Trying

The Essay: Decline and Fall and Fall and Fall by Paul Collins

Paul Collins, who you'll all remember from reviews of his books, Not Even Wrong and Sixpence House, writes a humorous piece here explaining why the NEA's "the sky is falling" report on reading in America isn't very meaningful. I'd summarize it, but it's worth reading in full.

So is this essay by Paul Graham, sent to me yesterday by Brandon. Graham explains why high school writing and literary education should not be the same thing, and why the fact that they are distorts the future interests of students. He also explains how a real essay should work, and in so doing describes some of the most interesting writing available for consumption, the kind that makes both the writer and the reader think in new ways about something rather than driving toward a foregone conclusion. I'd recommend taking the time to stroll through more of Graham's work; he's an interesting thinker.

Much else is going on today, of course. It's the day after the 1000th American death in Iraq, and the deficit is going to be huge again this year and continue to grow in years to come if we continue to follow Bush's lead. Kerry has a new ad that targets Bush on the cost of going to Iraq, explaining how that $200 billion could have been better spent. Tonight on CBS the old "Bush didn't complete his National Guard duty story" will return with a bang as his old commander admits he pulled strings to get Bush in. Meanwhile, analysis of new information from the Pentagon shows that Bush failed to complete his duty. That would make him--wait for it--a liar. Correct me if I'm wrong: Isn't that worse than flip-flopper? I'm sure Karl Rove will find a way to weasel around this, though.

Oh, and Serena Williams really got screwed last night. In 15 years of watching tennis, I've never seen a more blatantly wrong call, and certainly never seen a flurry of subsequent bad calls that compound the issue. Thank goodness the umpire has been removed from the remainder of the tournament. Watching her sit in her perch and not care that she was singlehandedly tainting one of the best tennis matches of the U.S. Open was so infuriating that I hope she never works in the sport again.

Learning From the Best

Kerry's Deathbed Conversion - What the candidate learned from Clinton

This weekend may well be remembered as the one when the campaign for the presidency changed. Five days ago Kerry was doggedly refusing to punch back at the Bush campaign's attacks; yesterday he rolled out a new punchline for his stump speech: "W stands for wrong." He's been willing to fight back hard against those who try to turn his Vietnam service against him. And he's been schooled by the master during a widely-reported marathon phone call between Clinton and Kerry as Clinton awaited heart surgery. The polling numbers that came out this weekend were scary--can 54% of the country really be thinking about another four years of this hell?--but Chris Suellentrop gives me reason to hope in his last paragraph: "The revamped Kerry campaign looks more like the Democrat who beat a president named Bush than the Democrat who lost to one." It's not time to panic yet.

Dignity

Rewarding 'Unskilled' Workers

On Labor Day, this article strikes me as a good articulation of why we need to think more, as a society, about the way we define a good job and a fair wage. Jobs that many of us would turn up our noses at, even in times of extended unemployment in our chosen field, pay very little, offer very little in the way of fulfillment--and pay very little because they don't require any special skills.

Is that right? Beth Shulman notes something I should have noticed long ago. While it's no longer kosher to say that the help should make themselves invisible, we still treat those who serve us as if they are. The janitors at my office and the people who work there all day avert their eyes from one another when they run into one another at that magic moment at the end of the white-collar day when one group relinquishes the building so the other can clean up the mess. None of us who work there during the day would even think about making a living cleaning the place at night--so why do we have trouble understanding that the people who do clean should probably make more for a night's work than we do every couple of hours?

I'm not suggesting that there's no value in having an education and being able to do a job that few others could do. But our society devalues the jobs that no one who got an education wanted to do, robbing them of any nobility. Someone has to clean; someone has to cook french fries; someone has to man a cash register (though maybe not for long). And all of those people, in order to have any life at all, also have to live in close proximity to those after whom they clean up, those for whom they cook those fries, and those for whom they scan pricetags. But how can they live among us on their wages when some of us can barely get by on what we make?

Shulman reaches the same conclusions that I have. If our society is going to continue to produce an ever greater income divide between those who have high levels of education and ability and those who clean up after them, we must, for both practical and moral reasons, widen--not narrow--the safety net that ensures a fundamental minimum quality of life for anyone who toils in America to make its greatness possible. That's not achieved by allowing members of our invisible serving class to undercut one another down to, and even below, the minimum wage, leaving them with poverty-level incomes, no health care--and the down-and-dirty jobs that are a necessity in our culture without any of the dignity that should accompany them. It is achieved by raising the minimum wage, by encouraging service personnel to organize and thus gain the power to bargain fairly with those who have little choice but to employ them, and by offering health care to every person in America as part of a commitment to take care of all of our neighbors. Democrats already support these reforms; if Republicans are truly the party of God and morals, how can they not also support the idea of "love thy neighbor?" How can 36 million people living below an artificially low poverty line be part of God's plan, or something that should be tolerated in a nation that is meant to be a city on a hill, a bright beacon shining for the rest of the world?

Moderate Horror

"What If Bush Wins" by a panel of 16 experts

If you get bored this weekend, click above and take a look at what a few writers imagine as the consequences if Bush gets to be president for another term. Sebastian Mallaby's look at the budget is interesting, while Grover Norquist's prediction of the demise of the Democrats is pretty horrifying.

And if you want to know why we have a long weekend, Slate has the answer here.

Pray for Bill Clinton this weekend, too. Bypass surgery is no joke. Hillary says he's in good hands, and Kerry says he'll be fine, but the thought of a world without Bill Clinton is one I can't quite bear. Keep him in your thoughts.

All Hat, No Cattle

Kerry says Bush 'unfit to lead this nation'

Finally! I stayed up late last night to watch John Kerry finally punch back against the lies and smears we've been hearing all week, and he didn't disappoint me. He and John Edwards threw in some great lines, too. From Edwards: "Now, here's the truth, they led us from the edge of greatness to the edge of a cliff, and it's time to lead them out of town; that's the truth." And from Kerry, opening with a derisive bit of humor: "I want you to know that tonight in America something very important in the fabric of our life took place--very, very important: the Red Sox pulled to two and a half games out of the Yankees. Now, I think that that's important."

Then he got down to business. Responding to the words of Dick Cheney on Wednesday night, Kerry had this to say:

You all saw the anger and distortion of the Republican Convention. For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as Commander-in-chief. We'll, here's my answer. I will not have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.

The Vice President called me unfit for office last night. Well, I'll leave it up to the voters to decide whether five deferments makes someone more qualified to defend this nation than two tours of duty.

Let me tell you what I think makes someone unfit for duty. Misleading our nation into war in Iraq makes you unfit to lead this nation. Doing nothing while this nation loses millions of jobs makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting 45 million Americans go without healthcare makes you unfit to lead this nation. Letting the Saudi Royal Family control our energy costs makes you unfit. Handing out billions of government contracts to Halliburton while you're still on their payroll makes you unfit. That's the record of George Bush and Dick Cheney. And that only scratches the surface. I believe it's time to move America in a new direction; I believe it's time to set a new course for America. And together, you, John Edwards and I will do that on November 2nd. For four years, George Bush has stubbornly misled America and taken us in the wrong direction.

I think, when John Kerry starts talking about draft deferments and using the words "unfit for duty," we can feel pretty confident that there's been a change in philosophy in the campaign. Perhaps, instead of feeble punching back, from now on we'll see Kerry the fighter, taking this campaign to Bush and Cheney from now until November and forcing them to try to defend their miserable record of the past four years. If Kerry can keep this election firmly focused on Bush's failures and make the case that any new promises he makes should be taken for what they are--new lies on top of old ones--he should win in a walk, and let the polls that will come out over the weekend showing Bush in the lead be damned. He tried running a positive campaign of hope and optimism. He's tried it for six months. It doesn't work, John--not against this down and dirty family. Thank goodness you're finally willing to mix it up.

Minutiae

Nicholson Baker, The Mezzanine

After reading Checkpoint, I couldn't resist finding out how Nicholson Baker's books are when he isn't contemplating the death of a president. The Mezzanine demonstrates why reviewers were willing to pay so much attention to his more recent work. For 135 pages, Baker creates compelling reading from an almost plotless situation; in the most literal sense, the entire book transpires as the narrator rides an escalator from one floor to another. But in that ride he makes observations about, well, everything: drug stores, mens room etiquette, shoelaces, milk in bottles vs. milk in cartons, cigarettes being thrown from car windows, and, in an overwhelmingly ironic footnote near the end of a footnote-filled book, footnotes. In making these observations, the narrator captures the life of an office worker at the start of a career, wondering about why the company functions as it does and about the meaning of his place within the company, but also--and more importantly--about the whole host of mundane details that surround this world of work and the life for which that work provides subsistence. You'll shake your head a few pages in, yes, but soon you'll be nodding, agreeing with observations that are so familiar, so obvious, that you can't believe you've never made them until now. A bit dated by the advent of e-mail and the internet--no one sends paper memos back and forth, removing and reinserting staples in an endless loop from department to department, when they can simply CC: the involved parties--this is nevertheless a classic.

