FROM THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW
FROM THE PROGRESSIVE REVIEW
EDITED BY SAM SMITHSince 1964, Washington's most unofficial source
E-MAIL: mailto:news@prorev.com
1312 18th St. NW #502 Washington DC 20036202-835-0770 Fax: 835-0779
WORD
JOURNALIST - A rat-like cunning, a plausible manner, and a little literary ability. The capacity to steal other peoples' ideas and phrases is also invaluable - HL Mencken
POLITICS
ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CAPITOL
YOUR editor enjoyed lunch today with his wife at Jimmy T's five blocks down East Capitol Street from where George Bush and his capos were being given four more years to do damage to their country, its constitution, its culture, and its environment -- not to mention further mischief to the rest of the world. The inauguration was taking place on the opposite side of the Capitol and there were hardly any cars or people and no signs of security.
The counter at Jimmy T's was full so we sat in a booth. The TV was on but no one looked at the inauguration and the sound was turned to WASH-FM - loud enough so you couldn't hear the helicopters overhead. For as long as it takes to eat a short stack with bacon and drink a cup of coffee we could pretend everything was okay.
The other day I walked by the Capitol and found myself wondering why we weren't more paranoiac during the Cold War. When Johnson and Kennedy and Nixon were president you could still wander about the Capitol's halls and through the associated office buildings as though you were actually a part owner. Yet if Tom Ridge had been in charge of setting the alerts for that era, he would have run out of colors. We were in far more danger than we are now.
Even if one wants to argue that a dirty bomb in a backpack is more dangerous than a clean bomb sent by a rocket or that a few suicidal young Arab guys are more dangerous than divisions of well dressed Soviet troops, you still do have to argue the point and that in itself suggests that the response should be somewhat similar.
But there's little similar about it and as I walked down the hill by the Capitol it suddenly struck me that this isn't about me and you; it's about them. We are being governed by some intensely frightened people. From George Bush on down. Much of the homeland security business, in Washington at least, is to provide personal protection to important people from the consequence of the extremely bad things they are doing. We are the victims of both Al Qaeda and Il Dubya, told to give up our rights and freedoms so that the worst leaders of our entire history can go about their business without having to suffer for it. The whole city of Washington has become the armored vest of the Bush administration and Congress. - Sam Smith
BUSH'S PRIVATIZED PARTY
[NEVER has such broad and public space been turned over to such narrow private interests and with such limited access to the public as with the Bush Inaugural. Those attorneys looking for a good class action suit might consider the fact that the usurpation of public space and the security costs associated with it are in fact a contribution from the US government to the Republican Party, one which is certainly illegal and probably criminal.]
MATTHEW CELLA, WASHINGTON TIMES - Law-enforcement agencies say people who would like to attend today's inaugural festivities should not be intimidated by heightened security, but they should be aware of the stepped-up protective measures so they are not turned away. "We encourage people and we want people to participate, but we want them to be aware to bring lots of patience," said Sgt. Contricia Sellers-Ford, spokeswoman for the U.S. Capitol Police. Capitol Police are tasked with providing security on the Capitol grounds, where President Bush will be sworn in and deliver his second inaugural address.
[In the first paragraph it's "people who would like to attend" but by the second it turns out you have to have a ticket]
Even though spectators are required to have obtained tickets in advance for the ceremony, Sgt. Sellers-Ford said they should be sure not to carry any prohibited items and to arrive as early as possible, because officers will have a limited amount of time to screen and seat everyone.
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20050120-120045-3810r.htm
SARI HORWITZ AND CAROL D. LEONNIG, WASHINGTON POST - With long stretches of Pennsylvania Avenue lined with bleachers and reserved for ticket-holders or protesters, where can the general public stand and watch the 55th Inaugural Parade? The question was asked repeatedly Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman, who was hearing a suit filed by a protest group over access to the parade route. But no clear answer emerged. . .
Officials with the D.C. police, whose officers will line the route, said they did not know exactly where the public should go and referred all questions to the U.S. Secret Service, which is overseeing security for the inauguration. Homeland Security Department officials also referred the question to the Secret Service. When asked where a member of the public could stand to view the parade today, Secret Service spokesman Tom Mazur said he did not know. "I do not have an answer to that question," Mazur said.
FBI officials involved with parade security noted that bleacher seating is for people with tickets and that several areas are designated for protesters. "There are no places on the parade route that are not already assigned or ticketed seating," an FBI official said. . .
A tour of the parade route last night revealed few places for the general public to stand and watch the procession. There appears to be space east of 10th Street NW, on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue. There are a few other pockets, including a half-block on the north side of Pennsylvania, west of 11th Street. Some intersections will also be open. But sidewalk access could change when the fencing is complete and some of the bleachers that were in the street last night are put in place.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22659-2005Jan19.html
BUSH DOESN'T JUST BELIEVE IN GOD; HE BELIEVES HE SPEAKS FOR HIM
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/159/story_15962_1.html
DAVID DOMKE AND KEVIN COE, BELIEF NET - Bush referenced a higher power 10 times in his first inaugural four years ago, including this claim: "I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves, who creates us equal, in His image." In his three State of the Union addresses since, Bush invoked God another 14 times. . .
Bush also talks about God differently than most other modern presidents. Presidents since Roosevelt have commonly spoken as petitioners of God, seeking blessing, favor, and guidance. This president positions himself as a prophet, issuing declarations of divine desires for the nation and world. Among modern presidents, only Reagan has spoken in a similar manner - and he did so far less frequently than has Bush. . .
