This is bizarre. This morning, Dec. 20, I received an email from former San Diegan Donna Belk, who now lives in Philadelphia. She liked my column in the old San Diego Union, she said, and she cut one out and saved it. "I read it frequently when I need to be reminded that maybe humanity isn't completely worthless. I read it this morning after listening to a local radio DJ hyping the end of the Mayan calendar. Maybe this is the scenario they envisioned too." The column is reproduced below; it was published in 1982, 30 years ago.
Just after 7 o'clock on a fine spring morning a voice came to mankind out of a clear blue sky.
"The world will be brought to an end before there is another dawn," it said. "This will be your last day on Earth. Enjoy it."
Despite the convincing delivery, more than a few played devil's advocate and inquired of the messenger, "How can we know that it's true?"
"Watch the moon," came the reply.
The full moon at that hour rode low in the pastel western sky, pale and vulnerable. At 7:15 it burst into flame and burned furiously for a few minutes before exploding into a sparkling cloud that bloomed above the horizon like a silver rose.
Mankind, after a few stunning moments of silence, broke into an accusatory buzz. In the following 90 minutes, blame was laid at many feet. But the bitterness was hollow, because it was generally recognized that blame no longer mattered.
The day was warm and cloudless. Chickens laid. Cows gave milk. Larks sang brightly in fields flushed with the greening promise of a good harvest. Their song drifted on the silence and blended with other melodies of the planet in a chorus not quite like anyone had ever heard, though it was only their regular Wednesday tune. Not that anyone noticed it was Wednesday.
Here at home, in a 9 a.m. joint session, Congress declared it a national holiday and went into recess. Some thought was given to moving the President to a place of safety, but he declined this notion and stayed in the White House.
At 10:10, the President canceled a military alert that had existed since 7:17 and ordered a complete military stand-down. An air marshal in Moscow, monitoring the order, withdrew a top-secret scenario from a safe, leafed through it briefly, and with a shrug tossed it toward a wastebasket. The file flew open, scattering target lists across the floor. Radio transmissions had switched automatically to Civil Defense bands, but by noon most stations had resumed program control. The television networks devoted almost all of their air time to coverage of the story. Several radio stations began count-downs of "The Top 100 All-Time Hits." There were no commercial interruptions.
Afternoon newspapers, complete with baseball standings, hit the streets with full-page photos of the dying moon, while editors of the morning dailies tried to decide what to do.
Little panic was reported. Churches were crowded, business districts deserted, skeleton crews sufficed. Some looting was reported, though it was half-hearted, as the stores no longer contained anything of value. Supermarkets dropped their prices to cost. The mail went through. Telephone lines became choked with good-byes.
In residential districts, families gathered their children around them. Reporters there found a mood that grew almost celebratory, like the Fourth of July. There were cookouts everywhere, and adults and children ran through sprinklers and wiggled their toes in the grass and laughed like there was no tomorrow.
In the absence of the future, the present acquired a curious unfamiliarity, as if it were being experienced for the first time. In this vivid light, oranges and apples became miracles, and grimy little boys works of art.
The adventure so absorbed the adventurers that, toward late afternoon, the past became disembodied as well, estranging indifference and leaving only the here and now and each other to embrace. Between brothers, the embarrassed silence of strangers melted into familiar laughter, and daughter looked into mother's eyes to find they were not blue, but hazel.
Shadows lengthened. Mankind forced a glance over its shoulder at the lowering, growing sun. Down a rosy cirrus stepladder it slipped toward the night, until for an instant a man's shadow could escape the Earth and cast itself on infinity.
The great warm ball dwindled to an orange puddle that clung like a tear on the horizon. And then, for the last time, it ran out.
Mankind watched until the afterglow was gone, then turned inward beneath the moonless black void to wait. The networks promised to stay on the air until the very end, offering commentary on where we had been and how we got here, and keeping a watch out for the first signs of the final event.
Eventually, but sooner than might have been expected, a faint glow appeared in the eastern sky. It grew steadily, pushing the night back like a shroud. It was a fragile blue glow, the observatories noted, and mankind watched in awe.
Presently the stars disappeared, and the entire sky was aglow. Then a blinding shaft of light exploded through a low crack on the horizon and pierced the sky with the glittering brilliance of a fiery diamond.
"Why, this is a dawn!" the observatories declared, and the networks flashed the word.
"What's happening?" breathed mankind. The voice replied, "I changed my mind."
December 20, 2012
December 19, 2012
The Right Wing, starring Mitch, John and Mr. President
Sen. McConnell's office. Speaker Boehner enters, stern-faced. He has just given a brief statement to the press, critical of the President's refusal to consider Plan B.
"John," says Mitch, "this 'Plan B' idea has been inspired from start to finish."
"Thanks," says John, his face relaxing a bit. "My Indiana grandpa told me, 'Boy, if you want to split a rail, you have to have a rail to split.' His wisdom has worked for me before."
"So this time, Plan B is the rail," says Mitch, remembering John's confidence on Monday that the Times would characterize it as "a scaled-back" plan, made more palatable to House Republicans by raising the tax-increase threshold to people making $1 million.
"I have to say, it's going well," says John. "Of course we knew the President would threaten to veto it immediately."
"I thought the tone of your reply to him – 'bizarre and irrational' – was spot-on," says Mitch. "It kills two birds with one stone: distances us from the President with words that will energize the tea partiers."
John smiles. "Well, and then, Norquist hops on board, too." He read from the Post: "Grover Norquist, the longtime anti-tax advocate, had blessed Mr. Boehner's plan as compliant with his 'taxpayer protection plan.' Norquist seemed to bend his longstanding, absolutist principles to issue the endorsement."
"Brilliant," says Mitch. "The tea partiers are going to vote 'no,' no matter what anyone says, while the centrists, the 'New GOP,' can vote 'for,' and cite Norquist's new 'relevance to tax debates,' the Post says, which is exactly what he wants."
"By this time tomorrow," says John, "the rail should be split: the New GOP accepting Plan B, the tea partiers rejecting. Then the whole thing goes away when the President vetoes it, we get back to serious business, and the tea partiers are split away from the New GOP, and headed toward irrelevancy before the year is even out."
Mitch scratches his head. "You know, I thought it would take us a year to get the tea partiers out of the picture, which had to happen before we could move forward with the New GOP's 'A New Era for America.' And now it's almost done! I don't know how it could have happened any better."
"It is time we had some good news around here," says John.
"John," says Mitch, "this 'Plan B' idea has been inspired from start to finish."
"Thanks," says John, his face relaxing a bit. "My Indiana grandpa told me, 'Boy, if you want to split a rail, you have to have a rail to split.' His wisdom has worked for me before."
"So this time, Plan B is the rail," says Mitch, remembering John's confidence on Monday that the Times would characterize it as "a scaled-back" plan, made more palatable to House Republicans by raising the tax-increase threshold to people making $1 million.
"I have to say, it's going well," says John. "Of course we knew the President would threaten to veto it immediately."
"I thought the tone of your reply to him – 'bizarre and irrational' – was spot-on," says Mitch. "It kills two birds with one stone: distances us from the President with words that will energize the tea partiers."
John smiles. "Well, and then, Norquist hops on board, too." He read from the Post: "Grover Norquist, the longtime anti-tax advocate, had blessed Mr. Boehner's plan as compliant with his 'taxpayer protection plan.' Norquist seemed to bend his longstanding, absolutist principles to issue the endorsement."
"Brilliant," says Mitch. "The tea partiers are going to vote 'no,' no matter what anyone says, while the centrists, the 'New GOP,' can vote 'for,' and cite Norquist's new 'relevance to tax debates,' the Post says, which is exactly what he wants."
"By this time tomorrow," says John, "the rail should be split: the New GOP accepting Plan B, the tea partiers rejecting. Then the whole thing goes away when the President vetoes it, we get back to serious business, and the tea partiers are split away from the New GOP, and headed toward irrelevancy before the year is even out."
Mitch scratches his head. "You know, I thought it would take us a year to get the tea partiers out of the picture, which had to happen before we could move forward with the New GOP's 'A New Era for America.' And now it's almost done! I don't know how it could have happened any better."
"It is time we had some good news around here," says John.
December 07, 2012
The Right Wing, starring Mitch, John and Mr. President
The Speaker's office.
"Mitch, what do you have on Jim DeMint?" he says.
"Nothing," says Mitch.
"You mean you didn't strong-arm him to resign?"
"Of course not. But now that you mention it . . . "
"No, no, I'm sorry I said it. But it was just such a stroke of luck . . . "
Rep. Ryan appears in the doorway. "Gentlemen! It's a great day for The New . . . The New . . . The New Era in America!"
Mitch, with his old, stern "one term for Obama" look, says, "Go ahead, Paul, go ahead and say it."
"Where Obamacare becomes . . . aiiiyeeee!"
"He's not ready yet," says Mitch, studying the chair-hurdling athleticism of Rep. Ryan's retreat.
"Well, it took me a few tries too," smiles the Speaker, remembering. He turns to the window, spreads his arms wide and says, easily, as if from a podium, "Where Obamacare becomes Americare!"
"Whoa," mutters Mitch, lifting his chin in the direction of the window, as if sniffing the wind. "Can you feel Lindsey Graham drifting toward the center?"
"It's like David Brooks wrote this morning about the GOP," says John: "'They are moving in the right direction and moving fast. These are first steps, and encouraging ones.' 2016, here we come!"
"Mitch, what do you have on Jim DeMint?" he says.
"Nothing," says Mitch.
"You mean you didn't strong-arm him to resign?"
"Of course not. But now that you mention it . . . "
"No, no, I'm sorry I said it. But it was just such a stroke of luck . . . "
Rep. Ryan appears in the doorway. "Gentlemen! It's a great day for The New . . . The New . . . The New Era in America!"
Mitch, with his old, stern "one term for Obama" look, says, "Go ahead, Paul, go ahead and say it."
"Where Obamacare becomes . . . aiiiyeeee!"
"He's not ready yet," says Mitch, studying the chair-hurdling athleticism of Rep. Ryan's retreat.
"Well, it took me a few tries too," smiles the Speaker, remembering. He turns to the window, spreads his arms wide and says, easily, as if from a podium, "Where Obamacare becomes Americare!"
"Whoa," mutters Mitch, lifting his chin in the direction of the window, as if sniffing the wind. "Can you feel Lindsey Graham drifting toward the center?"
"It's like David Brooks wrote this morning about the GOP," says John: "'They are moving in the right direction and moving fast. These are first steps, and encouraging ones.' 2016, here we come!"
December 05, 2012
The Right Wing, starring Mitch, John and Mr. President
The Speaker's office.
"This is going a lot better than I thought it would," says John.
"Maybe too good," says Sen. McConnell, reading a Sarah Palin newspaper quote: "John Boehner is a decent fellow." "Our biggest job," says Mitch, "may turn out to stay in control of the thing."
"Oh," says John. "This is for you." He hands Mitch a 5x7 plain wood picture frame. "Lucretia made these up for us."
Mitch reads the framed material, printed in a formal font.
"The New Real GOP
1. Take the real GOP back from the tea party.
2. Meet Obama halfway to achieve 'A New Era for America,' real progress in the next four years in the economy, health care, immigration reform, women's issues.
3. Claim credit for the 'New Era' in the 2016 campaign.
4. Nominate a viable presidential candidate for a change.
5. Crush the tea party."
"Lucretia thought it would be a good idea for us to have the guiding principles handy, just to look at once in a while," says John. "We're going to be working in a huge field of weeds, all the details that go with the fiscal cliff, the economy, health care, and the rest. We don't want to lose sight of the main goal."
"I can see that," says Mitch. "It will also be helpful when events start happening so fast, as they have been this week. Everyone seems so hell-bent on decontaminating the party, after the election. We need to have something" – he brandishes the frame – "to help us keep our eye on the real prize."
"Yes," says John. "We need to stay in control of the rogues like Roskam," referring to Illinois GOP Rep. Peter Roskam, who appealed to President Obama "to rise above partisanship. President Obama has an unbelievable opportunity to be a transformational president, that is to bring the country together."
"The way we frame it," looking at the frame again, "is to say the President is going to transform the GOP, bring the party together. Unbelievable as that sounds."
"This is going a lot better than I thought it would," says John.
"Maybe too good," says Sen. McConnell, reading a Sarah Palin newspaper quote: "John Boehner is a decent fellow." "Our biggest job," says Mitch, "may turn out to stay in control of the thing."
"Oh," says John. "This is for you." He hands Mitch a 5x7 plain wood picture frame. "Lucretia made these up for us."
Mitch reads the framed material, printed in a formal font.
"The New Real GOP
1. Take the real GOP back from the tea party.
2. Meet Obama halfway to achieve 'A New Era for America,' real progress in the next four years in the economy, health care, immigration reform, women's issues.
3. Claim credit for the 'New Era' in the 2016 campaign.
4. Nominate a viable presidential candidate for a change.
5. Crush the tea party."
"Lucretia thought it would be a good idea for us to have the guiding principles handy, just to look at once in a while," says John. "We're going to be working in a huge field of weeds, all the details that go with the fiscal cliff, the economy, health care, and the rest. We don't want to lose sight of the main goal."
"I can see that," says Mitch. "It will also be helpful when events start happening so fast, as they have been this week. Everyone seems so hell-bent on decontaminating the party, after the election. We need to have something" – he brandishes the frame – "to help us keep our eye on the real prize."
"Yes," says John. "We need to stay in control of the rogues like Roskam," referring to Illinois GOP Rep. Peter Roskam, who appealed to President Obama "to rise above partisanship. President Obama has an unbelievable opportunity to be a transformational president, that is to bring the country together."
"The way we frame it," looking at the frame again, "is to say the President is going to transform the GOP, bring the party together. Unbelievable as that sounds."
December 03, 2012
Finding peace at Christmastime
(Every year, in the first week of December, I post this blog again, hoping someone will find it useful.)
"Peace on Earth” this Christmas of 2012?
Don’t think so. So many Christmas cards I’ve mailed, promising “Peace on Earth.” Hasn’t happened in my lifetime. I have seen Christmas cards in family scrapbooks from the 1940s, including 1943, the year I was born. They promised “Peace on Earth,” in the middle of World War II, with the first tactical atomic explosion at Hiroshima still two years away. I haven’t and wouldn’t be able to document it, but I’ll bet Earth has not had a moment of peace since then.
Maybe if we narrowed it down. “Peace in the Christian World.” Nope. “Peace in America.” Daily murders, violence and crime, in streets, in movies and on TV. “Peace in California.” Road rage capital of the world. “Peace in San Diego.” Nope. Daily mayhem. “Peace in La Mesa.” La Mesa is where I live, and we do have our quiet moments, but why would I offer that as your Christmas wish? “Peace at my house.” Now we’re getting close, as long as we don’t watch the news, but peace at my house doesn’t do you much good, and your good is my wish.
No, once again this Christmas, peace anywhere on Earth has to be portable, and that peace is achievable. Insurance follows the car, and peace follows the person. “Peace in your mind” is totally possible this Christmas Day, or if not this Christmas (it takes a little work), then by Christmas 2006. If peace follows all the people who come to sit down at your Christmas dinner, then you will have “Peace at the Christmas dinner table.”
At many Christmas dinner tables, though, you might as well ask for “Peace on Earth.”
So many people go through life wired with buttons to be pushed. Such buttons can be pushed from a range of a thousand miles. All it takes is the right word traveling through the air. Get a dozen button-wired people at a Christmas dinner table, and watch out.
The buttons can be unwired. All you have to do is take back the power you have given to some other person to push it. These can be very important and powerful people: mothers, fathers, etc. But it isn’t their power they use to push your buttons. It is yours. You gave it to them years ago, probably starting in childhood. With that power, they can push your buttons at any time and make you feel small, cheap, insignificant, selfish, ungrateful, undesirable, inferior, a lifelong waster of every opportunity you ever had at achieving the greatness that you were born for, if you had only listened to the person leaning with all his or her weight against the thumb pressing your button.
You gave that person that power and weight, and you can take it back. All it takes is forgiveness. Appropriate, at the Christmas season, and the figure it celebrates, that the route to peace involves forgiveness. But it works. I don’t know exactly how it works, and it takes some work and willingness to get there, but when you forgive, you take power back, and peace is there waiting. Forgiveness, power, peace, freedom and surrender are all different spellings of the same human condition: happiness.
When you are ready, and it very well could require some professional guidance, you come to a point where you simply say in your mind to a person: “I forgive you.” At that instant, the button becomes unwired. The person may say the same things as before, words that for years you felt as sandpaper in your ears or an arrow through your heart. But now the words pass right through you and out into space. Left behind is a feeling of liberation you have known only in your dreams.
You haven’t said a word to the person about forgiveness. The person knows something has happened, though, because the button doesn’t work anymore. So he or she quits pushing, and it is a relief. It was your power, but it required their energy to keep their thumbs on your buttons all those years, and at some point, inside themselves, they will feel relieved.
But this Christmas story about reachable peace is not about them; it is about you. It is a true story.
"Peace on Earth” this Christmas of 2012?
Don’t think so. So many Christmas cards I’ve mailed, promising “Peace on Earth.” Hasn’t happened in my lifetime. I have seen Christmas cards in family scrapbooks from the 1940s, including 1943, the year I was born. They promised “Peace on Earth,” in the middle of World War II, with the first tactical atomic explosion at Hiroshima still two years away. I haven’t and wouldn’t be able to document it, but I’ll bet Earth has not had a moment of peace since then.