Keyes: Anti-gay and Anti-child?

Keyes' gay slam roils GOP

Alan Keyes has demonstrated in the last three days his knack for digging a shallow hole deeper and deeper. I just love this characterization of his actions yesterday:

After days of criticism that he had not addressed the Illinois delegates, Keyes finally made his speech Wednesday morning, hijacking the podium from DuPage County Board Chairman Robert Schillerstrom, who had only asked for a round of applause for Keyes. Realizing Keyes intended to speak, Schillerstrom admonished him, futilely, to "Please make it very brief."

Building up to his trademark high-decibel fever pitch, Keyes shouted, "We shall deal with the challenge that is being mounted today to the family structure throughout our country: Gay marriage activists who are demanding that we should take marriage off the foundation of procreation, child rearing, responsibility to the future, that is the true heart of marriage and place it on a basis of selfishness, pleasure-seeking and self-fulfillment."

Of course, a man as steeped in logic as Keyes must be asked logical follow-up questions:

After his eight-minute speech, Keyes was asked if heterosexual couples who don't or can't have children are hedonists.

"The heterosexual relationship is haunted by the possibility of the child, which means you have to commit yourself somewhere to your head to the possibility of a lifelong commitment that involves not only selfish pleasure but sometimes sacrifice."

Haunted by the possibility of a child? Now, we all know that I would be haunted by the possibility of a child, but Alan Keyes is running under the banner of the "Think of the children!" shrieking party--you know, the party that says gay marriage would send the wrong message to America's youth. And the possibility of having one of those children haunts Keyes? Interesting choice of words.

Speaking of words, Keyes also used his moment in the spotlight to teach the origin of his new favorite word, hedonism:

"In a homosexual relationship, there is nothing implied except the self-fulfillment, contentment and satisfaction of the parties involved in the relationship," said Keyes, who holds a Ph.D from Harvard University. "That means it is a self-centered, self-fulfilling, selfish relationship that seeks to use the organs intended for procreation for purposes of pleasure. The word pleasure in Greek is hedone and we get the word hedonism from that word."

Newsflash, Alan: Everyone I know seeks to use the organs intended for procreation for purposes of pleasure. If you think sex is creepy and weird, just come out and say so. I'm sure that will endear you to the masses.

And by the way, gay marriage as an issue is all about committing yourself somewhere in your head to the possibility of a lifelong commitment that will sometimes involve sacrifice. It's two people who want nothing more than to say, "For better or worse, from today until the end of my life, I will love and care for you," and to have the same benefits available to them as are available to everyone else as they carry out that vow. If Alan Keyes thinks a marriage, or any relationship that resembles marriage, is based only on selfish pleasure unless it involves children, I'd (a) like to see how his marriage works, (b) question whether that view is in the mainstream, and (c) hope that he gets his head examined soon.

Soul Man

Imperial President - Opposing Bush becomes unpatriotic. By William Saletan

Watching the convention speeches of Zell Miller and Dick Cheney last night, I discovered a few things. First, in the run up to Miller's speech, watching the delegates clap and dance along to the song "Soul Man," I realized this important truth: Republicans have no rhythm. Within the view of a single camera, you could watch as five different sets of (white) hands clapped along to five apparently different songs. It was a spectacle to behold.

[Update: I've just learned thing 1.5! Zell Miller challenged MSNBC host Chris Matthews to a duel last night after his speech! The Republicans must be glowing with pride over this PR coup!]

Second, I realized, somewhere in the middle of Cheney's bombast about 9/11, that the Republicans have no message this year. They're not talking about the last four years in any meaningful or honest way, and they're not talking about the next four years, though tonight's speech by Bush is alleged to contain some sort of "vision." They're talking, instead, about John Kerry. They're grudgingly granting him the fact that he fought in Vietnam, then claiming that everything he's done since makes him unpatriotic, indecisive, and unfit for command, as the book title would tell you. Because they can't allow the American people to view this election as an opportunity to hold Bush accountable for what has transpired under his leadership, they've done everything they can to make the election about his challenger instead.

In my mind the response to this is simple. If Bush wants this election to be about fitness for office, Kerry's answer should be "Bring it on." Let's face it: At this point, a President Kerry is going to be bloodied and beaten by the time he reaches the Oval Office. The Republican playbook from now to November promises to deliver a daily bruising. It's time to hit back. What makes Bush fit for office? Is it his stellar attention to detail in the run-up to 9/11? His laser-sharp focus on the people who caused 9/11 in its aftermath? The American people are no longer fans of the war in Iraq; Kerry should point out, on a daily basis, until its sinks into the ever-thickening collective American skull, that going to Iraq diverted resources and attention from the real war on terror and made America less safe in the short and long term. He should hammer away at the constantly shifting rationale for the Bush tax cuts--first, to give back the "people's money," then to buffer the economy against a recession, later to propel the economy back to health. And he should point out that all the while, in providing the great mass of the American people with a couple of meaningless rebate checks and giving the rest to folks who quite simply don't need it, Bush has mortgaged the American future. He should make plain that a government, like a family, must make choices. He should point out that Bush's choices will have deleterious consequences for not only today's American workers but for their children, who will be paying the interest on the debt Bush's tax cut binge has created long after the beneficiaries of those cuts have spent every penny and returned to the earth.

None of this is ugly, but as William Saletan points out today, the Republicans will call it ugly. They'll call it unpatriotic. And when they do, Kerry should hit back just as Saletan does today.

In a democracy, the commander in chief works for you. You hire him when you elect him. You watch him do the job. If he makes good decisions and serves your interests, you rehire him. If he doesn't, you fire him by voting for his opponent in the next election.

Not every country works this way. In some countries, the commander in chief builds a propaganda apparatus that equates him with the military and the nation. If you object that he's making bad decisions and disserving the national interest, you're accused of weakening the nation, undermining its security, sabotaging the commander in chief, and serving a foreign power—the very charges Miller leveled tonight against Bush's critics.

Kerry should call Bush's campaign tactics un-American. Or his surrogates should do so--loudly, continuously, and without shame. Because that's exactly what they are. To run a campaign that will determine the future of the most powerful nation on earth in a way that upends the very foundations of democracy is as un-American an activity as I can imagine. I don't think I'm alone in believing this. Kerry just needs to show the American people what Bush is trying to do. I have faith that once they understand, Americans will reject these tactics for the patently unpatriotic rot they are.

One More Time

Keyes takes jabs at his own party

Have I mentioned yet that I don't like Alan Keyes? Well, he's no fan of mine, either. Here's what he had to say Tuesday, ressembled from the Tribune story above:

"If we embrace homosexuality as a proper basis for marriage, we are saying that it's possible to have a marriage state that in principle excludes procreation and is based simply on the premise of selfish hedonism," the senate candidate told hosts Michelangelo Signorile and Corey Johnson.

After the candidate told the hosts that homosexuality is "selfish hedonism," he was asked whether Mary Cheney is a "selfish hedonist."

"Of course she is," Keyes replied. "That goes by definition. Of course she is." An interviewer then said: "I don't think Dick Cheney would like to hear that about his daughter."

Replied Keyes: "Dick Cheney may or may not like to hear the truth, but it can be spoken."

When asked Tuesday evening to explain his statements about Mary Cheney, Keyes did not back down.

"I have said that if you are actively engaging in homosexual relations, those relations are about selfish hedonism," he said. "If my daughter were a lesbian, I'd look at her and say, 'That is a relationship that is based on selfish hedonism.' I would also tell my daughter that it's a sin, and she needs to pray to the Lord God to help her to deal with that sin."

At least the party is repudiating Keyes. Judy Baar Topinka called the comments a pity. A Bush spokesman called them inappropriate. John McCain pointed out that Keyes is quite clearly going to lose.

Here's hoping Keyes loses big. 75-25 sounds about right to me. That might be a wide enough margin to carry a few new Democrats into the House with him.

Brotherly Love

Reagan's 'homophobic' 1st son steps up to counter brother

When I first saw the headline above in the newspaper this morning, I did a double-take. The Tribune was calling someone a homophobe? That would be newsworthy. But, in fact, the paper was merely quoting Michael Reagan, who blames homosexuality for the fact that he was sexually abused at age seven and has struggled with the demons that accompany such an experience ever since. Quoth the Trib:

Reagan has become a strong opponent of same-sex marriage, saying its validation of homosexuality will push young people into sex that will inflict the "guilt and pain that I have lived with all my life."

Later in the article, Reagan suggests that gay marriage will confuse children:

His book suggests that same-sex marriage could place young people at an increased risk of the kind of trauma he suffered. "If same-sex marriage becomes accepted as having equal validity with traditional heterosexual marriage, what kinds of social pressure will our children and grandchildren have to face?" he writes. "That's why today I can honestly say on my [radio] show, I admit it; I am homophobic,' " he writes. "If I wasn't homophobic before, I am today."