THINGS TO DO IN THE BAD TIMES
GET A PLAN
SAM SMITH - Many Americans think they know what the Republicans and Democrats stand for. The trouble is that they learned it from the Republicans.
This is because Democrats and progressives have been miserably incapable of stating clearly what they are about. This is not - as some have suggested - a matter of better rhetoric or proper branding; it is a matter of having something you believe in and explaining it well to others.
The Vichy Democrats in control of the party aren't interested in this because it destroys their flexibility to appear to be one thing to their contributors and another thing to their constituents. But clever as this may appear, it has left the left to be defined by the right as being interested primarily in gay marriages and abortions.
In the end, to many it appears the GOP stands for all the good things - patriotism, values, family, the economy, security et al - while the Democrats stand for nothing. Nominating Kerry, of course, merely played into the stereotype.
Liberals have also shown an astounding indifference to some of the assumptions that have grown up about them. Worthy as gay rights and conception choices are, it is helpful to remember, as a political matter, that gays constitute something less than five percent of the electorate and only about 700,000 more women have abortions each year than when Roe v. Wade was handed down. If you want to win a national election, you need broader priorities than these.
But I can hardly remember the last time an average liberal expressed any concern to me over health care, pensions, or jobs. There are, of course, those like Dean Baker who continue to carry the load on classic Democratic issues, but sadly too many liberal activists seem to think they can win based on their collective nobility. Politics doesn't work that way.
There is a need for a progressive platform, preferably one that can be written on a single side of a sheet of paper. Here's a sample:
- A foreign policy that makes America a model of and friend to the rest of the world rather than a bully and a threat.
- The restoration of democracy and constitutional government in the U.S.
- Single payer health care
- A safe and clean natural environment
- Fair working conditions for all including pay, workplace safety, labor rights, and pensions.
- An end to the corruption in the Democratic Party that has done it so much harm
- Electoral reform including instant runoff voting and public campaign financing.
If you don't like that list, then write your own.
But in the end, progressives need to come together and select a handful of issues such as the aforementioned to which they will dedicate their major energies and which will thus finally define them fairly.
Since the sixties there has been a tremendous splintering of progressives into groups specializing in a single issue or around a cluster of single issues. This has produced a high level of expertise on these issues, raised the national consciousness on many of them, and provided a cadre capable of writing and criticizing legislation. The less happy side-effect has been that progressives have forgotten how to work in coalition with one another and seem incapable of providing a holistic vision of that for which they are striving. They have become specialists and technocrats of change rather than leaders and prophets. And far too many fit G. K. Chesterton's description of liberals: they can't lead; they won't follow, and they refuse to cooperate.
This has to change if there is to be any hope for progressive politics.
MORE THINGS TO DO IN THE BAD TIMEShttp://prorev.com/thingstodo.htm
GREEKS AREN'T HAPPY WITH AMERICAN TALIBAN
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=655808
KAROLOS GROHMANN
REUTERS - A clutch of complaints by U.S. viewers that the Athens Olympics opening ceremony featured lewd nudity has incensed the Games chief, who warned American regulators to back off from policing ancient Greek culture. Gianna Angelopoulos warned the Federal Communications Commission watchdog, sensitive after a deluge of outrage when singer Janet Jackson's breast was exposed at a Super Bowl game, not to punish NBC television that aired the Games.
"Far from being indecent, the opening ceremonies were beautiful, enlightening, uplifting and enjoyable," Angelopoulos wrote in a weekend commentary in the Los Angeles Times titled "Since When is Greece's Culture Obscene?"
"Greece does not wish to be drawn into an American culture war. Yet that is exactly what is happening," she said. . .
"We also showed a couple enjoying their love of the Greek sea and each other. And we told the history of Eros, the god of love. Turning love, yearning and desire into a deity is an important part of our contribution to civilization," Angelopoulos said.
Angelopoulos, who said the handful of U.S. complaints were dwarfed by the 3.9 billion people who watched the ceremony, had a blunt message.
"As Americans surely are aware, there is great hostility in the world today to cultural domination in which a single value system created elsewhere diminishes and degrades local cultures," she said in her commentary. In this context, it is astonishingly unwise for an agency of the U.S. government to engage in an investigation that could label a presentation of the Greek origins of civilization as unfit for television viewing."
[According to another account there were only nine complaints]
DETOURS
WHILE SKIMMING the Daily Bleed, our favorite daily journal of important historical events, we were stopped by this:
"1923 - Danish explorers have informed the world that they have found in the Arctic a warlike tribe of Eskimos bearing the proud name of Avrilisarmints, all of whom, men, women and children, are poets. The Eskimo poets sing poems of their own composition, and they have exceedingly long memories, in that respect resembling the ancient bards of Greece and Scandinavia:
"'If the [Danish] Poetry Society does not fit out an expedition to mingle with the Avrilisarmint tribe, exchange ideas, candy, blubber, tallow and calorific conceptions, it will miss such an opportunity as may never occur again.'"
Googlizing this remarkable assertion came up with no additional information about the warrior Eskimos and their endemic poetry but did produce this by Beverly Cavenaugh in the Canadian Journal for Traditional Music in 1973
'Songs are thoughts, sung out with the breath when people are moved by great forces and ordinary speech no longer suffices. There are so many occasions in one's life when a joy or a sorrow is felt in such a way that the desire comes to sing. All my being is songs, and I sing as I draw breath.'