Maybe if we narrowed it down. “Peace in the Christian World.” Nope. “Peace in America.” Daily murders, violence and crime, in streets, in movies and on TV. “Peace in California.” Road rage capital of the world. “Peace in San Diego.” Nope. Daily mayhem. “Peace in La Mesa.” La Mesa is where I live, and we do have our quiet moments, but why would I offer that as your Christmas wish? “Peace at my house.” Now we’re getting close, as long as we don’t watch the news, but peace at my house doesn’t do you much good, and your good is my wish.
No, once again this Christmas, peace anywhere on Earth has to be portable, and that peace is achievable. Insurance follows the car, and peace follows the person. “Peace in your mind” is totally possible this Christmas Day, or if not this Christmas (it takes a little work), then by Christmas 2006. If peace follows all the people who come to sit down at your Christmas dinner, then you will have “Peace at the Christmas dinner table.”
At many Christmas dinner tables, though, you might as well ask for “Peace on Earth.”
So many people go through life wired with buttons to be pushed. Such buttons can be pushed from a range of a thousand miles. All it takes is the right word traveling through the air. Get a dozen button-wired people at a Christmas dinner table, and watch out.
The buttons can be unwired. All you have to do is take back the power you have given to some other person to push it. These can be very important and powerful people: mothers, fathers, etc. But it isn’t their power they use to push your buttons. It is yours. You gave it to them years ago, probably starting in childhood. With that power, they can push your buttons at any time and make you feel small, cheap, insignificant, selfish, ungrateful, undesirable, inferior, a lifelong waster of every opportunity you ever had at achieving the greatness that you were born for, if you had only listened to the person leaning with all his or her weight against the thumb pressing your button.
You gave that person that power and weight, and you can take it back. All it takes is forgiveness. Appropriate, at the Christmas season, and the figure it celebrates, that the route to peace involves forgiveness. But it works. I don’t know exactly how it works, and it takes some work and willingness to get there, but when you forgive, you take power back, and peace is there waiting. Forgiveness, power, peace, freedom and surrender are all different spellings of the same human condition: happiness.
When you are ready, and it very well could require some professional guidance, you come to a point where you simply say in your mind to a person: “I forgive you.” At that instant, the button becomes unwired. The person may say the same things as before, words that for years you felt as sandpaper in your ears or an arrow through your heart. But now the words pass right through you and out into space. Left behind is a feeling of liberation you have known only in your dreams.
You haven’t said a word to the person about forgiveness. The person knows something has happened, though, because the button doesn’t work anymore. So he or she quits pushing, and it is a relief. It was your power, but it required their energy to keep their thumbs on your buttons all those years, and at some point, inside themselves, they will feel relieved.
But this Christmas story about reachable peace is not about them; it is about you. It is a true story.
November 30, 2012
The Right Wing, starring Mitch, John and Mr. President
"What does 'White Turkey Chili' mean?" grumps Sen. McConnell.
"Maybe it's a Mormon favorite," says Speaker Boehner.
"That's not what I meant," says Mitch. "Is it because of white turkey, or because the chili is white and not red?"
"If it had been me, I'd have given him surf and turf," says John.
"Does Mitt eat lobster?" says Mitch.
The Speaker gives an unknowing shrug. "He deserves it, for what he's done. After what Fox and the tea partiers said about him, and then for him to walk into the Oval Office and shake the President's hand!"
"Then eats lunch with him in the President's private dining room!" Mitch roars and slaps his knee. "You can hear the teeth grinding out in the hallways! These are good times for the new GOP!"
"I hope Mitt knows what a valuable man he is," says John, musing.
"I'm sure he does," says Mitch. "I'm happy for him. This is as close as he has come, in politics, to knowing who he really is."
"Maybe it's a Mormon favorite," says Speaker Boehner.
"That's not what I meant," says Mitch. "Is it because of white turkey, or because the chili is white and not red?"
"If it had been me, I'd have given him surf and turf," says John.
"Does Mitt eat lobster?" says Mitch.
The Speaker gives an unknowing shrug. "He deserves it, for what he's done. After what Fox and the tea partiers said about him, and then for him to walk into the Oval Office and shake the President's hand!"
"Then eats lunch with him in the President's private dining room!" Mitch roars and slaps his knee. "You can hear the teeth grinding out in the hallways! These are good times for the new GOP!"
"I hope Mitt knows what a valuable man he is," says John, musing.
"I'm sure he does," says Mitch. "I'm happy for him. This is as close as he has come, in politics, to knowing who he really is."
Occupy the Internet!
Welcome to the offices of "Occupy the Internet."
We are similar to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, which protested Wall Street ripping off the little people and giving it to the rich people. Their battle cry was, "The 99 percent." Ours is, "Our 2 cents worth."
If we all got our 2 cents worth, the Internet would be a fabulously productive place. Instead, it's impoverished. Sooner or later, Internet businesses would have to start asking for handouts. Now it has happened. WikiPedia started asking last week:
“We are the small non-profit that runs the #5 website in the world. We have only 150 staff but serve 450 million users, and have costs like any other top site: servers, power, rent, programs, staff and legal help. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations. If everyone reading this gave the price of a cup of coffee, our fundraiser would be done within an hour.”
You can donate to Wikipedia if you like, but the better solution is embedded right there in the plea, in boldface: “If everyone reading this gave the price of a cup of coffee, our fundraiser would be done within an hour.”
It’s called the multiplier effect. Everyone using Wikipedia is a lot of people – 450 million, according to Wikipedia – and if each donated the price of a cup of coffee, say $1, that’s $450 million, and you’d only be out a buck.
That's where Occupy the Internet comes in. We don't want WikiPedia to have to ask for handouts. Our goal is an Internet-wide system that would require users to pay to use WikiPedia, and every other Internet site, 2 cents for every visit. Every time 450 million users paid 2 cents, WikiPedia would earn $9 million, which would more than pay the rent.
The Wall Street ripoff is peanuts, compared to the billions of Internet users, myself included, who rip off the Internet for billions of dollars worth of free information and entertainment every day.
This should stop. When it did, every user would pay 2 cents to every page visited. That's 50 visits for a buck, 1,000 visits for $20, or whatever subscription you wanted to pay per month. I would get paid something for what I just wrote, and you would have gotten your 2 cents worth. It would revolutionize the Internet, both for content and business model. It would mean the rebirth of newspapers, for example, and good journalism. Think about it.
We are similar to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement, which protested Wall Street ripping off the little people and giving it to the rich people. Their battle cry was, "The 99 percent." Ours is, "Our 2 cents worth."
If we all got our 2 cents worth, the Internet would be a fabulously productive place. Instead, it's impoverished. Sooner or later, Internet businesses would have to start asking for handouts. Now it has happened. WikiPedia started asking last week:
“We are the small non-profit that runs the #5 website in the world. We have only 150 staff but serve 450 million users, and have costs like any other top site: servers, power, rent, programs, staff and legal help. To protect our independence, we'll never run ads. We take no government funds. We run on donations. If everyone reading this gave the price of a cup of coffee, our fundraiser would be done within an hour.”
You can donate to Wikipedia if you like, but the better solution is embedded right there in the plea, in boldface: “If everyone reading this gave the price of a cup of coffee, our fundraiser would be done within an hour.”
It’s called the multiplier effect. Everyone using Wikipedia is a lot of people – 450 million, according to Wikipedia – and if each donated the price of a cup of coffee, say $1, that’s $450 million, and you’d only be out a buck.
That's where Occupy the Internet comes in. We don't want WikiPedia to have to ask for handouts. Our goal is an Internet-wide system that would require users to pay to use WikiPedia, and every other Internet site, 2 cents for every visit. Every time 450 million users paid 2 cents, WikiPedia would earn $9 million, which would more than pay the rent.
The Wall Street ripoff is peanuts, compared to the billions of Internet users, myself included, who rip off the Internet for billions of dollars worth of free information and entertainment every day.
This should stop. When it did, every user would pay 2 cents to every page visited. That's 50 visits for a buck, 1,000 visits for $20, or whatever subscription you wanted to pay per month. I would get paid something for what I just wrote, and you would have gotten your 2 cents worth. It would revolutionize the Internet, both for content and business model. It would mean the rebirth of newspapers, for example, and good journalism. Think about it.
November 28, 2012
The Right Wing, starring Mitch, John and Mr. President
Speaker Boehner's outer office. Sen. McConnell walks in, spies a prop-up sign on Lucretia's desk:
"No shirt, no shoes, no service."
He laughs aloud. "Ha! Where'd you get it?"
"My diner, down the street. It was in his door. I had to talk him out of it. I told him who it was for. And then he autographed it," Lucretia says, gesturing at the sign. Mitch bends to read:
"Best wishes, Mr. Speaker! Nguyen"
He chortles, scratches his head. "Naked protesters in the Speaker's office. This is one to tell your grandchildren about."
"Already did," says Lucretia. "Or, rather, they showed it to me on their iPhones, laughing their little heads off."
"It's good to have a sense of humor around here," says the Speaker, walking in from his office, carrying coffee in a take-out cup labeled, "Nguyen's Diner."
"Love Lucretia's new sign," says Mitch. "Nice middle-class touch."
"Hey!" says Lucretia, a creative person. "We could turn it into a slogan. Remember the slogan, 'What's good for General Motors is good for the country'? We could say, 'What's good for Nguyen's Diner is good for the Speaker.'"
"Or," says Mitch, "'What's good for Nguyen's Diner is good for the middle class.'"
"Well, Sen. Graham didn't get it," says Lucretia. "He came in to drop off some Susan Rice notes. He said, 'Who's Nuh-goo-y-yen?' I told him it's pronounced 'Win.' Opposite of 'lose'."
The Speaker cleared his throat. "We should probably keep this quiet, but workshops are planned for House Republicans. How to pronounce 'middle class': 'mid-dull class.' You might want to adopt it for the Senate."
"No shirt, no shoes, no service."
He laughs aloud. "Ha! Where'd you get it?"
"My diner, down the street. It was in his door. I had to talk him out of it. I told him who it was for. And then he autographed it," Lucretia says, gesturing at the sign. Mitch bends to read:
"Best wishes, Mr. Speaker! Nguyen"
He chortles, scratches his head. "Naked protesters in the Speaker's office. This is one to tell your grandchildren about."
"Already did," says Lucretia. "Or, rather, they showed it to me on their iPhones, laughing their little heads off."
"It's good to have a sense of humor around here," says the Speaker, walking in from his office, carrying coffee in a take-out cup labeled, "Nguyen's Diner."
"Love Lucretia's new sign," says Mitch. "Nice middle-class touch."
"Hey!" says Lucretia, a creative person. "We could turn it into a slogan. Remember the slogan, 'What's good for General Motors is good for the country'? We could say, 'What's good for Nguyen's Diner is good for the Speaker.'"
"Or," says Mitch, "'What's good for Nguyen's Diner is good for the middle class.'"
"Well, Sen. Graham didn't get it," says Lucretia. "He came in to drop off some Susan Rice notes. He said, 'Who's Nuh-goo-y-yen?' I told him it's pronounced 'Win.' Opposite of 'lose'."
The Speaker cleared his throat. "We should probably keep this quiet, but workshops are planned for House Republicans. How to pronounce 'middle class': 'mid-dull class.' You might want to adopt it for the Senate."
November 26, 2012
The Right Wing, starring Mitch, John and Mr. President
Sen. McConnell's office. The Speaker walks in, carrying a book-shaped wrapped package.
"John," says the senator in his offhand bloodhound way. "Have a nice Thanksgiving?"
"Very nice," says John. "Nothing like Thanksgiving in Ohio. We had the President's Italian red with the bird. Mitch, here's an early Christmas present."
"Well, that's a nice surprise," says Mitch, accepting the package. "I have an early gift for you, too," picking up a book-shaped package from his desk and handing it to John. They open the packages and laugh together.
"'Why Romney Lost'! exclaims John, as the two men hold up identical David Frum books, No 13 on the Times' bestseller list.
"Great minds," Mitch chuckles, flipping open the cover, as John does, to find an inscription:
"Mitch – here's a comment from a reader of the book: 'I believe a party that is fiscally responsible, and respects others' social views will resonate with Americans of all sorts. I can't say enough good things about this book. Spot on. Let's hope there is a change in the winds.'
"Merry Christmas! John."
The two men look up and laugh together. "The exact inscription I put in your book!" says Mitch.
"Amazing, sometimes, how alike we are," says John.
Into the office stumbles Martha, the Senator's office manager, still in her overcoat.
"Martha?" says Mitch. "You're late . . ."
"Missed my carpool," she says. "I had a horrible nightmare. Sarah Palin! Hair cut like Pelosi's! Talking like Rachel Maddow! Having lunch with Warren Buffett!"
John smiles, pulls his iPhone from his pocket, lets Martha read a Tweet:
"You read Frumdum's piece of moose pizza?" #Sarah"
Martha relaxes into a sigh. "So she doesn't want to be President of the United States."
"Didn't say that," says John.
"John," says the senator in his offhand bloodhound way. "Have a nice Thanksgiving?"
"Very nice," says John. "Nothing like Thanksgiving in Ohio. We had the President's Italian red with the bird. Mitch, here's an early Christmas present."
"Well, that's a nice surprise," says Mitch, accepting the package. "I have an early gift for you, too," picking up a book-shaped package from his desk and handing it to John. They open the packages and laugh together.
"'Why Romney Lost'! exclaims John, as the two men hold up identical David Frum books, No 13 on the Times' bestseller list.
"Great minds," Mitch chuckles, flipping open the cover, as John does, to find an inscription:
"Mitch – here's a comment from a reader of the book: 'I believe a party that is fiscally responsible, and respects others' social views will resonate with Americans of all sorts. I can't say enough good things about this book. Spot on. Let's hope there is a change in the winds.'
"Merry Christmas! John."
The two men look up and laugh together. "The exact inscription I put in your book!" says Mitch.
"Amazing, sometimes, how alike we are," says John.
Into the office stumbles Martha, the Senator's office manager, still in her overcoat.
"Martha?" says Mitch. "You're late . . ."
"Missed my carpool," she says. "I had a horrible nightmare. Sarah Palin! Hair cut like Pelosi's! Talking like Rachel Maddow! Having lunch with Warren Buffett!"
John smiles, pulls his iPhone from his pocket, lets Martha read a Tweet:
"You read Frumdum's piece of moose pizza?" #Sarah"
Martha relaxes into a sigh. "So she doesn't want to be President of the United States."
"Didn't say that," says John.
November 19, 2012
The Right Wing, starring Mitch, John and Mr. President, episode 8
Sen. McConnell, Mr. Speaker, I write a blog which supports The 47 Percent. We favor "Anything that gives the middle class a leg up." As such, I am following with interest your collaboration from the GOP side in creating "A New Era for America."
As a member of The 47 Percent, I want to share my thoughts about a story I read over the weekend. This one, from The New York Times: "Business owners and investors are rapidly maneuvering to shield themselves from the prospect of higher taxes next year, a strategy that is sending ripples across Wall Street and broad areas of the economy."
An example: Steve Wynn, whose business is Las Vegas casinos, who "has been a vocal critic of higher tax rates." On Tuesday, tomorrow, Wynn shareholders will "collect a special dividend of $750 million, a payout timed to take advantage of current rates."
The story says that this strategy will save just Wynn himself more than $20 million in taxes. Sirs, I can't adequately express how The 47 Percent would appreciate a similar strategy to save themselves just $200 in taxes, just with the Christmas season upon us. Talk about a leg up!
Apparently, though, we DO get a leg up of sorts. The story said Wynn alone would save $20 million, but it didn't say $20 million of what? If he is saving $20 million, it must mean he is paying some unknown figure in taxes in December, that he would not have been paying otherwise, before the end of the year, if ever (if Mitt had been elected). The same is true of many other business owners and investors. It must mean that it took only two weeks for The 47 Percent's vote (all for Obama, by Mitt's own definition) to count in a way that adds up, eventually, to dollars and cents for us! Such a quick return is very exciting!
Well, it's off to the big bird at Grandma's house. The 47 Percent hope you gentlemen have a great Thanksgiving!
As a member of The 47 Percent, I want to share my thoughts about a story I read over the weekend. This one, from The New York Times: "Business owners and investors are rapidly maneuvering to shield themselves from the prospect of higher taxes next year, a strategy that is sending ripples across Wall Street and broad areas of the economy."
An example: Steve Wynn, whose business is Las Vegas casinos, who "has been a vocal critic of higher tax rates." On Tuesday, tomorrow, Wynn shareholders will "collect a special dividend of $750 million, a payout timed to take advantage of current rates."
The story says that this strategy will save just Wynn himself more than $20 million in taxes. Sirs, I can't adequately express how The 47 Percent would appreciate a similar strategy to save themselves just $200 in taxes, just with the Christmas season upon us. Talk about a leg up!
Apparently, though, we DO get a leg up of sorts. The story said Wynn alone would save $20 million, but it didn't say $20 million of what? If he is saving $20 million, it must mean he is paying some unknown figure in taxes in December, that he would not have been paying otherwise, before the end of the year, if ever (if Mitt had been elected). The same is true of many other business owners and investors. It must mean that it took only two weeks for The 47 Percent's vote (all for Obama, by Mitt's own definition) to count in a way that adds up, eventually, to dollars and cents for us! Such a quick return is very exciting!