It's hard to read this and keep a straight face, pardon the pun. Is Michael Reagan actually suggesting that giving gays the right to marry will pressure straight people into becoming gay? Good luck passing that argument off on anyone who's spent more than five minutes with a gay person, or five minutes seriously pondering the difficulties we face now and will undoubtedly continue to face, in one form or another, well into the adulthoods of the grandchildren of every delegate at the convention. Ron Reagan's speech on stem cell research at the Democratic National Convention was admittedly simplisticly optimistic in its tone, but his brother's understanding of his life, and of the impact of acceptance for gays on the lives of others, is just plain simplistic.

Rebuttal

Being There - What does 9/11 tell us about Bush? Nothing.

William Saletan hasn't pulled any punches so far in his coverage of the Republican National Convention. Responding to the first night, above, he rips to shreds the notion that President Bush's showing up in New York City after 9/11 and taking a look at the devastation is in any way a comparable display of courage to John Kerry risking his life in Vietnam. He's right, you know, and it's shameful that the American public apparently can't tell the difference between words and deeds. Saletan closes with this reminder of the recent flap over Bob Dole's appraisal of Kerry's wounds:

Watching the attacks on Kerry and the glorification of Bush reminds me of something Dole said in his speech to the Republican convention eight years ago. It was "demeaning to the nation," Dole argued, to be governed by people "who never grew up, never did anything real, never sacrificed, never suffered and never learned."

You tell me which of this year's presidential candidates that statement best describes.

Saletan's been busy; you can find more of his coverage here, here, and here, where he quite effectively refutes Arnold Schwarzenegger's suggestion that Bush follows in the tradition of Lincoln. The Governator praised Bush for never wavering, but Saletan points out that the results of his supposed steadfastness are nothing to write home about:

I'm no huge fan of John Kerry. He sees two sides of every one-sided issue, and four sides of every two-sided issue. But the alternative is a president who sees one side of every issue, no matter how many sides it has. Given the how many sides there usually are, and given how little effort Bush makes to learn about each issue, the odds are that, on average, he'll pick the wrong side. The record of the last four years shows that he has done precisely that. But because Bush refuses to "waver," as Schwarzenegger charitably puts it, we keep going in the wrong direction. The only way to stop such a president is to vote him out of office. Fortunately, an election is coming.

Two months to go. Hopefully a great many Americans who may have been persuaded by Arnold last night will consider the arguments Saletan makes here before they make up their minds.

Helpful

Gmail Notifier

For all my Gmailing friends, here's a helpful tool that alerts you when you have Gmail! No more checking every hour--or is that just me?

If you don't have Gmail, Google's version of e-mail with a full gigabyte of storage space and a better way of organizing messages, and you wish you did, e-mail me at RMN21879@gmail.com. I've got six invites to dole out.

Trickster

Laura Bush - Why liberals shouldn't like her

I've been pondering it for weeks, and Julia Turner hits the nail on the head here. Why do I want to like Laura Bush in spite of her husband, and why do I lately find myself instead looking at her and seeing that same evil grin I often see George wearing?

It's because she's been, willfully or not, leading liberal America on for four years. As Turner points out, Laura's image as a librarian makes liberals swoon, and when our fears of George are at their worst, we want to believe that a reader like Laura couldn't possibly have married someone as dimwitted as George seems. Through her, he gains hidden depths. We've never seen them, but we believe they exist because, well, why else would this nice lady marry this seemingly incompetent baboon?

Lately, though, I've been looking at the things Laura Bush says in interviews and realizing that she's not the saving grace we've all been hoping she is. She may make calculated deviations from the party line to make her husband seem moderate, but in the end she's a marketing tool whose complicity in her husband's potential reelection can't be excused. I'm sure her speech tonight will be more of the same pablum about what a strong and decisive leader he is and what courage he showed by shaping up at age 40, under threat of divorce, and then getting his hands on the Texas Rangers using money gained from his family name and an insider deal, converting that interest in the Rangers into a greater amount of money by getting Arlington taxpayers to foot the bill for a stadium, and using his newfound fame and, again, his family name to become governor of Texas. OK, she may focus more on how he turned to Jesus to save himself from--well, she won't say what, though one gets the feeling he had a taste not only for the drink but also for nose candy back in the day. Through it all, by being married to Laura, George has made himself look acceptable, because how can we believe that such a seemingly great gal would marry a heartless dunce?

Believe it, and don't trust a word she says about how great her husband is. Smart women marry idiots all the time. There's no reason to pretend that's not the case here.

[Update: Still don't believe? Check out this scary-looking photo of Laura with the twins...]

Hypocrisy

Virginia congressman quits campaign amid rumors

Judging by the prominence of the placement of this story on the major media sites, no one really wants to tackle it; they're happy to bury the AP report somewhere on their site, but nothing more. Why not? A Republican who supported the Federal Marriage Amendment drops his reelection bid in the face of a tape of him calling a gay sex line trying to meet another man for a casual encounter and that's not news, but when a group of veterans puts together a smear campaign to bring down a fellow vet they can dominate the news cycle for more than a week? There are a variety of rules for deciding when something is newsworthy, I know, but whether something is true or not undoubtedly ranks near the top. You'd think that in the wake of the McGreevey affair this would be considered a pretty big deal--yet another politician forced to leave office because he might be gay. Rather than dealing with the allegations, as McGreevey did, Rep. Ed Shrock is simply dropping his Congressional career. Isn't that kind of response to the mere suggestion that you're gay worthy of at least a link on CNN's home page?

Something tells me Shrock won't be the last "outing" of this campaign. These things come in threes...

In the Family

Love or Ideology? Heart or Strategy?

E.J. Dionne Jr. shares my skepticism about Dick Cheney's sudden discovery of his heart last week at a moment that perfectly coincided with the adoption of the harshest anti-gay platform the Republicans could have conceivably written. He uses the synchronicity of the two events to discuss his own feelings on gay marriage and, more specifically, those of his Catholic mother after she discovered that her godson is gay. As Dionne says,

When my mother discovered my cousin was gay--she was, I think, early among the relatives to know this--she not only accepted the fact, she embraced him and his partner. And she became a committed supporter of gay rights simply because she believed that any attack on gays constituted an attack on her godson.

That story, for me, is the reason why my side of this issue will eventually win the day. I expect nothing less from my own family members than Dionne's cousin got from his, and in a world where more and more gay people are out to their families, it's harder and harder to imagine that intolerance will remain a politically expedient message very far into the future. As the Republican Convention dawns today, that's a reason to have hope.

Hanoi George

George Bush's Secret War

This satire from Michael Kinsley sums up rather nicely just how ludicrous it is that the ads and assertions of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are being treated like one side of a two-sided debate where the facts are unclear. As many newspapers have now pointed out editorially, the group differs from all the other 527 groups that George W. Bush so loathes because, in addition to making personal attacks on someone's record, it does so using lies rather than uncomfortable truths. At least the Republican convention will distract people from this whole sordid affair; hopefully by the time Bush accepts the nomination the focus will be back on the issues. This election is too important to fritter it away dealing with time-wasting smears.

Principle

Below is a letter to Melissa Bean, the Democrat running for Congress in the 8th District in Illinois. You can learn more about her positions, including the one discussed below, at Project Vote Smart.

Dear Melissa,

I am writing to ask that you remove my name from your volunteer list. Please allow me to explain.

I support your candidacy because I believe strongly that Phil Crane should be replaced and that, given the choice, a Democrat is nearly always a better option than a Republican. For that reason, I will keep your sign on my lawn and vote for you in November.

However, as a gay man who contemplates daily what would happen if my partner were in a car accident, or how we can structure our finances to buy a home together that we both own, I cannot actively support a candidate with your position on gay marriage. Perhaps if you faced the difficult issues that we must face on a day-to-day basis you would understand how important legal protections are and how urgently our cause needs a voice from outside our community--a voice that it is within your power to provide.

I understand that opposing gay marriage is a sound political strategy in the 8th District, and I cannot blame you for it--not enough to withold my vote, in any case. But I hope that in your heart you understand the importance of this issue to the gay people in your district and to the people who love us. This may not be the sort of issue that wins you an election, but it is an issue that offers you the opportunity to demonstrate political and moral courage by standing up for the rights of a group of people who are denied those rights for reasons that, decades from now, will be thought as arbitary as the once widely-accepted reasons for condoning slavery or denying interracial marriages are considered today. It is also an issue so important to me that I cannot, in good conscience, call people and convince them to vote for you when my own feelings are mixed.

I wish you well and hope to celebrate your victory in November. I hope also that time and reflection will bring to you a change of heart on this important issue that will make a victory for you something more than a Pyrrhic victory for me.

