Greenwald's Running Tally of Revisionism

Glenn Greenwald has been on a roll pointing out revisionism and hypocrisy (not to mention complicity) among the big media commentariat on subjects like the War on (t)Error, Iraq, imperialism and torture and detainment. Joe Klein and Tom Friedman have distinguished themselves as happy-talking fools in defense of the most egregious actions of state power and utter disregard for human rights. Greenwald's posts are long, but worth reading at least for the twists and turns these "hired pens" (as the ultimate statist Lenin once put it) take in their efforts to justify the abuses of the war-mongering powers. All of which lays the foundation for future wars waged with the kind of ahistorical blindness that made the current mess in Iraq conceivable in the first place:

For a short while, it appeared that the one silver lining in the carnage and devastation wreaked by the U.S. attack on Iraq would be a palliative effect on the war-loving pathology among our political establishment. As Vietnam did for some short period of time, Iraq could have re-taught both the evil and stupidity of commencing optional wars against countries that haven't attacked us and couldn't do so, and more generally, could have underscored the grave error in viewing the battle against Muslim extremism through the glorious prism of "War."

But with this intense Friedmanesque revisionism well underway -- whereby war cheerleaders like Friedman were Right and Good all along and it was only the incompetent Bush and Rumsfeld who ruined everything with their "bumbling" -- it seems increasingly likely that the opposite lesson will be learned. Attacking, invading and occupying other countries in order to change their governments to ones we prefer is the smart, wise and just thing to do. Friedman's term for it today is "collaborating with them to build progressive politics." Especially if there is another terrorist attack on U.S. soil -- but even if there isn't -- the only lesson being drawn from the Iraq debacle in these precincts is that from now on, we just need to plan and execute it better, so that the Good and Just people who cheer these wars on have their noble schemes vindicated a lot sooner and a lot more proficiently.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Whipped Into a Frenzy

I will not be the first nor the last person to observe this: the Black Friday stampede at a Long Island Wal-Mart that killed Jdimytai Damour suggests our culture is sick. It represents just about everything that is wrong with our economy: the big box store, the exploitation of low-paid seasonal hires, hyped-up materialism, desperation and greed for "bargains" and a "tradition" of post-Thanksgiving shopping, disregard for workplace safety standards — as a friend of mine observed before Damour's identity was known, "the poor guy was probably an undocumented worker." He wasn't, but given past practices by Wal-Mart and other global corporations, my friend's suspicion was not without reason.

That said, I won't martyrize Damour; he didn't "die for our sins." He died because people — the bargain-obsessed shoppers and the big box operators who whipped them into a frenzy — value things over people, "getting ahead" over courtesy. The store owners could not be bothered to provide adequate security; the shoppers could not be bothered to wait another five minutes for opening time or walk casually to make their purchases. Push down the pregnant woman! What do you mean we have to leave? I've been waiting since 9 o'clock last night!

In the wake of this awful event, consider the reported response by the Toy Industry Association to a letter-writing campaign launched by parents demanding fewer advertisements aimed at their children:

"If children are not aware of what is new and available, how will they be able to tell their families what their preferences are?" an industry statement said. "While there is certainly greater economic disturbance going on now, families have always faced different levels of economic well-being and have managed to tailor their spending to their means."

The full AP article deserves reading. It reports a sociologist and a social worker discussing desperate parents straining their budgets to meet the demands of their kids, despite facing unemployment and homelessness.

And while it is all well and good to counsel such parents on the virtues of saying "no" (with practice, I have become pretty good at it; but then, I'm a dick), the working poor have few other outlets for entertainment than television, where the psychological warfare is waged.

Yesterday — to take a random personal example — my four-year-old son vegged out in front of a full day "Sponge Bob Square Pants" marathon on Nickelodeon. How nice of those programmers at Nick to create 12 hours of non-stop Sponge Bob. They must have done it outta the goodness of their hearts, yes? Uh, no. Sponge Bob sells toys.

"I want that," my son would say on seeing a much hyped toy. Then another commercial. "I want that." And another commercial. "I want that." And so on. All day. Of course, we employed the usual parent artillery: uncommitted speculation ("We'll see...."), disbelief ("You don't even know what THAT is!"), outright rejection ("Not in my house") and sarcasm ("Of course you want that, honey. You want everything.")

