Giving and taking rights

Women in Saudi Arabia will be able to vote in that country's next election. Meanwhile, in America states are adding new voting barriers for the poor.

Going out on a high note

Article conclusions in The New York Times often mislead the audience. Two common types of conclusions that do readers a disservice are (1) the happy ending and ( 2) giving an opinion the last word.

First, the happy ending can negate a serious discussion. We saw an example of this yesterday in the article "Deep Recession Sharply Altered U.S. Jobless Map". The article focuses on high unemployment rates in the American South and West. Of course, this discussion omits mention of employment and business trends that preceded the recession--the decline of manufacturing jobs due to off-shoring, for example. Nevertheless, after discussing high unemployment, the article ends with this:

But Mr. Kaglic said that the recent return of manufacturing jobs was giving him hope, and that one reason for the high unemployment rate was that more people were now seeking work.

“I would look at it as our dreams are delayed,” he said, “rather than our dreams being denied.”

This "things are looking up" conclusion wipes out everything preceding it.

The second kind of ending is the conclusion that gives one opinion the last word. Giving an opinion the last word legitimizes that opinion, and that opinion becomes the reader's takeaway. We see an example of this today in the article "Wealthy, Influential, Leaning Republican and Pushing a Christie Bid for President". This piece says that a group of wealthy, elite business and financial leaders are pushing New Jersey Republican Governor Chris Christie to run for president. The article hints that these elites favor Christie not solely for his charisma, but also for his anti-union stance and record of fiscal conservatism. Of course, that these policies might damage the middle and working classes and the poor goes unstated, and absolutely no voice is given to critics of Mr. Christie. This glowing opinion of the NJ Governor gets the last word:

“I had Christie to our board meeting the April after he took office, and he knocked their socks off,” said Kathryn Wylde, president of the Partnership for New York City, a business group with a gold-plated roster of prominent Democratic and Republican moneymen. “And ever since, there’s been nothing but enthusiasm for him. He’s considered smart, courageous, a straight talker, kind of an antipolitician.”

So is this what the reader is to conclude about Chris Christie? What about his record? What affect might his policies have on the 99% of people who aren't pushing a Christie bid? What will Christie do for them? Lots of people want Kucinich or some other Progressive to run, but this fact gets no coverage. This Christie article shows without saying that money buys office, our system is corrupt.

Lady Gaga's Little Monsters

The fantasy Lady Gaga sells her fans is one of homogeneous fame ("You’re a superstar, no matter who you are!”). Their real life, which actually is authentic, is replaced by an inauthentic fantasy. Lady Gaga offers her Little Monsters only the denial of self-authorship.

Serving the artist's commercial interest, these fans find comfort, support, and acceptance when together they assume the label Little Monsters. They believe that their self-identification as freaks and outsiders embraces their outsider status, the counterpoint to a mainstream composed of their more popular, better looking peers. But rather than creating a social alternative, they have simply recreated an in-group within the larger mainstream which inadvertently pushes new fashions, concepts of coolness, and other cornerstones of capitalism. In doing so they are even more integral to the system they feel alienated from. They welcome and modify trends, furthering the cycle of need and acceptance.

Poem by Rainer Maria Rilke

A poem--can't swear to the translation or line breaks:

For Hans Carossa
 -by Rainer Maria Rilke

Losing too is still ours; and even forgetting
still has a shape in the kingdom of transformation.
When something's let go of, it circles; and though we are
rarely the center
of the circle, it draws around us its unbroken, marvelous
curve.

Palestinian statehood

Spiegel gave a compelling and fairly even account of the implications and stakes surrounding the leadership of Palestine's UN bid for statehood.

A thought on the film No Country for Old Men

In No Country for Old Men, the killer Anton deals in consequences. He is the harbinger of the heartless world, a bringer of death who does not decide who lives and dies. To his mind, what you're doing and where you find yourself traces back to either chance or to some choice you made. He has no patience for ambiguity; fortunes hinge on the flip of a coin and once you call it, results are sure to follow. In this story, Anton's primary target is the hunter Llewellyn Moss.