Sincerely,
Richard Nelson, future constituent

[Update: I got a call from Melissa Bean's campaign manager. He is openly gay, and says that her full position--which is not detailed on her campaign site or by PVS--is that gays and lesbians should be able to have all the rights and benefits of marriage, such as hospital visitation and Social Security. She cannot support using the word "marriage" to describe these benefits, however.

Her campaign manager stressed that he believes Melissa will be a friend in Washington. I hope that he is right. Will I volunteer for Melissa between now and Election Day? That's something I need to ponder. Feel free to offer your thoughts.]

Wonderful World

Manifesto - A press release from PRKA

It's another short week for me, which means another long weekend without posts for you. But I leave you with a piece, above, that Slate calls "low concept" but which strikes me, ironically, as perhaps the highest concept I've read about during these many months of slogging through campaign coverage. Don't worry; I'm not going soft on you. I'll be back Monday to flog McCain and Bush for failing to understand the meaning of the First Amendment and that you combat speech that's wrong with speech that's right, not by silencing everyone. But it's nice to remember, once in a while, that most of us are going through the world and trying to do the right thing.

Enjoy the article, and have a great weekend.

A Minor Corrections

Adam Langer, Crossing California

There was a moment, reading this "breakout book of 2004," when I put it down next to me and said out loud, to no one, "I really hate these people. They're despicable." And many of the characters in Langer's first novel seem, at first, to be truly terrible people. But by the end, I felt sympathy for, or even empathy with, nearly all of them.

This is a "big" novel, in the vein of Jonathan Franzen's The Corrections, tying a set of characters to a larger set of circumstances. (It's not as long as Franzen's "big" book, though--at 420 pages, with smooth writing, it coasts by quickly.) Langer's framework is more defined than Franzen's; he fits the action of his novel into the 444-day hostage crisis in Iran, ending it on the day Ronald Reagan took office. In those 444 days, the characters all experience major events, including a move from one part of a Jewish neighborhood to another, better one--or out of the neighborhood altogether. The characters are representatives of three tiers of a microcosm for society as a whole, each struggling to advance. Married doctors struggle to send their kids to the right schools and find happiness in a worn-out marriage; a widower struggles to maintain a middle-class lifestyle for his motherless daughters; and a single mother and her son attempt to take care of one another. (In one of the novel's most touching subplots, the son does odd jobs to accumulate enough money to send his mom back to college so she can fulfill her dream of becoming a teacher.)

Like Corrections, though, this novel often inspires antipathy for its characters and rueful thoughts about the realistic situations that transpire. It examines the impact of psychology, divorce, religion, capitalism, and even pornography on a culture, doing so at first through the eyes of the children but eventually giving the adults and their needs and wants a fair share of attention as well.

This is not a perfect novel; in places it feels over-written, and at times Langer would be better served by getting out of the way of his characters rather than narrating their conversations. The ending, while it ties things together neatly, does seem to rely on one coincidence too many to deliver the requisite warm feelings for all the characters. Still, this is a dynamite first novel, broad in scope and laser-focused on the feelings and changes of its characters and, by extension, a nation in transition. I look forward to good things from Adam Langer.

Confirmation

"Naked" Said Unsuitable for GOP Delegates

Remember when I asked how many of the G.O.P. delegates are secretly gay? It looks like the answer is "at least 12." Well, I suppose there's no way to know that for sure. But something tells me that the 12 G.O.P. delegates who bought discount tickets to "Naked Boys Singing" before the Republican National Committee declared the show unfit for Republican consumption are G.A.Y.

I hope, by the way, that this was said with irony:

The show's producer, Carl White, said the RNC's decision to drop the show runs counter to the reasons Republicans chose New York to host the convention in the first place.

"It's very disappointing to us," said White. "They say they picked us because of our equality, our diversity, our culture."

If you believe that, Carl, I've got a 9/11 memorial on some swampland that I'd like to sell to you. And here's a friendly bit of advice--you should do some more aggressive marketing. I was in New York for four days, and I had NO IDEA your show was running. Not that I'd have seen it anyway, right? I recommend a billboard right outside Madison Square Garden that looks something like this:

Tough Love

In final judgment, eliminate gymnastics from Olympics

I hate to admit this, because over the past week I've really enjoyed watching the gymnastics competitions, but the article above is probably right. You couldn't watch the way the judging in these events worked and not question how this could be called a sport. On the biggest stage in the world, the judges elbowed out the competitors on an almost daily basis. First there were the altered start values for the high bar routines of two American men, which led to an ugly fall from the bar for one of them that knocked the Americans out of the top spot and knocked him out of the next rotation. Then the same judges who had stolen tenths from the Americans pre-emptively on the high bar took them quietly away from a South Korean on parallel bars, making Paul Hamm's all-around gold medal feel more like a cheap piece of tinfoil-covered chocolate hanging around his neck. Then they gave Svetlana Khorkina an excuse to question their judging by conferring for what seemed like twenty minutes before announcing any of her scores--as if she needed a reason to pout. And as if they hadn't caused enough problems, on the final night the judges were at it again, giving Alexei Nemov a ridiculously low score for a high bar routine that was a revelation of all that high bar could be, then raising it ever-so-slightly when the crowd refused to sit down and shut up.

And those are just the problems I gleaned from home over the course of a week. As Josh Belzman points out in the article, the fact that the athletes themselves don't know who will win or lose until the judges inform them is telling. A rational observer--say, their coach--should be able to tell a gymnast the moment they step off the apparatus what score they should expect. Not a wide range--the score. If it's an objective sport, as it purports to be, a routine with a start value of 9.9 that featured perfect execution except right there should have a corresponding final score, not a range from 9.5 to 9.8, and, by the way, if there's a tie, the guy whose score caused the most disagreement among the judges gets the medal. (That's what happened to poor Morgan Hamm on high bar. He tied for third and got nothing, a fact most newspaper and TV coverage has ignored because they can't explain it. Here's the explanation: more of the judges gave the other guy a higher score--but because they tied, that means more of the judges also gave the other guy a lower score to arrive at the averahe score he was awarded. The judges all agreed on the quality of Morgan's performance, though, so he gets to stare at twin brother Paul's silver medal, also the result of a tiebreaker.)

All of this is crazy talk. Sure, football games occasionally get decided on an abberant holding penalty or pass interference call, but you expect that over time it all works out, the referees do their best, and the better team wins. A runner might get called out at second when the replay shows he's safe, or the umpire might call a ball strike three. But again, over time there's an expectation that the better team will emerge with the victory. The same is true for basketball, hockey, running, swimming--all the things we think of when we think of sports. But there's no "over time" in gymnastics--the Olympics are the main event, and the judges aren't just there to make sure the athletes follow the rules: they're deciding, actively, who wins and who loses. If there's absolutely no transparency behind how those decisions are made, then Belzman is right: this is not an Olympic sport we're watching, it's just a circus with prizes.

Expedience or Honesty?

The Note

This morning's Note suggests two questions that Dick Cheney better get ready to answer now that the cat's out of the bag regarding his disagreement with President Bush on gay marriage:

1. Mr Cheney, it is not like you and the president disagree on gas prices--some people see this as a fundamental and very personal issue. Are you saying you will support your boss even though he wants to discriminate against your daughter as long as you are confident that the effort will fail? Are you aware that yours and the presidents re-election supporters have said they won't give up on this issue no matter what happens in Congress this year?
2. Mr. Cheney, what would you say to other families who don't want their loved ones to face the proposal being pushed by the president? Vote for us anyway because the president will drop it next year? Vote for us because other issues are more important? What would you say to those families?

Seems reasonable to me. Meanwhile, the debate over whether this is intended to reassure moderate voters that they can back Bush or represents the honest answer of a man who slipped momentarily into his role as a concerned father continues. Based on the question Cheney was asked, as quoted here, it's hard to see this a political, as I first thought:

Cheney spoke in response to a questioner who asked, “I would like to know, sir, from your heart--I don't want to know what your advisers say, or even what your top adviser thinks--but I need to know: What do you think about homosexual marriages?”

Will this have an impact on the party as a whole? Doubtful. But at least it puts the issue back on the table in a more positive light. Here's hoping Cheney gets those two questions above at one of his town hall meetings and has to answer them. I'd love to hear him denounce his own crazy supporters. Better yet, it would be great to hear him tell the crowd that if he weren't on the ticket and still had a gay family member, he'd vote for the other guy, too.

High Wire Act

Cheney Backs Freedom for Gay Relationships

So it begins. The Bush-Cheney campaign had to eventually start moving toward the center in preparation for November, and apparently now they're going to try to do it.

Dick Cheney acknowledged that his daughter, Mary, is gay, something he and Lynne have often hesitated to do in public. He said, "Lynne and I have a gay daughter, so it's an issue our family is very familiar with. With respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone ... People ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to." Cheney went on to talk about reserving marriage for the states and why Bush supported a constitutional amendment.

