Superannuated Pedagogue: 09/01/2004

Thursday, September 30, 2004

thoughts on the debate?

open forum. post your thoughts in the Comments.

EVENT on campus Monday, October 4th

The Student Activities Programming Board Presents:

The SEVEN HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE VOTERS
Monday, Oct 4th from 8pm
in the Library Auditorium

Because of the "thoroughness" of the media, we'll know what kind of underwear the candidates wear, who they have slept with, & whether they like pork rinds or broccoli. BUT, will we know whether they'd make a good president? Forget what the media says. They have been wrong this past year about nearly everything! Instead, all you have to do is follow Rick Shenkman's & Habits of Highly Effective Voters.

Separating the wheat from the chaff of political news takes an expert. Join TV pundit Rick Shenkman on a one-hour romp through American politics and you'll never be a victim of political bull____ again.
How do you know what to believe? How do you figure out when you're being manipulated, lied to or misled by either the media the candidates or both?

By listening to Rick's SEVEN HABITS OF HIGHLY EFFECTIVE VOTERS. http://www.ciaspeakers.com/pdfs/election04.pdf

OR for more info go to http://www.ciaspeakers.com/artist5.html

for more information contact Jeff Wakemen at Ext 3258.

a couple of words on the debates tonight

First, I urge you all to watch. Second, I strongly urge you all to watch on CSPAN where there are no pontificating bloviators. If you can't do that, I really, really urge to you turn the show on at 9 and TURN IT OFF IMMEDIATELY AFTER the debate. Don't waste your time on the talking heads. They are either shallow and simplistic tv-types or paid flacks. Leave the spin alone and think for yourselves.

That said, you gotta tune into the Daily Show at 11 on Comedy Central, where Rudi Giuliani and Wes Clark will discuss the debate live. It is a sad time to live in this country (founded as it was by Tom Paine and other people fighting for a free press) when the ONLY news show with any legitimacy is the one that at least admits to being FAKE.

Enjoy, and I look forward to reading and hearing your comments.

something for the other side

For those of you who object to my bias, check out this review of the new DVD "George W. Bush: Faith in the White House" by Frank Rich:

You can run but you can't hide: Oct. 5 will bring the perfect storm in this year's culture wars. It's on that strategically chosen date, four Tuesdays before the election, that the DVD of "Fahrenheit 9/11" will be released along with not one but two new Michael Moore books. It's also the release date of the equally self-effacing Ann Coulter's latest rant, of a new DVD documentary, "Horns and Halos," that revisits the Bush mystery year of 1972, and of an R.E.M. album, "Around the Sun," that gets in its own political licks at the state of the nation.

When Dick Cheney and John Edwards debate in Cleveland that night, Bruce Springsteen will be barnstorming in another swing state, as the Vote for Change tour hits St. Paul. All that's needed to make the day complete is a smackdown between Kinky Friedman and Teresa Heinz Kerry on "Imus in the Morning."

Of the many cultural grenades being tossed that day, though, the one must-see is "George W. Bush: Faith in the White House," a DVD that is being specifically marketed in "head to head" partisan opposition to "Fahrenheit 9/11." This documentary first surfaced at the Republican convention in New York, where it was previewed in tandem with an invitation-only, no-press-allowed "Family, Faith and Freedom Rally," a Ralph Reed-Sam Brownback jamboree thrown by the Bush campaign for Christian conservatives. Though you can buy the DVD for $14.95, its makers told the right-wing news service WorldNetDaily.com that they plan to distribute 300,000 copies to America's churches. And no wonder. This movie aspires to be "The Passion of the Bush," and it succeeds.

As always, read the whole thing.

Tuesday, September 28, 2004

Cathy weighs in -- and today's Times

The latest from Cathy:

Hi again,
I'm sure you're tired of hearing from me at this point, but from reading your blog and some of the comments written by your students I thoght I might be able to help. First, I have to agree with them that your blog is very one sided but that is where I felt challanged. I was determined that someone so onesided had to be wrong and in my attempt to prove you wrong I began to realize it was my responsibility to look deeper and see past the rhetoric and the propaganda.

As a future historian it is my job to use what I am learning, in particular about our nations history, and apply it to the present day. There are three editorials in today's NY Times that are in my opinion very thought provoking. "Truths worth Telling" by Daniel Ellsberg (for those who don't know, he leaked the Pentagon Papers) does a great job of comparing those events to what's happening today. He makes the statement, "people have a hard time believing the Presidenent has made errors", which for a long time was my problem. I DID NOT want to believe that any President of the United States could make irresponsible desicions; he is supposed to have access to information to guard against that senario. This is the thought that clouded my vision; as you said to me a few weeks ago, I was thinking with my emotions.

So to your students, they may not like that your blog is one-sided, but it is their responsibility to take that information and use the skills they are learning in your class to determine whether or not they agree with it. They should read the articles you recommend but they shouldn't stop there. Read other articles and op-ed pieces, eventually they will find something that hits home for them and allow them to make a stand.

Hopefully I haven't overstepped my bounds,
Cathy

Not overstepped her bounds at all. This is what we do. We discuss, we listen, we debate, WE LEARN. And I am not tired of hearing from Cathy at all. Are you, readers?

And she beat me to the punch with her citation of the Ellsberg op-ed. ABSOLUTELY necessary reading. I have noticed a great desire on many students' parts to simply trust authority, or a fear of challenging our leaders, as if we work for them rather than the other way around. Well, that is a dramatic misreading of democracy, its benefits and its duties.

From my own perspective: my first real memory of noticing the world was the landing of the first man on the moon in July 1969. But my first real political memory is Watergate. So not only have I never forgiven Nixon (and I still have my "Impeach Nixon" bumpersticker -- literally the ONLY thing I have managed to save all these years), but I have a strong distrust of government officials. I imagine actually most Americans do. But I think since Nixon we now have the excuse that we can believe they are all liars and cheats, so whaddya gonna do? (And if you read someone like H.L. Mencken, you see that distrust is a lot older than Nixon. He called them all "mountebanks." What a great word, due for a renaissance.) But the difference with Nixon, and what still motivates me when observing politics, is that he messed with the Constitution and the democratic process. (And don't get me started on Iran-Contra.) Simply put, it is our job to hold them accountable.

Anyway, enough of my ranting. Go read Krugman!

And while you are at the Times you shouldn't miss "Prewar Assessment on Iraq Saw Chance of Strong Divisions" which begins thus:

WASHINGTON, Sept. 27 - The same intelligence unit that produced a gloomy report in July about the prospect of growing instability in Iraq warned the Bush administration about the potential costly consequences of an American-led invasion two months before the war began, government officials said Monday.

Then again, maybe they were just guessing.

Monday, September 27, 2004

As if you had nothing else to worry about ...

Steve Shalom from the Poli Sci department passes on this article from Tom Englhardt entitled "Xtreme weather meets Xtreme media bubble." Englehardt surveys how the mainstream media have been eager to assure viewers that this extreme hurricane season has nothing to do with global warming. This nugget caught my attention:

It's often been said that, in tossing the Kyoto Agreement out the Ozone hole, relaxing fuel-emission standards, burying or altering governmental global-warming research and the like, the Bush administration, with an Ivan-the-Terrible-style environmental record, has stuck its head in the proverbial sand (probably Tar sands at that). And this couldn't be truer. Ignoring global warming -- and so any preparations to safeguard the world for our children and grandchildren -- is but another form of global terrorism; it's a way of loading and locking another kind of weapon of mass destruction. But in this behavior, as it happens, the Bush administration isn't alone. The American mainstream media has been a major aider-and-abettor in the process.

[snip]

Perhaps it's the fact that global-warming math is so self-evident -- and so devastating -- that causes our media so insistently to look the other way. We in the United States make up 4% of humanity and yet are responsible for 25% of global greenhouse emissions. Facing the phenomenon of global warming, we have actually upped our greenhouse emission patterns, created vehicles that use yet more carbon-dioxide producing fossil fuels for less punch to the mile, made no serious national efforts at fossil-fuel conservation, put no significant national funds into quick-fix programs to find less harmful, more sustainable ways to run our world, and turned global warming into a money-making night at the movies – Nightmare on Earth Street. It's not a pretty record, either for the Bush Administration or for the media.

