Das Lied von der Erde

I've decided to reboot my blog, and have also decided that I really should make up a schedule for updates, lest I let this blog lapse again. So, new update schedule: every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. I think that should prove satisfactory and it will avoid my biggest work days.

In my continuing musical education I decided to listen to Mahler's penultimate symphony, Das Lied von der Erde. (When I say listen, I mean I listen to it with a score in front of me.) It's not a standard symphony, since each movement is really a song. All the songs are poems by ancient Chinese poets that were translated into French and then German and I understand the translations aren't great (partly because of Mandarin Chinese's austerity and economy) but Mahler certainly seemed to like the poems. So do I. And the music works. There are six movements, the first five being roughly equal in duration to the last.

I call the symphony penultimate because on principle I've decided to exclude Mahler's 10th, which was incomplete at his death. This symphony doesn't have a number because Mahler noted that Beethoven and Bruckner had written 9 symphonies and then died.

Anyway, it's a pretty strange symphony. Mahler's known for his excess, but this symphony is pretty austere. I feel like I don't understand it at all, and that perhaps I simply don't have the right temperament to understand it. The music has a lot of big empty spaces on the score, which is something more characteristic of Shostakovich, say. (By that I mean there are usually only a few instruments playing at a time and almost never the entire orchestra.) The bassoon part is not so good, but the oboe part is. I definitely don't understand how the songs' melodies interact with the orchestra. I liked the third and sixth movements the best.

The third movement is Von der Jugend (Of Youth) and is only 3 minutes, which probably qualifies it as the shortest of Mahler's symphonic movements. It has a pretty fast tempo and is the only one which uses the pentatonic scale quite obviously. (Old Chinese music uses the pentatonic scale.) The last movement is Der Abschied (The Farewell) which foreshadows some of the key motives of the 9th symphony - the turn, the falling second, 3-2. It's 27 or so minutes long, which is pretty expansive even for Mahler. The tamtam is used to chilling effect, and the music is quite empty, vast and desolate at some points. The singing borders on recitative. The movement is in C minor, but the end is in C major (+A) and seems to represent the finding of inner peace - the acceptance of things as they are. Or not - you can interpret it however you want.

Speaking of inner peace, I myself am doing something uncharacteristic - reading about religion. Specifically, Unitarian Universalism. Now, we all remember Senator Church, but let us not forget his son Forrest Church, a Unitarian minister. He co-wrote a book called A Chosen Faith, An Introduction to Unitarian Universalism. So that's my current reading. I'm only 40 pages or so in, but I'll report back once I finish the entire book.

And a postscript: Remember Barack the Magic Negro? Ugh - the Republicans have picked a new chairman, Michael Steele. He's the former LG of Maryland, a failed Senate candidate in 2006, and HE'S BLACK. But he was probably the best choice of chairman for the Republicans, at least from their viewpoint. I can see him trying to broaden the party. I would have preferred Katon Dawson, who entered politics because he was pissed at the enforced desegregation of his high school. He also was a member of an all white country club until last year. (Actually, I think he might still be a member.)

Time to work on math, I think! Bai!

CHURCH FOREVER

So, as you can see, I started school. Which meant my free time plummeted, and I wanted to do things besides maintain a blog. Things like sleep. Also, doing a series on Dick Cheney was depressing. It's important to understand Cheney's philosophy, but it's unpleasant to be the guy who is trying to make you understand Cheney's philosophy.

Anywho - I actually do want to continue with this blog. I just don't want the pressure of regular entries. I still have lots of crappy thoughts that need to be spilled out. Also, I need to write up something on Texas congressional districts.

Deep thought: I think we hit the winter tetrafecta over the past two days. Snow (in the evening) Sleet (at night) Ice (at night) Cold rain (all of yesterday) Total mess. There was this one time my freshman year where we got a snow/sleet event and I could walk on the snow without leaving footprints. This event is but a pale imitation of that, but it's the biggest snow yet this school year.

<redacted>

I had 8 hours of classes by my calculation today, so I don't feel like knowing Dick. Maybe I'll know him a bit. Couple of random thoughts: Remember Caroline Kennedy? Yeah, it looks like Kirsten Gillibrand will be the new junior senator from New York. Also, an intriguing item from Swing State Project. My guess is Charles Grassley, who covers all the criteria.

And in the random connections department - I commented yesterday that Dick Cheney was in charge of the Bush VP selection. Caroline Kennedy was in charge (at least in co-charge) of the Obama VP selection.

You might recall the clusterfuck 2000 election, when we found out about Jews for Buchanan and Katherine Harris's bust. That's all fine and well, but during that circus who was overseeing Bush's transition to the White House? (It was ongoing during the recount mess.) If you haven't said Cheney, you really don't know Dick. What is perhaps interesting about that is that VPs usually don't run the transition team. (John Podesta ran Obama's transition team.) You understand the importance of Cheney's oversight - he put people he knew into key positions. His influence caused Bush to appoint folks like Rumsfeld and Paul O'Neill to the cabinet. He didn't influence all the appointments, but he influenced enough. Anyway, the point of the chapter was - Cheney had much greater influence than most vice presidents, and woe to them who crossed him.

Anyway, let's be a little more pointed. Right after I posted that Cheney entry yesterday, some big news broke about the NSA on Daily Kos, and disappointingly I haven't seen it covered in the media. I can't say I am completely surprised by the news, because when talking about the NSA, you should probably assume the worst. Here's story 1 and here's story 2. Sometimes life just sucks.

Angler

(alterna-title: You Don't Know Dick)
(alterna-alterna-title: )

Seeing Dick Cheney yesterday in that wheelchair was a pretty powerful sight. He was impotent, the dark heart of the administration humbled at last. As I flew back to Philadelphia, I read the book Angler (after Cheney's secret service code name). It focuses most on the first Bush term, which in retrospect was the truly damaging one, the one when Cheney's influence was greatest.

The book opens with a recap of Bush's vice presidential selection process. Cheney, you recall, was in charge of the VP search. He sent out a questionnaire to various candidates that was excruciatingly detailed. (That I can understand - McCain '08 didn't do much VP vetting.) But what interested me was that Cheney never filled out that questionnaire. In fact much of the selection process seems to have been a sham. Bush conducted sham interviews with some contenders after he offered Cheney the job. In fact, the traits Cheney was looking for in a VP seemed to be traits that were strong in himself.