Well, it's off to the big bird at Grandma's house. The 47 Percent hope you gentlemen have a great Thanksgiving!
November 18, 2012
The Right Wing, starring Mitch, John and Mr. President, episode 7
"That went well, I thought," says Speaker Boehner, returning to his office with the President's bottle of birthday wine, a pricey Italian red, under his arm.
"Yes, it did," says Senator McConnell. "The first day of 'A New Era for America.'"
"'Where Obamacare Becomes Americare!'" John smoothly recites, beaming, "thanks to us."
"Pelosi knows what's going on," says Mitch, "running for the leadership for two more years. She wants to be in on it."
"I told you she had developed some redeeming social values since last week," John says, flashing the purple plastic bracelet Nancy gave him: "WWAD" – "What Would Abe Do?"
"At the meeting, Senator Reid seemed okay with it also," says Mitch, "but he is still my No. 1 worry. He may resist this plan. He may become an obstructionist. He may become the old me."
"He may be slow, but not that slow," John says with a shrug. "There's just too much in the plan for him. Remember our goals: 1. take the real GOP back from the tea party 'Limbaugh Republicans'; 2. meet Obama halfway to achieve 'A New Era for America,' real progress in the next four years in the economy, in health care (Americare! I love it), in immigration reform, in women's issues; 3. claim credit for the 'New Era' in the 2016 campaign; 4. nominate a viable presidential candidate for a change, and; 5. crush the tea party in the process. What's not to like?"
Mitch grins. "Plus," he says with emphasis, "and I am just realizing this, the GOP solves its problem, of being leaderless, that everyone's been talking about. A proven leader emerges overnight."
"Who?" says John. "Me?"
"No, John, sorry," says Mitch. "President Obama! He becomes the de facto leader of the GOP! All that magnificent organization of his, that made us look like chumps in the election, becomes ours to jointly utilize in the New Era of cooperation!"
"Wow," says John. "That won't sit well with people like the guy down in Texas who says Obama and all of his people are 'maggots feeding on the carcass of the republic.'"
"John," says Mitch, "who are we going to listen to in the next four years, a minor Texas county party official, or President Obama?"
"Damn, Mitch, I feel like a brand-new Speaker!"
"Happy birthday, John."
"Yes, it did," says Senator McConnell. "The first day of 'A New Era for America.'"
"'Where Obamacare Becomes Americare!'" John smoothly recites, beaming, "thanks to us."
"Pelosi knows what's going on," says Mitch, "running for the leadership for two more years. She wants to be in on it."
"I told you she had developed some redeeming social values since last week," John says, flashing the purple plastic bracelet Nancy gave him: "WWAD" – "What Would Abe Do?"
"At the meeting, Senator Reid seemed okay with it also," says Mitch, "but he is still my No. 1 worry. He may resist this plan. He may become an obstructionist. He may become the old me."
"He may be slow, but not that slow," John says with a shrug. "There's just too much in the plan for him. Remember our goals: 1. take the real GOP back from the tea party 'Limbaugh Republicans'; 2. meet Obama halfway to achieve 'A New Era for America,' real progress in the next four years in the economy, in health care (Americare! I love it), in immigration reform, in women's issues; 3. claim credit for the 'New Era' in the 2016 campaign; 4. nominate a viable presidential candidate for a change, and; 5. crush the tea party in the process. What's not to like?"
Mitch grins. "Plus," he says with emphasis, "and I am just realizing this, the GOP solves its problem, of being leaderless, that everyone's been talking about. A proven leader emerges overnight."
"Who?" says John. "Me?"
"No, John, sorry," says Mitch. "President Obama! He becomes the de facto leader of the GOP! All that magnificent organization of his, that made us look like chumps in the election, becomes ours to jointly utilize in the New Era of cooperation!"
"Wow," says John. "That won't sit well with people like the guy down in Texas who says Obama and all of his people are 'maggots feeding on the carcass of the republic.'"
"John," says Mitch, "who are we going to listen to in the next four years, a minor Texas county party official, or President Obama?"
"Damn, Mitch, I feel like a brand-new Speaker!"
"Happy birthday, John."
November 17, 2012
The skin of our teeth
Below is a compilation of comments collected from media political reports in the last week. Question: What do all the commenters have in common?
“Romney, take responsibility for being flawed candidate, w/delusional campaign w/no vision.”
“I don’t want to rebut him point by point. I would just say to you, I don’t believe that we have millions and millions of people in this country that don’t want to work.”
“We’ve got to give our political organization a very serious proctology exam.”
"I absolutely reject that notion. I don’t think that represents where we are as a party. We have got to stop dividing the American voters.”
“There’s got to be a positive reason to support Republicans.”
"Most of today’s Republicans understand that they need to decontaminate their brand."
"We have a period of reflection and recalibration ahead for the Republican Party. Clearly we have work to do in the weeks and months ahead."
“You can’t expect to be a leader of all the people and be divisive.”
“He’s not going to be running for anything in the future.”
“He never developed an emotional foothold within the GOP so he can exit the stage anytime and no one will mourn.”
"The 47 percent comments represent both a fundamental misunderstanding of the country, they offer a constricted vision of the Republican party and the potency of a big tent conservative message."
“It shows a huge misreading of the electoral landscape. A rather elitist misread. Where does he think his votes came from in rural America?”
"I'd like to see Romney and his team go out gracefully. (Yes, that requires actually... going away.)"
What do all the commenters have in common? They all voted for Mitt Romney. Reading their comments today says something about the size of the bullet all of us in this country dodged Nov. 6.
“Romney, take responsibility for being flawed candidate, w/delusional campaign w/no vision.”
“I don’t want to rebut him point by point. I would just say to you, I don’t believe that we have millions and millions of people in this country that don’t want to work.”
“We’ve got to give our political organization a very serious proctology exam.”
"I absolutely reject that notion. I don’t think that represents where we are as a party. We have got to stop dividing the American voters.”
“There’s got to be a positive reason to support Republicans.”
"Most of today’s Republicans understand that they need to decontaminate their brand."
"We have a period of reflection and recalibration ahead for the Republican Party. Clearly we have work to do in the weeks and months ahead."
“You can’t expect to be a leader of all the people and be divisive.”
“He’s not going to be running for anything in the future.”
“He never developed an emotional foothold within the GOP so he can exit the stage anytime and no one will mourn.”
"The 47 percent comments represent both a fundamental misunderstanding of the country, they offer a constricted vision of the Republican party and the potency of a big tent conservative message."
“It shows a huge misreading of the electoral landscape. A rather elitist misread. Where does he think his votes came from in rural America?”
"I'd like to see Romney and his team go out gracefully. (Yes, that requires actually... going away.)"
What do all the commenters have in common? They all voted for Mitt Romney. Reading their comments today says something about the size of the bullet all of us in this country dodged Nov. 6.
November 16, 2012
The Right Wing, starring Mitch, John and Mr. President, episode 6
"Lucretia!" yells John from his desk.
She appears in the doorway. "Yes, Mr. Speaker?"
"Lucretia," he says. "What are we going to do about Mitt?"
Lucretia gives a little laugh, waves her hand. "Don't worry about Mitt. He's just processing."
"Well, everybody I talk to wishes he would just go away," says John. "It's all over the media."
"Yes, I know," says Lucretia. "But he's had a terrible shock. He got jilted. You remember what it's like to get jilted."
John frowns. "Maybe I do, and maybe I don't."
She smiles. "See? You're still not over it. Mitt just needs somebody to talk to. He needs to tell them it's nothing he did. It's the things the other guy did."
Senator McConnell is on the settee. "You know," he says, beginning to understand, "it was actually a huge circle-jilt. Millions of people, inside that Mitt bubble that everybody is talking about, dead-certain that Mitt would win."
Lucretia holds up The Washington Post. "Every day in the paper, jilted Republicans are processing, from Nevada to Georgia," she says.
"So you don't think Mitt and the bubble are going to steal any thunder from our meeting with the President today," says the Speaker.
"No sir, I don’t," says Lucretia. "The President is the last guy they want to think about. They will all be focused inward, reading old campaign speeches, wondering what might have been, wondering when the pain will go away. It actually works out pretty well for you and the Senator, on Day One of the New GOP."
She appears in the doorway. "Yes, Mr. Speaker?"
"Lucretia," he says. "What are we going to do about Mitt?"
Lucretia gives a little laugh, waves her hand. "Don't worry about Mitt. He's just processing."
"Well, everybody I talk to wishes he would just go away," says John. "It's all over the media."
"Yes, I know," says Lucretia. "But he's had a terrible shock. He got jilted. You remember what it's like to get jilted."
John frowns. "Maybe I do, and maybe I don't."
She smiles. "See? You're still not over it. Mitt just needs somebody to talk to. He needs to tell them it's nothing he did. It's the things the other guy did."
Senator McConnell is on the settee. "You know," he says, beginning to understand, "it was actually a huge circle-jilt. Millions of people, inside that Mitt bubble that everybody is talking about, dead-certain that Mitt would win."
Lucretia holds up The Washington Post. "Every day in the paper, jilted Republicans are processing, from Nevada to Georgia," she says.
"So you don't think Mitt and the bubble are going to steal any thunder from our meeting with the President today," says the Speaker.
"No sir, I don’t," says Lucretia. "The President is the last guy they want to think about. They will all be focused inward, reading old campaign speeches, wondering what might have been, wondering when the pain will go away. It actually works out pretty well for you and the Senator, on Day One of the New GOP."
November 14, 2012
Mitch, John and Mr. President episode 5
Mitch McConnell is in his office, scanning The New York Times opinion page:
"President Obama’s sweeping re-election victory stunned many in the Republican Party . . . What does the G.O.P. need to do over the next four years if it wants to take back the White House?"
"Take back the party," Mitch grumbles just as Speaker Boehner walks in.
"We've got trouble," John says.
"Please don't tell me you're having an affair with Jill Kelley," says Mitch.
"Who's Jill Kelley?" John says.
"Never mind. What's that thing on your wrist?"
John extends his right arm to display a purple plastic bracelet. "It says, 'WWAD?' 'What Would Abe Do?' Pelosi gave it to me."
"Whoa!" says Mitch. "Aren't we going a little fast here?"
"Don't worry," says John. "Nancy has developed some redeeming social values since last week. Just getting ready for Friday's meetings. Reaching across the aisle, et cetera."
"What's this about trouble?" Mitch asks.
"The Brooks column," John says, and reads from a folded paper:
"This is not the Republican Party of 2010. Today's Repuplicans no longer have an incentive to deny Obama victories. He's never running again. Most of today's Republicans understand that they need to decontaminate their brand."
John looks at Mitch. "That is almost word-for-word your memo to me from last Wednesday. Do we have a leak?"
"That's the least of our worries," Mitch says. "Look at the front page of the paper." John looks. "See us anywhere?" John shakes his head. "That's our trouble," says Mitch. "This damn sex business has taken over."
"What can we do?" says John.
Mitch looks at John. "Go ask Pelosi to lunch."
"President Obama’s sweeping re-election victory stunned many in the Republican Party . . . What does the G.O.P. need to do over the next four years if it wants to take back the White House?"
"Take back the party," Mitch grumbles just as Speaker Boehner walks in.
"We've got trouble," John says.
"Please don't tell me you're having an affair with Jill Kelley," says Mitch.
"Who's Jill Kelley?" John says.
"Never mind. What's that thing on your wrist?"
John extends his right arm to display a purple plastic bracelet. "It says, 'WWAD?' 'What Would Abe Do?' Pelosi gave it to me."
"Whoa!" says Mitch. "Aren't we going a little fast here?"
"Don't worry," says John. "Nancy has developed some redeeming social values since last week. Just getting ready for Friday's meetings. Reaching across the aisle, et cetera."
"What's this about trouble?" Mitch asks.
"The Brooks column," John says, and reads from a folded paper:
"This is not the Republican Party of 2010. Today's Repuplicans no longer have an incentive to deny Obama victories. He's never running again. Most of today's Republicans understand that they need to decontaminate their brand."
John looks at Mitch. "That is almost word-for-word your memo to me from last Wednesday. Do we have a leak?"
"That's the least of our worries," Mitch says. "Look at the front page of the paper." John looks. "See us anywhere?" John shakes his head. "That's our trouble," says Mitch. "This damn sex business has taken over."
"What can we do?" says John.
Mitch looks at John. "Go ask Pelosi to lunch."
November 12, 2012
Mitch, John and Mr. President, episode 4
Speaker Boehner's office, "Fox News" on TV. Bill Kristol is speaking.
"You know what? It won’t kill the country if Republicans raise taxes a little bit on millionaires. It really won’t, I don’t think. I don’t really understand why Republicans don’t take Obama’s offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000. Make it $500,000, make it a million."
John smiles at Bill's words, switches to "Face the Nation."
"This is a promising moment for the Republican Party," Peggy Noonan is telling Bob Schieffer.
Mitch looks at John. "Leverage. Just like we all talked about yesterday."
John nods. "They're getting the word out nicely. The President is a huge opportunity for us. Amazing, how everybody seems to understand that."
"For this week, you just keep placating your people," Mitch says. "You're the good cop, I'm the bad cop. The Bachmann faction will be sticking pins in Rove for at least another week. That will give us time to get everybody else on board. O'Reilly, Hannity, Will, Krauthammer, the WSJ editors. One more big weekend on the talk shows should do it."
"Krauthammer will be tough," John says.
"Screw him, then," blurts Mitch. "We're playing hardball now. We can't take back the country until we take back the party."
"Wow," says John. "And you were the one who swore to make Obama a one-term president."
"Yes," says Mitch, "and you see where it got me."
"You know what? It won’t kill the country if Republicans raise taxes a little bit on millionaires. It really won’t, I don’t think. I don’t really understand why Republicans don’t take Obama’s offer to freeze taxes for everyone below $250,000. Make it $500,000, make it a million."
John smiles at Bill's words, switches to "Face the Nation."
"This is a promising moment for the Republican Party," Peggy Noonan is telling Bob Schieffer.
Mitch looks at John. "Leverage. Just like we all talked about yesterday."
John nods. "They're getting the word out nicely. The President is a huge opportunity for us. Amazing, how everybody seems to understand that."
"For this week, you just keep placating your people," Mitch says. "You're the good cop, I'm the bad cop. The Bachmann faction will be sticking pins in Rove for at least another week. That will give us time to get everybody else on board. O'Reilly, Hannity, Will, Krauthammer, the WSJ editors. One more big weekend on the talk shows should do it."
"Krauthammer will be tough," John says.
"Screw him, then," blurts Mitch. "We're playing hardball now. We can't take back the country until we take back the party."
"Wow," says John. "And you were the one who swore to make Obama a one-term president."
"Yes," says Mitch, "and you see where it got me."
November 11, 2012
The 47 percent are people again
In the week before the election, President Obama said at a rally that "Voting is the best revenge."
At his rallies, Mitt picked up on it: "Did you see what President Obama said today? He asked his supporters to vote for revenge. Instead I ask the American people to vote for love of country."
To many Americans, the president's statement was a play on the old saying, "Living well is the best revenge," or, "Laughter is the best revenge," or any of a number of others. To the 47 percent, though, the statement was literal. I voted for Obama for many reasons, including a couple where I was voting against myself. But after what Mitt said about me and the 47 percent, our vote, as it was part of Obama's success, truly was a revenge vote. Mitt didn't care about our love of country. He said he didn't care about us at all.
Coincidentally, last weekend, TCM showed "The Grapes of Wrath." Those people were victims, but not of the Mitt variety. They needed government assistance desperately, but they didn't get it. They just kept on going.The movie's last lines were delivered by the great Jane Darwell, who won the 1941 Supporting Actress honor for her role as Ma Joad.
"I ain't never gonna be scared no more," Ma says. "I was, though. For a while it looked as though we was beat. Good and beat. Looked like we didn't have nobody in the whole wide world but enemies. Like nobody was friendly no more. Made me feel kinda bad and scared too, like we was lost and nobody cared.... Rich fellas come up and they die, and their kids ain't no good and they die out, but we keep on coming. We're the people that live. They can't wipe us out, they can't lick us. We'll go on forever, Pa, 'cause we're the people."
I feel like that today. The 47 percent can feel like people again. They can't wipe us out, they can't lick us, and we'll go on forever, 'cause we're the people and we're going "Forward." The only way we can go.
At his rallies, Mitt picked up on it: "Did you see what President Obama said today? He asked his supporters to vote for revenge. Instead I ask the American people to vote for love of country."
To many Americans, the president's statement was a play on the old saying, "Living well is the best revenge," or, "Laughter is the best revenge," or any of a number of others. To the 47 percent, though, the statement was literal. I voted for Obama for many reasons, including a couple where I was voting against myself. But after what Mitt said about me and the 47 percent, our vote, as it was part of Obama's success, truly was a revenge vote. Mitt didn't care about our love of country. He said he didn't care about us at all.
Coincidentally, last weekend, TCM showed "The Grapes of Wrath." Those people were victims, but not of the Mitt variety. They needed government assistance desperately, but they didn't get it. They just kept on going.The movie's last lines were delivered by the great Jane Darwell, who won the 1941 Supporting Actress honor for her role as Ma Joad.
