Lies, Lies, Lies

I was home sick from work today so I got to watch James Frey on Oprah. I also got to see George W.'s press conference on the whole Hamas thing. James Frey pretty much just took it from Oprah. Given that he'd lied (a lot) about his memoir that seemed like the right thing to do. George W. refused to reveal what he's done with Jack Abramhoff but had a lot of weird enthusiasm for the Hamas electoral victory, democracy, and the ability of people to overthrow corrupt leaders. Which is weird, because we sent those corrupt leaders 2 million dollars to help them out in their election. So I guess losers are corrupt and winners are just powerful.

So, when did the truth become so malleable? As a good liberal I deeply believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion. But I don't believe everyone is entitled to their own facts. And since an opinion without facts to back it up isn't very convincing, all the good liars of the world have to make up some of their own facts.

I had an interesting conversation with an opposing attorney who had written a letter to the court saying that we had settled the case when, in fact, he'd never even called me.

Me: So, it seems like you've misrepresented the facts to the court.

Ethically Challenged Attorney: Misrepresent is a little harsh, and I'm not sure whats so bad about that. I settled with the other party.

Me: But you didn't settle with me.

Ethically Challenged Attorney: But what does it matter exactly?

Me: You said something untrue to the court. (I'm trying desperately to avoid the word lie at this point)

Ethically Challenged Attorney: But it doesn't really matter because I settled with the other party.

By the end of the conversation I was actually slowing down my words like you do for a very stupid child. And the conversation went on like this for half an hour.

I also managed to get in some Jerry Springer today. Those people throw punches when somebody lies, although it seemed to me that they were all lying about being shocked (shocked) that their boyfriends had slept with their cousins.

It just seems dangerous that we're living in a world where no one can be counted on to tell you the truth and there's not even really the condemnation of the good people to keep the bad people from lying.

The Autonomy Myth

I'm reading Martha Fineman's "The Autonomy Myth." The basic thesis is that our current economic structure doesn't account for the value added by those who take care of dependents. Which is basically true.

The "Free Market" is not exactly value neutral. Some things cost money. Other things are free. In general, the market values things and not people. But its easy for market thinking to bleed over into personal relationships. Some people can command good wages. Other people are only able to earn minimum wage. People who can't earn money start to look like less valuable human beings.

A big reason why women want to work is that in our capitalist modern reality, earning money defines you as a valuable person. So, I'll reveal my hippie liberal socialist side and say: Money can't possibly be the only way to value things and it is certainly no way to value people.

sanctimonious but true.

I got 99 problems, but my bitch ain't one...

So, in thinking further about whether the b-word is sexist, I'm going to come up with the predictable response that its all about the context. If somebody is joking, it can be OK. If someone is using it to mean that this particular woman is so mean or nasty that she deserves to be called a female dog....well....its just not nice.

Because the history of the word is not nice, unless you're a full time comedian needing to make a few cutting edge jokes, I think that in most contexts you're just going to be dropping a little mean bomb into conversations when you use the word.

Also, there are far and away not enough demeaning words for white males because they are the top of the heap and always have been. The fact that there is an opportunity to use an especially loaded word for women, gay people, or non-white people, should give any one pause about using those words....

King George

I think I wouldn't object as much to domestic spying if I thought the government was going to do something sensible with it. If only rational reasonable people looked through my library records and listened to my phone calls and watched my every keystroke as I blogged, I would at least be able to say to myself "Its bad to have every move watched in Democratic society, but at least nobody is going to misinterpret things."

But these Republicans are not only paranoid and bad people, they are also completely nuts. So, it appears to me that it would be very easy for a hypothetical crazy person who hears voices from God and thinks they were sent to save the nation to misinterpret my reading selections or my phone calls with my friends.

But if you think about it, the natural consequence of a President who thinks God picked him out for the job (despite a notable lack of any qualifications) is overreaching and power grabbing. King George doesn't need those old fashioned checks and balances because God picked him. Somebody who talks to Jesus every day certainly doesn't need to consult with Congress.

Actually, King may not be a strong enough word. I think maybe Pharoh George fits better. Of course, ironically the Bible has a little something to say about selfish pharohs and kings....