But there's much more in the article about the many scientific reports from around the world.

The only journalist Englehardt cites approvingly is Mark Lynas, whose new book High Tides: The Truth about our Climate Crisis should frighten us all. This description comes from the Washington Post Book Review, posted on Amazon.com:

In High Tide, Mark Lynas, who is part climate-change specialist, part environmentalist and part adventurer, takes us on a worldwide tour of vanishing glaciers and listing Alaskan houses built on once solid -- but now thawing -- tundra. To those in disbelief or denial, Lynas says simply, "Come with me -- see what I have seen." And so, with him we suffer through freakish sweltering summers in Europe, lean into hurricane winds and splash through rising tides on Tuvalu, a low-lying island nation in the Pacific Ocean that looks likely to disappear beneath the waves before too long.

Under dangerous conditions, Lynas climbs toward a glacier in Peru, holding in his hand a grubby photograph of the site that his father had taken 20 years previously, showing "an enormous fan of ice completely dominating the little iceberg strewn lake." He is stunned to find that the glacier has completely disappeared.

Personally, I am betting it's all a battle for world supremacy between the Heat Miser and the Snow Miser. Whose side are you on?

A Contest

Several commenters have asked why I am so anti-Bush? Where's the balance on my blog?

Well, I haven't figured out how to insert pictures in my site yet, so I will link to this picture from freewayblogger. The text reads: "Name one thing he has done right. One."

I think Bush is the worst President since Andrew Johnson. Not just because I disagree with his policies, but because of the damage his administration has done to our country and our world. I remember thinking and saying soon after September 11, 2001, "I have no doubt Osama Bin Laden is more evil than George W. Bush, but I suspect Bush might end up doing more damage to our country." Well, the story isn't over yet.... And this is not about just Bush himself -- yes, I think he is callow, craven, small-minded and mean-spirited -- but his administration (for which he, of course, must be held responsible).

So that is my take. It is not simply about the election. It is about the most secretive, dishonest, authoritarian, and incompetent administration in American history. And four more years of these people in charge can wreak incomparable damage. I don't want to descend into ranting, so I try to link to articles that provide INFORMATION upon which we can judge this administration's performance.

For instance: do you feel safer? Maybe this or this or this will change your mind. Or, as David Corn reminds us, Ashcroft is "0 for 5000" in terrorist convictions.

Think things are going better in Iraq? Check this out. Or see what Colin Powell, who used to be a member of this administration I think, says.

Think the coming election will be fair? Try this and this, or listen to a guy who has been all over the world checking the honesty of elections.

Think the Republicans will stop at anything to win? try josh marshall on for size.

Interested in how much you will be paying in the future for the current administration's fiscal irresponsibility? see Delong

Think Dan Rather should be shot? Go ahead, shoot him if you must. Then remember what the New York Times, the Washington Post, and nearly every other media outlet did before the Iraq War. By their own admission they told lies (well, they put it more delicately) and failed to check their own sources. (I'll find the links to their pathetic mea culpas if anyone is interested.)

Feeling at a loss for what to do? Do what I do, go read Digby!

But let me just now toss this one out: a contest: "Name one thing he has done right. One."

Winner gets a gold star.

If Bush is so satisfied...

This, taken whole from Laura Rozen:

Not a few of the people who write my website have a more incisive take on the political situation than I do. One of those I find most thought provoking is Karen Mickleson, a political psychologist. Here Mickleson responds to a question at the end of a recent post of mine, in which I asked, "if Bush is so satisfied with his record in Iraq, why does he seem compelled to lie about conditions there?" Mickleson writes:

First, I quote a bit of painful truth from Bob Herbert from the NYT 9/24/04:
The president said he is personally optimistic and he delivered an upbeat assessment of conditions in Iraq..... If you spend more than a little time immersed in the world according to Karl Rove, you'll find that words lose even the remotest connection to reality. They become nothing more than tools designed to achieve political ends. So it's not easy to decipher what the president believes about Iraq....This is scary....the world needs more from the president of the United States than the fool's gold of his empty utterances.

When Bush lies, he is not . . . addressing people who read news or who think or who look for sense in the world. He is speaking to those who want relief from thinking, from hard decisions, from complex judgments; he's speaking to those who want a likable authority to take care of the hard stuff. He's speaking to the "my president, right or wrong" folks. He's speaking to those whose need for reassurance trumps the need for truth.

In fact, when Bush lies, he's not speaking at all. He's repeating the "empty utterances" of Rove's carefully crafted message.

I pray Kerry's handlers help him understand that the debate will have little to do with content, and everything to do with crafting the impression of an alternate "dad" whose aggression and firmness can fulfill fantasies of retaliation and imaginary protective safety.

Mickleson hits the nail on the head when she says, when Bush lies, he is speaking to those who want relief from thinking, who want essentially not to think.

another student to think about

In my Historical Methods class on Elections, most students are writing research papers on elections past. Some are doing papers on the historical roots of current issues like education and healthcare. So far all the topics look great, and I am hopeful that for the first time ever I can hand out "A"s in the course to all the students.

One student has chosen to write about the election of 1800. No doubt he has already consulted this fine article from History Now on this election in compiling his initial bibliography.

I tried initially to see if he wanted to write something more contemporary, something like the roots of 9/11 or the roots of the current Iraq War. He begged off. I can't really blame him; after all, these are very difficult topics. Maybe he just wants to slide by on his good looks and considerable intellect. (He is in another class of mine where he sits in the back corner mostly making time with the young woman sitting next to him.) Maybe he fears butting heads with me ideologically. Which he will. Since he lives in the next town from me, he already suspecting me of stealing the Bush/Cheney sign off his lawn. And I suspected him of stealing my beloved hat with the W with a slash through it. Well, I found my hat under a pile of laundry, so he is off the hook. (I am joking, btw, about these suspicions, folks.)

He has already proven this matter of ideology shouldn't be a problem, at least as far as his grade is concerned. The class watched The Fog of War and this student wrote an excellent paper drawing lessons from McNamara that confirmed the current Bush foreign policy. He earned an "A" for presenting his argument clearly and cogently, with ample evidence.

So I am still wondering whether I should push him again to try to take on the difficult issues of the War. He fears getting lost in all the information with no ability to figure out who is telling the truth. This, indeed, is very difficult. But it goes to the heart of what we do as historians. So this paper would present a great challenge to his abilities.

But might it also challenge too much his ideological certainties? Might he fear finding out some things that don't square with what he already believes, or wants to believe? Could that be what he is most afraid of?

I would be tempted to call him an "academic girlie-man," but that is not my style.

What do you folks think I should do?

Zarqawi

Good article in today's Washington Post on Zarqawi, although they neglect this still-unrefuted story from NBC back in March:

But NBC News has learned that long before the war the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself — but never pulled the trigger.

In June 2002, U.S. officials say intelligence had revealed that Zarqawi and members of al-Qaida had set up a weapons lab at Kirma, in northern Iraq, producing deadly ricin and cyanide.

The Pentagon quickly drafted plans to attack the camp with cruise missiles and airstrikes and sent it to the White House, where, according to U.S. government sources, the plan was debated to death in the National Security Council.

“Here we had targets, we had opportunities, we had a country willing to support casualties, or risk casualties after 9/11 and we still didn’t do it,” said Michael O’Hanlon, military analyst with the Brookings Institution.

Four months later, intelligence showed Zarqawi was planning to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe.

The Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, and the White House again killed it. By then the administration had set its course for war with Iraq.

“People were more obsessed with developing the coalition to overthrow Saddam than to execute the president’s policy of preemption against terrorists,” according to terrorism expert and former National Security Council member Roger Cressey.

In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq.

The Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the National Security Council killed it.

Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi’s operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam.

The United States did attack the camp at Kirma at the beginning of the war, but it was too late — Zarqawi and many of his followers were gone. “Here’s a case where they waited, they waited too long and now we’re suffering as a result inside Iraq,” Cressey added.