"I ain't never gonna be scared no more," Ma says. "I was, though. For a while it looked as though we was beat. Good and beat. Looked like we didn't have nobody in the whole wide world but enemies. Like nobody was friendly no more. Made me feel kinda bad and scared too, like we was lost and nobody cared.... Rich fellas come up and they die, and their kids ain't no good and they die out, but we keep on coming. We're the people that live. They can't wipe us out, they can't lick us. We'll go on forever, Pa, 'cause we're the people."
I feel like that today. The 47 percent can feel like people again. They can't wipe us out, they can't lick us, and we'll go on forever, 'cause we're the people and we're going "Forward." The only way we can go.
November 09, 2012
The long conversation, cont.
The television, in Speaker Boehner's office.
Interviewer: "Will Paul Ryan emerge as a leader in the House?"
Speaker Boehner, offhandedly: "Paul Ryan is a policy wonk."
Mitch, watching the television: "Good sound bite on Paul, John."
"Thanks," says John, taking a breath. "This isn't going to be easy, you know."
"It's all in the timing, my friend. And your timing was great! When an interviewer gives you an opening, take it! Much more effective than just coming out and saying Paul Ryan is a stiff in the new scheme of things. It's not our purpose to start a civil war in the party."
The telephone rings. "Speaker Boehner, it's Karl. We need to – "
"Karl! Look at the time! Gotta run!" John hangs up the phone, picks up cold coffee, pours it on the phone. "Lucretia!" he yells.
"Yes sir?" says Lucretia, appearing in the doorway.
"I spilled coffee on my phone. Get it replaced. And while you're at it, change all the phone numbers."
"Yes, sir, Mr. Speaker," says Lucretia, grinning. Lucretia is nobody's fool.
"John," says Mitch, watching approvingly. "When the time comes, would you consider being the candidate?"
John's eyes moisten. "Hell, Mitch, I can't even bring myself to say, 'Where Obamacare is Americare.' Hey!!!"
Interviewer: "Will Paul Ryan emerge as a leader in the House?"
Speaker Boehner, offhandedly: "Paul Ryan is a policy wonk."
Mitch, watching the television: "Good sound bite on Paul, John."
"Thanks," says John, taking a breath. "This isn't going to be easy, you know."
"It's all in the timing, my friend. And your timing was great! When an interviewer gives you an opening, take it! Much more effective than just coming out and saying Paul Ryan is a stiff in the new scheme of things. It's not our purpose to start a civil war in the party."
The telephone rings. "Speaker Boehner, it's Karl. We need to – "
"Karl! Look at the time! Gotta run!" John hangs up the phone, picks up cold coffee, pours it on the phone. "Lucretia!" he yells.
"Yes sir?" says Lucretia, appearing in the doorway.
"I spilled coffee on my phone. Get it replaced. And while you're at it, change all the phone numbers."
"Yes, sir, Mr. Speaker," says Lucretia, grinning. Lucretia is nobody's fool.
"John," says Mitch, watching approvingly. "When the time comes, would you consider being the candidate?"
John's eyes moisten. "Hell, Mitch, I can't even bring myself to say, 'Where Obamacare is Americare.' Hey!!!"
Why didn't the Republicans know?
Since early Wednesday morning, every Republican I have seen on media has been able to easily identify why Mitt lost.
Why couldn't they identify that the day before Mitt lost? Or the month before, or the year before? Why did all those people, up to the very last minute, throw all that effort and all that money into a plan of action that failed, and the next morning get up and know why it failed? Were they fostering delusion all that time? Why?
Here is a passage from the David Brooks column in today's New York Times.
"If I were given a few minutes with the Republican billionaires, I’d say: spend less money on marketing and more on product development. Spend less on “super PACs” and more on research. Find people who can shift the debate away from the abstract frameworks — like Big Government vs. Small Government. Find people who can go out with notebooks and study specific, grounded everyday problems: what exactly does it take these days to rise? What exactly happens to the ambitious kid in Akron at each stage of life in this new economy? What are the best ways to rouse ambition and open fields of opportunity?
"Don’t get hung up on whether the federal government is 20 percent or 22 percent of G.D.P. Let Democrats be the party of security, defending the 20th-century welfare state. Be the party that celebrates work and inflames enterprise. Use any tool, public or private, to help people transform their lives."
In all the months before the election, the Republican billionaires were cast as the one percent, moving farther and father away from the 99 percent in share of national wealth and pouring billions into the Republican campaign to protect and foster that separation. Why didn't Brooks sit down with them then? Was he deluded into thinking it wouldn't do any good, that the one percent didn't give a damn about the 99 percent? Or is he deluded today, thinking that they would?
Why couldn't they identify that the day before Mitt lost? Or the month before, or the year before? Why did all those people, up to the very last minute, throw all that effort and all that money into a plan of action that failed, and the next morning get up and know why it failed? Were they fostering delusion all that time? Why?
Here is a passage from the David Brooks column in today's New York Times.
"If I were given a few minutes with the Republican billionaires, I’d say: spend less money on marketing and more on product development. Spend less on “super PACs” and more on research. Find people who can shift the debate away from the abstract frameworks — like Big Government vs. Small Government. Find people who can go out with notebooks and study specific, grounded everyday problems: what exactly does it take these days to rise? What exactly happens to the ambitious kid in Akron at each stage of life in this new economy? What are the best ways to rouse ambition and open fields of opportunity?
"Don’t get hung up on whether the federal government is 20 percent or 22 percent of G.D.P. Let Democrats be the party of security, defending the 20th-century welfare state. Be the party that celebrates work and inflames enterprise. Use any tool, public or private, to help people transform their lives."
In all the months before the election, the Republican billionaires were cast as the one percent, moving farther and father away from the 99 percent in share of national wealth and pouring billions into the Republican campaign to protect and foster that separation. Why didn't Brooks sit down with them then? Was he deluded into thinking it wouldn't do any good, that the one percent didn't give a damn about the 99 percent? Or is he deluded today, thinking that they would?
November 08, 2012
The beginning of a long conversation
Mitch, John and Mr. President are going to work wonders with the economy, immigration reform, women’s issues and health care over the next four years.
“Nice speech, John,” Mitch says, in a conversation they should be having right about now, in John’s office.
“Thanks,” says John. “I hope I looked sad enough.”
“You were fine. Made you looked respectful of the past, and concerned for the future.”
“Do you think the President saw through it?”
“Of course he did. I’m sure Axelrod said to him, ‘Mr. President, we are watching John Boehner introduce the Republican campaign strategy for 2016.’ And the President said, ‘At last!’” Mitch gives John’s shoulder a fist-bump. “Stop being so adversarial. You have to change your way of thinking, John. Old habits die hard, but it’s okay if the Democrats know we are truly going to meet them halfway.”
“No, John!” shouts a voice through a crack held open by a foot in the door.
“Shut up, Paul,” says John.
“That’s more like it!” grins Mitch. “Say after me: ‘A new era for America.’”
“A new era for America,” repeats John.
“’Where Obamacare becomes Americare!'”
“Aaaiiiieeeee!” screams Paul. There is a thud of a body hitting the floor, then shuffling, dragging noises as Paul’s shoe disappears from the door. The door quietly closes.
“Where Obamacare becomes . . . becomes . . . “
“That’s fine, John,” says Mitch, handing him a handkerchief. “That’s enough for today.”
“Nice speech, John,” Mitch says, in a conversation they should be having right about now, in John’s office.
“Thanks,” says John. “I hope I looked sad enough.”
“You were fine. Made you looked respectful of the past, and concerned for the future.”
“Do you think the President saw through it?”
“Of course he did. I’m sure Axelrod said to him, ‘Mr. President, we are watching John Boehner introduce the Republican campaign strategy for 2016.’ And the President said, ‘At last!’” Mitch gives John’s shoulder a fist-bump. “Stop being so adversarial. You have to change your way of thinking, John. Old habits die hard, but it’s okay if the Democrats know we are truly going to meet them halfway.”
“No, John!” shouts a voice through a crack held open by a foot in the door.
“Shut up, Paul,” says John.
“That’s more like it!” grins Mitch. “Say after me: ‘A new era for America.’”
“A new era for America,” repeats John.
“’Where Obamacare becomes Americare!'”
“Aaaiiiieeeee!” screams Paul. There is a thud of a body hitting the floor, then shuffling, dragging noises as Paul’s shoe disappears from the door. The door quietly closes.
“Where Obamacare becomes . . . becomes . . . “
“That’s fine, John,” says Mitch, handing him a handkerchief. “That’s enough for today.”
November 07, 2012
A productive four years ahead
On "Day One," the day that Mitt wanted so badly, his party threw him under the GOP bus as it left the curb and headed toward 2016.
"It's clear that with our losses in the Presidential race and in key Senate races," Sen. John Cornyn told The Washington Post, "we have a period of reflection and recalibration ahead for the Republican Party. While some will want to blame one wing of the party over the other, the reality is candidates from all corners of our GOP lost tonight. Clearly we have work to do in the weeks and months ahead."
By "wing," Cornyn meant the two wings of the Republican Party: the GOP (which I call "the pragmatists") and the tea party ("the Limbaugh Republicans"). Mitt's campaign, and his defeat, made it clear that in President Obama's second term, there will be three political parties: the Democrats, the GOP, and the tea party.
Now here is Sen. Mitch McConnell, telling the Post that Obama "must move to the center, where Republicans would 'be there to meet him halfway. That begins by proposing a way for both parties to work together in avoiding the fiscal cliff without harming a weak but fragile economy, and then when that is behind us work with us to reform the tax code and our broken entitlement system.'"
McConnell said "Republicans" would meet Obama halfway, but that was code for "GOP pragmatists." He knows the tea partiers won't move to the center or meet ANYBODY halfway, particularly the socialist Obama.
McConnell on Day One is already kicking into play a strategy I've been fiddling with for several days. The GOP, the pragmatists, looking ahead to 2016, know they have some promising young candidates to send out against Hillary. And they need to distance themselves from all those tea partiers who are unelectable or embarrassing or both, and in general a terrible drag on things.
And so the GOP consciously decides to help Obama succeed in his second term, in the process grinding the tea party into dust. The nation profits greatly thereby. Then in 2015-16, the GOP claims credit for everything. Everybody's happy, except maybe Hillary, but she can take care of herself. It's happening so fast. Looking forward, I see progress . . .
"It's clear that with our losses in the Presidential race and in key Senate races," Sen. John Cornyn told The Washington Post, "we have a period of reflection and recalibration ahead for the Republican Party. While some will want to blame one wing of the party over the other, the reality is candidates from all corners of our GOP lost tonight. Clearly we have work to do in the weeks and months ahead."
By "wing," Cornyn meant the two wings of the Republican Party: the GOP (which I call "the pragmatists") and the tea party ("the Limbaugh Republicans"). Mitt's campaign, and his defeat, made it clear that in President Obama's second term, there will be three political parties: the Democrats, the GOP, and the tea party.
Now here is Sen. Mitch McConnell, telling the Post that Obama "must move to the center, where Republicans would 'be there to meet him halfway. That begins by proposing a way for both parties to work together in avoiding the fiscal cliff without harming a weak but fragile economy, and then when that is behind us work with us to reform the tax code and our broken entitlement system.'"
McConnell said "Republicans" would meet Obama halfway, but that was code for "GOP pragmatists." He knows the tea partiers won't move to the center or meet ANYBODY halfway, particularly the socialist Obama.
McConnell on Day One is already kicking into play a strategy I've been fiddling with for several days. The GOP, the pragmatists, looking ahead to 2016, know they have some promising young candidates to send out against Hillary. And they need to distance themselves from all those tea partiers who are unelectable or embarrassing or both, and in general a terrible drag on things.
And so the GOP consciously decides to help Obama succeed in his second term, in the process grinding the tea party into dust. The nation profits greatly thereby. Then in 2015-16, the GOP claims credit for everything. Everybody's happy, except maybe Hillary, but she can take care of herself. It's happening so fast. Looking forward, I see progress . . .
November 06, 2012
Completely wrong, completely consistent
On the day before the election, Mitt told a rally crowd:
“I’ve learned that respect and goodwill go a long way and are usually returned in kind. That’s how I’ll conduct myself as president. I’ll bring people together. I won’t just represent one party, I’ll represent one nation. I’d like you to reach across the street to that neighbor with the other yard sign, and we’ll reach across the aisle here in Washington to people of good faith in the other party.”
Say what?
I wondered: Why would Mitt try to run off his party's base, on the day before the election?
If Mitt got elected president and acted as described above, the tea party would eat him alive. What would it look like if a president tried to lead the nation, but was blocked by resolute obstructionism from his own party? What would it be like if the GOP base came to hate Mitt? What would Rush do? Hey, I wonder if Rush is marketing one of those plastic bracelets: WWRD?
Anyway, Mitt is completely wrong again, when he says if elected, he “won’t just represent one party.” On Day 1, he would be representing two: the GOP, and the tea party. He says he’d “represent one nation.” Minus the 47 percent, of course, whom he has promised never to worry about.
It is so much more logical, and cleaner, when Obama wins, gets a pragmatic GOP's support to move the nation forward, giving the GOP successes to claim in 2015-16, and crushing the tea party in the process. I haven't voted yet. Can't wait to.
“I’ve learned that respect and goodwill go a long way and are usually returned in kind. That’s how I’ll conduct myself as president. I’ll bring people together. I won’t just represent one party, I’ll represent one nation. I’d like you to reach across the street to that neighbor with the other yard sign, and we’ll reach across the aisle here in Washington to people of good faith in the other party.”
Say what?
I wondered: Why would Mitt try to run off his party's base, on the day before the election?
If Mitt got elected president and acted as described above, the tea party would eat him alive. What would it look like if a president tried to lead the nation, but was blocked by resolute obstructionism from his own party? What would it be like if the GOP base came to hate Mitt? What would Rush do? Hey, I wonder if Rush is marketing one of those plastic bracelets: WWRD?
Anyway, Mitt is completely wrong again, when he says if elected, he “won’t just represent one party.” On Day 1, he would be representing two: the GOP, and the tea party. He says he’d “represent one nation.” Minus the 47 percent, of course, whom he has promised never to worry about.
It is so much more logical, and cleaner, when Obama wins, gets a pragmatic GOP's support to move the nation forward, giving the GOP successes to claim in 2015-16, and crushing the tea party in the process. I haven't voted yet. Can't wait to.
Voting against myself, in a couple of ways
Obama hits me where it hurts when he says Mitt would restore '50s cultural values.
1) When I started writing newspaper columns in 1972, I regularly referred to my wife as "the little woman." This may seem like a small thing, but such was the ignorance, I still cringe into a tight little knot of shame. To her, I apologize once again.
2) When I go to my high school reunions (class of '61) back in Texas, there are no black faces there. Sometime in the '90s, I started to feel that our reunions were an anachronism. Once I suggested that we should have a reunion of both white and black high school classes of '61, all in one big room, talking about our high school experiences. It didn't gain much traction. Just as well. The whole idea was patronizing.
When I vote for Obama today, I will be voting against those things I don't like about myself.
1) When I started writing newspaper columns in 1972, I regularly referred to my wife as "the little woman." This may seem like a small thing, but such was the ignorance, I still cringe into a tight little knot of shame. To her, I apologize once again.
2) When I go to my high school reunions (class of '61) back in Texas, there are no black faces there. Sometime in the '90s, I started to feel that our reunions were an anachronism. Once I suggested that we should have a reunion of both white and black high school classes of '61, all in one big room, talking about our high school experiences. It didn't gain much traction. Just as well. The whole idea was patronizing.
When I vote for Obama today, I will be voting against those things I don't like about myself.
November 05, 2012
Three hard reasons, plus Sandy, to vote Obama
Three hard reasons - realities, actually - why I am voting for President Obama.
1. I was always going to vote for him, even before the Republican primaries showed that the GOP didn't have a serious candidate, or a serious platform.
2. My vote this year, for the first and I hope the last time, is also against a candidate for President of the United States, who defamed me directly. He said a) the 47 percent will always vote for Obama, and b) the 47 percent pay no taxes. Those statements, taken together, defame me, damage my reputation. I could never become a party to that.
3. The dynamics of an Obama victory present the best chance for national recovery in the next four years. He becomes what the Republicans have always wanted: a one-term president. The GOP turns to the 2016 election, when, at last, it can offer a selection of reasonable candidates. The GOP decides to work with Obama to create success in 2013-2016, then take credit for that success in the 2015-16 campaign, most likely against Hillary Clinton. In the process, the new GOP pragmatism grinds the tea party into dust. By 2015, the national recovery has profited enormously, the GOP has something to brag about, and the tea party is no more. This is, I believe, my single best reason to vote for Obama.
I said three reasons, but the Sandy story presents one more. The Sandy disaster became a metaphor for the Bush disaster. Both disasters came, they devastated, they left, they couldn't be undone. Recovery is the only option, and recovery from major disasters is always slow. Victims have only one way to go: forward - "Forward," as Obama's signs say - one step at a time. I empathize with them, and I will vote that way tomorrow.
1. I was always going to vote for him, even before the Republican primaries showed that the GOP didn't have a serious candidate, or a serious platform.