A motif (See, I did pay attention in English class)

So, I'm reading the United States of Walmart which is unusual for its repeated use of the word "bitch" which is probably not likely to gain it any red state readers. The blurb on the jacket states "We are all Walmart's bitches."

The Dukes v. Walmart case also featured what the witnesses politely referred to as the B-word.

And then there are Sam Walton's hunting dogs. Many of the dogs were, in fact, bitches.

So, it is kind of like a motif.

People treating other people like dogs. Women being compared to dogs. White male liberal writers playing with the B-word to get some street cred.

On approval ratings

So Mssrs. Bush and Cheney's approval ratings have bounced back somewhat.... Still below 50% but the press has returned to lap dog mode (probably exhausted by the supreme effort of doing their jobs and ready to do some stories on Santa Claus).

I guess it was too much to hope that we were going to see an actual impeachment....

Reading, nanny fatigue, and is marching something you do by yourself?

I'm finally (and very reluctantly) reading "Reading Lolita in Tehran" because it was part of the 3 for 2 sale at Borders. So far, it is about being overly dramatic about dull things. Reading about reading is sort of too many layers of reference, but we'll see.

I was severely disappointed by "The Career Mystique" because it seemed to deal with upper middle class families exclusively. I suppose poor people don't have "careers"--they have "jobs." I'm just so bored by the eternal nanny problems of the upper classes that I'm ready to hurl. (Hint to Salon.com).

I also finished two Sarah Vowell books today. "Assassination Vacation" is pretty brilliant and a lot of fun. One of my favorite things about women authors is that there autobiographical bits usually reflect stuff about other people (in Sarah's case, her sister). Male authors occasionally give you all the uninteresting bits about themselves and NOTHING about their families and friends.

The same trend can be noticed in biographies of men and women. I think biographies of women tend to do more to place the women in context in their social and family circles. Biographies of men--especially the genre I call "great men in funny clothes marching through history"-- tend to emphasize the man as struggling in the world on his own. And just in terms of what makes biographical or autobiographical stuff interesting, it is way more cool to find out about how people affect each other than to make the (usually false) assumption that marching through history is a solo occupation.

Bush's Team 666

The whole Bush White House has been so thoroughly evil and so completely illogical that I've been unable to settle on an explanation for it. One theory is that Americans have done something really bad (slavery? Genocide of Native Americans?) and therefore Bush is the retribution we deserve. Another theory(more popular) is that the election was stolen, the people were hoodwinked and we innocent Americans were lied to.

However, I think there is actually a more logical explanation and one that fits nicely into the right wing Christian world view. Bush, Ashcroft, Condi, Cheney, Rove, and possibly that guy Scooter are members of a secret cult that worships Satan.

For all non-Christians in my audience (basically my whole audience), I'll point out a few of Satan's outstanding attributes.

1. He lies (nuff said)
2. He hates life (and probably loves unnecessary wars)
3. He doesn't like families or children (and tax cuts, spending cuts, deficits, and environmental damage can best be explained as the policies of people who hate children)
4. He does like rich people (especially when they oppress poor people)

So, my theory is that Bush Junior bats for team 666. Until a better theory comes along, I'm sticking to it.

Everything Right is Wrong

A congressman from San Diego pled out today on charges of accepting bribes from defense contractors. Defense contractors are making a ton of money off of Iraq--including at least one of the contractors who bribed the congressman.

And these were the people to restore honor and integrity to the government? Blow jobs in the oval office are starting to look pretty good.

The American Dream--Japanese Style

I just got back from a vacation in Tokyo--I'd never been before. I'm also in the middle of a polemical book by Paul Stiles called "Is the American Dream Killing You?" Mr. Stiles' premise is that we are living in a hyper-market and that the market seeks to kill all human traits that don't lead to consumption. Along the way he recommends Alan Bloom and trashes day care providers. Mr. Stiles is far from credible but he does make an interesting point about capitalism which contrary to popular belief is not pro-mother, pro-homemade apple pie, or pro-democracy.