To be clear, the sending out of the questionnaires was not a sham - but the information Cheney received could be easily used for blackmail. That points to what I viewed as the underlying theme of the book: Cheney wanted to concentrate power, power that could be easily misused.

And I want to talk about that some more. I haven't even explained the Frank Keating story that occupies some of Chapter 1. It's revealing, but I'll pass over it for now. What I do know is that I am zonked out from translating Horace, and do not feel like knowing Dick. (Sorry.) But I'll help you know Dick a bit better over the course of the coming days. Another theme I'll introduce - I did a series on Senator Church earlier in the month. Cheney is the anti-Church, and I'll talk about that.

Mandatory Inauguration Post

Well, we made it. You made it. Finally we have a president we can be proud of. Yep, I watched the inauguration, and I enjoyed it. There are three images that particularly stand out for me: 1. Dick Cheney in a wheelchair. 2. Yo Yo Ma's face as he was playing that John Williams piece. 3. The massive crowd size. A sea of people.

...And it's that sea of people that inspired my strangest reaction - I was briefly creeped out. I suddenly remembered images of rallies for totalitarian dictators. And then I remembered: can you imagine 2 million people at either of Bush's inaugurals? No, of course not. Bush sucked, and those 2 million people (and the rest of us) deserve to celebrate his removal and the arrival of a new, much better president. Also, I've noticed that Obama tries to make his events about you instead of him. It's "Yes We Can". The first person plural is crucial. I hope the two million people had a hell of a day, a day they will remember forever.

The other big event of the day was my algebra seminar, in which I had to explain the dihedral group and be peppered with lots of questions. Fun fun! But the inauguration will stick in my head for far longer.

Also, Roberts and Obama needed to practice that oath a little more. Heh.

There was also a fourth picture I saw today that made a very, very strong impression on me, and here it is. Tomorrow I write about Dick Cheney! Join me as I discuss the finer points of angling, shooting your friend in the face, and the Cheney-Church axis.

Cook is Wrong

Back to school for me! I feel like boring y'all to tears as I tear down Cook's senate race rankings.

Washington, California, Wisconsin: Likely Dem
Should be: Safe Dem
The incumbents are all entrenched. My objection to these as Likely Dem is that they seem as safe as many of the other Safe Rep or Safe Dem seats. I can't think of someone who would make any of these seats competitive. Arnold doesn't count. If these seats are competitive, Obama has had a troublesome first two years.

Oklahoma: Likely Rep
Should be: Solid Rep
Pretty much the same reasoning as above. OK was McCain's best state.

Illinois: Tossup
Should be: Not tossup (probably Leans Dem)
Yeah, Blagojevich sucks. We know that, and so do the voters of Illinois. That's why I'm confident that Roland Burris (if he runs for reelection) will be primaried. And when he loses the Democratic primary, we will find out again that Illinois is a Democratic state.

Louisiana: Tossup
Should be: Likely R
The incumbent, David Vitter, had a sex scandal in 2007, if you don't remember. But...Louisiana is just such a Republican state now. It was one of four states to give a greater percentage of the vote to McCain than to Bush 2004. I'm not saying Vitter isn't in trouble. I think he will be primaried, and maybe lose. Also, I can't think of a top-tier Dem who would run. Kathleen Blanco? Haha, no. Mitch Landrieu? His sister is the other senator. Ray Nagin? If I'm suggesting Ray Nagin as a top-tier Dem, the pickings are slim. For this to be a tossup, we need a good Democratic opponent, Vitter as the Republican nominee (or someone really extreme), and a good Obama first term. So, likely Republican.

New Hampshire: Solid R
Should be: Leans R
After the 2004 elections, New Hampshire had 2 R representatives and 2 R senators. After the 2008 elections, New Hampshire has 2 D representatives, 1 D senator, and 1 R senator. Judd Gregg needs to watch himself. He can win reelection, but New Hampshire's trending Democratic.

North Carolina: Solid R
Should be: Solid D
The last time someone was reelected to this Senate seat was 1968. Richard Burr is running for reelection. Will he win? Not a chance. Interestingly, this was John Edwards's Senate seat.

Texas: Solid R
Should be: Likely R or N/A (probably N/A)
This is worth a whole entry in itself. Briefly: Governor Rick "Goodhair" Perry will have been governor for 10 years by 2010. He is running for another term. He's pretty unpopular - got 39% of the vote in a 4-way race in 2006. Senator Kay Bailey "Bailout" Hutchison wants to move back to Texas. She's rather more popular than Perry. She is seriously considering running for Governor and primarying Perry. But I refuse to believe that she is running until she resigns from her senate seat or files the paperwork to run for Governor. Up until that time, the race rating should probably be N/A - she is up for reelection in 2012.

But people believe she is running. Democrats like John Sharp (former comptroller) and Bill White (mayor of Houston) have declared their candidacy for a senate race that does not even exist yet. Could they win? I think White, at least, has a shot. He's a good mayor. Problem is, if you're outside the greater Houston metropolitan area, you've probably never heard of him. Also, Texas is still a pretty Republican state. That will change, but maybe not in time for 2010.

Snow watch: Yep, there was snow today. I measured 0.75 inches, probably including a bit from yesterday. Not too much, but any snow is exciting to me.

Algebra seminar tomorrow! Only 3 hours!

Hey, I came back.

Deep thought: I only had to spend $150 or so on textbooks this semester - my smallest amount yet. Two of my classes are using textbooks I already have. (For instance, my algebra seminar uses the algebra textbook that I used last semester.)

Oh hey, and I already have an assignment in that class! Luckily, it's on material (symmetry) that was covered last semester. I should probably work on that assignment more. >_< I finished Angler, the book on Cheney, but I'll hold off on reviewing that book for a few days. I've already started reading the textbook for the 20th century music class.

I only have one class tomorrow, and I'm considering dropping it, but Tuesday and Thursday will both be very rough. Maybe I'll have to start using the FUTURE POST ability.

It looks like Mexico is in deep doo-doo from the drug war. And war is not inaccurate: it's the cartels vs. the police (and the gov't in general), and I think the police are losing. I'll have to read up more on that. Here's an AP article on it.

First snow of the semester was tonight, probably about 0.5 inch.

Flying back

Travel day today, and one thankfully nowhere near as hellish as my flight to Houston for winter break. The plane was full, but it was on time. Probably the worst part was arriving in Philadelphia - it was 18 degrees outside, and I left my gloves in the dorm room over winter break. Gloves are important, especially when dragging my luggage across campus to my dorm. No snow on the ground, but as our plane descended I could see frozen rivers outside.