I'm glad Dick is ready to play the friendly dad and chat about his daughter, but this really doesn't change anything of substance. He thinks people ought to be free to enter into any kind of relationship. Does he think they should be free from the fear that they will lose their job or their housing for doing so? Does he think they should pay higher taxes for less benefits because they do so? Does he think they should worry that they will be unable to visit a partner in the hospital because the government does not recognize their relationship?

If he wants to talk about this issue, Dick Cheney should talk about the very real problems that face gay Americans and how he proposes to solve those problems. Freedom to have a relationship with anyone doesn't mean anything when you're fighting with a hospital administrator or losing your house because you can't inherit your partner's share of your home without paying enormous taxes on it. Just because Cheney thinks this is a matter for the states to solve doesn't mean he should get a pass on suggesting how they should solve it. If he really thinks this issue is important--and since it's in the family, he ought to--he should be willing to talk about the protections he thinks states should offer to his daughter and others like her.

It's a hell of a bully pulpit you've got there, Mr. Cheney. You're brave enough to use it to start a war or savage your opponents--but do you have the guts to use it to make life better for your own child?

Matter of Importance

Talking Points Memo by Joshua Micah Marshall

This dissection of President Bush's moral cowardice strikes me as spot-on, and if John Kerry adopts this as his modus operandi for framing everything that Bush has done since becoming president, I think he wins in a walk.

I've been thinking about how much this election matters to me quite a bit lately. My friend Paul wrote something in an e-mail the other day that I think bears repeating: "The real reason I don't want [Bush] to win is that it's fundamentally against what I teach my kids and what I grew up believing. Namely that if you are a genuine, compassionate person most of the time and do the right thing within the rules, your reward will be greater than that of those who manipulate and lie and act selfishly. Basically, Bush winning upsets my whole worldview."

That statement may not fully explain the anger at Bush that so many people today feel, but it seems like a good start to me. Beyond his policies, beyond his henchmen, beyond his personal idiosyncrasies that drive his detractors crazy, there's this nagging feeling that Bush is running around the country claiming to be every good thing that his administration is not. From the very beginning, he trumpeted himself as a compassionate conservative. Translation: I'll spend less than a Democrat, but no one will get hurt as a result. The real result, of course, bears so little resemblance to that promise that it sounds like a joke--and indeed, that's how focus groups sometimes react to a straightforward description of a Bush policy: They don't believe it. The results of Bush policy are 180 degrees from the compassionate conservatism he sold: less jobs, less help for those who need it, and far more spending. He manipulated the electorate with a catchy slogan, lied about the impact of his tax cuts, and selfishly handed our nation's surplus--and, with it, our future fiscal footing--to his biggest campaign contributors.

Because all of this is true, any way you spin it, and because his administration has quietly but effectively worked to change regulations that protect workers (the overtime law, ergonomics rules), the environment (Clear Skies Initiative, anyone? Kyoto?), and consumers from the excesses of the titans of capitalism, and because he also wishes to rewrite both the tax code and the social contract to reflect a "money belongs with the rich" philosophy that values wealth but not work--because of all this, the fact that Bush still stands a chance this November, and will almost certainly garner nearly 50 million votes, does more than upset me. It forces me to question the wisdom of everyone around me. On what grounds does someone argue for another four years of this? How can there be 50 million people who will show up on November 2 and pull the lever for this man and for the policies he's shown himself to favor? How can America even be contemplating another four years of motives so vile they can be hidden in plain sight because no one will believe them when they're discovered? Is this what we want our children to learn?

And have no doubt, they will learn. They'll learn that if you lie big enough no one can call you on it, and that if your ideas sound crazy or craven enough, no one will believe you think them, no matter what the evidence says. They'll learn that when you win, no matter what tactics you use to win, even if you call a hero a terrorist, your first priority should be to collect what's due to you--and you should never worry about those you've defeated. They'll learn that you should never, ever, ever apologize for anything. They'll learn that if you pretend to be something people like, you can sneak through all manner of things of which those people would never approve if they had the time to understand them. These are not just the ingredients of a bad citizen--they're the makings of a disobedient and dreadful child. Is that really the choice 50 million Americans want to make again, knowing now what we could not know then, that this man who claimed to be a compassionate conservative would turn out to be a role model for spoiled brats everywhere? If it is, well, that really upsets my worldview.

Failure of Journalism

These Charges Are False ...

One of the great failings of "objective reporting" is that when someone lies in a newsworthy way, you have to report what they say. There's very little way to make it apparent to readers that the person in question is lying through his teeth without losing objectivity. Such is the case with Swift Boat Veterans for Truth; they're all saying things that are patently untrue, yet the media is obliged to report what they say because it is, in every sense of the word, news.

Applause to the LA Times for saying in print that this news is also a boatload of crap. Here's hoping John Kerry's attempt today to move on from this bunch of nonsense to the real issues of the campaign will work. As Kerry put it:

"The Bush campaign and its allies have turned to the tactics of fear and smear because they can’t talk about jobs, health care, energy independence, and rebuilding our alliances – the real issues that matter to the American people. They have no plans, no positive vision and no understanding of an urgent and undeniable truth--a stronger America begins at home."

Or maybe WWII

As if a return to Korea (see below) weren't enough, now we're looking back at World War II. Repsonding to Bob Dole's weekend transformation from primary season impartial observer to general election Republican hired gun, Joshua Micah Marshall points out that Dole should know better than to give Kerry guff for winning a Purple Heart for superficial wounds, since he won his first one for the same kind of incident. Instead, here's the remarkably underhanded thing Dole had to say on Sunday: "And here's, you know, a good guy, a good friend. I respect his record. But three Purple Hearts and never bled that I know of. I mean, they're all superficial wounds. Three Purple Hearts and you're out." [Update: Kerry bled! So says his crewmate, Del Sandusky: "I was there when he got wounded. I saw the blood. I don't care what Dole said."]

Good friend, indeed. Maybe Dole should remember that Kerry is running against the son of a man that Dole doesn't particularly like. Or that Kerry volunteered to be in a position to be wounded three times in the first place.

In any case, what's next? Will we start rehashing the Spanish-American War? Perhaps we can start debating slavery again and turn back the clock to the Civil War--oh, wait. Alan Keyes says we already are, because the abortion debate is really about slavery. (He's down 41 points, though, so I guess what he thinks isn't terribly important to this election.)

Please, candidates, can we talk about the issues of OUR time? Bush, if you want to fundamentally change the way we pay our nation's bills, say so, and explain why you think it's the right way. I may not agree, but I'll listen to that. Kerry, if you think you can prosecute a more efficient war on terror, explain why, and people will listen. Elections have been mudslinging fests for years, but isn't this election important enough to actually debate ideas rather than dental records and the depth of shrapnel in a man's leg? I don't care if Bush was in Alabama or what Kerry did in the Mekong Delta; I care what either of them will do if we give them four years to run the country. I don't think I'm alone in this. Hasn't Bush won enough from this little feud? He never fought, yet he's the one whose partisans have turned Vietnam into a campaign issue. He should call a truce while he's ahead and spare the nation a gutter game that threatens to sink our politics even deeper into the mire. If he does, even I will have to admit that he did the right thing--and the smart thing, by forcing Kerry to stop using the smears against John McCain to tar Bush. We'll know soon enough. [Update: Bush wants ALL ads from independent groups, from Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to MoveOn.org, to stop, saying they're bad for the system. I wonder how Kerry will respond to this? He's got a lot of big money behind him right now, but those Republican fringe groups can scare up cash in a hurry...]

Thank goodness there are only 71 more days of this. I don't know how much more I can take.

Korea, Too?

Alan Alda Elected to Serve on "West Wing"

As if the U.S. political landscape weren't already littered with the detritus of Vietnam, now the primary fictional political realm of the land will be littered with memories of a fictional Korea. In what Brian must consider wonderful news, a sputtering West Wing is bringing on Alan Alda as--what else?--a Republican with presidential aspirations. Let me say this now, loud and clear: I will not continue to watch this train wreck of a TV show if they try to carry it on with a new (Republican) president. The show ends when Bartlet's done. And, if they don't get their act together, maybe sooner...

Pain in the Glute

Girl with digestive disorder denied Communion

Anyone who doubts that the institutional Catholic Church is a bit too intolerant of change should read the article above. No contraception--fine. Marriage for straights only--OK. No abortion or euthanasia--got it. I can understand all of these positions, even as I disagree with all of them. But no communion unless you can stomach wheat? This is a bit too heartless even for the Pope.

Don't believe me? Take it from eight-year-old Haley, who says, "I'm on a gluten-free diet because I can’t have wheat. I could die." In the face of this, her mother's reaction strikes me as a bit silly: "I'm hopeful. Do I think it will be a long road to change? Yes. But I’m raising an awareness and I’m taking it one step at a time."

That's crazy. This is all crazy. Now I say sacrament, schmacrament, but this little girl clearly wants to participate in the traditions of her family's church, and I think we can all understand that. To tell her she's not really doing so because the communion wafer might kill her is cruel.