Not pleasant, but not unendurable. I take it as part of the challenge of raising children in a crazed consumer culture. I won't shelter my kids from the ugliness of capitalism; I would rather arm them with it. That said, I cannot endorse the trial-by-fire so casually described by a toy industry consultant:

Gottlieb also contends that it's good for children to encounter toy ads — even in cases where products later turn out to be disappointments.

"It teaches, for very low stakes, how to navigate in our consumer culture," he said.

"They are going to have to spend the rest of their lives listening to every kind of marketing approach, and childhood is where they will learn to cope with it."

As for the economic pressure on parents, Gottlieb sounds a fatalistic note.

"Believe me, there are families with much bigger issues on their plates right now then worrying about whether their child will be unhappy because they did not get a particular toy," Gottlieb wrote in his "Out of the Toy Box" blog. "Delivering disappointment goes with the job of parenting."

Wow. That's right. Why change the culture? Why exercise some of that "corporate responsibility" so often given a special bullet point in mission statements? Why look where you're stepping when rampaging through the store to get that useless crap for 50% off!? 

Why listen to parents (who, um, do the purchasing, hell-o!) when they ask you to target ads to them and not their children? Apparently that is too "nanny state" or "paternalistic" for champions of "free enterprise" like Gottlieb. Better to exploit a child's natural greed and let him or her nag the parent. Corporations don't want your input, silly consumer; they want your money. Prepare to get trampled.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

Thanksgiving Means Serious Cartoon Delayage, Dude

Right, so I actually have a bunch of scripts written for cartoons. But the trick is to translate those scribbled words into polished drawings. And that requires a precious commodity we call "time", of which I currently have a negative account balance, thanks to children home from school and this national past time of consuming giant portions of food in honor of treaties broken by European invaders of the North American continent.

So it looks like cartoons will appear in full force next week. Plenty of 'em! Shaking righteous fists of fury at the machine! Deconstructing our bourgeois constructs of normality! Lobbing gobs of epatiér at the dominant paradigm! And probably making snarky comments about shit that pisses me off. Ya know, the uszh.

BTW - "paradigm" should always be pronounced "para-diggum." At least if you want to be taken seriously in polite company.

Blogged with the Flock Browser

In Contempt (11/20/2008): The Beast Cometh

Go ahead. Click the image. What's the worst that could happen?

Within Glamorous Extremes

Last Tuesday I posted "No Excuses", a cartoon juxtaposing the post-election meme about African-American possibilities with the realities of systemic racism. Documentarian Byron Hurt recently released "Barack and Curtis: Manhood, Power and Respect", a ten-minute film making a similar juxtaposition between the success of Barack Obama and the life of another popular black figure, 50 Cent, who has led a more difficult life plagued by crime, drugs and violence. As quoted by Reuters, Hurt recognizes both the difficulties confronting young black men and the hope that Obama's example inspires among them:

"The only way that he (Obama) can make a substantial change is if he addresses things like poverty and joblessness and those deep pervasive factors that affect black boys and men," said film maker Byron Hurt.

...

Even though Obama's election was not a panacea for black men, the importance of the example he sets could not be underestimated, Hurt said in an interview.

"The boost that he has given black men is more symbolic than anything else," said Hurt. "But I don't want to undervalue symbolism and image. When I see images of Barack Obama in a baseball hat taking his daughters to school ... that is a powerful image."

In his film, Hurt shows a wide range of analytic voices commenting on the racist culture that has shaped black male identity, and how everyday black men, poor and middle class, straight and gay, educated and robbed of education, create their identities in response to it. There are more nuances presented here than at first suggested by the dramatic contrast between Obama and 50 Cent, and if you haven't viewed the film, do so.

Fat So Funny

Election's over, so what's a political cartoonist to do? It's not like there are any really important issues to consider. Could do something about the Congo or Rwanda. But, really, this is America: those places might as well be Oz, for all we care.