During the flight I got about halfway through Angler, a book on the Cheney vice presidency. I'll definitely review it on here whenever I finish it. Summary: You know Frank Church's views? Cheney's are the opposite.

Anyway, I should probably be unpacking my suitcase. No topics come to mind for a real entry today, except for Cheney, and I want to save that topic for another time.

Yep.

Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Mahler's Ninth Symphony

It's night and I go back to Swarthmore tomorrow. So I might as well discuss the symphony that always seemed to me to be a very long goodbye.

Movement 1: Andante comodo
The very long journey

Sometimes I hear about how the journey is more important than the destination. I agree with that. This movement is a very long journey, at 30 minutes. It has an epic, sweeping feel and puts me in mind of a past that may only exist in legends. When we were a lot closer to nature and to our origins, rather than our current sterile lifestyles. I hear the sun, flowing water, and the night in this movement. I hear the surprisingly important sequence of notes A D C# F# B, the first audible notes when I start listening. I'm tempted to say this would be good background music for the Baroque Cycle (or choose your favorite story in the past), but despite being epic, the music has none of the humor and vulgarity of real life. (That's in the second movement.) Other stuff: This movement is in D major, although there are many modulations to different keys. There is a real menace at times, which finds its fruition in the third movement. Mahler uses the motif 3-2 pretty obsessively. (That is, the 3rd scale degree followed by the 2nd scale degree, like F#-E in the key of D.) The 3-2 motif gives me hope. (Oh, the journey is long, but it is beautiful.)

So: movement 1. It's a very long journey. Actually, this movement (or any of the others except maybe the 4th) could be played by itself. It's very weighty and substantial. They all are. The end is worth mentioning - the music becomes more sparse, but the 3-2 motif is still going on in the strings and later winds. The final time it is played, the 2 (E) is sustained for several measures, before finally resolving to the 1 (D) high in the winds. That resolution is Mahler turning off the light.

Movement 2: Im Tempo eines gemächlichen Ländlers. Etwas täppisch und sehr derb
The evening dance

This movement is on firmer ground. For one, unlike the always flowing, somewhat rubato 1st movement, this movement contents itself with strict 3/4. You can always hear the beat. Structurally this movement consists of three types of dance: an unhurried landler (at the beginning, moderate and in C), a waltz (fast and in E), and a slow landler (moderately slow and in F). These are presented in sequence, but then the dance types are recapped in no particular order and often they collide. Don't think of it as a sequence of dances (like the Blue Danube waltz), just as an ever-mutating dance.

While the first movement may have taken place in some distant past, here we are clearly in 19th century Europe. It reminds me in particular of a chapter in a book called the Octopus, which I read last summer. At the end of part 1 (the first half), there is a country dance for an evening which all the main characters attend (and discuss how to beat the railroad, the titular Octopus). A lot of times the textures are pretty thin and I can imagine the music being played by local musicians. One of those local musicians must be a bassoon - this features the bassoon about as prominently as anything in Mahler. It's my favorite movement.

What else - I've heard this movement referred to as a Dance of Death. I disagree, but the more I listen to it, the more charmless the music seems. There are no grand melodies. There are sometimes moving harmonies, and the slow Landler aspires to be something more. But the unhurried landler is crude, and the waltz just goes downward. At one point late in the movement, the waltz is so furious, always rushing down, that the movement really is on the verge of becoming a dance of death, but the unhurried landler drags it out of its tailspin for one last dance, one last chance. As the texture continually thins in the final unhurried landler section, the feeling of finality becomes stronger and stronger. The end is a true end, the likes of which I have rarely heard. Nothing in 3/4 could possibly follow this movement. The dance is over.

In that chapter in the Octopus, at the end, one of the characters wonders "Didn't they dance the night before Waterloo?"

Movement 3: Rondo-Burleske. Allegro assai, sehr trotzig
Trench warfare

No nineteenth century, no epic past. Here we are clearly in World War I. The ninth symphony was written in 1909 and 1910, but (like Mars from the Planets) this is clearly a prehearing of the Great War. I wonder what possessed Mahler to write such a violent movement. We're a long way from movement one: no melodies, no epic feel. What distinguishes this movement for me is the incredible disintegration: this is music as motives, mutating throughout the movement. It's counterpoint, but hardly Bach. One melody is the whole-tone scale going downward, similar to the waltz theme in the 2nd movement.

At one point, the music shifts to a much more ethereal D major, rather than the harsh A minor that is the key of the movement. And to continue the Great War metaphor, this is the Christmas truce. But the sound and fury resumes soon enough, and becomes louder and louder as it drives to the end.

This is the movement of the Turn. 1-2-3-2-(1) in most of the sections, and 3-2-1-2 in the D major section. The latter turn motif becomes the foundation of the fourth movement. But before that, we have to keep playing the other motif, 1-7-1 (scales are mod 7), which grows in strength throughout the movement, and almost inevitably closes the movement. Unlike all the other movements, this one ends very loud. Generally, if you want to annihilate everything, a big bang will help. This is nihilistic music.

Movement 4: Molto adagio
The very long goodbye

What comes after the end?

When I first burned this symphony onto my computer, I only burned the first 3 movements. (The fourth movement was on another disc.) So for the longest time I only heard this as a three movement symphony. I suppose it has merit in being heard that way, especially if you like symphonies to end in utter hopelessness. So the fourth movement will always be an interloper for me.

The title of this post is not original to me. It is the title of an essay by Lewis Thomas, and his new hearing of this movement as death everywhere. This is the death movement. Mahler started work on a 10th symphony, but this is his last completed symphony. Thomas ruminates on the young in the age of nuclear war. What is it like for a young person to not only be uncertain of their future, but of their life? If this view sounds strange, it is because he wrote the essay in the 1980s, when US-Soviet nuclear war was a very real, very terrifying threat. Very real indeed.

To go back to death - I said it was the death movement. Well, maybe. More properly, I view this movement as caught in the middle between life and death. The first movement is all about life. The second movement is all about life too - in the sense of partying before you go off to enlist in WWI, or go evacuate your home because of an oncoming hurricane. Might as well, you might never come back. The third movement is war and you die at the end. But...what is between life and death? For the music is not over. The conductor does not lower his baton for good after movement 3. Something is sounding. The death of the music requires the cessation of sound.