And despite the Bush administration’s tough talk about hitting the terrorists before they strike, Zarqawi’s killing streak continues today.

good op-ed in today's Times

Regarding the debate:

Look for Substance, Not Sizzle, By ADAM CLYMER

Undecided no more -- Cathy checks in

Cathy sends along this more considered response:

NO LONGER UNDECIDED

There are many factors that helped me with my election dilemma; you prodding me do delve deeper into issues among them. It is in that context that I realized how past history should play a big part in that decision, at least it did for me. I’m not sure if I can explain it well but I’ll give it a try. We were discussing pre-history and the early colonial days in one of my history classes, talking about the liberal versus the conservative view when I realized that Bush stood for everything, or mostly everything that I am against. (Believe it or not I never voted for him the first time around.)
Anyway, we were talking about survival of the fittest, being the strongest and leavers and takers. Being the fittest meaning the ability to adapt to a changing environment, strength meaning the least adaptable, one sided and very rigid; this is the point were I felt like I walked into a brick wall. I suddenly saw President Bush as the strongest not the fittest and as a taker not a leaver; at the rate he’s going he will take everything and leave nothing for future generations. For example, the deficit and the environment as well as our dependency on oil are long term problems to which he is only interested in short term fixes, if he’s interested at all.
Then there is the problem of Iraq, I believed from the very beginning it wasn’t a great idea; I even argued with my husband about how it would be another Vietnam. There was a part of me though that thought, “well okay he’s the President and he’s privy to information I will never see nor do I want to have access to all of the national security information”. But I remembered learning how Kennedy used the fear of Russian nuclear superiority against Eisenhower’s Vice President Nixon when they opposed each other in the 1960 presidential race. Nixon was aware those statements were untrue, the United States was actually far ahead of the Russians but he couldn’t use that information because it was obtained through secret spy flights over the USSR.
Of course all these thoughts are going through my mind while I’m trying to focus on my class, but it was as if a great weight had been lifted and I suddenly saw things a lot clearer. I’ve felt for a long time that the gap between the poor and the rich has been getting ever larger with much of the tax burden falling on the ever shrinking middle class. Reading about the labor strikes of the late 1800’s and the smugness of the owner’s and how they had control of many in the government both local and federal, I again felt like I hit a brick wall. Bush isn’t really trying to help the middle class or the poor, he says he is but what he is really doing is helping the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
There are many things over the past week that I’ve looked at differently; I’m still not convinced Kerry has the conviction or the character that can make a difference, but I do know that we cannot allow George Bush to stay in office for another 4 years.

Thursday, September 23, 2004

What's the Matter with Kansas again

I have mentioned Thomas Frank's important new book What's the Matter With Kansas?: How Conservatives Won the Heart of America. In a sparkling review by Jason Epstein in the New York Review of Books, this quote stands out:

Hermann Goering famously told an interviewer during his trial at Nuremberg that
people don't want to go to war.... But, after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship.... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger. It works the same way in any country.

The whole review is well worth reading.

two lost wars later (part 4)

This letter to the NY Times gets it precisely wrong:

To the Editor:

President Bush's "scolding" of the United Nations General Assembly may have gone over like a "lead balloon" (editorial, Sept. 22), but he demonstrated something that the world needs: conviction married to strong, principled leadership.

President Bush's words echo those of Winston Churchill in the late 1930's. Churchill rejected appeasement of Nazi Germany; the president rejects watered-down measures against terrorists and support for tyrants.

Internationally, Mr. Bush stands as isolated today as Churchill was back then.

There are times when a leader must deliver the truth to unsympathetic ears. The United Nations may not have appreciated President Bush's candor, but the world body needed to hear it.

Jeff Thieret
Harmony, Pa., Sept. 22, 2004

In fact, the Bush Administration EMBRACES "watered-down measures against terrorists and support for tyrants." For the former, see many of my previous posts and this op-ed in today's Times (countered somewhat by this one); for the latter, see Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Russia, to name a few. Now, it is debatable whether the Bush Administration is making the right decision in cozying up to these tyrants -- we can look at the evidence and weigh the merits in each case -- but it is simply not true that Bush opposes tyrants. He simply opposed one tyrant in particular.

Sy Hersh, in this interview with Salon, longs for the good old days of Kissinger when we had a manipulative, machiavellian foreign policy leader, someone "who lied like most people breathed," but who at least knew what he was doing and knew that he was lying.

Is there someone who is the Henry Kissinger in this administration?

Oh, believe me, I pray for one [clasps his hands and looks beseechingly upward]. Wouldn't it be great if the reality was that they were lying about WMD, and they really didn't believe that democracy would come when they invaded Iraq, and you could go to war with 5,000 troops, a few special forces, a few bombs and a lot of American flags, and Iraq would fold, Saddam would be driven out, a new Baath Party would emerge that's moderate? Democracy would flow like water out of a fountain. These guys believe it. They believe WMD. There's no fallback with these guys. These guys are utopians. They're like Trotskyites. They believe in permanent revolution. They really believe. They believe that they could go in with few forces. They believed that once they went in it would happen quick. Iran would get the message. What they call occupied Lebanon would get the lesson. Even the Saudis would change.

[snip]

With Kissinger, there were lies, and he knew exactly what he was doing ...

Yes, one of his aides was assigned -- literally assigned on one of the secret flights they made to China -- to keep track of the lies, who knew what. I think they used to describe it as keeping track of what statements were made, but essentially it was who was being told what, because so many different people were being told different things. But these guys, do you realize how much better off we would be if they really were cynical, and they really were lying about it, because, yes, behind the invasion would be something real, like support for Israel or oil. But it's not! It's not about oil. It's about utopia. I guess you could call it idealism. But it's idealism that's dead wrong. It's like one of the far-right Christian credos. It's a faith-based policy. Only it wasn't a religious faith. It was the faith that democracy would flourish.

...So you don't think that this is some Machiavellian, cynical, manipulative ...

I used to pray it was! We'd be in better shape. Is there anything worse than idealism that doesn't conform to reality? You have an unrealistic policy.

It seems that they are very selective not only about what kind of information they present to the public but even in what they decide to believe in themselves.

I think these guys in their naiveté and single-mindedness have been so completely manipulated by -- not the Israelis -- but the Iranians. The Iranians always wanted us in. I think there's a lot of evidence that Iran had much to do with [Ahmed] Chalabi's disinformation [about nonexistent Iraqi WMD]. I think there were people in the CIA who suspected this all along, but of course they couldn't get their view in. I think the Senate Intelligence Committee's report's a joke, the idea this CIA was misleading the president. They get some analysts in and say, "Were you pressured?" And they all say, "No, excuse me?" Is that how you do an investigation? The truth of the matter is, there was tremendous pressure put on the analysts [to produce reports that bolstered the case for war]. It's not as if anybody issued a diktat. But everybody understood what to do.

Prelinger Archives

Rick Prelinger is a fascinating guy who has created an extraordinary archive of "ephemeral films" from the 20th century --

Prelinger Archives was founded in 1983 by Rick Prelinger in New York City. Over the next twenty years, it grew into a collection of over 48,000 "ephemeral" (advertising, educational, industrial, and amateur) films. In 2002, the film collection was acquired by the Library of Congress, Motion Picture, Broadcasting and Recorded Sound Division. Prelinger Archives remains in existence, holding approximately 4,000 titles on videotape and a smaller collection of film materials acquired subsequent to the Library of Congress transaction. Its goal remains to collect, preserve, and facilitate access to films of historic significance that haven't been collected elsewhere. Included are films produced by and for many hundreds of important US corporations, nonprofit organizations, trade associations, community and interest groups, and educational institutions. Getty Images represents the collection for stock footage sale, and some 1,600 (soon to be 2,000) key titles are available here. The collection currently contains over 10% of the total production of ephemeral films between 1927 and 1987, and it may be the most complete and varied collection in existence of films from these poorly preserved genres.

This is his latest production:

PANORAMA EPHEMERA (2004, 89:35 min., color and black and white) is a collage of sequences drawn from a wide variety of ephemeral (industrial, advertising, educational and amateur) films, touring the conflicted landscapes of twentieth-century America. The films' often-skewed visions construct an American history filled with horror and hope, unreeling in familiar and unexpected ways.

PANORAMA EPHEMERA focuses on familiar and mythical activities and images in America (1626-1978). Many creatures and substances that we hardly notice because we feel so used to them take center stage, including pigs, corn, water, telephones, fire, and rice. At first resembling a compilation, it soon reveals itself as a journey through the American landscape over time, and the story begins to emerge between the sequences.