Not enough? Fine. I leave you with this gem:

The church has similar rules for Communion wine. For alcoholics, the church allows a substitute for wine under some circumstances, however the drink must still be fermented from grapes and contain some alcohol. Grape juice is not a valid substitute.

Something tells me we're at the end of the line for Catholicism.

Reflection

ARIANNA ONLINE - August 13, 2004 - Jim McGreevey: "I Am A Gay American"

A week ago at this time I was seeing the first stunned posts indicating the Governor McGreevey was about to shock New Jersey and the world with his announcement. Years ago that wouldn't be nearly enough time to look back and reflect, but with the news cycle of today that week feels like a lifetime. So it seems appropriate, today, to look at the reaction of someone who understands all too well what it can mean for a man to suppress his homosexuality: Arianna Huffington, whose former husband did just that.

Huffington gets it. She asks an important question in the wake of the resignation: "What if the world were a more welcoming place where gay people could have in their lives all the 'good things' and the 'right things' without having to pretend they're straight?" She quickly expands on this question, moving from McGreevey's situation to that of many gay men and women in America:

But even if Jim McGreevey did not want to hold public office, if he just wanted a marriage and children--natural urges, perhaps as powerful as the sexual one--the easiest (and indeed the only legal way) to do so remains opting for a heterosexual relationship. So the human costs we only got a glimpse of on Thursday--a shattered marriage, the anguish inflicted on his parents, his wife, his daughters--are not just the result of his personal choices but of the roadblocks society continues to place in the path of the complete acceptance of gay men and women.

Huffington uses the event to call for a development that she and I both know is still some time away: "So until the final curtain falls, let’s seize the moment to reaffirm, loudly and without reservation, that to be gay is to be normal--whether you’re a governor or a gardener, a public figure or a very private one." Perhaps one day this optimistic call will be answered, but for now we live in a world where most politicians of the homosexual variety suppress the truth--and a great many openly gay people with much to contribute to the political process opt out of it because their sexuality might disqualify them in the eyes of some voters. I know I viewed my coming out as the death knell for any political ambitions, though events since have given me some hope that one day I might sit on a city council or village board and contribute to my community. But that day is still a far-off hope, not a reality to be taken for granted. If we can learn that from McGreevey's coming out, and work to make things different for those who come after him, we'll have made some decent lemonade out of this bitter lemon.

Life's No Picnic

Bear guzzles 36 beers, passes out at campground

There's plenty of serious stuff going on today, but you deserve a bit of frivolity, right? The bear in this article sounds suspiciously like Homer Simpson in a bear costume, particularly as he was caught by using doughnuts, honey, and beer as bait.

Anyhow, I didn't post yesterday because I was at the company picnic. Afterward I spent five hours making phone calls for Melissa Bean, the Democrat running to replace Phil Crane in the 8th District in Illinois. My calls revealed a lot of people who are ready to dump Crane; after 35 years of ineffectiveness, I guess that shouldn't come as a surprise. An article in this morning's Daily Herald showed that yesterday's debate between the two candidates demonstrated that Bean is a better fit for the district, but the paper hasn't put the article online. You'll hear more about Bean, though; her race may be the only close one in Illinois this fall, and it represents one of a few opportunities for Democrats to pick up a seat in the House. I'll be doing what I can to help make it happen.

Strategery

A Test of Toughness

E.J. Dionne, Jr., raises excellent points in this column about how John Kerry should be hammering away at Bush about his hidden-in-plain-sight belief that the tax system should favor millionaires. Dionne also notes that the Bush campaign has now resorted to calling Kerry a flip-flopper for standing by his vote on the war, which hardly makes sense.

Kerry isn't playing the game the way Dionne would like him to, which raises questions about what he plans to do between now and November. Thus far, it appears his strategy is to stand to the side and watch Bush's death spiral. Can this work? Can Kerry just wait for Bush to self-destruct and make plans for his inauguration between campaign stops?

I'd like to believe that anti-Bush sentiment is fevered enough to ensure a Kerry victory even if he remains silent from now to Election Day, but it's apparent to me that he'll have to climb down from his lofty perch and actually engage Bush again before this campaign is over. When he does, I hope Kerry is wise enough to take Dionne's advice and explain why his tax plan is better than the one Bush has been sneaking through since he came into office. When Kerry gets into office, he needs to have a mandate to start fixing things.

All Idea, No Execution

Nicholson Baker, Checkpoint

Nicholson Baker's latest book is likely to be one of the most-discussed tomes of the season because he has chosen a subject sure to attract attention: killing the president. The short novel (it weighs in at only 115 pages) is a transcript of a hotel-room discussion between two people, Ben and Jay, about the wisdom of assassinating George W. Bush. Jay contends that Bush deserves to die for what he has done in Iraq, among other things; Ben, called by Jay to help him with an undescribed situation, finds himself fending off these arguments with the notion that this violence will only beget more violence.

Baker's book is, it should be said, not terribly good. The writing is smooth and the characters and their relationship to one another are revealed through their dialogue, and Baker has brought together an interesting hodgepodge of facts to create Jay's argument for his plan. But Baker has also taken the easy way out by making Jay clearly deranged. Ben's task in the novel is not to argue that Bush deserves to live but to argue instead that his death would do no good, and while that may provide a fleeting thrill to Bush-bashers everywhere--"You can't even argue against the idea that he deserves it!"--it's actually a disservice to the reader. No one even tries to defend Bush, making the book as unbalanced as its main character, and even I can see that this is a flaw. I may disagree with everything Bush has ever done, but I'd still give him a lawyer if he were on trial for his life. Baker doesn't.

King For A Day

Kerry's Blue Blood a Winner, Say Royal Researchers

Well, here's as good a reason as any other to believe this is Kerry's race to lose, as many pundits have decided of late. According to the article, every winner of the presidency has been the man whose blood is more blue. Whlie this is both stunning and somehow plausible, I have to question it: What about rematches? John Adams and Thomas Jefferson ran against one another twice, with different results in 1796 than in 1800; Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland also waged two battles, with Harrison ousting the incumbent in the first (despite losing the popular vote) and Cleveland returning for a second stint in office after besting Harrison in their second electoral duel. Maybe the study counts only the first winner?

In any case, I find it particularly interesting--albeit completely irrelevant to anything important in the election--that researcher Harold Brooks-Baker says, "Every maternal blood line of Kerry makes him more royal than any previous American president." Also that he's a distant relative of Richard the Lionhearted. Does this mean that Sean Connery (who played Richard in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves) will join Kerry on the campaign trail?

Tough Day

The Closet Case, Left Without a Room of His Own

Yesterday was an interesting day to be gay. The morning brought the expected bad news from California that 4,000 couples were no longer married as the California Supreme Court invalidated all the licenses given by San Francisco to same-sex couples during February and March. That, it seemed, was enough to chew on for one day, but around 2:30 Wonkette suddenly had a post about Governor McGreevey in New Jersey that seemed to indicate things were about to get hairy.

And hairy they got, as you no doubt know by now. I thought McGreevey's speech was a good one under the circumstances, perhaps better on video than on paper. And while the pundits on Hardball were anxious last night to contemplate whether Republicans should demand an earlier resignation and an election rather than standing by and letting McGreevey pass his office on to another Democrat for the remaining year of his term, I don't think that's the most important issue this morning. (He did the right thing, though; in such a moment of shock, the last thing New Jersey needs is a rapid-fire election that would surely create quite a furor.) What I couldn't stop thinking about was his poor wife, who stood by his side but will surely be facing him in a courtroom proceeding, hopefully a friendly one, very soon. She had to have known this about her husband, right? There must have been some sort of understanding, right? They have a young child; how will they handle this new reality in light of their parental responsibilities?

For all of that, I must confess that I'm impressed by what McGreevey did. Yes, he did it because the threat of a lawsuit pushed him forward, but he managed to keep it under wraps until an hour before he made his announcement, and while his motives are questionable, he certainly did what he thought was best for the state; he could have stuck it out in office and dragged the state through the mud. And McGreevey looked so relieved as he stood there, telling the world the truth about what he had done and who he is. The look on his face and the seeming weight lifted from his shoulders as he owned up to reality was the best advertisement for coming out I've seen in years. Were it not for all the other corruption and scandal surrounding his administration, I'd be sad to see him resign; as it stands, I hope he finds peace in his future and happiness in his late start on a new life.

Right Full Rudder

'West Wing': Is It Facing a Struggle to Survive?

I feel mixed emotions as I read about the ratings and creative difficulties that have NBC execs thinking about pulling one of my favorite shows from the air after this year. Part of me wants to say "I told you so" because I knew losing Aaron Sorkin would hurt the show. Another part of me wants to cheer this possibility because I could reclaim another free hour on Wednesday nights during a time when I'll probably be busy with grad school. Yet another part of me could care less because I've been spoiled by the quality programming on HBO and no longer live or die by this old standby.