2. My vote this year, for the first and I hope the last time, is also against a candidate for President of the United States, who defamed me directly. He said a) the 47 percent will always vote for Obama, and b) the 47 percent pay no taxes. Those statements, taken together, defame me, damage my reputation. I could never become a party to that.
3. The dynamics of an Obama victory present the best chance for national recovery in the next four years. He becomes what the Republicans have always wanted: a one-term president. The GOP turns to the 2016 election, when, at last, it can offer a selection of reasonable candidates. The GOP decides to work with Obama to create success in 2013-2016, then take credit for that success in the 2015-16 campaign, most likely against Hillary Clinton. In the process, the new GOP pragmatism grinds the tea party into dust. By 2015, the national recovery has profited enormously, the GOP has something to brag about, and the tea party is no more. This is, I believe, my single best reason to vote for Obama.
I said three reasons, but the Sandy story presents one more. The Sandy disaster became a metaphor for the Bush disaster. Both disasters came, they devastated, they left, they couldn't be undone. Recovery is the only option, and recovery from major disasters is always slow. Victims have only one way to go: forward - "Forward," as Obama's signs say - one step at a time. I empathize with them, and I will vote that way tomorrow.
November 02, 2012
The recovery metaphor
"Recovery" is an apt headline to be appearing this week, over and over, in the media. Such is the damage from Sandy, authorities say recovery will take years, because recovery from that level of damage is very slow and, as Gov. Christie recognized, requires government and bipartisanship. How odd, maybe even magical, that the Sandy story presents us with a metaphor for another recovery in progress. To see how bad the Bush Administration disaster had become, by winter of 2008, click here.
Obama campaign signs say "Forward." Forward into continuing recovery, which is very slow, and not helped at all by rigidly partisan Republicans in Congress who vowed to make Obama a one-term president. Now arrives an "October surprise," this Sandy with its brutal metaphorical message. It came, it destroyed, it left, it can't be undone. Victims have only one way to go: forward, one step at a time. I empathize with them, and I will vote that way on Tuesday.
Obama campaign signs say "Forward." Forward into continuing recovery, which is very slow, and not helped at all by rigidly partisan Republicans in Congress who vowed to make Obama a one-term president. Now arrives an "October surprise," this Sandy with its brutal metaphorical message. It came, it destroyed, it left, it can't be undone. Victims have only one way to go: forward, one step at a time. I empathize with them, and I will vote that way on Tuesday.
November 01, 2012
Rushworld's loveless terrain
Rush Limbaugh said today: "Christie's the only Republican not just praising Obama, it's a – let's just put it this way. Is it wrong for one man to love another man?"
"Yes!" is the Rushworld answer that Rush is fishing for. What an insinuation. I am a man, and I love several men, and I know these men love me. A couple of them, I know, are going to vote for Mitt Romney.
Is that not okay in Rushworld? Is it wrong for one man to love another man? Is it wrong for a Republican man to love a Democrat man? Is it wrong for Christie to love Obama? What is Rush saying? Can men love men? Can men who love men in opposing parties vote, and have it count, in Rushworld? Would Rush have such votes disqualified?
Hey, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. I am a man who loves, and is loved by, several men. What do you say about that? Quick, I want to hear. Before the election.
"Yes!" is the Rushworld answer that Rush is fishing for. What an insinuation. I am a man, and I love several men, and I know these men love me. A couple of them, I know, are going to vote for Mitt Romney.
Is that not okay in Rushworld? Is it wrong for one man to love another man? Is it wrong for a Republican man to love a Democrat man? Is it wrong for Christie to love Obama? What is Rush saying? Can men love men? Can men who love men in opposing parties vote, and have it count, in Rushworld? Would Rush have such votes disqualified?
Hey, Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock. I am a man who loves, and is loved by, several men. What do you say about that? Quick, I want to hear. Before the election.
October 31, 2012
Some humility, please, for the planet
This is a messy, stormy, volcanic, violent planet.
Spinning at 1,000 miles per hour in an ancient mysterious universe.
This storm is the planet doing what it has always done.
It has raked and ravaged these continental shores for unknown millions of years.
Storms coming off the vacant ocean, slamming into empty coastlines.
Now that we're here, we can try to put a human grid on it.
And preachers with mayonnaise for brains can blame it on human sin.
But the planet has never needed any help from us.
It is a divine system, doing what divine systems do.
It knows nothing of global warming or greenhouse gases.
It only assimilates the gases into its system and adjusts.
It feels warmth.
Warmth, to it, is energy, that melts ice and feeds storms.
Now that we're here, we should be more respectful of the power that we're sitting on.
Instead, groups say that humans should get together to "save the planet."
What a laugh.
Humans can't save the planet. The planet doesn't need us. It will save itself.
On the day it can no longer adjust, if we've pushed too far, it will sneeze us off.
It could happen overnight. Better, however, it will take a long, long time.
Appropriately, for us, the end will have a beginning.
A middle.
And an end. And the planet, freed of us, will spin on, adjusting, with storms raking empty continental shores.
Spinning at 1,000 miles per hour in an ancient mysterious universe.
This storm is the planet doing what it has always done.
It has raked and ravaged these continental shores for unknown millions of years.
Storms coming off the vacant ocean, slamming into empty coastlines.
Now that we're here, we can try to put a human grid on it.
And preachers with mayonnaise for brains can blame it on human sin.
But the planet has never needed any help from us.
It is a divine system, doing what divine systems do.
It knows nothing of global warming or greenhouse gases.
It only assimilates the gases into its system and adjusts.
It feels warmth.
Warmth, to it, is energy, that melts ice and feeds storms.
Now that we're here, we should be more respectful of the power that we're sitting on.
Instead, groups say that humans should get together to "save the planet."
What a laugh.
Humans can't save the planet. The planet doesn't need us. It will save itself.
On the day it can no longer adjust, if we've pushed too far, it will sneeze us off.
It could happen overnight. Better, however, it will take a long, long time.
Appropriately, for us, the end will have a beginning.
A middle.
And an end. And the planet, freed of us, will spin on, adjusting, with storms raking empty continental shores.
October 29, 2012
Putting together a Romney Victory Package
100-lb. sack of beans
100-lb. sack of flour
50-lb. box of lard
500 envelopes vegetable seeds
50-lb. can ointment
5,000-ft. package of gauze
5,000-ct. carton of aspirin (surgical use)
photo of twenty-dollar bill suitable for framing
DVD set of "All in the Family"
2 bicycles
1 bicycle-powered generator
100-ct. pkg. duct tape 100-yd. rolls
50 10-ft. rolls Visqueen
100-lb. sack of flour
50-lb. box of lard
500 envelopes vegetable seeds
50-lb. can ointment
5,000-ft. package of gauze
5,000-ct. carton of aspirin (surgical use)
photo of twenty-dollar bill suitable for framing
DVD set of "All in the Family"
2 bicycles
1 bicycle-powered generator
100-ct. pkg. duct tape 100-yd. rolls
50 10-ft. rolls Visqueen
October 28, 2012
Sharecropping in 21st-century America
Today, in The New York Times, I read a story about "A Part-Time Life, as Hours Shrink and Spin."
In the story was this paragraph, from a retail consultant:
“It’s almost like sharecropping — if you have a lot of farmers with small plots of land, they work very hard to produce in that limited amount of land,” he said. “Many part-time workers feel a real competition to work hard during their limited hours because they want to impress managers to give them more hours.”
Sharecropping! In 2012 America, millions of people trying to make a living have essentially been shrunk to the status of sharecroppers.
The story initially caught my eye because of its dateline: Spring Valley, CA. Spring Valley is two miles from my house. The story began with information about Shannon Hardin, who works part-time at Fresh and Easy, a grocery store at the intersection of Campo Blvd. and Kenyon. I go past it almost every day.
Fresh and Easy pays Shannon Hardin, who is 50 and, at times, essentially the store manager, $10.90 an hour for an average of 28 hours of work per week. "I can't live on this," she says.
"While there have always been part-time workers, especially at restaurants and retailers," the story says, "employers today rely on them far more than before as they seek to cut costs and align staffing to customer traffic. This trend has frustrated millions of Americans who want to work full-time, reducing their pay and benefits."
Reduced pay and benefits always improve the company's bottom line. In Shannon Hardin's case, the reductions in pay and benefits improve the bottom line of Fresh and Easy's owner, Tesco, the largest supermarket company in Britain.
Before you vote on Nov. 6, please read this story. Then read again another story from today's Times, "Some are More Unequal Than Others." The two stories dovetail in telling the story about economic inequality in the U.S., "an issue," writes the author, economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, "that not even the Republicans can ignore. It is no longer just a moral issue, a question of social justice."
The question is, what will the next administration do about sharecropping in 21st-century America?
In the story was this paragraph, from a retail consultant:
“It’s almost like sharecropping — if you have a lot of farmers with small plots of land, they work very hard to produce in that limited amount of land,” he said. “Many part-time workers feel a real competition to work hard during their limited hours because they want to impress managers to give them more hours.”
Sharecropping! In 2012 America, millions of people trying to make a living have essentially been shrunk to the status of sharecroppers.
The story initially caught my eye because of its dateline: Spring Valley, CA. Spring Valley is two miles from my house. The story began with information about Shannon Hardin, who works part-time at Fresh and Easy, a grocery store at the intersection of Campo Blvd. and Kenyon. I go past it almost every day.
Fresh and Easy pays Shannon Hardin, who is 50 and, at times, essentially the store manager, $10.90 an hour for an average of 28 hours of work per week. "I can't live on this," she says.
"While there have always been part-time workers, especially at restaurants and retailers," the story says, "employers today rely on them far more than before as they seek to cut costs and align staffing to customer traffic. This trend has frustrated millions of Americans who want to work full-time, reducing their pay and benefits."
Reduced pay and benefits always improve the company's bottom line. In Shannon Hardin's case, the reductions in pay and benefits improve the bottom line of Fresh and Easy's owner, Tesco, the largest supermarket company in Britain.
Before you vote on Nov. 6, please read this story. Then read again another story from today's Times, "Some are More Unequal Than Others." The two stories dovetail in telling the story about economic inequality in the U.S., "an issue," writes the author, economist Joseph E. Stiglitz, "that not even the Republicans can ignore. It is no longer just a moral issue, a question of social justice."
The question is, what will the next administration do about sharecropping in 21st-century America?
To my children: what Romney would do
To The 47 Percent: If you want a really bad scare, read this essay by Nobel laureate economist Joseph E. Stiglitz.
To my children: it is no secret what a Romney Administration would do to The 47 Percent. Mitt has already told us.
His Administration would treat us as victims, who are dependent on government, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for us, who believe we are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That those are entitlements and government should give them to us. His Administration would treat us as people who pay no income tax, who can never be convinced that we should take personal responsibility and care for our lives.
And it is not his Administration's job to worry about "those people."
"Those people" are us, The 47 Percent. By 2016, we would be screaming for mercy, the 1 percent would be safe, secure, and sequestered, and the other 52 percent would be looking around, wondering what they got themselves into. If you want to know what it would look like, go back and read newspapers from the winter of 2008-09.
You think this isn't a big election? Couldn't be bigger.
To my children: it is no secret what a Romney Administration would do to The 47 Percent. Mitt has already told us.
His Administration would treat us as victims, who are dependent on government, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for us, who believe we are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That those are entitlements and government should give them to us. His Administration would treat us as people who pay no income tax, who can never be convinced that we should take personal responsibility and care for our lives.
And it is not his Administration's job to worry about "those people."
"Those people" are us, The 47 Percent. By 2016, we would be screaming for mercy, the 1 percent would be safe, secure, and sequestered, and the other 52 percent would be looking around, wondering what they got themselves into. If you want to know what it would look like, go back and read newspapers from the winter of 2008-09.
You think this isn't a big election? Couldn't be bigger.
October 26, 2012
An interview with God
(The God the Indiana politician Richard Mourdock knows is so different from mine. I am nearing completion of a novel in which physicists at the huge CERN collider near Geneva discover a particle, created by God at the Big Bang, whose sole purpose in God's design, is to, upon its discovery, reverse the universe. What follows is a chapter from that book, whose working title is "Bookends." Russell Hartnett, a newspaperman, is a principal character in the novel.)
By RUSSELL HARTNETT
Special to The Houston Chronicle
Attn: Op-Ed Editor
On Day Three of Earth's new existence, it is time that somebody interviewed God.
The interview will commence in a moment, but first, some background.
Yesterday, on global television, the learned Dr. Reyes Hernandez of Cal Tech by way of Fort Worth, Texas, said his latest wise thing. He remembered how Albert Einstein was famous for inventing thought experiments, which helped him visualize the dense physical systems he was trying to understand, and which enabled his 1905 breakthrough that resulted in the Special Theory of Relativity. To help see our present situation, even if only a teeny bit better, Dr. Hernandez said he was undertaking his own thought experiments.
Thus: my own thought experiment – an interview with a chief executive whose cat is out of the bag, who has nothing left to lose – takes me to the office of God, which is, of course, the universe. I could not see him, nor did he speak, but when I said, "Good morning, God," inside my head I sensed his reply: "Hello." It did not echo, and it did not have Biblical heft; it was an everyday baritone, on the businesslike side.
"God," I asked. "What is going on here?"
"It's very simple," God said.
"So daVinci was right," I said, "when in the 16th century he said, 'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication' . . . "
"Yes," said God. "Many bright individuals have remarked on the essence of simplicity in the universal design. Albert Einstein said, 'When the solution is simple, God is answering.' I appreciated that, but . . . "
God sighed. "Einstein was among the first to show that men were starting to know too much. After that, it has all gone very quickly."
"So you can tell me what has happened," I said.
"Yes and no," said God. "We must go back to the beginning."
God described the beginning, "what you call the Big Bang," he said. He described the incredible instant, in which the universe and all the elementary particles of physics were created. But I got the feeling that he was telling me only what we already knew, as if he were reading out of a high school science textbook.
"Can you go into greater depth?" I asked.
"You wouldn't understand it," he said casually, providing journalism with the greatest headline of all time:
" 'You Wouldn't Understand It' – God"
There was a brief silence, in which I sensed God was enjoying the headline he had made. Full disclosure: before the interview, I had developed evidence to believe that God was a playful deity. And now to find he had a journalism streak. But then, it made sense. If all of us were created in his image, then he must be a little bit like all of us.
"There is, however," he said, "one heretofore undisclosed detail you need to know. Actually, I should not say, 'undisclosed.' It has been disclosed to you in its own way. You will recognize it the instant I say it."
"How could I?" I said.
"It is in your nature," God said.
He said he had assembled all the elements necessary to create the Big Bang, with the exception of one element without which the project could not move forward. That element, he said, was the controversial Higgs boson, the vital element that physicists believe imbued all the other particles with mass.
"But at the time," he said, "I did not call it the Higgs boson. I called it the Beelzebub boson."
"Beelzebub," I repeated, slowly. "Like Satan. Or the Devil."
"That is correct," God replied.
"Well, wouldn't you just know it," I said. "You are saying that this element was in the hands of Beelzebub, It was his property."
"That is correct," God said.
"And he would not let you have it."
"Not without something in return," said God, his voice steady.
"So you had to bargain for it," I said. "My God! "You made a deal with the Devil."
"That is the case," said God, unapologetically.
"Of course! The Devil has always been with us!"
"Thus you have known all along, because – "
"Because it is – he is – in my nature. He is as old a story as you." I tried to see God, but I could only see green fields, people, mountain ridges, sky, clouds. And something else. I could see Earth as the entire heavenly body. Heavenly by God. Body by Beelzebub. And as I watched, I saw clouds of numbers, in bright metallic colors, swirling and streaming and streaking around and between all objects in view. I could not discern if they were real, or only in my thoughts.
"The Devil, Beelzebub, he is the monster that Cuilly saw," I said. "He is in me. He is in us all. And if we are in your image, then he is in you."
God did not reply.
"But," I said, amazed, "if he were not, then we would not be here. He gave you the mass particle in return for a ticket to ride."
For a full minute, we did not speak. The morning was calm and quiet, with no more hint of an Apocalypse than a cool breeze on my neck. Then I said, "You are telling me this because the deal has something to do with what is going on now."
"I permitted Beelzebub into the universe because I had no choice," God said. "But I did not reveal to him the terms. He did not press me, since he knew that I would walk away. True, he is Beelzebub. But I am God."
God said he made a design in which the Beelzebub boson would be paired with another particle that would not block the mass effect, but otherwise neutralize the boson's physical properties.
"Making it invisible," I said. "Undetectable."
"Or 'theoretical,' in the language of your physicists," God said.
"So since that instant in the Big Bang, your masking particle has been able to do its job," I said.
"Yes," said God. "For the most part."
"But the Beelzebub boson has fought incessantly and violently to escape."
"It is his nature to present himself as a constant threat," God agreed.
"What would happen if it did escape?" I asked.
"Evil would no longer be newsworthy," he said. "Evil would be the commonplace."
"And then humans created the LHC to actually free the boson," I said.
God said he could never let that happen. He said that his system "had sent a message" with the 2008 Collider failure, causing events to move back in time, and then creating an explosion, before the Collider could free the boson. The skeptical scientists, I realized, had been right.
"Time was permitted to move forward once more, and the Collider resumed operations as before. I saw that the warning had not been seriously heeded. At that time, I feared the final event was near. Then the moment arrived, the instant that Cuilly Burdette glimpsed the monster breaking loose into his screen."