The film consists of 64 self-contained film sequences ranging from 5 seconds to 4 minutes in length arranged into a narrative. Unlike many films made using archival footage, it's primarily a combination of sequences rather than a collage of individual shots.

PANORAMA EPHEMERA is populated by American children, animals, farmers, industrial workers, superheroes, pioneers heading West, crash test dummies, and many others.

The whole thing is housed at The Internet Archive, where you could profitably spend hours browsing.

Voter Registration in New Jersey

Our students still have time to register to vote-but that time is quickly disappearing.
Applications for voter registration must be received by October 4.
Some students at all levels vaguely believe they will register on-line at the last minute, or use an absentee ballot-this is not always possible. You may remind students of upcoming deadlines and procedures using the following information, gathered by visiting web-sites and speaking with the Passaic County Board of Elections. There may be additional ways of accomplishing the same ends.
Can I still register?
YES, but it must be completed by October 4.
How can I register?
At this point, it would be best to register IN-PERSON at your local city hall at home, where your legal address is. The office in city hall called “City Clerk” can assist you. Bring picture ID such as a driver’s license, or a credit card, or a credit card bill, a utility bill, OR a passport as identification. You will then be immediately registered to vote.
Where do I vote?
In your town; ask for your special location when you register.
I mailed in a registration form, but I haven’t gotten anything back.
You can call the city clerk at your local town hall to confirm that you are registered, or your local board of elections (some numbers included at the end of this document)
I can’t travel back home to register.
You CAN still register. You can download and print a registration form from www.njelections.org (scroll down to voter registration). Fill it out and mail it in right away, so that IT IS RECEIVED BY OCTOBER 4. (Some counties will accept a postmark deadline; Passaic County expects the form to be IN the office by then).
Then what?
You will receive a letter asking for identification-the last 4 digits of your social security number or driver’s license. Mail it in right away. OR-if you do NOT receive such a letter or do not wish to reply, you can show up to vote, with a form of identification-driver’s license, passport, credit card, credit card bill, OR utility bill-that confirms your address.
What if I show up at the polls without my ID?
You can still vote, but you must provide ID within 48 hours for your vote to be counted. Ask at the polls how this is done.
I can’t travel home to vote. What about the absentee ballot?
Yes, you still can arrange this, but you must start immediately. First, you must be registered. Second, you must request an absentee ballot one week before the 1st of October (NOW). The absentee ballots will be sent by mail in the first week of October; when you receive it, vote and return immediately. If you do not receive one, contact your local board of elections or city hall.
Who can I call?
By counties: Passaic: 973-881-4515 Morris 973-285-6715 Essex 973-621-5061 Hudson 201-795-6555 Bergen 201-336-6100 need another number? Call any of these for help.

Wednesday, September 22, 2004

The return of the Undecided -- an update

You may recall my exchange with my student Cathy -- here and here and here. Well, after my last posting she wrote me a thoughtful reply with many questions which seemed to necessitate a response including the whole history of American electoral politics and the two-party system. I was about to shunt her off to the Reader's Companion to American History as a starting point, and I was thinking of how else to respond, and I was busy with many other early semester activities when I received this surprising email from Cathy:

Hi,
I know you're swamped and I don't mean to add to it so respond whenever you have time but I needed say a few things. First, you are right about my problem was I was thinking with my emotions but it is history itself that made me see things more clearly. Thursdays I take HIstory for Social Studies Teachers so we have been discussing prehistory and early colonial history. Professor Weltman brought out a few points that opened my eyes and brought me to the point I am at now. History can be explained in many ways depending on the writers point of view. Basically, the changes that evolved over time in both periods have different interpertations. Since I don't want to bore you with a history lesson I'm sure you already know I'll skip to my enlightenment.

I believe that in order to succeed as a society we need have the ability to adapt to a changing environment and not be rigid in our beliefs or one sided in our opinions. We also need to respect the natural resources we have so that we will be able to leave something behind for our children. Lastly, diversity is what made us the great nation that we are and we need to continue to adapt our way of thinking about people who are different than us. So when I set my emotions aside and realized what I truly believed in, I came to the conclusion that George Bush can not possible be that man. He stands for everything I'm against; he is not trying to protect the environment, his policies are creating an even greater gap between social classes and although he may believe he is doing the right thing in Iraq, he has achieved the opposite desire. He has portrayed us as an imperialistic nation and though we aren't out to conquer Iraq we are imposing our beliefs on them. No one can deny Hussein was evil but I don't think we are any safer.

Now, I'm sot sure Kerry is the right man for the job either, I think that given the current circumstances he should be given a chance. If he doesn't do the job then he gets voted out in 4 years also.

I can go on but I don't want to get carried away, let me know when you have more time and we can have a more in depth discussion. As a side note, I don't believe Bush to be a bad man or a bad person, he just has different ideas about accomplishing certain goals.

That's all for now, but I do look forward to your reply,
Cathy

Now, that is really something, eh? Bet you didn't see this coming. First, all I could write back was "Wow." The next day I replied:

Cathy, let me just say that I am elated, and not just because I had a hand in convincing you to support the guy I support. I rejoice because you seem to indicate that it was your understanding of history that helped you make the decision. And not only the specific evidence, but the ways we look at and use history. Since those are the concerns I hold so dear, I am ecstatic to see someone else hook into history in this way.

In fact, I wish you would "bore" me with your new understanding of history. If you like, I would love to hear more about how your thoughts on the historical process helped reshape your attitude toward the current campaign.

There's more, which I will post in the coming days.

Michelle checks in

Says she: "Hey everyone. Read this article on civil liberties post 9/11 or risk losing your immortal soul to the forces of authoritarianism."

A Death Knell for Liberty
Responding to the War on our Rights Before it’s Too Late

We should all read Brad DeLong

I have cited him before, and rather than just pilfer his material, I will link to a couple of his recent posts where he discusses Obsidian Wings' question "What have our 1,000 troops died for?" and where he discusses Matthew Yglesias' take on the Times' "faulty epistemology" (look it up).

"Dick is a Killer"

from the folks who brought you Bush flying U2 comes another brilliant piece "Dick is a Killer"

Check out also these powerful and precise short videos at Hopper Video

Fairy Tale Theater -- Iraq edition

I have been trying to spread this story since I saw it in March; thank goodness for the Daily Mis-leader. This from yesterday's edition:

BUSH REJECTED PLANS TO GO AFTER TOP TERRORIST

In his effort to claim he is the strongest candidate on national security, President Bush has lately been speaking a lot about how he is doing everything possible to track down terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi[1] - the man thought to be responsible for escalating attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq.[2] But according to NBC News, it was Bush who in 2002 and 2003 rejected three plans to strike and neutralize Zarqawi because he believed a successful strike would undermine the public case for targeting Saddam Hussein.

As NBC News reported, "Long before the war, the Bush administration had several chances to wipe out his terrorist operation and perhaps kill Zarqawi himself - but never pulled the trigger." In June 2002, the Pentagon drafted plans to attack a camp Zarqawi was at with cruise missiles and airstrikes. The plan was killed by the White House. Four months later, as Zarqawi planned to use ricin in terrorist attacks in Europe, the Pentagon drew up a second strike plan, yet "the White House again killed it." In January 2003, the Pentagon drew up still another attack plan, and for the third time, the White House killed it.[3]

According to NBC, "Military officials insist their case for attacking Zarqawi's operation was airtight, but the administration feared destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam."[4]

Zarqawi is thought to be at least indirectly responsible for hundreds of U.S. casualties. Just yesterday, Zarqawi's terrorist group beheaded an American civilian in Baghdad.[5]

Sources:
1. "President's Remarks to the General Conference of the National Guard Association of the United States," The White House, 9/14/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3465739&l=56809.
2. "Going after Iraq's most wanted man," The Christian Science Monitor, 9/21/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3465739&l=56810.
3. "Avoiding attacking suspected terrorist mastermind," NBC News, 3/02/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3465739&l=56811.
4. Ibid, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3465739&l=56811.
5. "Zarqawi Group Beheads U.S. Hostage Armstrong," Reuters, 9/20/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=3465739&l=56812.