These are the captivating words of Orpingalik, the great Eskimo shaman whom the Danish explorer, Knud Rasmussen, first encountered as he neared Pelly Bay in 1923. The understanding which developed between these two men, indeed the rapport which Rasmussen established with Eskimo people across the entire North American arctic and Greenland, resulted in many uniquely perceptive studies of the Eskimo people. Among the greatest legacies of Rasmussen are his collections of song texts. Quoted in numerous publications of the past decades, his sensitive and poetic translations have become synonymous with Eskimo poetry. In spite of their intrinsic poetic value, however, this has unfortunately resulted in some distortion of the truth. . .
Rasmussen's admirable command of both English and Eskimo allowed him to convert the prose-like originals into concise and vivid poetry. In this manner he did convey the soul and meaning of the songs more adequately; but the style and form of the original song texts, which bear the mark of the Eskimo personality almost as deeply as the song content, is lost. . .
To the Eskimo, the distinction between man and animal is not very significant. The adoption of animal features and ways by men and the personification of beasts is a principal type of song imagery. . .
Song imagery has kept pace with the changing environment which now includes the white man and all the machinery of his civilization. The rifle and skidoo replace the harpoon and the dog team. Sometimes human and/or animal characteristics are attributed to machines. A complex example is a song by Bernard Iqquqaqtuq of Pelly Bay in which he compares the take-off of an airplane to a dog shaking its tail, and, at one point, to a man sinking into the snow on snowshoes. . .
Ambiguity is but one of the pitfalls awaiting the translator or interpreter of an Eskimo song text. Another is the very frequent use of irony. Perhaps the most characteristic feature of Eskimo expression, the ironic statement, is used for humor and for criticism. Since the impact of any double meaning depends upon the first hand knowledge of the listeners about the persons or incidents concerned, the irony of Eskimo song texts has sometimes been misunderstood. . .
Lest the reader wonder the relevancy of all this, we cite the following from "West Wing:"
GOVERNOR ROBERT RITCHIE: My view of this is simple: we don't need a Federal Department of Education telling us our children have to learn Esperanto, they have to learn Eskimo poetry. Let the states decide, let the communities decide on health care, on education, on lower taxes, not higher taxes. Now, he's going to throw a big word at you - "unfunded mandate." He's going to say if Washington lets the states do it, it's an unfunded mandate. But what he doesn't like is the federal government losing power. But I call it the ingenuity of the American people.
MODERATOR: President Bartlet, you have 60 seconds for a question and an answer.
BARTLET: Well, first of all, let's clear up a couple of things. "Unfunded mandate" is two words, not one big word. There are times when we're fifty states and there are times when we're one country, and have national needs. And the way I know this is that Florida didn't fight Germany in World War II or establish civil rights. You think states should do the governing wall-to-wall. That's a perfectly valid opinion. But your state of Florida got $12.6 billion in federal money last year - from Nebraskans, and Virginians, and New Yorkers, and Alaskans with their Eskimo poetry. 12.6 out of a state budget of $50 billion. I'm supposed to be using this time for a question, so here it is: Can we have it back, please?
CANADIAN JOURNAL FOR TRADITIONAL MUSIC
http://cjtm.icaap.org/content/1/v1art2.html
WEST WING
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_West_Wing
WHY YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE RED STATE-BLUE STATE STUFF TOO SERIOUSLY
http://washingtontimes.com/national/inpolitics.htm
GREG PIERCE, WASHINGTON TIMES - The Florida delegation to the Democratic National Committee has voted unanimously to endorse Howard Dean for party chairman, the New York Times reports. Florida's backing derails efforts to orchestrate the simultaneous endorsement of one candidate by all 50 state party leaders later this month and gives a major lift to Mr. Dean, who is thought to have the support of a plurality of committee members. Most Democrats have held back from publicly endorsing any candidate in the crowded field. Florida Democratic Chairman Scott Maddox said his state delegation had endorsed the former Vermont governor despite concerns that he might not be the best ideological symbol for the party. "The only knock against Howard Dean is that he's seen as too liberal," Mr. Maddox said. "I'm a gun-owning pickup-truck driver, and I have a bulldog named Lockjaw. I am a Southern chairman of a Southern state, and I am perfectly comfortable with Howard Dean as DNC chair." He added: "What our party needs right now is energy, enthusiasm and a willingness to do things differently. I think Howard Dean brings all three of those things to the party."
TOM FRANKS: DEMOCRATS HATE THE LEFT
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1866/
TOM FRANK - Something has become apparent to me since I moved to Washington, D.C. [from Chicago]. There is this aversion, bordering on hatred, for the left, especially among Democrats. People who dominate discussions in Democratic circles despise the left, and there is no way in hell they are going to embrace the values of the left. You can try to explain to them how they need to do it for strategic purposes or in order to win elections, [but] it doesn’t matter. The Democratic centrists got their way [in the 2004 presidential election], they got their candidate, they got their way on everything, and they still lost. And who gets the blame? It’s going to be the left.