I must mention the end of the movement. As in the end of the first movement and 2nd movement, the texture thins out and the movement ends quietly. But I do not like saying the movement "ends". It just keeps on growing softer. The turn motif keeps growing longer, until finally it reverses and the music becomes inaudible. That's where the double bar is, so I guess that's the end. But there's never a point for me in which I can say "Here the music has stopped sounding." The very long goodbye never concludes. In an auditorium, the music concludes when everyone applauds, but when I listen to it myself, I determine when the conclusion is. I'm probably not making too much sense at this point, but these are late night thoughts. Perhaps I can best compare it to falling asleep. You get sleepier and sleepier, but you never know when you fall asleep. This movement is a very long goodbye to the world of wakefulness. Perhaps it is also a very long hello to the world of sleep - a sleep which is very long indeed. Eternal sleep.

One party to rule them all

For some reason I was thinking about an interesting fact earlier today: The last time Massachusetts elected any Republicans to the House or Senate was 1994. Today Massachusetts has 10 D representatives and 2 D senators. Are there any other states so single-party on a federal level?

When people think of rock-ribbed Republican states, they think of states like...Utah. Home of Jim Matheson, D-UT-02. (That is, he is a Democrat from the second district of Utah.) Wyoming? Gary Trauner lost by only a few percent in 2008, and by circa 1000 votes in 2006, for Wyoming's at-large House seat. (At-large means a state only has one House seat.) Idaho? Walt Minnick, D-ID-01. Also, four-term Senator Frank Church. Let's see, what else...The only federal-level Republican from both Dakotas is Senator John Thune of South Dakota. North Dakota's delegation is all Democratic, mostly because of the lingering influence of the NPL. Nebraska divides its electoral votes by congressional district, and Obama won in the Second CD (Omaha). Kansas has a D representative, Dennis Moore, and so does Oklahoma (Dan Boren).

Any other Republican states? All the southern states have at least one Democratic representative, mostly because they are required by the Voting Rights Act to have black majority districts. So as a consequence we have Bennie Thompson, Artur Davis, John Lewis, Jim Clyburn, etc. Can't forget Texas, that state is pretty damned Republican. Plenty of Democratic representatives, again mostly from (minority) - majority districts. Texas might elect a Democratic senator in the not too distant future, but that is a subject for another post.

Democratic states! Can't forget Vermont, which elected a socialist senator in 2006. Last Republican elected federally was Jim Jeffords in 2000, who later started caucusing with the Democrats. Rhode Island also elected a Republican in 2000, Lincoln Chafee - he was defeated in 2006. Both Jeffords and Chafee were of that vanishingly rare breed the Liberal Republican. Chafee endorsed Obama in 2008. New York has Republican parts Upstate and Illinois has Republican parts Downstate. California is very Republican once you get away from the coast. Maryland has one Republican representative. Hawaii is mostly one party, except...

I've noticed something interesting. A lot of "red states" elect Democratic governors, and vice versa.

"Blue states" with Republican governors: Hawaii, Vermont, Connecticut, California, Rhode Island, and if I turned the clock back three years, I could add New York and Massachusetts.

"Red states" with Democratic governors: Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma, Tennessee

...Anyway, might as well answer my initial question. As far as Republican states, Utah is pretty one party. It has a D representative, but I cannot imagine a D winning statewide. I would say the same for Idaho and most states in the South. Utah and Idaho both have large Mormon blocs, and generally Democrats in the South are minorities with political views that the white Republicans disagree with. Democratic states: A lot of the really Democratic states do have Republican governors, but they have no Republican bench: that is, the congressional delegation and state legislature are overwhelmingly Democratic. Why do they elect Republican governors sometimes? For balance, perhaps. To keep the legislature in check. Often the Republicans are from outside government, they are businessmen. Anyway.

One more day in Houston and then I fly back on Saturday.

Maps

A few hours ago I was looking at the Strange Maps site again, and a few minutes ago it occurred to me that I had no topic for a blog entry. That site is oddly addictive. (Check out the Atlas of True Names entry.)

Our family owns the Times of London Concise Atlas of the World for some reason. It makes fine bedtime reading. Australia's names are perhaps my favorite: Brandon, Ayr, Home Hill, Merinda, Bowen, Airlie Beach, Cannonvale, Proserpine, Bloomsbury, Calen, Farleigh, Bakers Creek, Eungella, Moranbah, Saraji, Capella, Emerald, Anakie, Bogantungan, Alpha, Jericho, Yalleroi, Blackall. How did they all get their names? Why would the Founding Convicts of Australia name a town after the brightest star in Auriga, or the first letter in the Greek alphabet, or the wife (I guess) of Hades/Pluto? Did George Lucas look at the same map when he was writing Star Wars? (If you're curious, all the towns I named are from Queensland.)

Another atlas our family owns is the Onion's Our Dumb World. Texas, for instance, is home to "Massive pickup truck picking up smaller pickup truck", "Cowboy hat that can be seen from outer space", "Racist eating at fantastic Mexican restaurant", and "Oil man who hates all non-Saudi foreigners." The atlas also informs me that "Everything Sucks Bigger in Texas", so screw the Onion.

The political season also provided some fine maps, and the finest map I've seen is Daily Kos's Electoral Scoreboard. Whenever I need to remind myself how much butt the Democrats kicked, I look at those maps. And in 2010 (midterm midtacular!) I can use the Cook Political Report to see what the current conventional wisdom is. (Answer: Sucky. OK-Sen is likely R? It's solid R. LA-Sen is tossup? It's likely R. NH-Sen is likely R? It's lean R or tossup.)

I enjoy tracking hurricanes during hurricane season, so here are historical hurricane tracking maps. (During hurricane season I'll have to write an entry showing really bizarre hurricane tracks.) Weather maps are also interesting to me, but there are plenty of those online or in the paper. I understand Philadelphia will be freezing when I return. (Even Houston froze last night in some parts.)

Pretty accurate map of the US.

Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow!

Strange connections

Deep thought: Damme, my internets are slow today. I guess my brother is downloading something.

Deep thought: Newsweek's cover story today is on how Obama should emulate Cheney. It's asstastic, but I'm not terribly concerned - I know Biden has said harsh words about Cheney. He (Biden) said that Bush should fire Cheney in front of Bush and Cheney.