This story has ABSOLUTELY NOT BEEN REFUTED and there have been several attempts by journalists to follow up.

By the way, Zarqawi's connnections to Al Qaeda are vague, and even before the war he was in Iraq in the Northern area controlled by our allies the Kurds and patrolled by U.S. airplanes. You do remember that before the war we controlled the airspace over two-thirds of Iraq, right? You remember that the sanctions, while not a very humane or ideal solution, were keeping Saddam contained at a far lower cost than we are now spending? And, of course, how can you forget that UN weapons inspectors were IN IRAQ, that Iraq had filed a report disclosing its arms and "weapons-related-program-activities"? But you also remember that the Bush administration refused to believe the report because it didn't confess to WMD and Al Qaeda links that were nonexistant. Finally, you, dear reader, are certainly not among the nearly two-thirds of the American people who continue to suspect that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. Right? My readers gave up believing in fairy tales years ago. Didn't you?

[Update: I feel the need to add a reminder that this guy Zarqawi is a very, very bad person and he is responsible for numerous American deaths and great instability in Iraq. He truly is the enemy to Americans and to the Iraqi people.]

Tuesday, September 21, 2004

What will Kerry do in Iraq?

Well, the Times has this coverage of his speech yesterday.

His campaign website lays out a set of priorities, values, and plans.

Kevin Drum gives his perceptive analysis:

Pundits have been kvetching for months now that Kerry hasn't produced a gift-wrapped miracle that definitively solves all our problems in Iraq. But that's just not in the cards anymore. Iraq is such a mess that there's nothing left except choosing the least worst of a bunch of bad choices.

In any case, Kerry has said what he'd do in Iraq, and while it might not be a slam dunk, it's surely better than George Bush's apparent plan to keep doing what he's been doing all along ("stay the course"). Unfortunately, what he's been doing all along is exactly what got us where we are today. Practically anything would be better than that.

And that's really what this is all about. Iraq is going to be a big problem no matter who's president next year, but the real question is: what happens next? There are certainly going to be serious, unforeseen foreign policy problems during the next four years, and who do you trust to handle them best? The team that brought you Iraq and continues to believe that they've handled it just fine, or someone else?

I'd prefer not to see any more foreign policy crises handled the way Iraq was handled. Unfortunately, common sense tells us that's exactly what we'll get if George Bush is reelected: more Iraqs.

But I think Atrios says it best:

Kerry's plan for Iraq is simple - put competent people in charge.

Well, that certainly would be a start.

today's menu

first the basics:
If you haven't already, Read Your Krugman!!! Today's installment: The Last Deception -- although I am not so optimistic that this is the last one (already, we can add today's Bush speech to the U.N. to the list, but I will get to that later if I have time).

Brooks I won't even link to because the last time I tried to decode him my headache lasted for hours. An expert at feints and dodges, omissions and elisions, misrepresentations and convenient amnesia (for instance, he himself, like fellow conservatives George Will, William F. Buckley and numerous others, condemned the Iraq war months ago, but quickly returned to singing the chorus, playing what Digby calls the Mighty Wurlitzer -- did he fear losing his access to White House soirees? did the order come down from Rove? did he forget that his position in life is not to seek and purvey truth but to promote the party line no matter how far the party deviates from even its own supposed principles? I don't know, but I digress.... Josh Marshall elucidates things today so I don't have to.

Over at WaPo, E.J. Dionne asks What is Bush Hiding? regarding National Guard service. Very cogent piece, pulling together a number of threads, concluding:

I'm as weary as you are that our politics veer away from what matters -- Iraq, terrorism, health care, jobs -- and get sidetracked into personal issues manufactured by political consultants and ideological zealots. But the Bush campaign has made clear it wants this election to focus on character and leadership. If character is the issue, the president's life, past and present, matters just as much as John Kerry's.

Dan Rather has answered his critics. Now it is Bush's turn.

Over at the Guardian, Sy Hersh, the man most responsible for breaking the Abu Ghraib story, has a couple of excerpts from his new book on the topic -- for those of you who might care about quaint notions like the rule of law, the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, not to mention morality or the safety of our troops.

Monday, September 20, 2004

new site on Presidential history

this comes from H-DIPLO:

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 12:44:20 -0700
From: "H-DIPLO [Fujii]"
Subject: ANN: Resource on the American Presidency [Greco]

Folks,

I wanted to make this group aware of a resource that I've been working on for a while now that could be of interest to those studying and teaching Diplomatic History. The Scripps Library at the Miller Center of Public Affairs--a research center at the University of Virginia--opened two years ago, and over that period we have been steadily building digital content on the American presidency (we currently have 2 terabytes on our servers).
We have recently begun moving this digital content to our website, and I would like to invite you to take a look. Our website is, and will remain, a free service we offer to the public.
In the digital library section of our site you will find hundreds of hours of secret White House recordings from Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson (with Truman, Eisenhower and Nixon recordings on the way); a growing collection of some of the most important presidential speeches of the past 70 years (in full audio); audio recordings and transcripts of the Jimmy Carter Oral History project conducted at the Miller Center; and recordings of public forums from numerous officials ranging from John Ehrlichman to William Fulbright. You will also find a growing online reference section with extensive bibliographies on individual presidents and specific subjects closely associated with the presidency (e.g. the Vietnam Conflict).

The address for our website is: www.millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps

Any scholars who wish to delve deeply into the secret White House recordings mentioned above should also consult the Center's website for its Presidential Recordings Program, whitehousetapes.org, where they will find much more information about this extraordinary resource, including the status of ongoing efforts to transcribe the tapes.

[snip]

Michael D. Greco
Library Director
Scripps Library and Multimedia Archive
Miller Center of Public Affairs
University of Virginia
(434) 924-4016
greco@virginia.edu
www.millercenter.virginia.edu/scripps/

Sunday, September 19, 2004

Election history site

Check out the Reader's Companion to American History for introductions to every American election up to 1988.

Friday, September 17, 2004

Sunday Bloody Sunday

Via Rabid Blog, the Prez does U2 -- and they never sounded so good.

Iraq

I want to point you again to this important article from yesterday's Times:

U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future

Josh Marshall summarizes nicely:

...Actually, on Thursday President Bush was speaking in exactly this vein: "Freedom is on the march."

But as yesterday's piece in the Times made clear, that's exactly the opposite of what the government -- or rather the people in the government paid to analyze these things --- actually believes. A new and still highly classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq says that the best case scenario for the country over the next eighteen months is drift, along more or less the lines that it's at right now. The worst case scenario is all-out civil war. The middle ground is spiralling extremism and fragmentation -- basically a continuation of the evolution, or rather devolution, we've seen over the last year.

There have been a raft of new findings over the last week or so which dramatize or confirm this finding. But the truth is we don't really need anyone to tell us this.

It's always possible to posit 'optimism' up until the point when the whole place actually erupts spontaneously into hellfire. But to any thinking individual it's clear and it's been clear for some time that our whole enterprise in Iraq is going extremely poorly, by pretty much every concievable measure.

And yet the president just says none of this is true. Things are going well. Yes, things are difficult, he says. But we're on the right track and things keep getting better. Dan Bartlett today said that Democrats are just showing their pessimism: "President Bush gets his briefings from commanders on the ground. He has reason for his optimism because of the enormous amount of progress we have made."

The president is simply in denial. Or he's willing to keep burning through the US Army and the Marine Corps to avoid admitting the failure of his policies or even the obvious fact that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating terribly.

Today another suicide bomber just exploded himself in Baghdad killing at least a dozen people. The country is continuing the slide into chaos and violence. President Bush says we're on the the right track. Freedom is on the march.

Words and excuses meet incompetence, chaos and death. That's what this election is about.

And he is right that all you have had to do was keep reading for the past two years to see this story developing -- and I have linked to numerous articles reporting on various aspects of the war.

But this, from today's Times, gives us a sense of one of the consequences:

The chief of the Army Reserve warned on Thursday that at the current pace of operations in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army faced a risk of running out of crucial specialists in the Reserves who can be involuntarily called up for active duty.