I know! There's a new study about obesity! Several studies! Oh boy! Now political cartoonists can do what comes naturally: mock fat people, draw a newspaper with a headline and let a bad pun do the work.



Yes, apparently there is some study about teens getting fatter or something. Causes? Remedies? Flaws in the study? How studies like these fit in a larger culture neurotic about physical appearance, hyper-consumption, and fast food? Who cares? Let's mock fat people — and teens, too!



Ha ha! Get it! Teens only want to get drunk!

But you know what's missing? A tie-in with popular culture. It doesn't have to be relevant, or insightful, or even current. It just has to stimulate some region of the brain that stores random images osmotically absorbed from the general culture environment. Hey, Bat-man!



Good thing the wind is blowing that newspaper high above the skyscrapers in such a way that we can read it. Otherwise I would have no idea what the hell this cartoon has to do with real life.

You know, you don't have to be a hack cartoonist to squeeze out turds like these. You can be a well-respected, intelligent, and talented lion of the field like the great Clay Bennett, whose work I generally love:



Apparently Americans like to shovel their food served on plates decorated with the Presidential seal. Or something. It's kinda abstract, really — so let's go back to mocking fat youth!





Wow, okay, that's enough. I could probably dig up more. If you feel masochistic, cruise through Slate.com's health section of political cartoons and you will find 476 (as of today) that deal with general health issues, the majority of them focused on obesity. All of them will exploit some stereotype of fatness, teenagers or youth culture, consumption and gluttony for the sake of a cheap punchline and at the expense of insight, compassion, intelligence, context, and originality. As my friend and political cartoonist Barry Deutsch has pointed out many times, fat people are easy targets, perhaps the last "safe" target (along with the mentally ill and poor Southern whites) for comedians and other humorists to treat as an "other", that slightly less-than-human category of people who deviate from The Norm and thus deserve mockery and marginalization. Of course, if these studies are true, then more Americans are getting fatter, so these cartoons act as a way of policing our behavior, inducing guilt and shame for being all-consuming gluttons. And there the conversation ends. But I'll let Barry have the last word, because he puts it so well:

The reason fat activists have formed a movement is that it’s unjust to be denied good medical care because we’re fat; we think it’s unjust that we can get fired for being fat; we think it’s unjust that we face job and wage discrimination because we’re fat; we think it’s unjust that we can be charged more for basic services (like insurance) because we’re fat; it’s unjust that people glance at us and assume that we’re lazy and care nothing for ourselves; and yes, although you’ll sneer at this as “the right to feel good,” it’s unjust that fat people are taught from childhood to think of themselves as deficient, wrong, and disgusting.

Anit-fat bigotry isn’t wrong because it’s the same as facing lynch mobs. It’s wrong because it’s unjust. It’s unjust because we’re human and don’t deserve to be treated as second-class people because of the shape of our bodies.

Premature Re-appellation

A majority of students at my daughter's K-8 school want to rename the school after President-elect Barack Obama, an improvement over the admittedly awkward "Clark K-8 @ Binnsmead". Katie thinks this is a great idea. I am not too sure.

Yes, I voted for the guy. And I hope he'll live up to his promise, though I have several reservations even if he does, mostly grounded in worries about his hawkish attitude towards Afghanistan.

But that's not relevant here. I demur because usually we name schools after Presidents have left office, not, say, before they are even sworn in. We also honor non-presidents, too, such as historic activists like Martin Luther King or Cesar Chavez. Perhaps Obama's ground-breaking win as an African-American candidate qualifies, he has already inspired millions of people, bringing many first-time voters into the process and running on a mostly positive message of transforming politics.

However, history isn't over yet. Being the eternal ray of sunshine that I am, I asked my daughter, "What if in two years Obama's presidency is bogged down in Afghanistan? Or there's a big sex scandal?"

"A what scandal?!" she exclaimed.

Jenn walked away from the dinner table, saying, "Go ahead, Daddy. Explain that one."

Fortunately Katie didn't want an answer. She and her fellow students have already voiced their support of Obama through their choice of chocolate cupcakes over McCain's vanilla, so they are convinced that changing the name of the school in favor of Obama would be a good move. "It will get lots of news stories!" Katie argued, thrilled that two local news stations have reported this possibility.