Moss, now finding himself the prey, resists the inevitable, plotting his escape as best he can given what little wiggle room he has. He acts, and when acted upon, he counters. If ultimately the outcome falls to chance, he will throw his weight on the scale and make sure his chance is the fighting kind.

Sheriff Bell reflects on both men: Permanence and change, fate and self-determination weigh on his mind. He sees men like Anton as evidence the light is fading from this world. After fate claims Moss and untethered chance visits Anton, Bell is left awake in a world that's always been dark and cold, dreaming of the succession of humble men like him who can't do much about it.

On Percy Walker's The Last Gentleman

I had a longish review of The Last Gentleman but lost it through Google. So here's the shortened version:

Williston Bibb Barret was lost. With much help he discovered that his troubles belonged to man's condition and not to him alone. He found a future when he accepted one--in this case, the orthodox life of marriage, kids, church, and so on. Not as good as The Moviegoer but still very good.

Soccer Game, September 17, 2011

Jon Stewart's rhetorical situation

I like this quasi-profile of John Stewart because the author approaches his subject from various angles, posing  provocative questions and then offering answers, alternately recognizing strengths while attacking some well-argued weaknesses. The primary criticisms leveled at Stewart are that (1) he takes himself too seriously and (2) he unknowlingly plays the redeemer, criticizing the establishment from a safe place while making himself invulnerable to counter-criticism by repeatedly denying his power--this "redeemer" characterization of Stewart refers to America's "need for redeemers to rise out of its ranks". Its a great read but I argue that the author puts too much emphasis on Stewart the individual and not enough on the larger rhetorical situation.

I agree that his modesty borders on false, but when Stewart denies his power I interpret this as his assessment not so much of himself but of his rhetorical situation: His audience consists of young, self-imagined dissidents and slackers who ultimately don't mobilize well as a group. Stewart can't mobilize them the way Beck can appear to mobilize his audience--a block of voters already energized thanks to a dedicated media and powerful political machine. Despite mainstream media's claims to the contrary, the Tea Party is not a "state of mind" or unaffiliated multiplicity of citizenry; they are an easily identified demographic with shared values and an agenda. By comparison, Progressives can stand for almost anything--gay marriage, worker's rights, the environment, anti-globalization, minority achievement, tax policy, gun control, prison reform, entitlement improvements, education, peace, and so on--and getting them to the polls as individuals is challenging enough. Stewart's power lies solely in his popularity as a smart Liberal media critic, a face appearing not on reputable stages like CNN or even MSNBC, but on Comedy Central for a few minutes a night, four nights a week during part of the year. The matter is not that Stewart won't be a force for change; it's that he can't be.

The author implies that Stewart is a coward because he stands for nothing; he only satirizes while acting as the Liberal conscience. But then the piece ends with Stewart dreaming up a network based on media reform. Isn't that standing for something? (If it is true.) If Stewart does nothing more than The Daily Show the rest of his life, then No, he isn't politically useful to Progressives. He merely provides a venue for people who think popular news is a joke.

But as a media attraction (as opposed to a political force), Stewart does have power. So I don't follow the criticism that Stewart takes himself too seriously. So what if he does? The author's cited examples include his behavior during appearances on Charlie Rose, Rachel Maddow, or on various FOX programs. Look, when Stewart is given a serious platform such as a guest spot on Charlie Rose, he acts like a guest on Charlie Rose. He takes advantage and shows another other side of himself. As for switching between Stewart the TV personality and Stewart the man, entertainment has a long history of performers trying to reach through the wall separating performer from audience in an attempt to connect. When the run of a show ends, like when Conan had to leave his show or when Carson retired from his, the man opts for sincerity as sincerity is called for.