"And so you reversed the universe," I said.
"No. Please remember who I am," he said, with some Biblical heft creeping in. "Intervention is beneath me. The 2008 warning was programmed, and research could have been voluntarily halted."
"But they resumed," I said, picking up the history, "and in summer 2012 announced some results that appeared Higgs-like."
God snorted. I swear. Divine disdain.
"Operating at half-power," he said, a small rumble of thunder rolling in his throat. "Do they think the Big Bang was the result of half-power?"
"But now you are saying they should have left it alone, in 2012," I said.
"I am conflicted," God said. "Those who would know God would have the respect to approach me at full power. Yet when, finally, they did, three days ago, the Collider reversed the universe. The original design provided that, the instant the boson was freed, by any event, time would no longer go from past toward future, but stop, and then proceed from future toward past, rendering it impossible for eternity that the boson could be freed. The Collider brought forth that instant. The result was automatic. I was sipping tea at the time."
"I believe you are saying, God, that we on Earth and in the universe have entered a field in your design that has been there all along," I said. "You knew that our past might someday become our future, and you planned for it."
"Yes," God said. "On the first day, I drew the line at Beelzebub."
"A minute ago, you said that after Einstein, you thought that men were starting to know too much. Was that in the design, or did it surprise you?"
"I only created the universe, the heavens and the Earth," God said. "But I did not create the universe to be bored. Within the creation, its elements have always been governed by chance, and its inhabitants have always had free will. So, yes, the first time I was surprised that it happened so soon."
I was startled. "The first time?" I said. "Have there been other times?"
God was silent.
"God?" I said.
Finally he spoke: "Ask Einstein." Then he was gone. I looked at my notes. My next question would have been about the dead people coming to life. I tried to call out again. But my mind was blank.
I had heard enough. It was only a thought experiment, whose effect was to affirm my core belief, that anything is possible. After it was completed, I read the interview again. Twice. Here is the important thing: I believed it.
God is already on record, in this planet's archives, as the creator of the universe. That story is told in the Bible, which remains the No. 1 best-selling non-fiction book of all time. His story as told in this interview is no less plausible. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Same-same.
The Biblical version then started forward, and God's vision was completed in six days. The Big Bang version took longer and now is in roughly its thirteen-point-seven-billionth year. In the Genesis version, a wily serpent living in the Tree of Good and Evil was the original source of evil. In the Big Bang view, God identifies that source as the so-called "Beelzebub boson," without which matter could not exist. Either way, evil has always been with us, as a literal condition of life.
But the stories differ in the end – maybe. The Beelzebub story describes the boson as part of the universe's design from the first instant, which, if ever freed, would trigger an Event such as we encountered on May 29. No such universal mechanism is mentioned in the Bible with regard to the serpent.
However, it may not be because God didn't try. I must admit that I am an evolutionist when it comes to comparing creation theories, favoring the Big Bang's long haul over what I came to think of as "the scenic route" found in Genesis.
Again, anything is possible, and probably always was. God has always had freedom with the universe, not intervening, which was beneath him, but tinkering, which appears to be in his character. The Genesis reporters obviously got the serpent story from somewhere. God, being as open with them as he has been with me, may have tried to describe the boson as the source of evil. But physics would not be introduced for another five thousand years, and the humans at that time had no chance of understanding such a theory.
So God devised the serpent story, an evil with which those writers would have been familiar. And of course he couldn't speak to them of particle colliders, so he just left that part off. In the present day, humans do have physics, a science that eventually led them to a theory about a "Higgs boson," that they became hell-bent to find.
Three days ago, they became successful, and they reversed the universe. Is that the evidence, that they finally found the boson? God says yes. But the physicists have no way to return to the scene to collect proof. They are left – all of us are left – only with a true eternity, a universe book-ended by theories: the Big Bang, that started the universe, and the Higgs boson, that reversed it. God is such an awful tease.
Copyright Michael Grant 2012
By RUSSELL HARTNETT
Special to The Houston Chronicle
Attn: Op-Ed Editor
On Day Three of Earth's new existence, it is time that somebody interviewed God.
The interview will commence in a moment, but first, some background.
Yesterday, on global television, the learned Dr. Reyes Hernandez of Cal Tech by way of Fort Worth, Texas, said his latest wise thing. He remembered how Albert Einstein was famous for inventing thought experiments, which helped him visualize the dense physical systems he was trying to understand, and which enabled his 1905 breakthrough that resulted in the Special Theory of Relativity. To help see our present situation, even if only a teeny bit better, Dr. Hernandez said he was undertaking his own thought experiments.
Thus: my own thought experiment – an interview with a chief executive whose cat is out of the bag, who has nothing left to lose – takes me to the office of God, which is, of course, the universe. I could not see him, nor did he speak, but when I said, "Good morning, God," inside my head I sensed his reply: "Hello." It did not echo, and it did not have Biblical heft; it was an everyday baritone, on the businesslike side.
"God," I asked. "What is going on here?"
"It's very simple," God said.
"So daVinci was right," I said, "when in the 16th century he said, 'Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication' . . . "
"Yes," said God. "Many bright individuals have remarked on the essence of simplicity in the universal design. Albert Einstein said, 'When the solution is simple, God is answering.' I appreciated that, but . . . "
God sighed. "Einstein was among the first to show that men were starting to know too much. After that, it has all gone very quickly."
"So you can tell me what has happened," I said.
"Yes and no," said God. "We must go back to the beginning."
God described the beginning, "what you call the Big Bang," he said. He described the incredible instant, in which the universe and all the elementary particles of physics were created. But I got the feeling that he was telling me only what we already knew, as if he were reading out of a high school science textbook.
"Can you go into greater depth?" I asked.
"You wouldn't understand it," he said casually, providing journalism with the greatest headline of all time:
" 'You Wouldn't Understand It' – God"
There was a brief silence, in which I sensed God was enjoying the headline he had made. Full disclosure: before the interview, I had developed evidence to believe that God was a playful deity. And now to find he had a journalism streak. But then, it made sense. If all of us were created in his image, then he must be a little bit like all of us.
"There is, however," he said, "one heretofore undisclosed detail you need to know. Actually, I should not say, 'undisclosed.' It has been disclosed to you in its own way. You will recognize it the instant I say it."
"How could I?" I said.
"It is in your nature," God said.
He said he had assembled all the elements necessary to create the Big Bang, with the exception of one element without which the project could not move forward. That element, he said, was the controversial Higgs boson, the vital element that physicists believe imbued all the other particles with mass.
"But at the time," he said, "I did not call it the Higgs boson. I called it the Beelzebub boson."
"Beelzebub," I repeated, slowly. "Like Satan. Or the Devil."
"That is correct," God replied.
"Well, wouldn't you just know it," I said. "You are saying that this element was in the hands of Beelzebub, It was his property."
"That is correct," God said.
"And he would not let you have it."
"Not without something in return," said God, his voice steady.
"So you had to bargain for it," I said. "My God! "You made a deal with the Devil."
"That is the case," said God, unapologetically.
"Of course! The Devil has always been with us!"
"Thus you have known all along, because – "
"Because it is – he is – in my nature. He is as old a story as you." I tried to see God, but I could only see green fields, people, mountain ridges, sky, clouds. And something else. I could see Earth as the entire heavenly body. Heavenly by God. Body by Beelzebub. And as I watched, I saw clouds of numbers, in bright metallic colors, swirling and streaming and streaking around and between all objects in view. I could not discern if they were real, or only in my thoughts.
"The Devil, Beelzebub, he is the monster that Cuilly saw," I said. "He is in me. He is in us all. And if we are in your image, then he is in you."
God did not reply.
"But," I said, amazed, "if he were not, then we would not be here. He gave you the mass particle in return for a ticket to ride."
For a full minute, we did not speak. The morning was calm and quiet, with no more hint of an Apocalypse than a cool breeze on my neck. Then I said, "You are telling me this because the deal has something to do with what is going on now."
"I permitted Beelzebub into the universe because I had no choice," God said. "But I did not reveal to him the terms. He did not press me, since he knew that I would walk away. True, he is Beelzebub. But I am God."
God said he made a design in which the Beelzebub boson would be paired with another particle that would not block the mass effect, but otherwise neutralize the boson's physical properties.
"Making it invisible," I said. "Undetectable."
"Or 'theoretical,' in the language of your physicists," God said.
"So since that instant in the Big Bang, your masking particle has been able to do its job," I said.
"Yes," said God. "For the most part."
"But the Beelzebub boson has fought incessantly and violently to escape."
"It is his nature to present himself as a constant threat," God agreed.
"What would happen if it did escape?" I asked.
"Evil would no longer be newsworthy," he said. "Evil would be the commonplace."
"And then humans created the LHC to actually free the boson," I said.
God said he could never let that happen. He said that his system "had sent a message" with the 2008 Collider failure, causing events to move back in time, and then creating an explosion, before the Collider could free the boson. The skeptical scientists, I realized, had been right.
"Time was permitted to move forward once more, and the Collider resumed operations as before. I saw that the warning had not been seriously heeded. At that time, I feared the final event was near. Then the moment arrived, the instant that Cuilly Burdette glimpsed the monster breaking loose into his screen."
"And so you reversed the universe," I said.
"No. Please remember who I am," he said, with some Biblical heft creeping in. "Intervention is beneath me. The 2008 warning was programmed, and research could have been voluntarily halted."
"But they resumed," I said, picking up the history, "and in summer 2012 announced some results that appeared Higgs-like."
God snorted. I swear. Divine disdain.
"Operating at half-power," he said, a small rumble of thunder rolling in his throat. "Do they think the Big Bang was the result of half-power?"
"But now you are saying they should have left it alone, in 2012," I said.
"I am conflicted," God said. "Those who would know God would have the respect to approach me at full power. Yet when, finally, they did, three days ago, the Collider reversed the universe. The original design provided that, the instant the boson was freed, by any event, time would no longer go from past toward future, but stop, and then proceed from future toward past, rendering it impossible for eternity that the boson could be freed. The Collider brought forth that instant. The result was automatic. I was sipping tea at the time."
"I believe you are saying, God, that we on Earth and in the universe have entered a field in your design that has been there all along," I said. "You knew that our past might someday become our future, and you planned for it."
"Yes," God said. "On the first day, I drew the line at Beelzebub."
"A minute ago, you said that after Einstein, you thought that men were starting to know too much. Was that in the design, or did it surprise you?"
"I only created the universe, the heavens and the Earth," God said. "But I did not create the universe to be bored. Within the creation, its elements have always been governed by chance, and its inhabitants have always had free will. So, yes, the first time I was surprised that it happened so soon."
I was startled. "The first time?" I said. "Have there been other times?"
God was silent.
"God?" I said.
Finally he spoke: "Ask Einstein." Then he was gone. I looked at my notes. My next question would have been about the dead people coming to life. I tried to call out again. But my mind was blank.
I had heard enough. It was only a thought experiment, whose effect was to affirm my core belief, that anything is possible. After it was completed, I read the interview again. Twice. Here is the important thing: I believed it.
God is already on record, in this planet's archives, as the creator of the universe. That story is told in the Bible, which remains the No. 1 best-selling non-fiction book of all time. His story as told in this interview is no less plausible. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Same-same.
The Biblical version then started forward, and God's vision was completed in six days. The Big Bang version took longer and now is in roughly its thirteen-point-seven-billionth year. In the Genesis version, a wily serpent living in the Tree of Good and Evil was the original source of evil. In the Big Bang view, God identifies that source as the so-called "Beelzebub boson," without which matter could not exist. Either way, evil has always been with us, as a literal condition of life.
But the stories differ in the end – maybe. The Beelzebub story describes the boson as part of the universe's design from the first instant, which, if ever freed, would trigger an Event such as we encountered on May 29. No such universal mechanism is mentioned in the Bible with regard to the serpent.
However, it may not be because God didn't try. I must admit that I am an evolutionist when it comes to comparing creation theories, favoring the Big Bang's long haul over what I came to think of as "the scenic route" found in Genesis.
Again, anything is possible, and probably always was. God has always had freedom with the universe, not intervening, which was beneath him, but tinkering, which appears to be in his character. The Genesis reporters obviously got the serpent story from somewhere. God, being as open with them as he has been with me, may have tried to describe the boson as the source of evil. But physics would not be introduced for another five thousand years, and the humans at that time had no chance of understanding such a theory.
So God devised the serpent story, an evil with which those writers would have been familiar. And of course he couldn't speak to them of particle colliders, so he just left that part off. In the present day, humans do have physics, a science that eventually led them to a theory about a "Higgs boson," that they became hell-bent to find.
Three days ago, they became successful, and they reversed the universe. Is that the evidence, that they finally found the boson? God says yes. But the physicists have no way to return to the scene to collect proof. They are left – all of us are left – only with a true eternity, a universe book-ended by theories: the Big Bang, that started the universe, and the Higgs boson, that reversed it. God is such an awful tease.
Copyright Michael Grant 2012
October 24, 2012
God's defamation suit against Richard Mourdock
Dean Calbreath, my colleague in journalism and the teaching of journalism, commented on Facebook a few minutes ago, "If I were God, I'd sue for defamation."
In journalism, we are schooled in the nuts and bolts of defamation. "Defamation" means "to publish anything false about a person, which damages that person's reputation, or ability to make a living." In some states, damage includes "mental anguish."
So here are a woman, pregnant by rape, and God, sitting in a bar, side-by-side, reading Richard Mourdock's remark – "And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen" – and being equally outraged.
God puts a hand on the woman's shoulder. "I am so sorry you had to see that," he says. "If you will excuse me, I have business to attend to."
God files a defamation suit against Richard Mourdock. In the courtroom, God takes his seat at the Plaintiff's table as a maturely attractive conservatively dressed woman in her forties. Her name is Meryl. "Your Honor," says Elmo, Richard Mourdock's attorney, "how can we be sure that this is God?"
"Try me," says Meryl, in a throaty tenor that sways the chandeliers a bit.
"Your Honor," says Meryl's attorney Robert, in his 50s, handsome in a nondescript way, "what Richard Mourdock said in published comments about my client is not only holier-than-thou in that it puts a human's words in God's mouth, it is also false, it damages her reputation, and it has caused God considerable mental anguish." As he speaks, the rafters shiver.
"My God," says Elmo, staring. "You can't be God, too."
"How lightly you regard me," Robert says with a tight smile, "for one who created the Universe."
"Your Honor, the defense rests," says Elmo.
Robert stands. "Your Honor," he says, "the defense can't rest, without presenting a case. Therefore I move for a mistrial, and an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. This suit, in this nation, deserves maximum publicity. And, I have always wanted to appear before the Supreme Court."
In journalism, we are schooled in the nuts and bolts of defamation. "Defamation" means "to publish anything false about a person, which damages that person's reputation, or ability to make a living." In some states, damage includes "mental anguish."
So here are a woman, pregnant by rape, and God, sitting in a bar, side-by-side, reading Richard Mourdock's remark – "And even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen" – and being equally outraged.
God puts a hand on the woman's shoulder. "I am so sorry you had to see that," he says. "If you will excuse me, I have business to attend to."
God files a defamation suit against Richard Mourdock. In the courtroom, God takes his seat at the Plaintiff's table as a maturely attractive conservatively dressed woman in her forties. Her name is Meryl. "Your Honor," says Elmo, Richard Mourdock's attorney, "how can we be sure that this is God?"
"Try me," says Meryl, in a throaty tenor that sways the chandeliers a bit.
"Your Honor," says Meryl's attorney Robert, in his 50s, handsome in a nondescript way, "what Richard Mourdock said in published comments about my client is not only holier-than-thou in that it puts a human's words in God's mouth, it is also false, it damages her reputation, and it has caused God considerable mental anguish." As he speaks, the rafters shiver.
"My God," says Elmo, staring. "You can't be God, too."
"How lightly you regard me," Robert says with a tight smile, "for one who created the Universe."
"Your Honor, the defense rests," says Elmo.
Robert stands. "Your Honor," he says, "the defense can't rest, without presenting a case. Therefore I move for a mistrial, and an appeal directly to the Supreme Court. This suit, in this nation, deserves maximum publicity. And, I have always wanted to appear before the Supreme Court."
October 22, 2012
In the debate, look for the Romnesia brand
The first known use of "Romnesia," according to the Politico website, was last March 23, in a tweet by an Obama supporter, "@breakingnuts." This individual defined Romnesia as "a severe form of amnesia that strikes dishonest politicians."
Why was it only last week that the Obama team picked it up? Most likely because the blog/twitter world is a mammoth haystack in which sharp points – needles – are almost impossible to find.
But it doesn't matter. As @breakingnuts defined it, Romnesia was too weak, too general, and not quite true: "a severe form of amnesia that strikes dishonest politicians." It was named for Romney, but it could have applied to anybody, lying about any subject. It was not quite true because the author used the wrong definition of "amnesia."
By the time Obama used it last week, the term had acquired specificity provided by Romney himself, as he started to move away from his severely conservative positions of last spring toward his moderate right positions of the general campaign.
The way Obama used it – "If you come down with a case of Romnesia and you can't seem to remember the policies that are still on your website" – it could only apply to one man: Romney. That is why it works. The Romney camp wanted to pass it off as a joke, but it's not. It's a brand: one memorable word that sums up the Mitt Romney product.