Jenn thinks a lot of deserving local talent will get short-shrift: Linus Pauling, Ken Kesey, John Reed, Raymond Carver.... Mostly white and male. But they are dead, which is actually a stipulation of the re-naming rules. Ursula K. LeGuin and Avel Gordly (Oregon's first black female legislator) will have to wait for the Reaper to take his due before becoming eligible for such an honor.

I suggested Kwame Toure. Any takers?

In Contempt (11/11/2008): No Excuses

Click image to embiggen it.

Does Anyone at the Wall Street Journal Know How to Read?

Former Representative Dick Armey (what a name) shakes his fist at "compassionate conservatism" in the WSJ, declaring Bush's so-called political philosophy a "mistake." If by that term Armey means "incoherent ruse," he's right. But, no, this is the Republican argument that the party, once in power, has lost its way; that its corporate-loving, anti-government ideology is not inherently corrupting. As with Lynndey England and Charles Graner at Abu Ghraib, the fault of abuse lies with a few "bad apples."

What sticks out to me is this bit of Armey's dismay that the "truth" (my irony quotes) about Obama's tax policy proposals has not got out:

A Rasmussen poll of Oct. 30 reported that 31% of likely voters believed that "taxes will go down" under an Obama administration versus just 11% under a McCain administration. Shockingly, 19% of self-described conservatives believed Mr. Obama would cut taxes; only 12% thought Mr. McCain would.

Perhaps this minority of conservatives believed this way because, I dunno — they read nonpartisan reports like this from the Tax Policy Center:

Compared to current law, TPC estimates the Obama plan would cut taxes by $2.9 trillion from 2009-2018. McCain would reduce taxes by nearly $4.2 trillion. Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households.

That's just from the abstract. (Emphass-is mine.) The entire report is available in annoying PDF form (seriously, is HTML really that hard?) if you feel up to reading it. I know I may be assuming a lot, but perhaps these shockingly 19% of conservatives take tax policy seriously, really want tax cuts, and really want them for average schmucks like, say, Joe Not-a-Real-Plumber. So what did they do? They took time to find non-partisan reports (after all, the media has a "liberal bias") and actually read them.

This inability to read has probably affected Armey's grasp of history.

What will be the fate of free market capitalism in America? Will the 2008 election look more like 1932 -- or 1992?

On both occasions, Republican presidents had abandoned their party's principles for bigger government policies that exacerbated difficult economic times. On both occasions, Democrats took control, largely hijacking the small-government, fiscally responsible rhetoric of their opponents. Of course, FDR's election ushered in the New Deal, the most dramatic expansion of government power in American history, together with policy changes and economic uncertainty that inhibited investment and growth and locked in massive unemployment for nearly a generation.

Say whatty-what? More of that ole-time revisionism. Oh, wait - to revise a theory based on new information is legitimate. To turn reality upside-down to fit the narrow confines of one's ideology, what is that called again? Sticking one's head up one's ass? Close enough.

Kevin Phillips on Bill Moyers' Journal

BILL MOYERS: There's an argument apparently going on within Obama's inner circle even as we speak. Some of his advisors say it would be politically and economically disastrous if those billions of taxpayer dollars in the bailout were just to sit in the vaults of the bank. On the other hand, the Wall Street and the corporate types, according to the press this morning, are pushing back. They say leaving the money in the banks would help stabilize them and prevent a further crisis in the credit market. What do you think?

KEVIN PHILLIPS: Well, I think basically that's the most screaming set of self-interested analyses that I can remember. When this thing was passed, they basically had people on television saying that if this bailout doesn't go through, you're not going to be able to get money out of your ATMs, all sorts of dire things were going to happen. And now it turns out that, well, maybe they weren't expected to spend that money after all. Maybe that was all a great camouflage outfit.

Because what they want to do with the money and seemingly it's okay by a lot of the people involved is use it for bonuses, for dividends, for sitting around so they feel comfortable, for mergers. It's mind boggling. They created a panic psychology, which has taken a lot of people's 401(k)'s and savings accounts and pension opportunities and pointed them right toward the toilet. And now they got their bailout, scaring everybody to death, and what do they want to do with it? Nothing.