In the peripheral sits an interesting issue: What to make of Stephen Colbert? Right now, neither man has a cause or larger vision with which to rally voters. But among his other achievements, Colbert formed a super PAC and gave a scathing, high-profile performance at the White House Correspondents Dinner. In criticizing Stewart, is the author alternately congratulating Colbert? Is Colbert still funny?

More of the same

Last week, the mainstream media put unrelenting focus on the anniversary of 9-11. While appearing sentimental, coverage ultimately served to make a very complex matter meaningless by emphasizing only two aspects: (1) Victimhood and (2) Unity. Even the terrorists and their networks were relegated to the margins.

Last night

Awed. Moved. Speechless. But a little burdened, too. Like some great secret was shared with me but I didn't know what it meant and no one caresd. I went to bed thinking, That was so awesome, and woke up thinking, So, so awesome. Not much can move me like that. Not "move" like the way a powerful movie can move you, but like the way a world wonder can move you. The music and the venue and the performance and the performers all teemed with a penetrating glow that inspired in me the still wonder that can set a quiet little boy on edge. The songs were alive.

Justin Vernon thanked opening act Kathleen Edwards and described himself years ago listening to her records and drowning his pain in whiskey. He said that tracing the thread in this life is hard but music was his thread and it lead him there and to her and to a better place. He was in a wonderful place.

The day after

In the article "E.U. Divided by 'Palestine' Bid at U.N.", The New York Times supports the indefinite postponement of Palestinian statehood. The logic given is circular. The article states:

Yet despite what is at stake, neither those European countries that support nor those that oppose the Palestinian resolution have a Plan B for the “day after” the resolution. 

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor who is a staunch defender of Israel, said last week that she was concerned about the “day after,” asking what might happen on the ground if the Palestinians unilaterally went to the U.N. General Assembly. 

“The big question is the day after,” said Yaacov Bar-Siman-Tov, an international relations specialist at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. “The settlements will still be there. The Israeli Army will still be there.” 

The situation might quickly deteriorate if the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, stops, as he has threatened, the transfer of customs revenues owed to the Palestinians. The Obama administration, too, might cut aid to the Palestinians and even downgrade its ties.
There is a danger, too, that riots among the Palestinians could ignite the anger of Israel’s other Arab neighbors. 

All of this, analysts say, would make it imperative for the Europeans to think hard about how they could help the situation on the “day after.”

So, Palestinians want statehood and independence from Israeli occupation, but EU states can't allow Palestine statehood because the territory is still occupied. The article recognizes that withdrawal and Israeli concerns can be negotiated first, but the writer immediately dismisses any such reasonable solution:

But the truth is that the Europeans have no Plan B. “It’s because we have not seen the text of the resolution,” said an E.U. diplomat. But when they do, chances are it will be too late.

So, UN and EU diplomatic negotiators could develop a plan but because they haven't already, they can't support Palestinian statehood when it comes to a vote at the UN. The New York Times does a faithful job towing the State Department's line.

Something about The Wizard of Oz

The Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Lion each sensed some deficiency within himself. They learn from the Wizard, who is not a really a Wizard, that they are not deficient. At the end of the journey, they were not given a gift so much as they had the idea of a void extinguished. Soon after the void was extinguished, the magical world they were in, with its wonders and dangers, disappeared.

They were incarnations of Dorothy's circle. When they needed help, these characters were magical, foreign, and mysterious. When that need vanished, they were ordinary men, as familiar as an uncle or cousin. The magic was in the journey they were all on together, all of them needing, recognizing their needs, resolving always to serve those needs together and until the end.