Still, there is a tiny part of me that hates the idea that The West Wing might die, even if the sentiments of this paragraph from the article linked above are true:

In Mr. Wells's first year the ratings dropped even further. Instead of the stylized rapid-fire dialogue created by Mr. Sorkin for White House figures on the edge of personal or political crises, the series turned contrived and convoluted, critics said. Some White House staff members, already smug in the Sorkin years, turned insufferable. The series, which had confined itself almost entirely to the White House in its early years, branched out into plots involving terrorism and foreign intrigue.

True, true, all too true. C.J. was obnoxious this year, Leo's behavior made me want to throw John Wells out a window, and Josh became, as the Times notes, insufferable. Abby annoyed me, Bartlet annoyed me, Toby annoyed me. The whole Will working for the VP thing was silly. And sending Donna to Gaza, nearly killing her, letting a beloved character like Fitzwallace die in service of a stupid plot development--all of these are reasons to rejoice that WW might bite the dust.

Still, I hold out meager hope that this season will bring back all that was good about this once-mighty show, even as the producers pledge a swing to the right and a focus on the upcoming fictional election (the one on the show, not the one in November). And if that doesn't happen, there are more terrible things I can imagine than another free hour on Wednesday evening. Like waiting until 2006 for The Sorpanos to come back.

It's a Start

Amazon.com : The Best Music of the Year... So Far

I've been thinking lately about what albums from 2004 might earn a spot on the site's sidebar at year's end. So has Amazon.com, apparently. The link above leads to the 30 albums they've enjoyed so far this year. I've got five of them, and I'd say three or four are a good bet to make the top 10. There are a lot of new releases yet to come, and my list will change, as will Amazon's. But it's fun to start thinking about this...

Abandonment

Keyes makes Thompson 'uncomfortable'

OK, this will be the last day--probably--that I rail against Alan Keyes. Jim Thompson, former Republican governor of Illinois, said of Keyes, "His views are very conservative. Some of his positions would make me uncomfortable as a voter." Thompson declined to endorse Keyes.

This is yet more proof that the Illinois G.O.P. has been hijacked by a small fringe element that is obsessed with fighting a culture war to enshrine their notions of Biblical law into the laws of the United States. So I implore Illinois voters: if you can't stomach a vote for Obama, who's going to win no matter what you do, please, at least vote for the Libertarian and show the Republican Party that you won't stand for extremism. (Yes, Dad, I'm talking to you.) His name is Jerry Kohn (an odd Spoonerism of John Kerry) and you can learn more about him at www.Kohn2004.org, but I think all you need to know is that a vote for Kohn will send a message to the Republican Party that it can't field candidates like Alan Keyes and expect the support of mainstream Illinoisans.

Laughing At Us

The Unsuitable Mr. Keyes

The eyes of the nation are upon Illinois, and it's not for any good reason: They're watching Alan Keyes make a fool of himself. Witness the final paragraph of the LA Times editorial today: "We are often called upon to wonder whether politicians are cynical or stupid. The Illinois Republican leaders, in their case, have made that choice unnecessary."

The Times also calls Keyes a "wildly inappropriate candidate" who "has a tendency to follow any idea right off the cliff of logical consistency" and whose "zealous speaking style" hints at an "emotional turmoil that might lead a job counselor to try to direct him away from a career in politics."

And that's just what they'll say about him in print. The Illinois Republican Party has broken faith with the people of the state by making us the laughingstock of the nation. I didn't expect much from them, but I expected better than this.

Unmandated Funding

Bush says national sales tax worth considering

We're finally starting to hear whispers about what George W. Bush might do with a second term as president, and it's kind of scary. Yesterday he suggested that replacing the income tax system with a national sales tax would be a possibility.

To be sure, there are some who think this is a good idea. They also supported tax cuts for the wealthy and tax cuts on stock dividends that reward wealth over work.

Sales taxes are, by their nature, regressive. Proponents argue that they tax consumption rather than earnings, suggesting that because we choose to consume a certain amount of goods and services, we can also control our level of taxation. But some purchases cannot be avoided: even the poor must buy food and clothing, for instance. Unlike our system today, intended to draw more upon the disposable income, however much that may be, of each household and less upon money the household requires for necessities, a national sales tax would siphon off money from precisely the people and places that need it most.

It would be easy to dismiss Bush's suggestion; after all, it doesn't have the kind of widespread support that such a major overhaul of our entire tax code would appear to require. But Bush has managed, in three and a half years, to begin a fundamental shift in the tax code away from taxing wealth and toward taxing work instead--a move that is not in the best interests of the great majority of people in the United States and that does not have broad-based appeal at any but the least contemplative level. If he wins this election, he might consider a national sales tax his due...

That's All It Takes

The Onion: Kerry Unveils One-Point Plan For Better America

The latest top story from The Onion sounds so real it's hard to remember it's (sort-of) fiction. You can guess, I assume, that Kerry's one-point plan is "the removal of George W. Bush from the White House." Observe this gem:

"Politicians make a lot of campaign promises," Lance Radda said. "Sure, this not-being-Bush policy sounds good now. But how can we be sure that Kerry will deliver on that promise once in office?"

Kerry addressed Radda's question.

"I promise you, here and now, that I will enact my one-point plan on the day I enter the Oval Office," Kerry said. "For the last three and a half years, we've had George W. Bush, and today I have this to say: We can do better!"

We sure can, John. We sure can. We can, and we will. We can, and we must.

Animal Instinct

Plan B for Illinois

It comes as little surprise that the choice of Alan Keyes to run against Barack Obama is being greeted by jeers nationally and at home. He's just not a suitable candidate for office in a state that isn't in the thrall of the far right. His choices in his first day of campaigning made that clear: he called Obama's vote against a ban on partial-borth abortion "the slaveholder's position" and, arguing against gay marriage, said, "We as human beings cannot assert that our sexual desires cannot be controlled." Keyes said doing so would "consign us to the realm of instinctual animal nature--and we are not there."

Are the voters of Illinois, as a whole, really against abortion--even in the case of rape or incest, even if giving birth endangers the life of the mother? Do they really think gays and lesbians are acting like animals by loving people in accordance with their innate desires? And, more importantly, do they really care about these questions more than they care about creating jobs, having a stronger foreign policy, and building a better America that includes everyone rather than only those whose behavior and beliefs conform to some ultra-right party line? Keyes is angry that Obama won't have six debates with him because three of the debates he was supposed to have with Ryan were to be held during August. He should be glad Obama doesn't refuse to debate him at all. Alan Keyes, for all his eloquence, clearly has nothing to say that's worth hearing.

Hometown Blues

Mr. Keyes the Carpetbagger

While Alan Keyes presents no real worries for Barack Obama, the Illinois Republican Party should be very worried about becoming the laughingstock of the nation and turning off moderate voters for years to come. Bill Maher joked on Friday that the same party that couldn't find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has now proven its incompetence at a far easier task--they couldn't find a black man in Chicago.

And that's a sad fact for the party to face--that it sought a black man to run against Obama because...well, it's hard to say what Republican leaders were thinking. Already it appears that many party leaders, former contender Kirk Dillard among them, are distancing themselves from Keyes, letting on that they realize his positions are deeply polarizing and, at least in Illinois, very unpopular. You can bet the ever-popular Jim Edgar won't be out campaigning for this right-wing nut job.

Keyes is a man without a place, which makes it almost appropriate that he swoop into a state three months before an election to run for office: His "conservative" views put him firmly in the mainstream among white men in Mississippi, while the color of his skin would make him unelectable there; meanwhile, anyplace populated by people who would elect a black man to the Senate has, in reaching that state of enlightenment, also soundly rejected Keyes' bombastic pronouncements about the rule of law being the rule of God. And yes, that's what he says--take a look:



By nominating Keyes, the Illinois G.O.P. has revealed itself as a cynical and desperate institution, uninterested in appealing to the voters of the state of Illinois and incapable of adapting to a world that has grown beyond the tired and outmoded platitudes of its new standard-bearer. The resounding defeat to which Keyes will be treated this fall will be a well-deserved thumping for a party that, in this state, should already have learned its lesson.

At Last, My Love Has Come Along...

Early 'Seinfeld' episodes coming to DVD

The first three seasons of Seinfeld? I guess now we know what I'll be asking for at Christmas. If I can wait that long...

Thanks to Brian for the link.

Place Your Bets

N.M. GOP to Continue Asking for Pledge

You'll have to scroll deep into the article above to find this gem:

The Republican National Committee chairman says the party's national convention later this month will have its most diverse delegation ever--but he won't release the identities of the delegates.

While Republican Chairman Ed Gillespie was boasting about the gains the GOP is making among blacks, Hispanics and Asian-Americans, he said the national party has left it up to individual states to decide whether to publicize delegates' identities.