Full transcript at pbs.org.

Katrina Vanden Heuvel Has a List

As you may expect, liberal Democrats have a long list of actions and programs they would like President Barack Obama execute once he assumes office. Katrina Vanden Heuvel proposes a realistic progressive agenda for the first 100 days (in some cases, first 1,000).

David Sirota proposes a change of attitude — a growth of backbone, if you will — among progressive Democrats wielding political power.

To meet the challenge, Democrats have to abandon their worst habits.

They must, for instance, acknowledge their progressive mandate, rather than denying it like Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) did on Tuesday. "This is not a mandate for a political party or an ideology," he fearfully told reporters.

They should also retire the Innocent Bystander Fable -- the myth about being powerless onlookers. Democrats first cited this fable as reason the Iraq War continued during their congressional majority -- expecting the country to forget that Congress can halt war funding. Today, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) says "there's not much we can do" to amend the sputtering bank bailout. In 2009, such mendacity will metastasize from banal dishonesty into grist for scathing comedy-show punch lines.

Democrats need to discard other lies, too -- especially those about Bill Clinton. To hear pundits tell it, Clinton's first-term pitfalls underscore why the next administration should avoid "governing in a way that is, or seems, skewed to the left," as the Washington Post's Ruth Marcus most recently asserted. History, of course, proves the opposite. Recounting Clinton's early years to Politico.com, a lobbyist correctly noted that the new president didn't move left -- he pushed conservative policies like NAFTA, thereby demoralizing his base and helping Republicans take Congress.

If anyone has any reservations that this is somehow "too radical" or "too partisan" or whatever, Paul Krugman explains that Obama has, in fact, a strong mandate for a progressive agenda:

About the political argument: Anyone who doubts that we’ve had a major political realignment should look at what’s happened to Congress. After the 2004 election, there were many declarations that we’d entered a long-term, perhaps permanent era of Republican dominance. Since then, Democrats have won back-to-back victories, picking up at least 12 Senate seats and more than 50 House seats. They now have bigger majorities in both houses than the G.O.P. ever achieved in its 12-year reign.

Bear in mind, also, that this year’s presidential election was a clear referendum on political philosophies — and the progressive philosophy won.

Maybe the best way to highlight the importance of that fact is to contrast this year’s campaign with what happened four years ago. In 2004, President Bush concealed his real agenda. He basically ran as the nation’s defender against gay married terrorists, leaving even his supporters nonplussed when he announced, soon after the election was over, that his first priority was Social Security privatization. That wasn’t what people thought they had been voting for, and the privatization campaign quickly devolved from juggernaut to farce.

This year, however, Mr. Obama ran on a platform of guaranteed health care and tax breaks for the middle class, paid for with higher taxes on the affluent. John McCain denounced his opponent as a socialist and a “redistributor,” but America voted for him anyway. That’s a real mandate.

All of this sounds great. Next week I will be posting a cartoon on unrealistic expectations I have heard liberals heap on Obama's shoulders in only the last couple days. Yet there is nothing in the articles I link to in this post that I believe is unfeasable. So long as Democrats take Sirota's advice, of course. Perhaps the kind of disappointment many of us have felt in the recent past has prompted Obama to appoint Rahm Emmanuel as his bull dog. Cross yer fingaz!

Sketchbook: Watching the Election 2008

I created another page of sketches drawn while watching election coverage on CNN last night. Enjoy.

In Contempt (11/5/2008): One Step Back

Click the image to expand to a legible size.

Whew

There are any number of reasons to celebrate. First and foremost, an African-American has achieved the presidency. It has not been easy, a two-year-long slog against some of the most vicious smears we have heard in modern elections at a cost of some 700 million dollars. Obama has achieved all of this while maintaining admirable coolness of head, speaking to people not only in the soaring rhetoric for which he has earned fame but more importantly by respecting the intelligence of voters. He spoke to us as adults. He appealed to common cause. He campaigned in states that his fellow Democrats had previously written off, as if other voters mattered beyond "the base." He ran a ground-and-internet operation that has changed politics in a more populist direction, motivating millions of people to vote who had never voted before.

