Robertson. "

Except ... the article he links to confirms my point, it doesn't refute it.   It's headed "Rampage Attributed to Hatred of Liberalism."  Next time somebody wants to score cheap points on the Internet by calling another writer names, they might want to cite an article that doesn't prove the other guy's point.

Just a suggestion.

As for the blogger in question:  In some people's minds, events happen in a vacuum.  Nothing - not even a nonstop media barrage - influence's an individual's behavior.  I suppose Middle Eastern terrorists aren't influenced by Islamist rhetoric, either.  They'll just do what they're going to do, no matter what's said or done around them.

I don't happen to agree.

A Murderer's Bookshelf: Hannity, O'Reilly, and Savage On Killer's Reading List

This morning I wrote (in "Monster") that Sean Hannity et al. might bear some share of moral responsibility for the killings in Knoxville. Sadly for everyone concerned, that may be true.

This evening we learn from the Knoxville News that officers entering the home of murder Jim Adkisson "found Liberalism is a Mental Health Disorder by radio talk show host Michael Savage, Let Freedom Ring by talk show host Sean Hannity, and The O'Reilly Factor, by television talk show host Bill O'Reilly."

The presence of somebody's books in a mentally disturbed person's home does not make them accessories to a killing. But right-wing rhetoric toward liberals and humanists like those who attended the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church has been exceptionally violent for years. Liberal groups are often called "Nazi" or "Nazi-like" by O'Reilly (he even said that about our own Arianna Huffington). Savage says he'd "hang every lawyer" who tried to establish constitutional rights for Guantanamo prisoners, describes Obama as an "Afro-Leninist," and said the folks at Media Matters were "brownshirts." He describes Rep. Wexler as a "Nazi" and calls Nancy Pelosi a "Mussolini."

As for Hannity, he said that "there are things in life worth fighting and dying for and one of 'em is making sure Nancy Pelosidoesn't become the speaker (of the House)." Think about it: "worth fighting and dying for."

And that's just a sampler.

Ann Coulter says liberals should be beaten with baseball bats and tried for treason (she's not clear about the order in which these events are to take place.) Dick Morris says they're "traitors" who should be decapitated.

I had a friend at Clear Channel (yes, I have a broad group of friends) who described some of these people as "entertainers." Don't you get it, guys? You use inflammatory images that equates your fellow Americans with violent enemies of the nation. Then you act surprised when a mentally ill person believes you and kills. You use the language of war and then say you're not to blame when somebody enlists in your imaginary struggle.

Their next step will be outrage - outrage! - at the idea that they may be morally accountable for this action, the possible fruit of their rhetoric.

We all need to be thoughtful about the impact of our words. But the Right has made it their business to promote a particularly virulent brand of hatred. Would Jim Adkisson have killed without all that prompting from the vituperative chorus of the right? We'll never know. But it's looking less likely with every passing hour that he would ever have entered a church filled with children and started shooting.

If they found something I wrote in a killer's home, I'd stop what I was doing and begin some serious self-reflection. I'd write about it, consider my errors, and try to make amends. Wouldn't you? Not that censorship isn't the answer. Not every reprehensible act can be legislated away. Sometimes the most effective way to change people is to hold them accountable. That includes not only Fox News, in this case, but also CNN - who recently gave the anchor chair to hate-speaker Glenn Beck.

Guys, it's not "entertainment" any more - if it ever was. We need to hold those in the boardroom accountable, too. They make their money and serve their political agenda by telling hundreds of millions of people that liberal Americans are treacherous and mentally ill enemies of the state. And they use the public airwaves to do it.

If these right-wing pundits are as devout as they say they are they'll stop, think, and ask forgiveness. That goes for their corporate paymasters, too. I hope they do for their own sakes, though I don't expect it.

As for the rest of us, it's time to look at new strategies for containing the spread of hate speech in our media. The old ways aren't working.

president obama soon come: 3rd world presidential song festival

Salon hipped us to the flood of new Obama songs out there.  Here's a taste.

President Obama?  Soon come.  So seh reggae artist Coco Tea, in his new tune "Barack Obama."  Pretty damn catchy, eh?  (I especially like the dude on Coco's left.)  Check it here:

"Barack Obama," Coco Tea

And listen to the beautiful guitar playing of "Obama Boy" (answer to "Obama Girl," I guess) from Barack's ancestral homeland of Kenya.  Here's his tune, "Shame On Hillary Clinton." (Not to open old wounds or anything - I don't even know what he's saying, except that the song's name sounds like a response to Hillary saying "Shame on you, Barack Obama!")  Note the title card at the beginning:  "Africa for Baraka Obama":

"Shame On Hillary Clinton," Obama Boy

On the other hand, the other bloggers might have been punked.  I think the refrain "Toa Boriti" means something religious in Swahili.  But either way it's a pretty song and the new title's entertaining, so there's no harm in playing it.

Trinidad's Mighty Sparrow, now 73 (and a naturalized US citizen), celebrates "Barack the Magnificent" (praise songs in the Caribbean don't stint on the "praise" part).  This one is Janet's favorite:

"Barack the Magnificent," The Mighty Sparrow

And to endear the Senator to any musicians (or music lovers) out there, check out this excerpt from the Salon piece:

Obama did not do any of the things that Kenyan Tony Nyadundo claims he did on the "Iliad"-length "Obama" ... For 17 minutes, Nyadundo weaves a tale in which Obama, during his initial visit to his paternal homeland years ago, gave Nyadundo $1,600 to buy a guitar. Great story, nice song, didn't happen. But Obama has actually helped more than one African musician with visa problems enter the United States, including members of the part-Kenyan, part-American band Extra Golden, whom he assisted in 2006 before he was a presidential frontrunner. Their hat tip to Obama was accordingly composed long in advance of global Obama-mania.