ARTS
CULTURE CRASH: HITS SONGS BY COMPUTER
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1391951,00.html
JO TATCHELL, GUARDIAN - The magic ingredient set to revolutionise the pop industry is, simply, a piece of software that can "predict" the chance of a track being a hit or a miss. This computerised equivalent of the television programmer Juke Box Jury is known as Hit Song Science. It has been developed by a Spanish company, Polyphonic HMI, which used decades of experience developing artificial intelligence technology for the banking and telecoms industries to create a program that analysed the underlying mathematical patterns in music. It isolated and separated 20 aspects of song construction including melody, harmony, chord progression, beat, tempo and pitch and identifies and maps recurrent patterns in a song, before matching it against a database containing 30 years' worth of Billboard hit singles - 3.5m tunes in all. The program then accords the song a score, which registers, in effect, the likelihood of it being a chart success.
Ever since its initial trials, HSS has proven a hit with record labels who sent material to Polyphonic in hope of a second opinion. HSS confidently predicted Norah Jones's meteoric success (tipping no less than 10 songs on her debut album Come Away with Me) well in advance of her chart-topping appearances and in the face of an industry unconvinced she would have any commercial impact. . .
HSS's crucial design flaw is that it can only look at the past. Those "left field", illogical and grassroots-inspired departures from the norm, such as disco or drum and bass, could not have been predicted. .
ON CAMPUS
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA students engaged in a nano-lecture competition the purpose of which was to describe their department in seven words. Some examples:
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE: We take cows and make 'em better
ARCHITECTURE: The unholy union of art and engineering
CHEMISTRY: Too much acid, explosives and stinky stuff
EARTH SCIENCES: Geology is not geography, you cretaceous cretin!
ENGINEERING: Bridges are good but beer is better
PLANT SCIENCE: It‚s okay officer, it's for scientific use
ZOOLOGY: We know who heads the food chain
http://www.improbable.com
POST CONSTITUTIONAL AMERICA .
The American Taliban
FCC CAUSES MORE SELF-CENSORSHIP
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/01/17/entertainment1639EST0076.DTL
AP - Fox says it covered up the naked rear end of a cartoon character recently because of nervousness over what the Federal Communications Commission will find objectionable. The latest example of TV network self-censorship because of FCC concerns came a few weeks ago during a rerun of the "Family Guy" cartoon. Fox blurred out a character's naked butt, even though the image was seen five years ago when the episode originally aired. "We have to be checking and second-guessing ourselves now, and that's really difficult," Fox entertainment president Gail Berman said Monday. "We have to protect our affiliates." Fox didn't act on a complaint. But the move happened in the wake of the FCC's October vote to fine 169 Fox stations $7,000 each for airing an episode of "Married By America" that showed people licking whipped cream
WHY DOES HOMELAND SECURITY ALWAYS MAKE US SO NERVOUS?http://boingboing.net
BOING BOING - Why is American Airlines gathering written dossiers on fliers' friends? Last week on a trip from London to the US, American Airlines demanded that I write out a list of the names and addresses of all the friends I would be staying with in the USA. They claimed that this was due to a TSA regulation, but refused to state which regulation required them to gather this information, nor what they would do with it once they'd gathered it. I raised a stink, and was eventually told that I wouldn't have to give them the requested dossier because I was a Platinum AAdvantage Card holder (e.g., because I fly frequently with AA). . . I think it's pretty hard to argue that making passengers produce written dossiers on their friends' home addresses makes planes in the sky secure.
Things to do in the bad times
CLEAN UP YOUR OWN MESS
WHEN YOUR EDITOR was a callow youth he would attempt to deflect criticism by saying things like, "Well, Johnny does it," to which some adult would reply with something like, "If Johnny were to jump off a cliff would you jump, too?" In time I learned the logic of this and stopped using Johnny as an excuse.
Unfortunately the same can not be said of liberals and other Democrats. Beginning in the Clinton years I began to notice that when I wrote something critical of Democrats a frequent liberal reply was along the lines of "Well, the Republicans do worse."
The problem with this argument is that you use as a gauge of morality the views and actions of those you most vigorously oppose. This is poor morality but it's not good politics either. Having a party that is only somewhat less corrupt, undemocratic and unresponsive than the Republicans is hardly a good campaign platform.
The Democrats used to be far more contentious then they are today. There were liberals and conservatives, northerners and southerners, civil rights advocates and segregationists, reformists and the corrupt. As a liberal you learned to fight a two front battle - against the Republicans and against the bad guys in your own party.
With Clinton, liberals packed away their views and their vigor and went along with whatever the top guns of the party - led by the Democratic Abandonship Council - wanted.
One reason this has worked so badly may be that the very contentiousness of the Democrats sent a message to the rest of the country that all sorts of people could feel at home, even if a bit restless, within the party. Everyone knew the Democrats were a crazy conglomerate of America.
Now we have the irony that the Democratic Party has moved far to the right while the Republicans, in one of their more clever lies, have convinced many Americans that it is actually controlled by liberals.
What to do? Build the reform movement in the party that Howard Dean started in the last election. It's not his movement; he just had the guts to give it a try. Call yourselves reform Democrats. Go after the crooks and the right-wingers and offer a platform that emphasizes the needs of large numbers of Americans. Raise hell and have fun.