People wonder what Kerry's plan for Iraq is. But how can he formulate (or announce) a specific plan when the details of the situation in Iraq will be different in January than they are now. I suggest our current Commander in Chief formulate a plan first.

Thursday, September 16, 2004

REPORT SHOWS BUSH NEGLECTING HUNT FOR AL QAEDA

This is especially shocking:
Published on Thursday, April 29, 2004 by the Associated Press
More Agents Track Castro Than Bin Laden
by John Solomon

WASHINGTON - The Treasury Department agency entrusted with blocking the financial resources of terrorists has assigned five times as many agents to investigate Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden's and Saddam Hussein's money, documents show.

Then there is this from the Daily Mis-lead

REPORT SHOWS BUSH NEGLECTING HUNT FOR AL QAEDA

In the months after the 9/11 attacks, President Bush promised America he would make the hunt for al Qaeda the number one objective of his administration. "[We] do everything we can to chase [al Qaeda] down and bring them to justice," Bush said. "That's a key priority, obviously, for me and my administration."[1] But according to a new report, the President has dangerously underfunded and understaffed the intelligence unit charged with tracking down al Qaeda's leader.

The New York Times reports "Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency has fewer experienced case officers assigned to its headquarters unit dealing with Osama bin Laden than it did at the time of the attacks." The bin Laden unit is "stretched so thin that it relies on inexperienced officers rotated in and out every 60 to 90 days, and they leave before they know enough to be able to perform any meaningful work."[2]

The revelation comes months after the Associated Press reported the Bush Treasury Department "has assigned five times as many agents to investigate Cuban embargo violations as it has to track Osama bin Laden's" financial infrastructure.[3] It also comes after USA Today reported that the President shifted "resources from the bin Laden hunt to the war in Iraq" in 2002. Specifically, Bush moved special forces tracking al Qaeda out of Afghanistan and into Iraq war preparations. He also left the CIA "stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan."[4] That has allowed these terrorists to regroup: according to the senior intelligence officials in July of this year, bin Laden and other top al Qaeda leaders are now directing a plot "to carry out a large-scale terror attack against the United States" and are overseeing the plan "from their remote hideouts somewhere along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."[5]

Sources:
1. "President Calls for Ticket to Independence in Welfare Reform,"
WhiteHouse.gov, 5/10/02,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2421375&l=55681.
2. "C.I.A. Unit on bin Laden Is Understaffed, a Senior Official Tells
Lawmakers," New York Times, 9/15/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2421375&l=55682.
3. "More Agents Track Castro Than Bin Laden," Common Dreams News Center,
4/29/04, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2421375&l=55683.
4. "Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions," USA Today, 3/28/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2421375&l=55684.
5. "Officials: Bin Laden guiding plots against U.S.," CNN.com, 7/08/04,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=2421375&l=55685.

Visit www.Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. »

Notice that all their reports are SOURCED. Now, that doesn't mean everything is indisputable; but at least they have not made this stuff up.

History Now

This comes to me from the NATIONAL COALITION FOR HISTORY

HISTORY NOW Launched: The Gilder Lehrman Institute has launched HISTORY NOW, a new online journal for history teachers and students. HISTORY NOW will feature articles by noted historians as well as lesson plans, links to related websites, bibliographies, and many other resources. In each issue, the editors will bring together historians, master teachers and archivists to comment on a single historical theme. The first issue of HISTORY NOW discusses the topic of elections. In this issue, Joanne Freeman discusses the contested election of 1800, Liette Gidlow looks at television's effect on the 1960 Kennedy-Nixon debates, Steven Mintz examines the history of voting rights, and Ted Widmer reflects on the electoral process from the perspective of Muslim exchange students. To access HISTORY NOW, tap in to: http://www.historynow.org .

There looks to be a lot of interesting election-related historical material. Not only that, the editor is the estimable historian and teacher Carol Berkin -- the person who taught me how to be a historian. [update: Carol reminds me that she alone is not responsible for my historical career; indeed, she is right, and I had many great teachers in grad school and college, even one brilliant teacher in high school.]

Johnny Ramone R.I.P.

This was the band that taught me that rock'n'roll didn't consist of sitting a mile away from a fog-machined stage for 40-minute guitar solos and 2 hour drum solos. I saw the Ramones when I was 15, and I was actually standing against the stage, right in front of Johnny as they played. I have to confess, I didn't quite get it right away, but I knew something was going on. Now Johnny has succumbed to cancer at 55.

I never cared much for Dee Dee and his typical New York heroin-chic. But Joey's death hit me hard, especially upon listening to his posthumous album (recorded while he was dying of cancer) Don't Worry About Me. Beautiful sense of melody, as always, but mixed with a heartwrenching bravery, serenity and wisdom. Extraordinarily moving version of "What A Wonderful World."

I couldn't find this in the Times

maybe since they were leading cheerleaders for the war....

Kofi Annan: Iraq war 'illegal'

Treason for Spite

From the Washington Post, "Post Source Reveals Identity to Leak Probers":

A Washington Post reporter's confidential source has revealed his or her identity to the special prosecutor conducting the CIA leak inquiry, a development that provides investigators with a fact they have been pursuing in the nearly year-long probe.

This is the case of the person within the Administration who exposed the identity of a CIA agent in revenge against her husband Joe Wilson who had been sent by the CIA to Niger to find the evidence that Saddam had tried to acquire uranium there. After he found no evidence and Bush stated in his State of the Union speech that there was such evidence, Wilson came out with the truth. Someone within the Administration then called several reporters to expose his wife who, by the way, was a middle east expert who can now no longer do her job -- thus depriving our country of one much-needed qualified person protecting us.

today's Times and Salon

A sampling from the Times:

U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism on Iraq's Future

Judge Orders U.S. to Release Files on Abu Ghraib

Civilian Dead, and Bitterness: No Way to Bridge the Rage?

as Bart would say, Ay Carumba... But I am sure you have already read these articles. So here are some more from the more opinionated Salon:

The "war is lost"
Military experts say they see no exit from the Iraq debacle -- and that the war is helping al-Qaida.
By Sidney Blumenthal

Turning point
A journalist who was embedded with the U.S. Marines in Fallujah explains how the Bush White House lost the key battle of the Iraq war.
By David J. Morris

Why the Republicans can't fight terror
Driven by rigid right-wing ideology, their heavy-handed policies have made America and the world less safe, not more.
By Stephen Holmes

Wednesday, September 15, 2004

for instance

Compare ...

Follow the Money: How John Kerry busted the terrorists' favorite bank.
By David Sirota and Jonathan Baskin

with ...

The Greed Factor: Sanctions against rogue regimes would have been abandoned if Dick Cheney had had his way.
By David J. Sirota and Jonathan Baskin

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

the blogosphere

Is the blogosphere a place where, because of the efforts of thousands eagerly searching for enlightenment, the truth will out? or is it a place where falsehoods and fantasies float forever effortlessly. leaving us free to choose to believe whatever we want? One way to discover the answer is to find out how many still believe in the Swift Boat lies or that the Killian memos were forgeries. Digby's take in the issue and takedown of Andew Sullivan is here.

the return of the undecided -- an exchange (part 2)

more from my email conversation with Cathy -- part 1 is here -- the student who is still undecided about the election: I wrote later still on 9/9/04:

not to pile things on, but I just thought of something else: a while back I looked at the two campaigns' websites. john kerry's had his name and picture and words plastered all over it. On George Bush's site, the names, pictures, and words were all of ... (drumroll) ... John Kerry.

That is: Bush, because he doesnt have a record of accomplishment to run on, is running as the "not-Kerry". That is why Cheney has to say a vote for Kerry is a vote for Osama. All they have left is the fear they can manufacture.

Just as we ask of Kerry that he present clearly his ideas and plans for the next four years, so should we ask Bush. And then we can examine whether they add up or make sense. In Bush's case we have the added benefit of being able to compare what he proposes with what he has done.

all for now.