Wasn't crazy about the FISA vote, but you gotta love that.

Monster: Who Really Killed the Knoxville Unitarians?

I'd say that Unitarians were God's thoughtful people, but they make no particular claims about God. In some parts of the country that takes real courage.

My first wife and I joined a Unitarian church in suburban DC and raised our kids there. She and I were from different religious backgrounds - in a way, I was from different religious backgrounds, raised in Judaism but with Catholic and Southern Baptist relatives. We both practiced Buddhist meditation (and found others there that did the same.)

Unitarians tend to be intellectual, verbal, literate, thoughtful, and from a variety of backgrounds. Some are atheist, some are agnostic, others believe in God in a variety of Eastern and Western forms. Some would describe themselves as "ethically Christian," although others would not - and it is not an exclusively Christian group. The running joke among Unitarians was that the name "Jesus" is only heard when someone falls down the stairs, and that the only sacrament is the black coffee brewed after services.

The Unitarian Universalist (or UU) denomination is the product of a merger between Unitarianism and Universalism, two centuries-old Christian denominations. Unitarianism was founded on the belief that the Trinity was illogical and that there could only be one divinity. Universalists believed that God was too merciful to condemn anyone to an eternity in hell, and that even the most evil person would get out of there eventually (after fifty thousand years or so). Eventually they merged and abandoned all dogma. (You can read the Knoxville church's website for a summary of beliefs.)

When my work sent me to Hungary, I arrived in the only nation on earth that ever had a Unitarian state (during the reign of King John Sigismund, who decreed religious tolerance in 1568). Ralph Waldo Emerson is the closest thing to a saint that UU's have. An ordained minister in the church, his Harvard Divinity School address was revolutionary in its day.

Emerson rejected all claims of the supernatural in the Bible. He said that miracles were "monster," in the original meaning of that word as "against nature." In a characteristically striking turn of phrase, he said they were "not one with the blowing clover and the falling rain." Emerson was telling us that the beauty of the manifest world should be enough.

Is it worth killing a person for believing that? 

My current (and future) wife and I were married by the Rev. Forrest Church at All Souls Unitarian in Manhattan.  (Dr. Church is now teaching us how to face death.) When at several points in my career jobs came up in the Deep South, I always checked to see if there was a Unitarian Church nearby. One of those job possibilities, which I chose not to pursue, was in Knoxville.

Jim Adkisson of Powell, Tennessee was the man with his finger on the trigger. He had mental health problems, and a hard and bitter life. He apparently left a letter explaining that he hated the church for its liberal beliefs and opinions. And the church had a sign outside indicating it welcomed gays and lesbians.

Who really killed those Unitarians? Was it the preachers who spread hatred and intolerance? The politicians who court and flatter them instead of condemning their hate speech? The media machine that attacks liberals, calls them "traitors" and suggests you speak to them "with a baseball bat"? The economic system that batters people like Jim Adkinson until they snap, then tells them their real enemies are gays and liberals and secular humanists?

If you ask me, it was all of the above.

You killed them, Pat Robertson. You killed them, Pastor Hagee. You killed them, Ann Coulter. You killed them, Dick Morris and Sean Hannity and the rest of you at Fox News.

The shooting began while the children of the church were putting on a musical based on "Annie." One broad-shouldered church member blocked the bullets from hitting other people, and died. You don't need to believe in dogma to be a hero. Remember that song from "Annie"? It probably got on your nerves like it got on mine. "The sun'll come out tomorrow."

The sun coming out. That's natural. It's one with the blowing clover and the falling rain. But a man driven insane, then programmed by society to kill people just because they're loving and tolerant?

That's monster.

lefty: wait no longer

I've studied your case in some detail.  Having made my diagnosis, the prescription is clear:

You need some Lefty Frizzell.

Oh, these "country" acts nowadays are cute.  They're all well and good if you're looking for someone to carry on the honored and timeworn tradition ... of the Eagles.  But it's Lefty that inspires the great ones, from Merle to George to Randy Travis.

Best phrasing there ever was in country music.  Calming, curing, soulful.  But don't take my word for it.  Play the video.

Long-Term Thinking About Health: Seven Trends That Should Concern Us

This country is in a healthcare crisis today — but we’re not thinking enough about tomorrow either. Here are seven trends to watch, starting with the short-term and ending with what may seem more like science-fiction.

The seven trends are: Doctors leaving the public system, a shortfall in primary care, underutilization of medical treatment, “superbugs,” virtual health care, climate change, and radical self-redesign and enhancement.

(the rest is  at The Sentinel Effect)

(image courtesy Leo Reynolds via Creative Commons license)

he is the world, he is the children

Michael Bérubé speaks for the entire planet - well, at least for the people on it - regarding the election.

time is on his side

Bloggers like Greg Sargent and Kevin Drum are up in arms because Fred Hiatt claims that Maliki did not endorse Obama's timetable for withdrawal.  Hiatt's reasoning?  He says Obama and Maliki differ by seven months - because Obama's timetable would have troops out by June 2010 and Maliki says he wants them out by the end of 2010.

Greg thinks that's "borderline farce."   Stuff and nonsense, I say!  Hiatt's right on the money - and what's more, teenagers should be heartened by this.  When your parents say they want you "home by 11," they mean 11 - and not a moment sooner!

Do you hear me, young man?