Anyway, I wanted to tell the story of John Ziegler and me. I've never met him, thank goodness. But John Ziegler is a name I've seen three times in my life, and all the incidents involving him are interesting. John Ziegler Incident #3 concerns my favorite hockey mom, and my dad's self-described girlfriend, Sarah Palin. John Ziegler now is a filmmaker, making a documentary (in the sense that Fahrenheit 911 was a documentary) on how Obama got elected. The video here is his interview with Palin. I have not watched this video, because I have fulfilled my Sarah Palin quota until 2101. (I hope whatever wars she was beginning during her future presidency have finished by that time.) I understand she plays the victim. Republicans love to do that, blame the liberal media for being biased. (And I think: Cheney has a 9% or so approval rating and Newsweek did a cover story on how Obama should emulate Cheney, so wtf.) And, yanno, victimized by Katie Couric? She couldn't say where she got her news from! The truth is, she probably got briefed on news by her aides (no doubt she had a full schedule) - but she didn't say it! WHY.

Anyway, my screeching about that was topical in September. I found out about this video via Mudflats, which is my second favorite blog I've discovered last year. Here's the Mudflats analysis of it.

Like I said, Mudflats was my second favorite blog I discovered in 2008. My favorite? Fivethirtyeight.com, which seriously kept me sane in October, when the MSM was yammering on about the Bradley Effect or the Wilder Effect or racist whites or Reagan Democrats - all that bullshit. But Nate Silver kept me cool, kept me sane. And this brings me to John Ziegler Incident #2, Nate Silver's bizarre interview with him on this push poll he commissioned. The push poll was conducted by Zogby, one of the more interesting pollsters I encountered, and who is worth a brief excursion (blogs aren't great for footnotes): CA primary, Super Tuesday, Obama has the momentum gathered from the endorsement of Ted and Caroline Kennedy. Zogby put out a poll showing Obama winning CA by 13%, Survey USA put out a poll showing Clinton winning CA by 10%. Clinton won CA by 10%. So that's Zogby.

Back to Silver's interview: Ziegler was conducting a push poll on Obama to support his argument in the film I mentioned above, Media Malpractice... How Obama Got Elected. Silver wrote an entry on his blog calling out Ziegler's push poll. Then the interview, which speaks for itself. (Do read it.) I will only add that the other SC senator is Jim DeMint, about whom I know very little. He's probably really conservative, but too junior to be entrusted with any position of power in the Republican senate caucus.

Anyway, all this fussin' and feudin' inspired one of Silver's finest pieces of writing in the election cycle...and which reminded me of something I forgot, John Ziegler Incident #1. Before Ziegler became a conservative documentary filmmaker, he was a right wing radio talk show host. Not as popular as a Limbaugh or a Hannity, probably less popular than someone like Neal Boortz as well. Probably closer in ideology to Boortz (right wing libertarian) than to Limbaugh or Hannity. My encounter with Ziegler in this incarnation was noteworthy: he was the subject of David Foster Wallace's final essay in Consider the Lobster, "Host." I was rereading that today and it's perhaps more sympathetic toward Ziegler than Ziegler realized. Wallace was liberal, but Ziegler comes off well. It's a nuanced essay - Wallace usually is nuanced, he's not strident or preachy. Here's the essay. Wallace hanged himself in September, and that was the rare death outside my family that affected me. Wallace wrote like I thought, or perhaps like how I aspire to think. All those footnotes, tangents, his inimitable descriptions. We lost a great writer in 2008. The essay is well worth the time spent reading. (I don't know if the linked essay is the same as the unedited one in Consider the Lobster. The unedited one is 70 pages. Click on the hyperlinks; those are his footnotes.)

And here is John Ziegler's Wikipedia entry. I couldn't link to that earlier, or this whole post would be spoiled!

What would Frank Church do?

(According to his campaigns, think of Idaho first and assert his independence from the national Democratic party.)

Assume = ass + u + me. But hey, Frank Church could still be alive today - he would be 84, I think. Just like many folks ask themselves "What would Jesus do?" Senate Democrats should ask "What would Frank Church do?"

Who would Frank Church endorse? We all remember the superdelegate fiasco of the primaries, and I think a Church endorsement would go to Obama, since he won the Idaho caucus with 80% or so. As a result, every Democratic superdelegate in Idaho endorsed Obama, as well as former 3.5 term Governor Cecil Andrus. Not just that, either - Idaho has something of an isolationist streak, and Church was definitely an opponent of dumb wars like Vietnam or the invasion of Grenada. (Not that the invasion of Grenada counts as a war.) We know Obama is not opposed to all wars, just to dumb wars. I don't know about Hillary's true views, but I am convinced she voted for war with Iraq (and for stuff like Kyl-Lieberman) because she believed she needed to appear hawkish when she ran for president. Church served on the Foreign Relations committee so he would have naturally been interested on the candidates' foreign policy views. (Obama also served on Foreign Relations, Hillary did not but served on Armed Services. See what I mean about appearing hawkish?)

Obama, Church, and Hillary all have something of a cultural conservative streak. Obama - if you read Audacity of Hope, it's pretty clear. I'm not saying that he's against gay folks or anything - I'm saying he's against a hypersexualized culture. Church - he was pretty surprised when he found out his son was sleeping in the same bed as his girlfriend in their hippie commune. Hillary - she sure hates violent video games. (Me - I'm a young white male, you figure it out.)

I have to mention Ron Paul here, because Church actually does remind me of Ron Paul a bit. Same isolationist foreign policy. Both have pro-life sympathies. Both are very principled. Both believe in the gold standard - haha, nope, Church was a proud New Deal Democrat, and Paul doesn't believe in the New Deal or its programs. (Random sidenote: And isn't it weird that Mike Gravel ended up in the Libertarian party? He was quite a liberal senator back in the day, and he even believes in socialized medicine.)

As for Bush - after Church left the Senate, he wrote plenty of articles criticizing Reagan's foreign policy. Bush makes Reagan look like Dennis Kucinich. Would Church have supported Bush's foreign policy? (No.)

The one time I've been disappointed in Obama was when he voted for those bullshit FISA amendments. Was that politically smart? No idea, because the election was about the economy. I don't think his vote on FISA would have mattered one way or another after September 15. What about Church? Well, the original FISA was a result of the Church Committee. Church would have abhorred the idea of giving the CIA more power.

You get the idea. Fight the good fight, Democrats! Frank Church always did.

(Yeah, I know this is a copout post. On the plus side, I bought a book about the Cheney vice-presidency today. Fun fun!)