Tokyo is a hard nut to crack--especially for a foreigner who spent all of 5 days there. Lost in Translation does provide a sense of the place but skipped the bland and endless malls, department stores, and other shopping opportunities. Tokyo seems to be a place of endless and exhausted consumption. According to economists, the problem with the Japanese economy is too little consumption and too much saving. And as a tourist, my role in the eco-system was consumption and not production. But still, it did seem that a lot of time must be spent in malls.

It was downright depressing imagining the typical Japanese day of working and consuming. Of course that isn't that far off from the typical American day and that's depressing too. Adults and especially adults who never were lucky enough to get a quality education are mostly workers rather than thinkers. And however loony-bin Mr Stiles may be, we do lose something incredibly precious when life becomes an endless cycle of working and buying.

I think I'll probably have to do a blog after this one explaining why I am not a communist. But markets do not have ethics. If we want more out of life than buying and selling, we need to value it enough to make it happen.

Save Christmas

Apparently, right wing Christian lawyers are ready at a moment's notice to save Christmas from the school boards and mayors of the world who think that church and state should be separate things.

Which is fine by me. Because this State and those Christians are one and the same. So, I think the only healthy thing is for them to admit it and plaster their tacky brand of Christianity all over City Hall and Washington DC and every other place they can find.

Because this scandal plagued President is their President and these crazy Supreme Court Justices are theirs. And some day real Christians are going to say to themselves... Is a plastic baby Jesus on the post office lawn a fair trade for leaders who trounce on every imaginable Christian value? And the real Christians at least will say "No."

Mean-spirited Musings

In the last 5 years I have gone from believing that religion is a matter of personal choice to believing that certain kinds of Christians are a cancer that could destroy our country. I have also started to believe that Republicans are dangerous and irresponsible people. I never wanted to be a closed minded liberal and I blame Bush and cronies for making me this way.

So, here's what I hope. I hope that when America wakes up from this awful nightmare, we will wake up a wiser and better country.

I also hope that the Bush administration is revealed for what it is. I hope that people are held responsible for the tragedy in Iraq. I hope that the Republican party dies forever. I hope that liberals learn how to stop being so damn fuzzy in their thinking.

Here's the mean spirited part. I hope that there is a hell and that it is chock full of hypocrites and liars and selfish people who caused innocent people to die. I hope that it is even something like the Christian version. I hope that there are a few places warming up for when the members of this administration go to meet their great reward.

Because sometimes there is not enough justice in this world.

Hipsters

1. I'm reading "Hip: The History" by John Leland. It is witty, funny and only occasionally wanders into super-heavy theory land.

I theoretically sympathize with a lot of what hipsters stand for. They're into mixing things up, rebellion, individuality, and they're usually basically liberals. The problem is that standing for something is very uncool. And verbalizing a logical belief system--that shows that you are not authentic, not hip.

I blame the Beats. They're pretty easy to blame if you live in San Francisco. They managed to create a dead end street right here that a whole generation of lemmings ran right down. But the created a set of problems for young liberals. Like, what about women? Should women be consigned to being grumpy house fraus? And what about politics? They never really left their Benzedrine haze long enough to figure that one out.

To be fair, it was never about the future. And the modern day hipsters are the same way. They carve out a small corner of the world, put their blinders on, and enjoy themselves.

Communism Doesn't Work because It Didn't Work

This is one of my favorite arguments ever. History is unlike Science in that you often only get one shot at a particular experiment. So, Communism doesn't work because post-world war II communism didn't work. What else do you need to know?

Right now, we are entering a grand new experiment of a really unequal society. Historically, we've done well with capitalism because we had a large and prosperous middle class. Can capitalism thrive without consumers? Will we end our regressive tax policies in time? Or will there be another truism about capitalism that everyone will be uttering 100 years from now?

Interestingly, corruption is one of those things that we haven't just gotten one chance to experience. It appears in virtually all time periods and virtually all forms of government. It also appears (gasp...no) in supposedly competitive markets. And cronyism and corruption are a big deal because, if unchecked, they will kill the host that feeds them. A decent society where everyone has a chance to succeed is by definition a society where goodies go to the qualified and not the connected.

Unlike capitalism and communism (both fairly theoretical economic systems that have never existed in a pure form), cronyism is something we have lots of historical experience with. And it has never been a viable long term option and it can tear apart a wide range of governments and societies.