2011 Prediction: Dallas Cowboys (6-10)

• at NY Jets              L, 30-16
• at SF 49ers             L, 17-21
• Redskins                W, 20-12
• Lions                       W, 17-16
• at NE Patriots         L, 34-9
• Rams                       W, 16-12
• at Philly Eagles       L, 41-20
• Seahawks                W, 24-13
• Bills                          L, 18-14
• at Wash Redskins   L, 21-17
• Dolphins                 W, 20-17
• at Ariz Cardinals    L, 24-15
• Giants                       L, 16-12
• at TB Buccaneers   L, 20-10
• Eagles                      L, 31-13
• at NY Giants          W, 17-13

2011 Predictions: San Francisco 49ers (7-9)

• Seahawks                      W, 23-13
• Cowboys                        W, 21-17
• at Cincy Bengals          W, 20-6
• at Philly Eagles             L, 35-13
• Buccaneers                    L, 20-18
• at Det Lions                   L, 24-16
• Browns                           W, 27-20
• at Wash Redskins         L, 18-13
• Giants                             W, 17-13
• Cardinals                       L, 23-13
• at Bal Ravens                L, 30-9
• Rams                              W, 20-12
• at Ariz Cardinals           L, 21-16
• Steelers                           L, 36-15
• at Seattle Seahawks      L, 20-17
• at SL Rams                    W, 16-10

Holding middle ground: The jobs speech, September 8, 2011

The best lines from the President's September 8, 2011, jobs speech:

I know some of you have sworn oaths to never raise any taxes on anyone for as long as you live.

This line is troubling. His flippant reference to the Republicans' unwillingness to negotiate says he thinks he's dealing with merely a tougher streak of politics as usual. The middle ground is gone and Obama, either bravely or stupidly, clings to the notion that it isn't.

 We have to reform Medicare to strengthen it.

An Orwellian betrayal we can expect to hear more often.

I reject the idea that we have to strip away collective bargaining rights to compete in a global economy. We shouldn't be in a race to the bottom, where we try to offer the cheapest labor and the worst pollution standards.

Falls on deaf ears, like the rest of his appeals, but this part speaks volumes to the state and direction of America's standard of living. He evidently can see the tables turning but is either unwilling or unable to see what's at stake.

Yes, we are rugged individualists. Yes, we are strong and self-reliant. And it has been the drive and initiative of our workers and entrepreneurs that has made this economy the engine and envy of the world. But there has always been another thread running throughout our history--a belief that we are all connected; and that there are some things we can only do together, as a nation.

Direct appeals to values are always interesting. Here he references competing values. The speech had other good lines; I'm thinking mostly of the times he tried to head critics off at the pass by announcing that his proposals were not controversial and not class warfare.

Overall, the speech had more strengths than weaknesses, and imparted a strong variation in tone. And insisting that Congress pass his plan and not some mockery of their own was shrewd. However, the basic theme remains: The President thinks he can manage and get cooperation. He can't. He's outgunned rhetorically and organizationally.

Change in Libya, change in media

Judging by changes in the tone and language of coverage, I sense the media is backing away from the Libyan rebels. When the tide of battle turned not long ago, the coverage was breathlessly supportive of their cause. But now the rebels have power and the remaining fight has only the Gadhafi manhunt and a few stalemates with Gadhafi loyalists in various municipalities. The waning enthusiasm in part flows naturally from the press tiring of the story line. But there's more to it: The rebels are no longer a single-cause fighting force. Now they are emerging as a diverse set of forces with different agendas and identities. This defies the simplistic narrative that most journalists need. For example: The rescue of trapped miners makes a good story. The miners dealing with the trauma, depression, and anxiety in the aftermath is a hard story. The former gets tons of coverage; the latter, little to none. Aside from the media's preference for simple narratives, they now see that the new Libyan leadership may turn out no better than Gadhafi, and this would reveal how truly uncritical the coverage of this conflict was.

Another transcript

The New York Times piece Huntsman Warns That GOP Can't Win the White House by Denying Climate Science offers only a summarized transcript of environment-related content spoken during last night's Republican debate. This pointless article quotes a bold assertion by Huntsman, then makes no attempt at verifying his figure. Unbelievable. Here is the only authentic moment from the debate--a potentially historically significant moment in the evolution of the GOP--starring Huntsman and left alone by the NYT:

When you make comments that fly in the face of 98 out of 100 climate scientists, to call into question the science of evolution, all I am saying is that in order for the Republican Party to win, we can't run from science ... By making comments that basically don't reflect the reality of the situation, we turn people off.