Uncomfortable Parallels Entry

I've heard a lot of chatter recently wondering what Obama is going to do to expose Bush's misdeeds, or if he's going to do anything at all. And if the chatter is well-informed, it will mention Senator Church. So I figure now is the perfect time to revisit the Church Committee.

The Church Committee - properly the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities - was formed in 1975 to investigate the CIA, FBI, NSA, etc. It was prompted in large part by the reports of Seymour Hersh, who disclosd that the CIA had investigated antiwar protesters and many others. You know, liberals. What the committee pursued at first was the CIA's attempted assassinations of foreign leaders. (Castro and Patrice Lumumba of the DR of the Congo) The CIA also encouraged dissidents to overthrow certain governments.

When the committee opened public hearings, Church brandished a gun at the first session. (Idahoans know how to kick ass.) If you're wondering what inspired my new profile pic, it is that gun. Specifically, this was a gun that could be used to fire poison darts. The CIA had plenty of deadly poisons on hand. (In my opinion, the CIA should have just gone to Australia and got box jellyfish.) The committee discovered other exciting stuff as well - for instance, communications companies provided the CIA with telegrams Americans sent abroad. (Today, the CIA routinely listens in on the calls of Americans abroad, or that Americans make to other countries.) The CIA often intercepted mail. You get the idea - lots of domestic surveillance, and the senators themselves were not exempt.

We should not forget something else: the pressure! Death threats! Bugs and wiretaps! Stonewalling! The relentless opposition of Ford and conservatives! Something more insidious arose as well - the idea that the Church committee was unpatriotic, that its very existence was aiding and abetting the Communists. The idea that "I don't have anything to hide, so go ahead and wiretap my phones! open my mail! etc." Now, these ideas did not suddenly arise with the Church committee, but they were encouraged by various right wing groups. You see the parallels, and I can promise you that Obama is under immense pressure to let bygones be bygones - the Bush administration left a big pile of doody, and Obama needs to clean it up. He - and Congress - have a big enough task before them as it is.

I actually have some sympathy for that idea, more than some of y'all might think. But, yanno, over the summer I read the entire report on the Columbia crash. (not the new report, the one that came out in 2004) When something important like the Columbia fails, you gotta find out why. If you don't, you risk another shuttle exploding. So - when prewar intelligence fails, or the economy fails, or (you can make your own list of Bush administration screwups here) - you gotta find out why. But the difference is that, with some of the Bush policies, our moral code failed. Torture is a moral issue to me. Spying on Americans is a moral issue to me. There should be inquiries, and we need to see how far the rot goes (all the way to Bush and Cheney, most likely) - but the more interesting question to me is, why is it perfectly reasonable to torture or to spy or whatever? Why do some people think that way? Are they right and am I totally off base - do we need to do whatever it takes to fight terrorism or communism?

Here's where I'm going - I want to look more deeply into the arguments against the Church committee. Sure, I think they're wrong. But those arguments sure are appealing to many people. Why? Also, I want to do a post on Church today. What would Frank Church think of our current mess? I have no idea, but I will enjoy speculating!

As kind of an amusing sidenote, the Church committee ran over schedule into 1976. That overrun was a problem, because Church ran for president that year. Really. He started his campaign really late, won a few primaries, lost the nomination, did not become Carter's VP. Carter faced a lot of problems in office, and it would have been interesting to see how Church would have handled those problems. Alas, Idaho has not had a presidential contender since then, and my main man Larry Craig is in no danger of becoming president.

Cooper-Church and Case-Church

I regret choosing Frank Church as a pseudonym now. For a liberal in George Bush's America to go by "Frank Church" is like a Catholic going by "Pope John Paul II" or a Latin scholar going by "A. E. Housman". I chose Frank Church as a pseudonym on a whim - how about choosing a little known senator that was a liberal champion and should be more remembered. Perhaps I should have chosen another name, like Charles Mathias, Clifford Case, John Sherman Cooper, or Mark Hatfield. All of those senators are remembered, at least by folks older than me, but none of them stood steadfastly against everything still president Bush stands for. (Interestingly, all four senators I just named were all Republicans. They cooperated with Church on various legislation or committees.)

I guess I wanted to start off by talking about Vietnam. The parallels between Vietnam and Iraq that I see mostly concern the secrecy and obscurity around the conduct of both wars. Why did we wage war in Iraq? Not for WMDs, and the real reason may be forever unknown. Vietnam? The event that started US involvement in earnest was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. Turns out, that was a fraud too. BTW, Frank Church voted for that resolution. Not one of his finest moments, but he helped us get out of Vietnam later on.

I refer specifically to Cooper-Church and Case-Church, two defining amendments in the struggle to end that stupid war. As you recall, but the Vietnam War encompassed more than Vietnam. Nixon expanded it into Cambodia and Laos. Cooper-Church sought to end fighting in Cambodia and Laos by cutting off its funding. It failed in mid-1970 and passed at the end of 1970. Case-Church pretty well killed off the war. It ended funding for American forces in Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam. It passed in 1973 and US involvement ended, mostly, on August 15, 1973.

As far as expanding the Iraq war - I've always wondered about that and Bush. I think certain forces in his administration might have been pushing him to declare war on Iran. Cheney especially, a lot of Pentagon folks, perhaps the Israeli government. Iran doesn't particularly scare me - remember, it's a Third World country - but I can see how it would scare Israel. And pretty much everyone in government supports Israel. Some support Israel because they're Jewish. That's good. Some support Israel because it's our only democracy in the Middle East. (That's why I think Israel should absolutely exist, although calling Israel a democracy comes with troubling caveats.) And some, my favorite, support Israel because the existence of Israel is a precondition for the Rapture, Armageddon, Second Coming, etc.

Anyway! I wish Congress had been a little more forthright in talking about cutting off funding for the war. I think Iraq has been pretty eclipsed in our consciousness by our new depression - and before that the American public was pretty solidly against the war. Of course, it's an open question how much the American public would support cutting off funding for the Iraq war. But - Congress controls the purse strings. Congress finances the war. If you want to end a war, the best thing to do is stop the funding. Stop the money. And our Congress never had the testicular fortitude to do that. (Ironically, Frank Church had testicular cancer as a young man.)

Maybe I'll ramble my way into talking about Vietnam fallout tomorrow.

So who was Frank Church anyway?

For Christmas I got a biography about Frank Church, called Fighting the Odds. I finished it today. It's a pretty powerful book - Church was in the senate for 24 years, 1957-1980, and he was involved with all the important events of the time, most specifically Vietnam and its fallout.