I think once upon a time in America there was something called the goo-goos. It was some sort of good government coalition that came out of the progressive movement. I think that's what the democrats need to do. The problem of course is that the Dems are just as implicated as the Republicans in all this....

Having = Deserving or How to Sleep at Night if You're Really Rich

I'm reading "Flat Broke With Children" by Sharon Hays. It strikes me that when we say "everyone should work," we don't mean people with trust funds or stay at home Moms (with husbands to support them). If you're a woman without a man, you should work. If you're poor, you should work.

The ethics of drug use is more of the same. Drug offenders should rot in prison but frat boys shouldn't.

And of course there's stealing. Stealing from the government is apparently OK when a Bush crony does it, but it's completely immoral when a poor person does it.

It must be nice to be a rich person. Not only do you get to wallow around in piles of money, but you can wallow guilt free. By virtue of belonging to the golden class, your good morals are beyond question.

According to Hays, in 2002, the top 1 percent of American households earned on average over a million dollars. The bottom 10 percent earned less than 10,000 dollars. If everyone earning more than a million were taxed an additional 100,000, the average income of the desperately poor could be doubled. But that would be income redistribution which is deeply wrong because people who have money deserve to have their money. They are, in fact, the deserving rich. People who don't have money...well...the fact that they don't have any shows that they are not so deserving.

Women's Issues

I've been reading the latest issue of Oprah's magazine and a recent issue of Wired. It's a weird experience. We're a very gender segregated society when it comes to reading material. Somehow reading got to be an unmanly thing to do. Oprah apparently believes that her audience will read long articles. Wired doesn't think so. Oprah has stuff with heavy emotional content--domestic violence, breast cancer, etc. Wired is mostly about gadgets.

It would be super funny if these magazines had to take each other's topics for a month. I can just picture Wired trying to explain domestic violence with some sort of hip graphic. And Oprah would have to go into excruciating detail about tech companies and their drama.

Po-mo Koan of the Day: Does the form of these magazines dictate their substance? Or does the substance lend itself to a particular form?

Would I want to know?

I'm (after the Bush administration) probably a life long Democrat. Supposing the shoe were on the other foot and I'd helped elect an incompetent and corrupt bully. Would I want to know?

The answer is yes. I would not want the press to tell me only what I wanted to hear. I would not want the press to pretend like bullshit and the truth deserve equal time. Ultimately I would respect the press a lot more right now if I felt that they'd even attempted to tell the truth.

On Propaganda

The press is back to towing the line with "hopeful" stories about the relief efforts and New Orleans recovery and "not as many dead bodies as previously thought." For a few brief moments there it looked like we might actually have a free press and that the free press might actually provide a useful service for our democracy. But they're back to being Republican lapdogs a mere one week after Katrina.

I also thought for a brief moment that the press might start investigating things. Because FEMA is not the only can of worms in the Bush administration. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find a major agency that hasn't suffered an outflow of professional talent and an influx of party hacks.

As our news looks increasingly like propaganda, it is worth asking what it means to have a society where journalists tow the party line and fear falling out of favor. Because it is emperors and dictators who refuse to allow criticism. It is emperors and dictators who don't discuss their decisions with those they rule. An interesting dynamic (repeated in places as diverse as imperial China, the Roman empire, North Korea, Ethiopia) is that the emperor who makes a poor decision can remain popular with ordinary people because the ordinary people believe that he has made the poor decision because of bad information from his advisors.

Bush is one of the least accessible presidents in American history by design. He can get away with (apparently) virtually anything because the press must choose between distributing propaganda or getting no information at all. In this, the Bush administration has behaved like they are dictators rather than elected officials and they have gotten away with it.

A Liberal Jeramiad

There is something in this country's innocence that leads inevitably to hypocrisy. In my darker moments I think that we somehow deserve this president with his pretend ranch, his pretend courage, and his pretend innocence. If there is a God, maybe this is how he chooses to punish us.

The Blame Game

The Blame Game-- What a wonderful phrase. It implies that the person playing it childish and frivolous. It implies that person being blamed is only being blamed because of this frivolous game and not because he deserves it.