NPR leaves us in the dark

The NPR story Conservatives Step Up Attacks On Public Funding For Birth Control takes the usual route, replaying Conservative and Liberal positions on funding birth control and the abortion issue, but then makes two sad attempts at shedding light on the debate. First attempt:

Abortion opponents are correct that widespread access to birth control hasn't eliminated abortions in the U.S. — although the number has declined considerably over the last two decades.

The author assumes that (1) eliminating abortion was the goal and that (2) such a thing is possible. Both assumptions are incorrect. Furthermore, the line could have been more honestly written as, "Birth control advocates are correct that the number of abortions performed has dropped dramatically due to widespread access to birth control".

The second attempt to shed light on this debate comes at the end of the piece:

Still, the question remains, why is it only now that objections to birth control are being raised in public? John Green, a political science professor who studies religion and politics at the University of Akron, says he thinks it has a lot to do with the recent battles over federal spending in general, and the new health law in particular.

The author doesn't pursue this theory to its end by asking why the budget battles even started under Obama. This is a reasonable question given the fact that (1) the US has run a budget deficit since Reagan held office 30 years ago and (2) the current Recession was not caused by Government Debt. She did not point out that budgets only become the big issue when a Democrat occupies the White House; the last threat at Government shutdown came under Clinton.

This is poor reporting. If the author was investigating a murder, she might ask "Why did the suspect kill the victim?" and receive the answer "Because the victim made him mad." Shouldn't she then ask, What did the victim do to make him mad?

Mike Muir

Just that this is a cool picture of Mike Muir of Suicidal Tendencies.

Song lyrics: Love Knows How to Fight

Monday I got hooked on M. Craft's song "Love Knows How to Fight". With repeated lines omitted, here are the lyrics:

Love knows how to fight
Like darkness wrapped in light 

And the sky is a roof made of tin with a million holes for the light to get in
Beyond, there's an endless sea of lucidity, and infinity of light
And tonight for the first time in my life I'm gonna believe something is out there
And there's somewhere I'm going to 

Cause all of the satellites which circle way up high won't save me now
And all of the meteorites that shoot across the sky won't save me now
All of the galaxies that turn before my eye won't get me out
Out of this mess I'm in now, no nothing can save me now 

So if you wanna fuck up with a beer bottle in your hand well so do I
And if you wanna cut up the blueprints and the plans well so do I
You wanna get messed up, and make a final stand? well so do I
Cause I look around me and I see, nothing can save me now. 

Love knows how to fight
And fight it will right up until the end
Like darkness wrapped in light
Love knows how to fight

My interpretation:

• First, the singer considers the human-centric view: The night sky and known universe are subordinated by man's conceptualizations of them (a tin roof with a million holes). Everything known becomes a thing to be studied and dominated. This is man's world of self-determination. The singer feels helpless, powerless, and, probably, desperate.

• In his desperation, he feels ready to open himself up to the possibility of destiny or some force greater than himself (I'm gonna believe something is out there) because he has no other recourse (nothing can save me now). When he says "Nothing can save me now" he means literally that no thing in the known universe--not even a meteorite--can help him. Only destiny can help--destiny not being a "thing" so much as the possibility of some thing else, some thing not known that is beyond understanding.

• Being without recourse in the human-centric world dominated by the concept of self-determination, he feels free to act out against the rules, the laws, and the plans set and enforced by other men. So he welcomes the opportunity to act out in defiance ( ...  if you wanna cut up the blueprints and the plans well so do I ...) 

•  At the beginning and end of the song he says the "something" "out there" is love. He sets up a binary relationship between self-determination and love, dark and light.