The K Street Democrats will hate you but don't worry. It was just that sort of fractious excitement that once made people feel that there might be room for them in the Democratic Party, too - Sam Smith
MORE THINGS TO DO IN THE BAD TIMES
http://prorev.com/badtimes.htm
EDITED BY SAM SMITHSince 1964, Washington's most unofficial source
E-MAIL: mailto:news@prorev.com
1312 18th St. NW #502 Washington DC 20036202-835-0770 Fax: 835-0779
WORD
JOURNALIST - A rat-like cunning, a plausible manner, and a little literary ability. The capacity to steal other peoples' ideas and phrases is also invaluable - HL Mencken
POLITICS
ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE CAPITOL
YOUR editor enjoyed lunch today with his wife at Jimmy T's five blocks down East Capitol Street from where George Bush and his capos were being given four more years to do damage to their country, its constitution, its culture, and its environment -- not to mention further mischief to the rest of the world. The inauguration was taking place on the opposite side of the Capitol and there were hardly any cars or people and no signs of security.
The counter at Jimmy T's was full so we sat in a booth. The TV was on but no one looked at the inauguration and the sound was turned to WASH-FM - loud enough so you couldn't hear the helicopters overhead. For as long as it takes to eat a short stack with bacon and drink a cup of coffee we could pretend everything was okay.
The other day I walked by the Capitol and found myself wondering why we weren't more paranoiac during the Cold War. When Johnson and Kennedy and Nixon were president you could still wander about the Capitol's halls and through the associated office buildings as though you were actually a part owner. Yet if Tom Ridge had been in charge of setting the alerts for that era, he would have run out of colors. We were in far more danger than we are now.
Even if one wants to argue that a dirty bomb in a backpack is more dangerous than a clean bomb sent by a rocket or that a few suicidal young Arab guys are more dangerous than divisions of well dressed Soviet troops, you still do have to argue the point and that in itself suggests that the response should be somewhat similar.
But there's little similar about it and as I walked down the hill by the Capitol it suddenly struck me that this isn't about me and you; it's about them. We are being governed by some intensely frightened people. From George Bush on down. Much of the homeland security business, in Washington at least, is to provide personal protection to important people from the consequence of the extremely bad things they are doing. We are the victims of both Al Qaeda and Il Dubya, told to give up our rights and freedoms so that the worst leaders of our entire history can go about their business without having to suffer for it. The whole city of Washington has become the armored vest of the Bush administration and Congress. - Sam Smith
BUSH'S PRIVATIZED PARTY
[NEVER has such broad and public space been turned over to such narrow private interests and with such limited access to the public as with the Bush Inaugural. Those attorneys looking for a good class action suit might consider the fact that the usurpation of public space and the security costs associated with it are in fact a contribution from the US government to the Republican Party, one which is certainly illegal and probably criminal.]
MATTHEW CELLA, WASHINGTON TIMES - Law-enforcement agencies say people who would like to attend today's inaugural festivities should not be intimidated by heightened security, but they should be aware of the stepped-up protective measures so they are not turned away. "We encourage people and we want people to participate, but we want them to be aware to bring lots of patience," said Sgt. Contricia Sellers-Ford, spokeswoman for the U.S. Capitol Police. Capitol Police are tasked with providing security on the Capitol grounds, where President Bush will be sworn in and deliver his second inaugural address.
[In the first paragraph it's "people who would like to attend" but by the second it turns out you have to have a ticket]
Even though spectators are required to have obtained tickets in advance for the ceremony, Sgt. Sellers-Ford said they should be sure not to carry any prohibited items and to arrive as early as possible, because officers will have a limited amount of time to screen and seat everyone.
http://washingtontimes.com/metro/20050120-120045-3810r.htm
SARI HORWITZ AND CAROL D. LEONNIG, WASHINGTON POST - With long stretches of Pennsylvania Avenue lined with bleachers and reserved for ticket-holders or protesters, where can the general public stand and watch the 55th Inaugural Parade? The question was asked repeatedly Tuesday by U.S. District Judge Paul L. Friedman, who was hearing a suit filed by a protest group over access to the parade route. But no clear answer emerged. . .
Officials with the D.C. police, whose officers will line the route, said they did not know exactly where the public should go and referred all questions to the U.S. Secret Service, which is overseeing security for the inauguration. Homeland Security Department officials also referred the question to the Secret Service. When asked where a member of the public could stand to view the parade today, Secret Service spokesman Tom Mazur said he did not know. "I do not have an answer to that question," Mazur said.
FBI officials involved with parade security noted that bleacher seating is for people with tickets and that several areas are designated for protesters. "There are no places on the parade route that are not already assigned or ticketed seating," an FBI official said. . .
A tour of the parade route last night revealed few places for the general public to stand and watch the procession. There appears to be space east of 10th Street NW, on the north side of Pennsylvania Avenue. There are a few other pockets, including a half-block on the north side of Pennsylvania, west of 11th Street. Some intersections will also be open. But sidewalk access could change when the fencing is complete and some of the bleachers that were in the street last night are put in place.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22659-2005Jan19.html
BUSH DOESN'T JUST BELIEVE IN GOD; HE BELIEVES HE SPEAKS FOR HIM
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/159/story_15962_1.html
DAVID DOMKE AND KEVIN COE, BELIEF NET - Bush referenced a higher power 10 times in his first inaugural four years ago, including this claim: "I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity. I know this is in our reach because we are guided by a power larger than ourselves, who creates us equal, in His image." In his three State of the Union addresses since, Bush invoked God another 14 times. . .
Bush also talks about God differently than most other modern presidents. Presidents since Roosevelt have commonly spoken as petitioners of God, seeking blessing, favor, and guidance. This president positions himself as a prophet, issuing declarations of divine desires for the nation and world. Among modern presidents, only Reagan has spoken in a similar manner - and he did so far less frequently than has Bush. . .