His reason: Web sites that invite protesters to "show them the kind of welcome they can expect in New York."

Of the 4,788 delegates and alternates to the convention, Republicans said 171 delegates are Hispanic (297 including alternates), 165 delegates are black (290 with alternates) and 76 delegates are Asian-Americans or Pacific Islanders (104 with alternates).

Any guess how many of the delegates are gay? Better yet, any guess how many of them are honest about it?

Second Term Agenda?

A new 'Bushism': We're gonna get us

Malapropism or Freudian slip? You decide. Today President Bush had this to say: “Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”

And here I thought the sign on John Ashcroft's door that says "Secretary of Screwing Over the American People" was just an honorary thing.

Fatal Flaw?

Looking Backward - On the stump, Bush sells his first term, not his second

I think Chris Suellentrop nails the trouble with the Bush campaign this time around in this article: rather than talking about what he wants to do, Bush spends all his time talking about the things he's so proud of doing--or, more to the point, saying--during his first term. He won't lay out a second-term plan. And this is scary, Suellentrop says:

After the 2002 midterm elections, when Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill objected to another round of tax cuts for the rich, Vice President Cheney told O'Neill to discard his worries. We won the midterm elections, Cheney said. "This is our due." As much as liberals dislike President Bush's record over the past four years, it's the prospect of another four years that terrifies them. What they want to know--what keeps them awake at night--is what President Bush hasn't answered yet: What are you going to do next? This time, what will be your due?

Can you imagine what four more years might be like? Fortunately, we probably won't have to, if the crowds turning out for Kerry and Edwards are any indication. When you're a Democrat getting mobbed in a hotel parking lot in rural Missouri--the part where they pronounce the "A" at the end--you've got to believe your message is reaching people.

Blogiversary

First Read

Congratulations to Paul Allen, who correctly guessed that the upcoming event referenced last week was this site's first birthday. A lot has changed since that fateful day, both in my understanding of HTML and in my life. I got a job, applied for graduate school, switched presidential candidates, and gave away a lot of hard-earned money to causes I believe in and habits I should probably curtail.

I'm pretty sure that all of this has made me a better person; I'm certainly calmer and happier than I was back then. A year ago I was at the start of what was still, at that point, an experiment in living together; today I'm in what can only be called a stable long-term relationship. My political convictions have grown even as my rage about them has subsided. And, over 87,000 words later, I'm still enjoying this self-appointed task of filtering the world through my mind and spilling out the results for public consumption. I hope you're enjoying reading it.

Bounce This, Dowd

BC04: Setting the Bar Low

Sometimes I just want to give the finger to the Bush-Cheney campaign. Here's Matthew Dowd's kindly pre-emptive response to the inevitable questions about what kind of bounce Bush will get from his convention, courtesy of Wonkette:

"I know this is a question that will come up, about what kind of bounce do we expect at our convention. Looking at it historically, incumbents usually get a bounce that's equal to about two-thirds of what the challenger's bounce is. So if you want to put that in your calculus: Incumbents get two-thirds of what the challenger got as their bounce. So two-thirds of zero is -- and my math is pretty simple here -- is zero. So, that's our expectation on our bounce."

To see why Dowd is full of it, take a look at the electoral vote counter to your right. 328-210 doesn't look like zero to me. You've got to hand it to Dowd, though: he made any bounce Kerry might have gotten look puny by (cunningly, and with full knowledge that his prediction wouldn't come true) forecasting a 15-point jump after the convention; now I'm sure he'll get front page coverage for his stunningly self-effacing, and conveniently expectations-lowering, prediction about his own convention. Here's hoping he turns out to be right, and Bush really doesn't get a boost...not that it matters either way. Kerry's gonna blow Bush out of the water in the debates.

Dry Manhattan

I spent most of my time in New York feeling like I was trapped in either Seinfeld, Friends, or Sex and the City. This proved a fun exercise. I walked through Central Park and imagined Phoebe running with flailing arms, passed several pizza joints with varying Ray's-related names and recalled Kramer getting lost at First and First and calling it "the nexus of the universe," and thought of Carrie Bradshaw whenever I saw a woman wearing Manolo Blahniks. I got to see Madison Square Garden, the Chrysler Building, the lions at the New York Public Library, and Times Square. It wasn't a comprehensive visit, in other words, but I saw enough to feel like I've at least been there.

I also saw Peter Krause on the second night of the revival of Arthur Miller's After the Fall. The play is very interesting, with flashbacks within the main character's mind taking place on stage and a single set used throughout despite multiple location changes. The way these effects were handled alone made the experience worthwhile. Carla Gugino--TV's short-lived Karen Sisco--stole the show as Maggie, a Marilyn-esque character, and Jessica Hecht--Carol's lover Susan on Friends--was excellent as Krause's first wife. Krause himself was shaky at the start, and generally delivered stilted soliloquies, but amid the action of the play his dialogue was convincing and compelling, despite--or perhaps because of--several moments that seemed to channel his work as Nate on Six Feet Under. This wasn't the best play I've ever seen, but it was definitely worth seeing. Next time I'm in New York, though, I'll get tickets to one of the big, popular, rousing shows; the fact that I didn't see Aida or Wicked or even The Lion King will probably eat at me a bit when I look back on this trip, even if I did feel compelled to watch the convention my first two nights in town.

Unconventional

I really wished I could write about the convention in real-time last week. Since my last post, two more days of fine rhetoric have further strengthened the Democrats' case. Rather than a full recap, here are my thoughts on the highlights:

• This may sound perverse to some, but the best speaker of the convention may well have been Al Sharpton. The man knows how to make a point and deliver a line. After delivering a stirring address of principles, he responded to George W. Bush's questions about black voting patterns with one of the best lines of the convention. "You said the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. It is true that Mr. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, after which there was a commitment to give [freed slaves] 40 acres and a mule. That's where the argument, to this day, of reparations starts. We never got the 40 acres. We went all the way to Herbert Hoover, and we never got the 40 acres. We didn't get the mule. So we decided we'd ride this donkey as far as it would take us." As he pointed out, this has been an effective strategy thus far: "It was those that earned our vote that got our vote. We got the Civil Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the Voting Rights Act under a Democrat. We got the right to organize under Democrats."
• John Edwards was, of course, one of the highlights of the convention, but it was sad to see his buoyant energy trapped behind a podium. His normal walking around and gesturing was missing, and it made this speech less exciting and energizing than the ones he delivered in Iowa. Still, he laid out a compelling case.
• While the long Kerry introduction was a bit much--there were too many layers--his daughters were wonderful. I hope America saw them, because they made him seem more human. And Kerry himself delivered exactly the address he needed to deliver. He addressed the concerns voters have expressed about him:

1. Is he strong enough? Yes. He explained his stance on military action and showed that he understands the new realities of the war on terror.
2. Does he believe? Yes. He put forward a wonderful explanation of his feelings on faith, proclaiming that his religion isn't on his sleeve but in his heart, guiding his actions. If that's not enough for a voter, he or she is already lost to Kerry (and to science, and the teaching of evolution, and the idea that church and state should be separate).
3. What will he do? I think we now know what Kerry would like to do in office: middle-class tax cuts, a roll-back of the Bush cuts for the top 1%, chopping the deficit in half, and expanding health care coverage to almost every American while helping those who already have insurance to obtain lower premiums and drug prices. It's going to be tough to do--maybe impossible with a Republican Congress. But it's a vision for a better America that should resonate with many Americans, catching a kitchen table issue that Bush and the Republicans have ignored.

And he addressed all of these issues forcefully. Kerry did rush toward the end--Bill Maher called his race to finish on time for the networks on of the most shameful spectacles ever seen in American politics. As he said, and this is paraphrase because the show transcript isn't up yet, "The man is laying out a plan to rule the globe. He shouldn't have to rush so people don't miss the first two minutes of Elimidate!"

Speaking of Maher, his return to HBO for the remainder of the election season was excellent. He talked to OutKast's Andre 3000, who is working to get young people to vote for the first time in this election; Andre talked with Al Sharpton about this at the convention to great effect.

Bill's guests included Republican representative David Dreir, former Canadian prime minister Kim Campbell, and Michael Moore. It was a shoutfest, to be sure, but Moore's film was used to make some good points about our military recruiting, and especially about Bush's response--dazed and confused--to 9/11 when he found out and sat stunned in a classroom.

The most stirring event of the night, though, was Ralph Nader's appearance at the end. Moore and Maher got down on their knees and begged Nader not to run; when that didn't work, Campbell outlined a strategy by which Nader could have more influence, by proclaiming himself an evaluator of the two candidates on his issues and giving his appraisal and endorsement before Election Day. When Nader demurred from this, Maher nailed him: he produced a photo of O.J. Simpson and told Nader he could learn a lot from him. A man who was a beloved legend his whole life destroyed his legacy with a single terrible act. Such is the fate that awaits Nader if we get four more years of Bush on his account.