Obama carefully did not say, "have forgotten the policies," which was important, because Romney hasn't forgotten them. Obama said, "can't seem to remember the policies" to invoke the Webster's definition of amnesia that applies in this case: "selective overlooking of events or acts that are not favorable or useful to one's purpose or position." This is the link which connects "Romnesia" to a slang term from the 1920s that meant "rubbishy nonsense; baloney; bull; euphemism for bullshit." That word was "Bushwa." I am not making this up.
When Mitt started his shift toward the middle, during the August convention, many writers sought original words to describe the shift. I used the device of a dock – the severely conservative base – and the boat – the moderate right shift. Romney had to keep one foot on both as he – . Well. My effort was feeble, and all other efforts feeble, when it could be nailed down in one word. Romnesia. You'll be able to see Romnesia on display in tonight's debate, and know instantly what it is. That's branding.
Why was it only last week that the Obama team picked it up? Most likely because the blog/twitter world is a mammoth haystack in which sharp points – needles – are almost impossible to find.
But it doesn't matter. As @breakingnuts defined it, Romnesia was too weak, too general, and not quite true: "a severe form of amnesia that strikes dishonest politicians." It was named for Romney, but it could have applied to anybody, lying about any subject. It was not quite true because the author used the wrong definition of "amnesia."
By the time Obama used it last week, the term had acquired specificity provided by Romney himself, as he started to move away from his severely conservative positions of last spring toward his moderate right positions of the general campaign.
The way Obama used it – "If you come down with a case of Romnesia and you can't seem to remember the policies that are still on your website" – it could only apply to one man: Romney. That is why it works. The Romney camp wanted to pass it off as a joke, but it's not. It's a brand: one memorable word that sums up the Mitt Romney product.
Obama carefully did not say, "have forgotten the policies," which was important, because Romney hasn't forgotten them. Obama said, "can't seem to remember the policies" to invoke the Webster's definition of amnesia that applies in this case: "selective overlooking of events or acts that are not favorable or useful to one's purpose or position." This is the link which connects "Romnesia" to a slang term from the 1920s that meant "rubbishy nonsense; baloney; bull; euphemism for bullshit." That word was "Bushwa." I am not making this up.
When Mitt started his shift toward the middle, during the August convention, many writers sought original words to describe the shift. I used the device of a dock – the severely conservative base – and the boat – the moderate right shift. Romney had to keep one foot on both as he – . Well. My effort was feeble, and all other efforts feeble, when it could be nailed down in one word. Romnesia. You'll be able to see Romnesia on display in tonight's debate, and know instantly what it is. That's branding.
Setting traps for Mitt
The final presidential debate is tonight, and you know as well as I do that the Obama team is looking for ways to get Mitt to walk into a trap.
Last week, Mitt walked into a trap – the "act of terror" trap – that had Rush Limbaugh about to splatter himself on his studio's walls. Barack saw the trap coming – he may even have set it – and urged Mitt toward it ("Please proceed, governor"), which reminded me of a Gary Larson "Far Side" cartoon about the cat and the clothes dryer, that I described here last week.
Mitt, obviously, didn't see it coming. Thus, an opportunity for tonight, where the object is foreign policy, a realm full of traps for someone who knows the territory the way a sitting administration does.
Bill Keller, writing in this morning's New York Times, set an obvious, and very broad trap, nudging Mitt toward saying reasonable things about a reasonable presidential foreign policy, things that would infuriate the severely conservative core of the Mitt constituency. I almost wish that would happen, to view the photos from space of the southern and central regions of the nation being defined by the explosions.
So that's not a likely trap. Keller himself, at the end of his piece, acknowledged it was not something that he would expect. I will be looking, though, for some kind of trap to develop, and for the signs that everyone knows it's coming, but Mitt. It helps make the debate more interesting.
Last week, Mitt walked into a trap – the "act of terror" trap – that had Rush Limbaugh about to splatter himself on his studio's walls. Barack saw the trap coming – he may even have set it – and urged Mitt toward it ("Please proceed, governor"), which reminded me of a Gary Larson "Far Side" cartoon about the cat and the clothes dryer, that I described here last week.
Mitt, obviously, didn't see it coming. Thus, an opportunity for tonight, where the object is foreign policy, a realm full of traps for someone who knows the territory the way a sitting administration does.
Bill Keller, writing in this morning's New York Times, set an obvious, and very broad trap, nudging Mitt toward saying reasonable things about a reasonable presidential foreign policy, things that would infuriate the severely conservative core of the Mitt constituency. I almost wish that would happen, to view the photos from space of the southern and central regions of the nation being defined by the explosions.
So that's not a likely trap. Keller himself, at the end of his piece, acknowledged it was not something that he would expect. I will be looking, though, for some kind of trap to develop, and for the signs that everyone knows it's coming, but Mitt. It helps make the debate more interesting.
October 21, 2012
Can't wait for Nov. 6
It has been almost a month, and Mitt's comments seem not to have aged. Every time I read them, it is as if for the first time.
"Well, there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement and government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49 ... I mean, he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax; 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. He’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
It would be interesting to know the number of fundraisers where he repeated these same remarks.
"Well, there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement and government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49 ... I mean, he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax; 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. He’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
It would be interesting to know the number of fundraisers where he repeated these same remarks.
October 19, 2012
"Romnesia"
I have been working in creative media since 1969. So have thousands of other media professionals. We are all extremely aware of each other, and afraid someone else will get the idea first. When someone else beats me to it, it hurts.
Three days ago, on Oct. 16, I posted the following blog:
"The real debate, between now and the election, should be between Moderate Mitt and Severely Conservative Mitt.
"In the last three weeks before the election, I would like to see such a debate, created in a series of ads by the Obama Campaign, in split-screen, just like the candidate debates, with Moderate Mitt on the left, and Severely Conservative Mitt on the right, going back and forth with pronouncements about where they stand.
"The point is to show undecided voters if they vote for Mitt, they literally won't know who they're voting for.
"Whatever the Obama ad formats in these last weeks, they will aim at the Mitt duality. He has set himself up as a sitting duck."
I was very happy, as a creative media professional, with the idea of a split-screen debate between Moderate Mitt and Severely Conservative Mitt.
But then, today, in Virginia, Obama, thanks to his creative team, came up with one word that trumps my whole idea:
"Romnesia."
Brilliant. It hurts so bad.
Three days ago, on Oct. 16, I posted the following blog:
"The real debate, between now and the election, should be between Moderate Mitt and Severely Conservative Mitt.
"In the last three weeks before the election, I would like to see such a debate, created in a series of ads by the Obama Campaign, in split-screen, just like the candidate debates, with Moderate Mitt on the left, and Severely Conservative Mitt on the right, going back and forth with pronouncements about where they stand.
"The point is to show undecided voters if they vote for Mitt, they literally won't know who they're voting for.
"Whatever the Obama ad formats in these last weeks, they will aim at the Mitt duality. He has set himself up as a sitting duck."
I was very happy, as a creative media professional, with the idea of a split-screen debate between Moderate Mitt and Severely Conservative Mitt.
But then, today, in Virginia, Obama, thanks to his creative team, came up with one word that trumps my whole idea:
"Romnesia."
Brilliant. It hurts so bad.
McConnell to Obama, 2013: you and me, baby
The main result of Barack Obama's re-election will be continuing national progress (economy, jobs, women's rights, Supreme Court, etc.) for the next four years, accelerated by enthusiastic support (say what?) from Republicans in Congress.
This is because, with his re-election, Obama will become a one-term president, which fulfills the dream of Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell. Republican obstructionist strategies of the last four years, no longer necessary, will be replaced by strategies of strong support.
Those strategies become the cornerstone of Republican Party planning for the 2016 election, for which the party (finally!) is nicely positioned with serious candidates, young blood which has received generous ink in the 2012 campaign and which could conceivably provide the GOP its most meaningful, Bachmann-free primary since Bush 41's nomination.
The Democrats most likely will put forth Hillary Clinton, who is eminently experienced and seasoned and would be a compelling and hard-to-beat presidential candidate.
A possible strategy to beat her: help Obama succeed, and then in the campaign of 2015-16, claim credit for it, which is something the GOP is really good at. In the process, the nation benefits. Everyone knew it was going to take Obama eight years anyway, to repair the damage left by he-whose-name-can't-be-mentioned-in-the-GOP, until a debate delegate asked Mitt how he was different from George W. Bush.
In hindsight, it was also true that Obama's most meaningful progress would have to wait until his second term, when GOP support became an option. Who knew the option would also become GOP election strategy? It's a strategy that will crush the Tea Party, of course, but hey: politics is politics. Such a completely weird business.
This is because, with his re-election, Obama will become a one-term president, which fulfills the dream of Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell. Republican obstructionist strategies of the last four years, no longer necessary, will be replaced by strategies of strong support.
Those strategies become the cornerstone of Republican Party planning for the 2016 election, for which the party (finally!) is nicely positioned with serious candidates, young blood which has received generous ink in the 2012 campaign and which could conceivably provide the GOP its most meaningful, Bachmann-free primary since Bush 41's nomination.
The Democrats most likely will put forth Hillary Clinton, who is eminently experienced and seasoned and would be a compelling and hard-to-beat presidential candidate.
A possible strategy to beat her: help Obama succeed, and then in the campaign of 2015-16, claim credit for it, which is something the GOP is really good at. In the process, the nation benefits. Everyone knew it was going to take Obama eight years anyway, to repair the damage left by he-whose-name-can't-be-mentioned-in-the-GOP, until a debate delegate asked Mitt how he was different from George W. Bush.
In hindsight, it was also true that Obama's most meaningful progress would have to wait until his second term, when GOP support became an option. Who knew the option would also become GOP election strategy? It's a strategy that will crush the Tea Party, of course, but hey: politics is politics. Such a completely weird business.
October 17, 2012
Of terror, Bush and the 47 percent
For the record, Candy Crowley, who is taking some flak from the right wing, was correct to jump in last night and confirm President Obama's Rose Garden "act of terror" quote.
Mitt left her no choice. Here is what he said, as he approached her:
MR. ROMNEY: I — I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. (To Obama:) You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.
MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.
MR. ROMNEY: I — I — I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
When Candy heard Mitt say he wanted to "get that for the record," she had no choice, if she wanted to continue to live with herself. She could remain silent, and walk away from a presidential debate record she knew would be incorrect. Or she could jump in, as she did, and walk away from a record she knew was correct.
I am happy that President Obama acknowledged the 47 percent in this public, nationally televised forum. He said:
"There’s a fundamentally different vision about how we move our country forward. I believe Governor Romney is a good man. He loves his family, cares about his faith.
But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considers themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility — think about who he was talking about: folks on Social Security who’ve worked all their lives, veterans who’ve sacrificed for this country, students who are out there trying to, hopefully, advance their own dreams, but also this country’s dreams, soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now, people who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don’t make enough income. And I want to fight for them. That’s what I’ve been doing for the last four years, because if they succeed, I believe the country succeeds."
Mitt, with his "completely wrong" statement, tried to shrug off his 47 percent comment. Being two of the 47 percent, my wife and I believe he should be held accountable. President Obama's statement was a step in that direction.
Finally, thanks for the question asked from the audience by Susan Katz:
"Governor Romney, I am an undecided voter because I’m disappointed with the lack of progress I’ve seen in the last four years. However, I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both you and President Bush are Republicans, I fear a return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?"
She was speaking of a man whose name Republicans have avoided like the plague in this campaign, a former president not even asked to appear at this year's national nominating convention. Susan Katz let the Republicans know that Americans are thinking about George W., though, and his role in the way things are now. It was a priceless addition to the dialogue.
Mitt left her no choice. Here is what he said, as he approached her:
MR. ROMNEY: I — I think it’s interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. (To Obama:) You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.
MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you’re saying?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.
MR. ROMNEY: I — I — I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
When Candy heard Mitt say he wanted to "get that for the record," she had no choice, if she wanted to continue to live with herself. She could remain silent, and walk away from a presidential debate record she knew would be incorrect. Or she could jump in, as she did, and walk away from a record she knew was correct.
I am happy that President Obama acknowledged the 47 percent in this public, nationally televised forum. He said:
"There’s a fundamentally different vision about how we move our country forward. I believe Governor Romney is a good man. He loves his family, cares about his faith.
But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considers themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility — think about who he was talking about: folks on Social Security who’ve worked all their lives, veterans who’ve sacrificed for this country, students who are out there trying to, hopefully, advance their own dreams, but also this country’s dreams, soldiers who are overseas fighting for us right now, people who are working hard every day, paying payroll tax, gas taxes, but don’t make enough income. And I want to fight for them. That’s what I’ve been doing for the last four years, because if they succeed, I believe the country succeeds."
Mitt, with his "completely wrong" statement, tried to shrug off his 47 percent comment. Being two of the 47 percent, my wife and I believe he should be held accountable. President Obama's statement was a step in that direction.
Finally, thanks for the question asked from the audience by Susan Katz:
"Governor Romney, I am an undecided voter because I’m disappointed with the lack of progress I’ve seen in the last four years. However, I do attribute much of America’s economic and international problems to the failings and missteps of the Bush administration. Since both you and President Bush are Republicans, I fear a return to the policies of those years should you win this election. What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?"
She was speaking of a man whose name Republicans have avoided like the plague in this campaign, a former president not even asked to appear at this year's national nominating convention. Susan Katz let the Republicans know that Americans are thinking about George W., though, and his role in the way things are now. It was a priceless addition to the dialogue.
Dying by the truth
Remember Gary Larson and "The Far Side"? Barack and Mitt last night re-enacted one of my favorite "Far Side" cartoons of all. A dog has drawn arrows and "Cat Fud" signs into the laundry room, all the way to the open door of the clothes dryer. At the open door stands a cat, peering in. Hidden behind the washing machine is the dog, thinking: "Oh please, oh please . . . "
It was hard to tell if Barack actually set the trap, or if Mitt just walked into it. Either way, as Mitt, challenging Barack's "act of terror" quote, walked closer and closer to Candy Crowley, with Barack edging him on ("Please proceed, Governor"), I could almost hear Barack holding his breath and thinking, "Oh please, oh please . . . " Then Mitt hopped into the dryer, and Candy ("He did call it an act of terror sir") slammed the door.
It was hard to tell if Barack actually set the trap, or if Mitt just walked into it. Either way, as Mitt, challenging Barack's "act of terror" quote, walked closer and closer to Candy Crowley, with Barack edging him on ("Please proceed, Governor"), I could almost hear Barack holding his breath and thinking, "Oh please, oh please . . . " Then Mitt hopped into the dryer, and Candy ("He did call it an act of terror sir") slammed the door.
October 16, 2012
47 Percent Defamation
In his famous remarks about "the 47 percent," Mitt said that we, the 47 percent (I am a member of the 47 percent), are dependent upon government.
He said we believe that we are victims.
He said that we believe that government has a responsibility to care for us.
He said we believe that we are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it, that they are entitlements and government should give them to us.
He said we will vote for Barack Obama no matter what (which clearly identified me as among the 47 percent).
He said we are people who pay no income tax; 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax, he said.
He said he’ll never convince us we should take personal responsibility and care for our lives.
Last week, Mitt told a national television network commentator that when he said those things, he was "just completely wrong."
Excuse me, but when he said that, wasn't it an admission that he defamed 47 percent of the American people?
I certainly feel defamed. Defamation is publishing something false about a person, which damages that person's reputation, or ability to make a living. Everything he said was false, or "wrong," he said, as it applies to me, except the one about voting for Obama no matter what.
Other statements were defamatory, but they would be difficult to prove in court, where the battle is gray vs. gray. Being called a victim defames me. But a Mitt attorney would say, "Define, 'victim.'" That might take six months and still be inconclusive, legally.
But it only takes one count for the plaintiff to prevail. I will vote for Obama, which identifies me as one of the 47 percent, whom Mitt said pay no income tax. In my Sept. 18 blog, I told Mitt I would show him my last 10 years of tax returns, if he would show me his. I pay taxes and have the documents to prove it.
Under defamation law, I also have to prove "injury," that my reputation was actually damaged. Every day until Nov. 6, I am posting on Facebook a tribute, as a member, to The 47 Percent. A high school classmate, who is a Romney supporter, read this and commented, "What I cannot figure out is how you managed to be one of the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay income taxes."
That statement damages my reputation.
He said we believe that we are victims.
He said that we believe that government has a responsibility to care for us.
He said we believe that we are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it, that they are entitlements and government should give them to us.
He said we will vote for Barack Obama no matter what (which clearly identified me as among the 47 percent).
He said we are people who pay no income tax; 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax, he said.
He said he’ll never convince us we should take personal responsibility and care for our lives.
Last week, Mitt told a national television network commentator that when he said those things, he was "just completely wrong."
Excuse me, but when he said that, wasn't it an admission that he defamed 47 percent of the American people?
I certainly feel defamed. Defamation is publishing something false about a person, which damages that person's reputation, or ability to make a living. Everything he said was false, or "wrong," he said, as it applies to me, except the one about voting for Obama no matter what.
Other statements were defamatory, but they would be difficult to prove in court, where the battle is gray vs. gray. Being called a victim defames me. But a Mitt attorney would say, "Define, 'victim.'" That might take six months and still be inconclusive, legally.