I have a long list of concerns about war, the economy, health care and so on. But there is plenty of time for that - plenty of cartoons to draw on those subjects in the future. For now I am relieved. The rest of the world has been watching this election, wondering if we have learned anything from the mistakes we have made. The real test of that is coming. The election of Barack Obama demonstrates that we have the potential to renew ourselves at home and abroad.

Election Day at Elementary School

To celebrate our democratic ritual, my daughter's class had cupcakes: chocolate for Obama and, yes, vanilla for McCain. She reports that there were a lot of vanilla cupcakes left untouched.

Not red and blue. Chocolate and vanilla. Even here in über-librul Portland, shit is fucked up.

Election 2008 Sketchbook Page

Above is a sample of sketches I have done recently on the election and posted to a special Election 2008 Sketchbook Page. I am too freaked out right now about all the things that could go wrong today, so I can't really think straight. So in lieu of an actual political cartoon, please enjoy these sketches. A real cartoon will appear Thursday.

While We Are Sleeping

Three more days until this election over, and since I voted last Sunday and dropped my ballot off at the library two days later, the wait could not be more tedious. After Tuesday most people will tune out of politics and even the politically interested will pay attention to the highlights: inauguration speech, showdowns between Democrats and Republicans over health care, the impending troop escalation in Afghanistan, and whatever soap opera/scandal becomes news cycle fodder.

But not everyone is sleeping. In fact, local tax activist Bill Sizemore, who already has five initiatives on the Oregon ballot this year (and they all suck), is busy preparing initiatives for the 2010 ballot. Quothe The Oregonian:

Sizemore has filed 13 initiatives for the next general election, including ideas voters have already rejected and another they will decide Tuesday.

His proposals for 2010 would curb the reach of labor unions, suspend land use laws for building homes, grant a homestead tax exemption for seniors and give juries the power to ignore "bad" laws.

The early filings show how initiative petitions, once a seasonal venture in Oregon, have turned into a full-time business, especially for Sizemore.

"His main goal is to keep filing dozens of initiatives for which he gets paid a lot of money," says Scott Moore, a spokesman for Defend Oregon, a coalition fighting Sizemore's current measures.

"As long as this is his career, and it seems to be a fairly good one for him, he'll keep filing no matter what voters say."

If you don't live in Oregon, you may think, "Well, sucks to be you, Boregonian, but no skin off my nose." But if you live in a state with a citizen initiative process — a concept that, in principle, I support — you may already be aware of a similar professional initiative filer cluttering up your ballot. He or she may be an opportunist schmuck like Oregon's Sizemore. Or perhaps a persistent fundie values organization similar to the Oregon Citizens Alliance, responsible for several homophobic ballot initiatives, most of which failed until 2004 when they succeeded in denying same-sex couple equal access to marriage rights. Or maybe you have a Law and Order twit like Kevin Mannix, an Oregonian who usually fails to attain public office, but that has not inhibited him for announcing a future run for U.S. Congress or from putting four stinky initiatives on our ballot.

Here's the deal with these people. As noted, they mostly fail. And they keep coming back. But it's not just tenacity, or gumption, or a combination of crack cocaine and Red Bull that keeps them going. It's how much money and energy it costs labor unions, teachers, social justice groups, environmental organizations and ethnic and sexual minorities as they fight to defeat these reactionary initiatives that threaten the right to organize, to get a decent education, to protect the land and water from over-exploitation and pollution, or to simply function as a full human being with dignity and self-respect. They are the anti-ACORN in every sense of the term.

Bill Sizemore and his ilk make a handsome living by making everyone else crazy, lowering public discourse and scapegoating the vulnerable. And they don't have to succeed every time. They only need to score once. Then suddenly there is less money for education or programs for the needy; suddenly our prisons are overflowing with petty criminals. Suddenly you don't have the right to get married. And these guys press on. Not all of them will succumb to their internal corruptions like the OCA. Not even getting found guilty of racketeering and a million dollar fine has stopped Sizemore.

So if at all possible, don't tune out after Tuesday.