THINGS TO DO IN THE BAD TIMES
GET A PLAN
SAM SMITH - Many Americans think they know what the Republicans and Democrats stand for. The trouble is that they learned it from the Republicans.
This is because Democrats and progressives have been miserably incapable of stating clearly what they are about. This is not - as some have suggested - a matter of better rhetoric or proper branding; it is a matter of having something you believe in and explaining it well to others.
The Vichy Democrats in control of the party aren't interested in this because it destroys their flexibility to appear to be one thing to their contributors and another thing to their constituents. But clever as this may appear, it has left the left to be defined by the right as being interested primarily in gay marriages and abortions.
In the end, to many it appears the GOP stands for all the good things - patriotism, values, family, the economy, security et al - while the Democrats stand for nothing. Nominating Kerry, of course, merely played into the stereotype.
Liberals have also shown an astounding indifference to some of the assumptions that have grown up about them. Worthy as gay rights and conception choices are, it is helpful to remember, as a political matter, that gays constitute something less than five percent of the electorate and only about 700,000 more women have abortions each year than when Roe v. Wade was handed down. If you want to win a national election, you need broader priorities than these.
But I can hardly remember the last time an average liberal expressed any concern to me over health care, pensions, or jobs. There are, of course, those like Dean Baker who continue to carry the load on classic Democratic issues, but sadly too many liberal activists seem to think they can win based on their collective nobility. Politics doesn't work that way.
There is a need for a progressive platform, preferably one that can be written on a single side of a sheet of paper. Here's a sample:
- A foreign policy that makes America a model of and friend to the rest of the world rather than a bully and a threat.
- The restoration of democracy and constitutional government in the U.S.
- Single payer health care
- A safe and clean natural environment
- Fair working conditions for all including pay, workplace safety, labor rights, and pensions.
- An end to the corruption in the Democratic Party that has done it so much harm
- Electoral reform including instant runoff voting and public campaign financing.
If you don't like that list, then write your own.
But in the end, progressives need to come together and select a handful of issues such as the aforementioned to which they will dedicate their major energies and which will thus finally define them fairly.
Since the sixties there has been a tremendous splintering of progressives into groups specializing in a single issue or around a cluster of single issues. This has produced a high level of expertise on these issues, raised the national consciousness on many of them, and provided a cadre capable of writing and criticizing legislation. The less happy side-effect has been that progressives have forgotten how to work in coalition with one another and seem incapable of providing a holistic vision of that for which they are striving. They have become specialists and technocrats of change rather than leaders and prophets. And far too many fit G. K. Chesterton's description of liberals: they can't lead; they won't follow, and they refuse to cooperate.
This has to change if there is to be any hope for progressive politics.
MORE THINGS TO DO IN THE BAD TIMEShttp://prorev.com/thingstodo.htm
GREEKS AREN'T HAPPY WITH AMERICAN TALIBAN
http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=655808
KAROLOS GROHMANN
REUTERS - A clutch of complaints by U.S. viewers that the Athens Olympics opening ceremony featured lewd nudity has incensed the Games chief, who warned American regulators to back off from policing ancient Greek culture. Gianna Angelopoulos warned the Federal Communications Commission watchdog, sensitive after a deluge of outrage when singer Janet Jackson's breast was exposed at a Super Bowl game, not to punish NBC television that aired the Games.
"Far from being indecent, the opening ceremonies were beautiful, enlightening, uplifting and enjoyable," Angelopoulos wrote in a weekend commentary in the Los Angeles Times titled "Since When is Greece's Culture Obscene?"
"Greece does not wish to be drawn into an American culture war. Yet that is exactly what is happening," she said. . .
"We also showed a couple enjoying their love of the Greek sea and each other. And we told the history of Eros, the god of love. Turning love, yearning and desire into a deity is an important part of our contribution to civilization," Angelopoulos said.
Angelopoulos, who said the handful of U.S. complaints were dwarfed by the 3.9 billion people who watched the ceremony, had a blunt message.
"As Americans surely are aware, there is great hostility in the world today to cultural domination in which a single value system created elsewhere diminishes and degrades local cultures," she said in her commentary. In this context, it is astonishingly unwise for an agency of the U.S. government to engage in an investigation that could label a presentation of the Greek origins of civilization as unfit for television viewing."
[According to another account there were only nine complaints]
DETOURS
WHILE SKIMMING the Daily Bleed, our favorite daily journal of important historical events, we were stopped by this:
"1923 - Danish explorers have informed the world that they have found in the Arctic a warlike tribe of Eskimos bearing the proud name of Avrilisarmints, all of whom, men, women and children, are poets. The Eskimo poets sing poems of their own composition, and they have exceedingly long memories, in that respect resembling the ancient bards of Greece and Scandinavia:
"'If the [Danish] Poetry Society does not fit out an expedition to mingle with the Avrilisarmint tribe, exchange ideas, candy, blubber, tallow and calorific conceptions, it will miss such an opportunity as may never occur again.'"
Googlizing this remarkable assertion came up with no additional information about the warrior Eskimos and their endemic poetry but did produce this by Beverly Cavenaugh in the Canadian Journal for Traditional Music in 1973
'Songs are thoughts, sung out with the breath when people are moved by great forces and ordinary speech no longer suffices. There are so many occasions in one's life when a joy or a sorrow is felt in such a way that the desire comes to sing. All my being is songs, and I sing as I draw breath.'