But it only takes one count for the plaintiff to prevail. I will vote for Obama, which identifies me as one of the 47 percent, whom Mitt said pay no income tax. In my Sept. 18 blog, I told Mitt I would show him my last 10 years of tax returns, if he would show me his. I pay taxes and have the documents to prove it.
Under defamation law, I also have to prove "injury," that my reputation was actually damaged. Every day until Nov. 6, I am posting on Facebook a tribute, as a member, to The 47 Percent. A high school classmate, who is a Romney supporter, read this and commented, "What I cannot figure out is how you managed to be one of the 47 percent of Americans who don't pay income taxes."
That statement damages my reputation.
The real debate
There is another debate tonight, and another one next week, but the real debate, between now and the election, should be between Moderate Mitt and Severely Conservative Mitt.
In the last three weeks before the election, I would like to see such a debate, created in a series of ads by the Obama Campaign, in split-screen, just like the candidate debates, with Moderate Mitt on the left, and Severely Conservative Mitt on the right, going back and forth with pronouncements about where they stand.
The point is to show undecided voters if they vote for Mitt, they literally won't know who they're voting for.
Whatever the Obama ad formats in these last weeks, they will aim at the Mitt duality. He has set himself up as a sitting duck.
In the last three weeks before the election, I would like to see such a debate, created in a series of ads by the Obama Campaign, in split-screen, just like the candidate debates, with Moderate Mitt on the left, and Severely Conservative Mitt on the right, going back and forth with pronouncements about where they stand.
The point is to show undecided voters if they vote for Mitt, they literally won't know who they're voting for.
Whatever the Obama ad formats in these last weeks, they will aim at the Mitt duality. He has set himself up as a sitting duck.
October 15, 2012
Daily insult for Mitt, Oct. 15
When I promised an insult a day for Completely Wrong Mitt (for his insults to The 47 Percent) between now and the election, I knew instantly where to start: Monty Python (adapted to the occasion).
King Mitt: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Mitt: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Mitt: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Serf: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.
(Courtesy of The 47 Percent. Thanks to the imdb.)
King Mitt: I am your king.
Woman: Well I didn't vote for you.
King Mitt: You don't vote for kings.
Woman: Well how'd you become king then?
[Angelic music plays... ]
King Mitt: The Lady of the Lake, her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king.
Serf: [interrupting] Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony. You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just because some watery tart threw a sword at you.
(Courtesy of The 47 Percent. Thanks to the imdb.)
October 14, 2012
Taking personal responsibility this morning
Just as a reminder, here is what Completely Wrong Mitt said about The 47 Percent:
"Well, there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement and government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49 ... I mean, he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax; 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. He’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
I post this as an act of taking personal responsibility for my life, which has never been more important than it is right now.
Courtesy of The 47 Percent. See you Nov. 6.
"Well, there are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. There are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement and government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49 ... I mean, he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax; 47 percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn’t connect. He’ll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean, that’s what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
I post this as an act of taking personal responsibility for my life, which has never been more important than it is right now.
Courtesy of The 47 Percent. See you Nov. 6.
October 13, 2012
"Smug" fits
I realized just now that I left incomplete yesterday's research into the word "smirk."
Webster's online defined "smirk" as, "to smile in an affected or smug manner." That discovery inspired me to create the word, "Mittsmug," as a direct insult to Completely Wrong Mitt, the Republican candidate for President of the United States.
But what does "smug" mean? I went back to Webster's just now and found that "smug" means: "trim or smart in dress; scrupulously neat, clean, or correct; highly self-satisfied."
My God, according to Webster's, "Mitt" could be a synonym for "smug." I feel so much better now.
Courtesy of The 47 Percent. See you Nov. 6.
Webster's online defined "smirk" as, "to smile in an affected or smug manner." That discovery inspired me to create the word, "Mittsmug," as a direct insult to Completely Wrong Mitt, the Republican candidate for President of the United States.
But what does "smug" mean? I went back to Webster's just now and found that "smug" means: "trim or smart in dress; scrupulously neat, clean, or correct; highly self-satisfied."
My God, according to Webster's, "Mitt" could be a synonym for "smug." I feel so much better now.
Courtesy of The 47 Percent. See you Nov. 6.
October 12, 2012
Mittsmug!
For my insult to the Republican Presidential candidate today, I am introducing the insulting word "Mittsmug." The words, once you see them together, are actually impossible to separate.
I discovered the word while researching the definition of the word (verb or noun) "smirk." After the VP debate, Republicans talked a lot about Joe Biden smirking. I didn't think he was smirking at all. I thought I had better look it up.
Webster's Online defines "smirk" as, "To smile in an affected or smug manner." I thought Joe was showing way too many teeth to be smirking. It looked more like a condescending barroom grin, which said to the foe, "You are quite the malarkey bag, aren't you, you moron?"
I contend the master smirker in the debates has been Completely Wrong Mitt. He puts it on when anyone else within hearing distance is speaking, and it says, "Pretty soon this pitiful individual will be finished, and then we grown-ups can talk some more." For a delightfully comprehensive exhibition, go here. Millions of Americans have been looked at in this way by superior relatives across the Thanksgiving Dinner table.
The Mittsmirk is powered, as Webster's pointed out, by his ability – it must be God-given – "to smile in an affected or smug manner." Thus: Mittsmug!
Courtesy of The 47 Percent.
I discovered the word while researching the definition of the word (verb or noun) "smirk." After the VP debate, Republicans talked a lot about Joe Biden smirking. I didn't think he was smirking at all. I thought I had better look it up.
Webster's Online defines "smirk" as, "To smile in an affected or smug manner." I thought Joe was showing way too many teeth to be smirking. It looked more like a condescending barroom grin, which said to the foe, "You are quite the malarkey bag, aren't you, you moron?"
I contend the master smirker in the debates has been Completely Wrong Mitt. He puts it on when anyone else within hearing distance is speaking, and it says, "Pretty soon this pitiful individual will be finished, and then we grown-ups can talk some more." For a delightfully comprehensive exhibition, go here. Millions of Americans have been looked at in this way by superior relatives across the Thanksgiving Dinner table.
The Mittsmirk is powered, as Webster's pointed out, by his ability – it must be God-given – "to smile in an affected or smug manner." Thus: Mittsmug!
Courtesy of The 47 Percent.
Sunrise before the rain
We in Southern California had our first rain of the season last night and today, after two months of unrelenting heat. Click on the image to enlarge it.
Health care: from people to profit
My wife and I are in a discussion about how health care has shifted from people-based to profit-based since the middle of the last century. Is it true? If it is, how did it happen?
I wish I knew the details of an event in the mid-1950s which began when I developed a stomach ache one afternoon. By dawn the next day, it had become severe. I was about 12 years old.
My mother called our doctor, Dr. Carroll Murtha. In half an hour, he was at our house. He listened to my belly, and then he took out a knife. Damn, I thought. He dragged the point of the knife across my belly a couple of times, asking me what I felt.
When he was finished, he told my mother to take me to the hospital, where later that morning my appendix was removed. They put it in a jar of formaldehyde, and I took it home. In the last 10 years, I have asked three times (two hip implants, a prostatectomy) to take my old parts home in a jar and was refused.
That's not all that has changed. In 1955, we had our own doctor, and he made house calls. My mother worked at a bank, and yet I have no memory of my appendectomy creating any serious ripples in her ability to pay the bills. She might have a different memory, but it left the firmament with her in the spring of 1989.
I should have asked her. You younger readers, if you have questions about the way things were in your childhood, don't wait to ask your elders.
How much did an appendectomy cost in 1955, and how did lower middle-class families pay for it? What principle of health care inspired doctors to get out of bed and make a house call on their way to work?
Karen claims she has a document showing that her family was charged $150 for the birth of her sister, in about that same time frame.
What happened? Feedback, please.
I wish I knew the details of an event in the mid-1950s which began when I developed a stomach ache one afternoon. By dawn the next day, it had become severe. I was about 12 years old.
My mother called our doctor, Dr. Carroll Murtha. In half an hour, he was at our house. He listened to my belly, and then he took out a knife. Damn, I thought. He dragged the point of the knife across my belly a couple of times, asking me what I felt.
When he was finished, he told my mother to take me to the hospital, where later that morning my appendix was removed. They put it in a jar of formaldehyde, and I took it home. In the last 10 years, I have asked three times (two hip implants, a prostatectomy) to take my old parts home in a jar and was refused.
That's not all that has changed. In 1955, we had our own doctor, and he made house calls. My mother worked at a bank, and yet I have no memory of my appendectomy creating any serious ripples in her ability to pay the bills. She might have a different memory, but it left the firmament with her in the spring of 1989.
I should have asked her. You younger readers, if you have questions about the way things were in your childhood, don't wait to ask your elders.
How much did an appendectomy cost in 1955, and how did lower middle-class families pay for it? What principle of health care inspired doctors to get out of bed and make a house call on their way to work?
Karen claims she has a document showing that her family was charged $150 for the birth of her sister, in about that same time frame.
What happened? Feedback, please.
The emerging 47 percent
The 47 percent aren't going away just because Completely Wrong Mitt wants us to.
In fact, our position has been identified and consolidated. We have received free, steady publicity since the discovery of the video of Completely Wrong saying all those things about us to a group of Florida Republicans. Then C.W. himself last week tried to shoo us away with his "completely wrong" comment on Fox, as if it were old news that we could forget now.
But algorithms don't work that way, in brains or computers. Some genius got the inspiration from somewhere to search "completely wrong" on Google Images and was rewarded with 332,000,000 results, most of them images of Completely Wrong himself. In marketing, you would call that "branding." The Completely Wrong Mitt brand. Let's call him CWM for short, like silk monograms on the cuffs of a fat cat's dress shirts.
Am I sounding surly? I guess so. It's part of the consolidation effect, the bonding together of the 47 percent against CWM's surreptitious insults. It doesn't help that the insults aren't true, or that they cross a line into defamation. It can start a fire in the belly, when one is defamed by a candidate for President of the United States.
I began this series of campaign blogs as pro-Obama, which I have always been, but my intention was to remain detached, above cheap, cute, name-calling. No longer. Not after what I and the 47 percent have been called. From this day on, the Republican candidate is Completely Wrong Mitt. Shakespeare could not say it better.
In fact, our position has been identified and consolidated. We have received free, steady publicity since the discovery of the video of Completely Wrong saying all those things about us to a group of Florida Republicans. Then C.W. himself last week tried to shoo us away with his "completely wrong" comment on Fox, as if it were old news that we could forget now.
But algorithms don't work that way, in brains or computers. Some genius got the inspiration from somewhere to search "completely wrong" on Google Images and was rewarded with 332,000,000 results, most of them images of Completely Wrong himself. In marketing, you would call that "branding." The Completely Wrong Mitt brand. Let's call him CWM for short, like silk monograms on the cuffs of a fat cat's dress shirts.
Am I sounding surly? I guess so. It's part of the consolidation effect, the bonding together of the 47 percent against CWM's surreptitious insults. It doesn't help that the insults aren't true, or that they cross a line into defamation. It can start a fire in the belly, when one is defamed by a candidate for President of the United States.
I began this series of campaign blogs as pro-Obama, which I have always been, but my intention was to remain detached, above cheap, cute, name-calling. No longer. Not after what I and the 47 percent have been called. From this day on, the Republican candidate is Completely Wrong Mitt. Shakespeare could not say it better.
October 11, 2012
For once, Mitt said the exactly right thing
What a hoot. If you go to Google Images and search "completely wrong," you get 10 million images of Mitt. Do I see a new ad in the Obama campaign's future? Like by sundown?
October 07, 2012
Did Mitt defame the 47 percent? Feels like it
My God, I think I may have been defamed by a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. I don't know whether to celebrate, or smash up the television set.
In his famous remarks about "the 47 percent," Mitt said that we, the 47 percent (I can prove on Election Day that I am a member of the 47 percent), pay no income tax. He said some other stuff, too, about responsibility, victimhood, entitlement attitudes and such. But those could be argued in court until Mitt or I die, whichever comes first.
Not the taxes, though. I have the documents to prove that I pay income taxes.
I don't even need the transcript of his statement to Sean Hannity that he was "just completely wrong" when he said that false thing about me and the rest of the 47 percent. I already had the proof, my tax documents. To watch him admit it, though, was astounding. This guy is running for President of the United States!
In his famous remarks about "the 47 percent," Mitt said that we, the 47 percent (I can prove on Election Day that I am a member of the 47 percent), pay no income tax. He said some other stuff, too, about responsibility, victimhood, entitlement attitudes and such. But those could be argued in court until Mitt or I die, whichever comes first.
Not the taxes, though. I have the documents to prove that I pay income taxes.
I don't even need the transcript of his statement to Sean Hannity that he was "just completely wrong" when he said that false thing about me and the rest of the 47 percent. I already had the proof, my tax documents. To watch him admit it, though, was astounding. This guy is running for President of the United States!
A close encounter of the clouds kind
Yesterday evening, I had a close encounter of the clouds kind. It was 6:10 p.m. I was watching "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" when I glanced out the window at the sky, and the sky drew me outside.
I was immediately overwhelmed, and I believe that was the intention. Everywhere, there was light and texture and color, in different levels of each, in all directions, north, east, south, west, and overhead, all angles, everywhere. It was a volume and dimension that could not be captured with a camera, and even if it could, there was no screen on which it could be meaningfully projected.
There are times like this when I wish my brain came with a jpeg feature, so I could capture an image I could project in my brain later in its full scope, without trusting memory. A short video would be nice. Instead, I have to convert memory to words, which seems futile when I'm standing beneath the indescribable.
The sky was a horizon-to-horizon inverted, sky-blue bowl, and filling the bowl was clear air, a see-through medium, but still a medium, like colorless coffee, and in this medium the cloud artisans created their work, according to their schools. The low-cloud school had created elongated sky creatures, white with gray bellies. The middle-level school had created gentle, opaque, sheaths of an impossibly high thread count. The high-cloud school had created barely existing, rhythmic strands, so fine they might have been the middle-level clouds with their edges turned to me.
Across the colorless coffee, north to south, a Mexico-bound airliner had slashed a high-level white, diffusing line, the way a food artisan would slash a dot of heavy cream in a white line across a mug of cappuccino, then let the surface tension both diffuse the line and hold it together.
I watched this for 10 minutes, turning and craning, turning and craning. Imagine being in a dream where you are standing in a hall, looking at the Mona Lisa, 15 feet in front of you, then turning to see the David, 15 feet behind you, and both are fading and will have disappeared forever inside of an hour. Which one do you watch?
That may be why the indescribable can't be possessed. If it could, it wouldn't be indescribable. There seems to be a time limit that I am allowed. For me, it is about 10 minutes. I went back inside to "Close Encounters," keeping the sky in one eye through the windows, going out again twice for short reconnoiters before it got too dark.
Then in the darkening west came brilliant crimson on coastal clouds. I went out to watch for awhile, watching this metaphorical end-of-life thing bleeding its crimson steadily out of the clouds into the darkness of night with every tick of time's heart. Inside, looking in through the window, the mother ship of "Close Encounters" was hovering on the screen. Inventive boys with Tinker Toys. Outside, the masters were finishing their commission, laying to rest another unique 24 hours.
I was immediately overwhelmed, and I believe that was the intention. Everywhere, there was light and texture and color, in different levels of each, in all directions, north, east, south, west, and overhead, all angles, everywhere. It was a volume and dimension that could not be captured with a camera, and even if it could, there was no screen on which it could be meaningfully projected.
There are times like this when I wish my brain came with a jpeg feature, so I could capture an image I could project in my brain later in its full scope, without trusting memory. A short video would be nice. Instead, I have to convert memory to words, which seems futile when I'm standing beneath the indescribable.
The sky was a horizon-to-horizon inverted, sky-blue bowl, and filling the bowl was clear air, a see-through medium, but still a medium, like colorless coffee, and in this medium the cloud artisans created their work, according to their schools. The low-cloud school had created elongated sky creatures, white with gray bellies. The middle-level school had created gentle, opaque, sheaths of an impossibly high thread count. The high-cloud school had created barely existing, rhythmic strands, so fine they might have been the middle-level clouds with their edges turned to me.
Across the colorless coffee, north to south, a Mexico-bound airliner had slashed a high-level white, diffusing line, the way a food artisan would slash a dot of heavy cream in a white line across a mug of cappuccino, then let the surface tension both diffuse the line and hold it together.
I watched this for 10 minutes, turning and craning, turning and craning. Imagine being in a dream where you are standing in a hall, looking at the Mona Lisa, 15 feet in front of you, then turning to see the David, 15 feet behind you, and both are fading and will have disappeared forever inside of an hour. Which one do you watch?
That may be why the indescribable can't be possessed. If it could, it wouldn't be indescribable. There seems to be a time limit that I am allowed. For me, it is about 10 minutes. I went back inside to "Close Encounters," keeping the sky in one eye through the windows, going out again twice for short reconnoiters before it got too dark.
Then in the darkening west came brilliant crimson on coastal clouds. I went out to watch for awhile, watching this metaphorical end-of-life thing bleeding its crimson steadily out of the clouds into the darkness of night with every tick of time's heart. Inside, looking in through the window, the mother ship of "Close Encounters" was hovering on the screen. Inventive boys with Tinker Toys. Outside, the masters were finishing their commission, laying to rest another unique 24 hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)