Cathy replied on 9/10/04:

No I didn't think you were being dismissive, I found your comment rather funny(in a good way). First, I appreciate all of the information you are sending me and I agree with much of what you say about both Kerry and Bush. My biggest problem is I think they are both spoiled rich kids who haven't a clue about the the world most American live in. My other problem is trying to decide if I am democrat or republican; I believe in some of what each party stands for. I don't believe in big business and I don't believe in creating social programs that only mask a problem but do nothing to actually help it. I'm also not sure anymore where each party stands on the issues they have each seemed to drift somewhat in their thinking. It would be easy if I clearly felt one way or the other, then I could vote the party line and be done with it, but wouldn't that be a copout? And I truly believe anything on either candidates website is propaganda designed to get them elected.

Pursuing my education in history has done a couple of things: it has opened my eyes and brought to me many things I never learned in school and has made me more critical and discerning in what I read and has also left me more skeptical about the motives of our leaders. All good things to be sure, but it has left me feeling very isillusioned.

Anyway, continue to keep me informed I enjoy the reading, although I don't always agree. Maybe we could debate the issue again before election day?
Till next time,
CAthy

I replied later on 9/10/04:

I am sorry, Cathy, but it is just a copout to dismiss all political rhetoric as "propaganda." Of course, they are saying what they believe will get them elected. But it bears some resemblence to what they have done and what we can reasonably expect they will do. It is our job to decipher and decode that.

In this campaign we have not only two very different visions of the future of America, but we have two very different styles of presenting those visions. So even if both are "propaganda" they are not of the same type. So we can choose between them.

I am pushing harder on you with each email because I sense from you not an intellectual decision that you are having trouble with, but an emotional (for lack of a better word) one. Without being so presumptuous or rude as to get into your psychology, I would like to suggest an explanation for the problem you are facing. I will try to be clear, but it is complex and I am just starting to figure this out; and it is not just you I am thinking about, but many Americans.

Here goes: I think that we have been so bombarded by the right-wing media machine over the last decade (and I can give you several books to read that show how this works) that we really can't see through the bullshit. And I know you are quite intelligent. But we have been subjected to so many lies that we think everything is a lie, so we can just choose the lies we want to believe.

I recommend the book or the documentary film called The Hunting of the President. I know you are not a Clinton fan, but what the book and movie show is the unrelenting and well-financed campaign to destroy the Clinton presidency from before he even came into office.

I am sorry but it is just not equal right now, both dems and repubs as politician scum in it for the money, sex and power. Over the past 40 years the Republicans have built up a largely hidden machine for accruing power. Sure, democrats can be just as corrupt, sleazy, selfish etc. And sure Republicans can be well-meaning and trying to do good for the country. But those Republicans arent the ones who control things right now.

and here is my final point, before I finish my rant: they are not even conservative!!! It is not conservative to destroy the environment. It is not conservative to send the country into billions of dollars of debt while giving that money away to your already wealthy friends and sticking Cathy and Dewar's children with the bill (it was not a tax cut but a tax shift they enacted; someone has to pay for the spending increases). It is not conservative to shread the Consitution -- some examples: tell me where in the Constitution it says that the Supreme Court has ANY say in who the President is; their decision in 2000 went against not just the people's will, but also their own normal "strict constructionist" interpretation. Or how about the Patriot Act which allows the government to arrest American citizens indefinitely without charging them with a crime. Or the justice department memos that declared the President to be above the law and thus able to violate treaties to which the US is a signatory, including the Geneva Conventions.

I am not trying to pick on you or bludgeon you with my knowledge, but to honestly try to get at how you can be undecided. If you just havent been following closely enough, fine. There is still plenty of time to get up to speed and make a choice. But I sense there is something else at work here.

looking forward to your response. dewar.

I will let Cathy have the last word for now, with her response from 9/11/04:

I am not dismissing all political rhetoric as "propaganda" and I'm sorry if I gave you that impression. I will however agree that I do tend to make decisions more from an emotional stand; it's a character flaw I am working on. Unfortunetly for me, one of the things my paper on Nixon taught me is how easy it was for the press to be manipulated or how bias they can be, but it also taught me to be more discerning and skeptical.
As far as the 2000 election, it wasn't the only election where the President elect did not recieve the majority of the popular vote. And while we are on that subject, why didn't Florida take the necessary steps to fix thier problem before the 2004 election? And don't tell me it's because the govenor is the Presidents brother. There are certainly enough democrats in that state who could have lobbied to address the problem.
Yes, there are both evil and good politicians on both sides of the fence, but I think the reason I take the republican side so often is because I am surrounded by democrats who do nothing but bash them, so I look for reasons to defend them. A friend of mine once told me that my problem in life was that I thought there was could in everybody but I needed to realize there isn't good in anybody. I think that last part is a little harsh but I do happen to believe that there is good in everybody, including George Bush.

Krugman

Not much time today, so I just want to point you to the always brilliant Krugman. Op-eds are a strange species because they are not held to the same set of "standards" of the supposed real journalism. So people can get away with nonsense. And since they only have 500-1000 words or so, they can't fill in every detail. Krugman, though, is scrupulous. He simply doesn't make shit up, and he doesn't ignore contrary evidence to make his points. You may not always agree, and he, of course, doesn't give all sides to every story, but you can count his intellectual honesty. Today's column, in particular, could be ten times longer with footnotes and evidence substanting every contention he makes. And as bad as he makes things sound, he is only scratching the surface. Take it seriously. And read, read, read.

Monday, September 13, 2004

Interview with John Kerry

Y'all wanna know what Kerry has to say? Check out this interview in Time Magazine.

"Today Iraq, tomorrow Iran"?

Martin Sieff in Salon.com
"Today Iraq, tomorrow Iran"
"Neocons were dead wrong about Iraq in at least 21 (count 'em) ways. Yet Wolfowitz, Krauthammer et al. are nevertheless pushing for 'preemption' in Iran."

"Fuck the Police"

Some of you oldtimers might remember the uproar over N.W.A.'s "Fuck the Police" and Ice-T's "Cop Killer." Well, what do you make of the Republicans' current ending of the ban on assault weapons?:

National police organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers and the Fraternal Order of Police all support the renewal of the ban.

Maybe the expression is now "Cheney the Police"?

Energy policy

Today's NY Times has a decent editorial on the two candidates energy policies.

This is an issue that I personallyl wish Kerry would make more of. The Bush solution seems to be to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which wouldn't produce oil for a decade, and even then only a tiny fraction of our needs.

I remember sitting in my office off Times Square on September 11, 2001 and it occurred to me that now finally we would have to have a sane energy policy. Shows how naive I was. To my mind, energy, environment, economic (esp. jobs and technological innovation), and national security policies are all of a piece. The Apollo Project is an extraordinarily innovative and important such plan. I urge you to check it out.

For those of you interested in the future of alternative fuels, this piece from the Washingon Monthly gives some reason for hope : Washington Monthly; Jul/Aug2004, Vol. 36 Issue 7/8, p17, 4p; "Independence Way" by Sam Jaffe. Abstract: Deals with the reform agendas of U.S. presidential candidate John Kerry to use ethanol-based fuel as a means of transforming the transportation infrastructure to disengage the country from importing oil products. Source of ethanol fuel products; Information on the cellulosic ethanol products developed by the Canadian biotechnology company Iogen; Benefits of cellulosic ethanol. [available through our library ejournals]

Sunday, September 12, 2004

Why we are in Iraq

There are many different angles to the story of why we are in Iraq. Naomi Klein has a brilliant article in the September issue of Harpers (since they have a lousy webpage it is only available through our electronic journals from the library homepage). She exposes how the neocon dream on a free market Iraq led to the pillaging of the country's resources and the insertion of laws promoting mulitnational capitalists at the expense of local business. As with so much of the Iraq War story (e.g. Halliburton), this is not just a question of morality or ethics, but of competence and legitimacy.

Richard Kearney's webpage

Richard Kearney, librarian extraordinaire, has created this webpage for our course. He will be updating, so check back again later. Tons of great election and campaign links and info, contemporary and historical.

she's even worse than me

My friend Michelle Chen reports on the state of labor under the Bush Administration. Choicest snippet:

One area where the president can brag about boosting employment is in another hemisphere, in developing nations like China, where millions work for virtually nothing, and companies are free of all those pesky labor regulations inflating the cost of labor in the US. It’s easy to see why 2.9 million US jobs have disappeared since Bush took office. As if corporations needed more incentive to outsource jobs, Bush’s proposed 2005 budget dishes out added tax bonuses for multinationals that move jobs overseas. In Bushland, this is known as "taking the side of working families."