These are the captivating words of Orpingalik, the great Eskimo shaman whom the Danish explorer, Knud Rasmussen, first encountered as he neared Pelly Bay in 1923. The understanding which developed between these two men, indeed the rapport which Rasmussen established with Eskimo people across the entire North American arctic and Greenland, resulted in many uniquely perceptive studies of the Eskimo people. Among the greatest legacies of Rasmussen are his collections of song texts. Quoted in numerous publications of the past decades, his sensitive and poetic translations have become synonymous with Eskimo poetry. In spite of their intrinsic poetic value, however, this has unfortunately resulted in some distortion of the truth. . .
Rasmussen's admirable command of both English and Eskimo allowed him to convert the prose-like originals into concise and vivid poetry. In this manner he did convey the soul and meaning of the songs more adequately; but the style and form of the original song texts, which bear the mark of the Eskimo personality almost as deeply as the song content, is lost. . .
To the Eskimo, the distinction between man and animal is not very significant. The adoption of animal features and ways by men and the personification of beasts is a principal type of song imagery. . .
Song imagery has kept pace with the changing environment which now includes the white man and all the machinery of his civilization. The rifle and skidoo replace the harpoon and the dog team. Sometimes human and/or animal characteristics are attributed to machines. A complex example is a song by Bernard Iqquqaqtuq of Pelly Bay in which he compares the take-off of an airplane to a dog shaking its tail, and, at one point, to a man sinking into the snow on snowshoes. . .
Ambiguity is but one of the pitfalls awaiting the translator or interpreter of an Eskimo song text. Another is the very frequent use of irony. Perhaps the most characteristic feature of Eskimo expression, the ironic statement, is used for humor and for criticism. Since the impact of any double meaning depends upon the first hand knowledge of the listeners about the persons or incidents concerned, the irony of Eskimo song texts has sometimes been misunderstood. . .
Lest the reader wonder the relevancy of all this, we cite the following from "West Wing:"
GOVERNOR ROBERT RITCHIE: My view of this is simple: we don't need a Federal Department of Education telling us our children have to learn Esperanto, they have to learn Eskimo poetry. Let the states decide, let the communities decide on health care, on education, on lower taxes, not higher taxes. Now, he's going to throw a big word at you - "unfunded mandate." He's going to say if Washington lets the states do it, it's an unfunded mandate. But what he doesn't like is the federal government losing power. But I call it the ingenuity of the American people.
MODERATOR: President Bartlet, you have 60 seconds for a question and an answer.
BARTLET: Well, first of all, let's clear up a couple of things. "Unfunded mandate" is two words, not one big word. There are times when we're fifty states and there are times when we're one country, and have national needs. And the way I know this is that Florida didn't fight Germany in World War II or establish civil rights. You think states should do the governing wall-to-wall. That's a perfectly valid opinion. But your state of Florida got $12.6 billion in federal money last year - from Nebraskans, and Virginians, and New Yorkers, and Alaskans with their Eskimo poetry. 12.6 out of a state budget of $50 billion. I'm supposed to be using this time for a question, so here it is: Can we have it back, please?
CANADIAN JOURNAL FOR TRADITIONAL MUSIC
http://cjtm.icaap.org/content/1/v1art2.html
WEST WING
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_West_Wing
WHY YOU DON'T WANT TO TAKE THE RED STATE-BLUE STATE STUFF TOO SERIOUSLY
http://washingtontimes.com/national/inpolitics.htm
GREG PIERCE, WASHINGTON TIMES - The Florida delegation to the Democratic National Committee has voted unanimously to endorse Howard Dean for party chairman, the New York Times reports. Florida's backing derails efforts to orchestrate the simultaneous endorsement of one candidate by all 50 state party leaders later this month and gives a major lift to Mr. Dean, who is thought to have the support of a plurality of committee members. Most Democrats have held back from publicly endorsing any candidate in the crowded field. Florida Democratic Chairman Scott Maddox said his state delegation had endorsed the former Vermont governor despite concerns that he might not be the best ideological symbol for the party. "The only knock against Howard Dean is that he's seen as too liberal," Mr. Maddox said. "I'm a gun-owning pickup-truck driver, and I have a bulldog named Lockjaw. I am a Southern chairman of a Southern state, and I am perfectly comfortable with Howard Dean as DNC chair." He added: "What our party needs right now is energy, enthusiasm and a willingness to do things differently. I think Howard Dean brings all three of those things to the party."
TOM FRANKS: DEMOCRATS HATE THE LEFT
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/1866/
TOM FRANK - Something has become apparent to me since I moved to Washington, D.C. [from Chicago]. There is this aversion, bordering on hatred, for the left, especially among Democrats. People who dominate discussions in Democratic circles despise the left, and there is no way in hell they are going to embrace the values of the left. You can try to explain to them how they need to do it for strategic purposes or in order to win elections, [but] it doesn’t matter. The Democratic centrists got their way [in the 2004 presidential election], they got their candidate, they got their way on everything, and they still lost. And who gets the blame? It’s going to be the left.