Maybe I can start with my important thought: While reading the book, I perceived a lot of uncomfortable parallels between Nixon (to a lesser extent, Ford and Carter) and still president Bush. Perhaps the most clearcut one is between Vietnam and Iraq. Now, after Nixon resigned and the Vietnam clusterfuck ended, Congress reasserted its authority. Church, being a senior Democrat, was naturally involved in ferreting out the wrongdoing and numerous misdeeds of Nixon and more importantly the "Unitary Executive". Will the wrongdoing and numerous misdeeds of Bush be investigated by the new 111th Congress? Will there be any Churches ready to scavenge among the Bush detritus and chair special subcommittees?

(My answer: don't hold your breath.)

So that's Church! A brave courageous fellow, especially considering he was a liberal Democrat from Idaho. He was the only Democratic senator from Idaho to be elected to multiple terms. John McCain got 61.5% of the presidential vote, and the Republican percentages have been persistently high since 1960. Idaho elected its first Democrat to Congress since 1992 in 2008, and that man, Walt Minnick, is something of a fluke. (He was running against an extremely unpopular incumbent.) What I am trying to emphasize is that Frank Church was even more of a fluke, and it's amazing that he was a senator at all.

How did he do it?

Constituent service. Like most Western congressmen, he was on the Interior Committee. He had a fine grassroots organization during his elections. He went to a bunch of dinky little towns and gave many speeches. He was popular with the Mormons - he was a real straight arrow type. He was no Eliot Spitzer - much less Larry Craig. He was devoted to his wife. His wife was a pretty amazing political asset. He was willing to defend his stances, even when they were unpopular. Let's not forget misconceptions - a lot of Idahoans thought he was moderate or conservative. He was conservative on some issues. He opposed gun control, like any Western politician. He wasn't exactly pro-life, but he sided with the pro-life crowd on some issues. He was temperamentally conservative.

I guess that's my list of why he lasted four terms. He was defeated in 1980, the Reagan landslide year. Some conservative groups (analogous to today's 527's) spent a bunch of money softening him up, emphasizing all of his stands that were unpopular in Idaho. His most unpopular action was probably playing a key role in the Torrijos-Carter treaties, which returned the Panama Canal to Panama in 1999. His opponent was a fellow named Steve Symms, an extremely conservative congressman from Idaho's 1st district. He was up against a mighty tide, a conspiracy of circumstances. Amazingly, he lost by one percent.

(My analogy to this is pretty dreadful, but hey, it's my blog: Pennsylvania is a fairly moderate to liberal state. Rick Santorum was dreadfully conservative and a two term senator. In 2006, with a strong Democratic tide, he lost by 19 or so percent. That's why I think Church's narrow loss is quite amazing.)

But let us not dwell on Idaho politics! (Summary: Idaho's conservative.) Let us talk instead of Church's important legislation, of the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, of Church's subcommittee on multinationals, of Church's memorial. Let us talk about that tomorrow.

Except for Church's memorial. Church is rightfully most famous for his efforts to uncover wrongdoing by the various intelligence agencies, but he was also a conservationist. Here is his memorial.

Galveston

Ugh, I have a headache. So I'm going to cop out a bit today - I went down to Galveston with my mom to have lunch with my aunt, and it was interesting seeing Galveston again. The last time I was down there was probably in the summer, pre-Ike. How has Galveston changed? The oaks on Broadway are (probably) dead, from all that saltwater that flooded their roots. There were some random beached boats. Not on the road, but off to the side. The blue tarps are still present, but those are probably present in every Houston suburb from the Woodlands on down. Same with the random roadside tree stumps. We didn't drive to see the West End, much less Bolivar. I don't want to know what those look like. (I suspect both places will be casualties of Ike for years. Who would want to move there?) I also saw my favorite Galveston landmark, the San Luis hotel. I dunno if I was the only one who obsessively followed the Ike landfall, but every reporter in Galveston was in the San Luis hotel. It's probably the safest place on the island. Just think - if you stayed there, you could sleep where Geraldo slept! Gag me.

My aunt works at Galveston College - that's the local community college. It was pretty interesting going there. The atmosphere reminded me of UHCL, except the college was more compact. I understand the nursing program is very popular. A lot of the students there are older folks. Many students left before Ike and never returned to the college.

I think there's a lot of downsizing going on in Galveston. Galveston College fired all of its adjunct professors. Sometimes I read about UTMB and its problems in the paper. I'm sure there are many other firings that have transpired.

Probably my most eerie thought was this - thinking "That building flooded" as the buildings went on by. Except for the buildings on the Seawall, I guess every building flooded. I wonder what the flooding was like inland, in La Marque or Texas City or wherever.

If I'm going to write an entry about Hurricane Ike (at least sort of) I must close with the bear on the Seawall. (Bears adore Snickers.)

There's probably no God.

Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.

So, are you convinced that there isn't a God yet? I hope you found my argument satisfactory. But that is not my argument, it is from the atheist bus campaign in Britain. (Don't worry, theists, God isn't taking this sitting down.)

I'm not sure what to think about the bus campaign. On the one hand, I like that some people are proud enough of their - well, not their atheism - agnosticism to spend money to put that message up on the double decker buses and on the Underground trains. I seriously wonder what would happen if there were an atheist bus campaign in the US. (But let's not mention that again until the end of this entry, and let's defer serious discussion of atheist advertising in the US until TBD.)

Unfortunately, there are plenty of reasons why I don't care for this atheist bus campaign. Starting off with - it's not atheism with the word "probably"! That makes it harder for me to write this blog entry, because I'm not sure if I even want to say "atheist bus campaign" - yes, Richard Dawkins is involved, but that "probably" means it's not an atheist bus campaign. But I'm going to call it an atheist bus campaign, because atheists funded it. Mmkay. But more important than my linguistic headaches is the other thing. Ads generally can't get me to watch 24, so how are they going to convince anyone that their religion is wrong? Think about it: Oh, I've decided to stop going to church because of some message I saw in London. That won't ever happen. If they work at all, it will be more in the sense of giving a nudge to someone who has doubts about God but isn't ready to let go of religion: It's alright, there are other people with money to spend who don't believe in God either. I think that Dawkins and the other folks who funded this are smart enough to know that the ad campaign won't make anyone quit believing in God. My guess is the ads' purpose is twofold: the nudging, like I said, and "coming out." We're here, we're sods, we don't believe in your God.