Juan Cole on the War on Terror after three years

Via DeLong, Juan Cole's assessment of the War on Terror so far.

the return of the undecided -- an exchange

Remember last week I mentioned a student who dropped by and told me, among other things, that she was still undecided? Well, we have been carrying on a spirited email exchange since then, which she has generously allowed me to share with you. I am going to post our discussion in parts over the next several days, editing only for typos etc., and resisting the temptation to make changes to make me look smart. Feel free, folks, to jump in in the comments section.

on 9/9/04 I wrote,

Cathy, very nice to see you.

here is my blog: http://superannuatedpedagogue.blogspot.com/

also: I urge you to see Fahrenheit 9/11 for yourself. You are right to be skeptical of Michael Moore, but you should be equally skeptical of those who denounce him. It is an incredibly powerful film. Most important, where I give him credit is because he raised issues that no one in the mainstream media would touch. You will not agree with everything he presents, but you will be better able to make an informed choice in the election after having seen the film. It comes out on dvd on october 5th.

stop by again on a thursday afternoon. I am usually here.

later that night Cathy replied:

I enjoyed our discussion also and I will consider seeing the movie. I would also like to clarify a few of my views. First, I have not decided who I will vote for yet. There are many things that I don't agree with Bush about, (education and the environment to name two) but what I would like most is for Kerry to give me reasons why I should vote for him and not why I shouldn't vote for Bush. Also, I would like to see a third party that produced a candidate who didn't need to take a poll to decide where her or she stood on an issue and one who also treated the American public like they had a brain. You are right though, we need to arm ourselves with as much information as possible, both in support of our opinions and against.

Thanks again,
Cathy

p.s. Am I the undecided student?

I replied that night:

yes, you are the undecided student. I hope I didnt caricature what you said to me; I wasnt trying to be dismissive. I also would like Kerry to give us stronger reasons to vote for him, and I would love to see a politician speak the truth etc. Unfortunately, that politician would not last very long. Just look at McCain. For every sensible sentence he utters he has to pay fealty to the masters by joining in the clown show.

But there is a contradiction in the way you approach this. You condemn Kerry for not making his message more clear, but that is really a question of style, not substance; and it is not really in his control as the media decide what they will present and how. Have you gone to Johnkerry.com and read his proposals and policy statements? If not then what you are really uncomfortable with his how he does or does not perform the role of potential President. Bush does that much better, sure. But unless we think that is really the job of the President, unless we think that what he does doesnt really matter and doesnt really effect us in any literal way, then we need to see beyond that.

In 2000 I was sympathetic to the Nader position that there is no difference between the two parties. I didn't agree with him or support him, but I think he was raising a valid point about how both parties are in the pocket of big business and not really interested in the well-being of the American people. And Clinton and Gore had pushed the Dems farther toward the right, so that on economic policy they were better Republicans than the Republicans. And to a large degree what Nader was talking about in 2000 is still true. But the past four years have shown how different the parties really are -- in what they stand for, in how they relate to the American people, in how they govern.

I think Kerry is playing the "not-Bush" because his political operatives have calculated that as the best message; whether it will work or not I don't know. But he is also the "not-Bush" because, in my opinion, EVERYTHING the Bush administration has done has hurt the American people. I know that sounds extreme, but can you name me one thing?

More later.

my new favorite blog

early opposers of Bush were often accused of being shrill. now, they take that as a badge of honor. The Shrillblog keeps a running tab on those who join the ranks of the shrill.

Friday, September 10, 2004

Gore on Bush

David Remnick has an interesting article in the New Yorker on what's Al Gore up to these days. This quote comes from deep in the article and is sort of unfairly taken out of context, but I thought it worth sharing.

In the summer of 2001, Gore had ended his silence and launched a public critique of the Bush Administration with a speech in Florida. However, after the terror attacks, he declared Bush “my Commander-in-Chief,” a gesture meant to promote unity and not offend the national mood. But by September, 2002, as the Bush Administration started its march toward a war in Iraq, Gore ended his discretion with a withering speech at the Commonwealth Club, in San Francisco, aimed at the Administration’s foreign policy. Gore, who was one of the few Democrats to vote in favor of the 1991 resolution in Congress endorsing the first Gulf War, now said that an American-led invasion of Iraq would undermine the attempt to dismantle Al Qaeda and damage the multilateral ties necessary to combat terrorism:

If we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth-rate military of Iraq, and then quickly abandon that nation, as President Bush has quickly abandoned almost all of Afghanistan after defeating a fifth-rate military power there, then the resulting chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam.

Gore’s challenge to the Bush White House to present real evidence of a link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11 was, in both tone and substance, more critical than any speech yet delivered by the candidates in the Democratic field. Suddenly, the prospect of a Gore candidacy hit the media in a wave.

“I wasn’t surprised by Bush’s economic policies, but I was surprised by the foreign policy, and I think he was, too,” Gore told me. “The real distinction of this Presidency is that, at its core, he is a very weak man. He projects himself as incredibly strong, but behind closed doors he is incapable of saying no to his biggest financial supporters and his coalition in the Oval Office. He’s been shockingly malleable to Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and the whole New American Century bunch. He was rolled in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He was too weak to resist it.

“I’m not of the school that questions his intelligence,” Gore went on. “There are different kinds of intelligence, and it’s arrogant for a person with one kind of intelligence to question someone with another kind. He certainly is a master at some things, and he has a following. He seeks strength in simplicity. But, in today’s world, that’s often a problem. I don’t think that he’s weak intellectually. I think that he is incurious. It’s astonishing to me that he’d spend an hour with his incoming Secretary of the Treasury and not ask him a single question. But I think his weakness is a moral weakness. I think he is a bully, and, like all bullies, he’s a coward when confronted with a force that he’s fearful of. His reaction to the extravagant and unbelievably selfish wish list of the wealthy interest groups that put him in the White House is obsequious. The degree of obsequiousness that is involved in saying ‘yes, yes, yes, yes, yes’ to whatever these people want, no matter the damage and harm done to the nation as a whole—that can come only from genuine moral cowardice. I don’t see any other explanation for it, because it’s not a question of principle. The only common denominator is each of the groups has a lot of money that they’re willing to put in service to his political fortunes and their ferocious and unyielding pursuit of public policies that benefit them at the expense of the nation.”

Remember: they called Al Gore crazy when he came out against the war, when he demanded to see the proof that Iraq was a threat.

Louis Menand on the undecided voter

I have been meaning to talk about this article by Luc Menand in the New Yorker for a couple of weeks. Menand might just be the most brilliant guy out there, though sometimes I get the impression "too clever by half" was just sitting around gathering dust until he came around. I will try to weigh in with more than this snarky comment in a couple of days.

Meanwhile, Digby beat me to the commentary here.

Menand covers the question of how people choose whom to vote for, while Digby uses that information to argue that Democrats must be able to match the Republicans in appealing to emotions rather than reason. Because that is what wins elections, whether we like it or not.

Lewis Lapham has a piece in the September issue of Harpers Magazine on the history since the 1960s of the growth of the Republican propaganda machine. The article is available through our library's electronic journals. He pieces together some of the often hidden links between think tanks, magazines, and the $$$$ that bankrolls it. For those of you who think all political opinion is propaganda, it is worth checking out not just what people say but how they are able to disseminate their opinions and influence policy.

today's NY Times and WaPo op-eds

I am too tired right now to comment, but I recommend you read Bob Herbert, who notes "In a poll done for Newsweek magazine this week, 42 percent of the respondents continue to believe that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks." Why is this? I am beginning to think this is more than people being misinformed or ignorant. There is a willful disregard of the facts, a clinging to fantasy going on here. Still, the question is why?

And, of course, Krugman on "The Dishonesty Thing" -- this time about economic policy.

Then there is E.J. Dionne's "Rewriting the Record" in the Washington Post on the rationales for war and the curious absence of discussion by the administration of anything that has actually happened in the past two years.

And check out Fareed Zakaria -- a very moderate, even conservative foreign policy analyst -- arguing that "Bush eloquently lays out his vision while ignoring reality"