ARTS
CULTURE CRASH: HITS SONGS BY COMPUTER
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1391951,00.html
JO TATCHELL, GUARDIAN - The magic ingredient set to revolutionise the pop industry is, simply, a piece of software that can "predict" the chance of a track being a hit or a miss. This computerised equivalent of the television programmer Juke Box Jury is known as Hit Song Science. It has been developed by a Spanish company, Polyphonic HMI, which used decades of experience developing artificial intelligence technology for the banking and telecoms industries to create a program that analysed the underlying mathematical patterns in music. It isolated and separated 20 aspects of song construction including melody, harmony, chord progression, beat, tempo and pitch and identifies and maps recurrent patterns in a song, before matching it against a database containing 30 years' worth of Billboard hit singles - 3.5m tunes in all. The program then accords the song a score, which registers, in effect, the likelihood of it being a chart success.
Ever since its initial trials, HSS has proven a hit with record labels who sent material to Polyphonic in hope of a second opinion. HSS confidently predicted Norah Jones's meteoric success (tipping no less than 10 songs on her debut album Come Away with Me) well in advance of her chart-topping appearances and in the face of an industry unconvinced she would have any commercial impact. . .
HSS's crucial design flaw is that it can only look at the past. Those "left field", illogical and grassroots-inspired departures from the norm, such as disco or drum and bass, could not have been predicted. .
ON CAMPUS
AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TASMANIA students engaged in a nano-lecture competition the purpose of which was to describe their department in seven words. Some examples:
AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE: We take cows and make 'em better
ARCHITECTURE: The unholy union of art and engineering
CHEMISTRY: Too much acid, explosives and stinky stuff
EARTH SCIENCES: Geology is not geography, you cretaceous cretin!
ENGINEERING: Bridges are good but beer is better
PLANT SCIENCE: It‚s okay officer, it's for scientific use
ZOOLOGY: We know who heads the food chain
http://www.improbable.com
POST CONSTITUTIONAL AMERICA .
The American Taliban
FCC CAUSES MORE SELF-CENSORSHIP
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2005/01/17/entertainment1639EST0076.DTL
AP - Fox says it covered up the naked rear end of a cartoon character recently because of nervousness over what the Federal Communications Commission will find objectionable. The latest example of TV network self-censorship because of FCC concerns came a few weeks ago during a rerun of the "Family Guy" cartoon. Fox blurred out a character's naked butt, even though the image was seen five years ago when the episode originally aired. "We have to be checking and second-guessing ourselves now, and that's really difficult," Fox entertainment president Gail Berman said Monday. "We have to protect our affiliates." Fox didn't act on a complaint. But the move happened in the wake of the FCC's October vote to fine 169 Fox stations $7,000 each for airing an episode of "Married By America" that showed people licking whipped cream
WHY DOES HOMELAND SECURITY ALWAYS MAKE US SO NERVOUS?http://boingboing.net
BOING BOING - Why is American Airlines gathering written dossiers on fliers' friends? Last week on a trip from London to the US, American Airlines demanded that I write out a list of the names and addresses of all the friends I would be staying with in the USA. They claimed that this was due to a TSA regulation, but refused to state which regulation required them to gather this information, nor what they would do with it once they'd gathered it. I raised a stink, and was eventually told that I wouldn't have to give them the requested dossier because I was a Platinum AAdvantage Card holder (e.g., because I fly frequently with AA). . . I think it's pretty hard to argue that making passengers produce written dossiers on their friends' home addresses makes planes in the sky secure.
Things to do in the bad times
CLEAN UP YOUR OWN MESS
WHEN YOUR EDITOR was a callow youth he would attempt to deflect criticism by saying things like, "Well, Johnny does it," to which some adult would reply with something like, "If Johnny were to jump off a cliff would you jump, too?" In time I learned the logic of this and stopped using Johnny as an excuse.
Unfortunately the same can not be said of liberals and other Democrats. Beginning in the Clinton years I began to notice that when I wrote something critical of Democrats a frequent liberal reply was along the lines of "Well, the Republicans do worse."
The problem with this argument is that you use as a gauge of morality the views and actions of those you most vigorously oppose. This is poor morality but it's not good politics either. Having a party that is only somewhat less corrupt, undemocratic and unresponsive than the Republicans is hardly a good campaign platform.
The Democrats used to be far more contentious then they are today. There were liberals and conservatives, northerners and southerners, civil rights advocates and segregationists, reformists and the corrupt. As a liberal you learned to fight a two front battle - against the Republicans and against the bad guys in your own party.
With Clinton, liberals packed away their views and their vigor and went along with whatever the top guns of the party - led by the Democratic Abandonship Council - wanted.
One reason this has worked so badly may be that the very contentiousness of the Democrats sent a message to the rest of the country that all sorts of people could feel at home, even if a bit restless, within the party. Everyone knew the Democrats were a crazy conglomerate of America.
Now we have the irony that the Democratic Party has moved far to the right while the Republicans, in one of their more clever lies, have convinced many Americans that it is actually controlled by liberals.
What to do? Build the reform movement in the party that Howard Dean started in the last election. It's not his movement; he just had the guts to give it a try. Call yourselves reform Democrats. Go after the crooks and the right-wingers and offer a platform that emphasizes the needs of large numbers of Americans. Raise hell and have fun.
The K Street Democrats will hate you but don't worry. It was just that sort of fractious excitement that once made people feel that there might be room for them in the Democratic Party, too - Sam Smith
MORE THINGS TO DO IN THE BAD TIMES
http://prorev.com/badtimes.htm
posted by T. Scott Brineman at 6:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home