But alas we come to another problem with the bus campaign. It's in the UK! I remember Douglas Adams (what would he have thought of this?) commented in some essay of his that the UK had moved from a wishy-washy Anglicanism to a wishy-washy agnosticism in the course of his life. I've been to church services in the UK (not making this up), and it's actually kind of a shame: there are all these grand edifices built to the glory of God, not at all like Lakewood Church (formerly Compaq Center), and few people go to them. The people who do go to church in the UK tend to be pretty old. Of course, on Christmas and Easter probably lots more people go to church. But I tend to assume that folks who go to church on Christmas and Easter are probably not super-serious about their Christianity. (I know that's a horrible generalization.) Anyway, my point is that atheists don't need a coming out campaign in the UK, and they certainly don't need to be spending money to publicize agnosticism, because plenty of people in the UK already agree with them, and plenty more are not hostile to them.

Now that I think about it, here's another reason for the ad campaign: For fun. For the hell of it. I can't argue with that, but I can say that I dislike spending money, and if I want to spend money on fun, I'd rather go see Slumdog Millionare, or buy a Hillary campaign tellall book (oh, I can promise you there will be many of those), or maybe not spend any money at all and learn another Chopin mazurka.

As for an atheist bus campaign in the US: wait, just how often do I see buses in Houston? I'm not terribly good at keeping track of the bus system in Houston, but I do know that if you are carless, you probably should not move to Houston. There aren't enough buses in Houston to warrant an ad campaign (at least I don't think there are), and there definitely aren't enough light rail trains. Nay, God is one step ahead of American atheists, as I showed at the beginning: God knows that Americans don't take public transportation, and that's why He erected those billboards! Dammit, the atheists need billboards! Plenty of super-ugly billboards in Houston!

If an American atheist group decides to buy some billboards, that's cool with me. I won't be donating money.

Church's Chicken

I can't actually think of anything useful at all to say today, so I am going to post on the topic that keeps on giving: Sarah Palin. During the election I started reading this blog called Mudflats, which covers Alaska state politics. Perhaps Illinois is more corrupt than Alaska, but it's a tough call. The latest news out there, besides Senator Begich (the fellow who beat Ted Tubes Stevens and the first Democrat to represent Alaska in Congress since Mike Gravel) concerns my main man Levi "Hockey" Johnston. I've always felt kinda bad for the Palin kids. Their parents don't value higher education or even lower education. I always saw those kids being toted around to the various Palin/McCain rallies, so who knows how much book learnin' they were gettin'. And I haven't seen any indication that they can be fit parents to a special needs child. Yeah, I know, the RNC or someone can hire folks to take care of young Trig (/_) Palin. But...parents shouldn't farm off parenting. They just shouldn't.

Speaking of parents, Levi Johnston is one too. Good luck to him; I understand teenage marriages usually fail. Fortunately, he isn't married yet. Anyway, I'm doing an excellent job of circling round this news story.

I shouldn't know the name of Levi Johnston. I shouldn't be reading news stories about him. And Sarah Palin should be trying to keep him - and her other kids - out of the spotlight. But she's corrupt and couldn't resist pulling strings to get him a cushy job. He's going back to finish high school. Good. That's what he should be doing. And I do not want to read about him again. Except I understand that he's getting something like $300,000 for People (?) for baby pictures.

As Bill Maher once declared on his show Real Time, we need to free Levi Johnston. Good luck, Levi, and may you run far far away from Alaska. You can stay in my dorm room if you like. The bed is taken, but the floor is not.

Think of Idaho first. He does.

Earlier today I decided to read a bit about the Israel/Palestine conflict (phase 4598), and I don't even know where to begin talking about that. There is a certain part of me that thinks we should just move all the Jews here to the US and let them settle wherever. They can buy our empty houses. But of course that will never happen and shouldn't happen - I think Israel should definitely exist and has the right to exist. I merely feel unsympathetic toward their current war efforts. I tend to sympathize with the people under attack, and the Palestinians are under attack. I can't begin to imagine the current life of someone in the Gaza Strip.

Moreover, I have formed an impression somehow that Israel is possibly doomed. The interesting question is how I have come to this impression. It's pretty uninformed, more of a gut instinct - based on the knowledge from reading the occasional Economist article, that Jews are a shrinking proportion of Israel, that apartheid states are boycotted (eventually) - and yes, Israel is going down that road, and could probably be called an apartheid state today - ...I mean, I know I am completely unqualified to speak intelligently about the Israel/Gaza conflict. But I know I want it to stop, and I bet most Israelis and Palestinians want it to stop.

Maybe still not president Obama will do something about the conflict! Only one president at a time, I know, but his inauguration is coming up fast. Only 15 days left to complain about Rick Warren!

And one more thing: Something I always enjoy mentioning is a passage in America: The Book called the Death Toll converter, like 2000 dead Namibians = 100 dead Chinese = 1 dead American white girl. Stuff like that. You see that in Iraq and Gaza, I think. 9 dead Israelis, 550 dead Gazans. I know hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died. It's quite staggering. I guess my point is: The Palestinians and Iraqis and all the others are human too. You know that. But people who say Israel has carte blanche in this war definitely do not.

Wikipedia
Article I read today that I thought was really interesting

Republicans? Future???

A followup comment to the RNC chairmanship, Magic Negros, etc.: The new DNC chair has been named, Gov. Tim Kaine of Virginia. It's my understanding that when a party is in power, the chair is usually named by the president and elected unopposed. You won't see any Magic Negro BS from Tim Kaine, though. He was the first person to endorse Obama outside of Illinois. He speaks Spanish. He was probably a contender for the veep position.

I didn't know what I was going to write about today, but after reading two posts about the future of the Republican party, I knew I had my topic. Here is one, here is the other. (Absolutely read those. They're much better than anything on this shitty blog.) Not knowing much about technology, but having a loud mouth, I decided to use this entry to perhaps answer a question that's been nagging at me, a question that must be answered in order to properly debate the future of the Republican party...

So what do they do with Sarah Palin?

Ugh. Now if there's one person in the world who drives me to irrational hate, it's Sarah Palin. If I talk about her in front of you, make sure you are out of spittle range. Ugh, ugh. A vile woman. And the most popular, most energizing person in the Republican Party! Yes, if there's one person who knows how to fire up the Republican rank and file, it's Sarah Palin. Problem is, she's not so popular in the reality based community. She believes dinosaurs are Jesus horses. She believes that you shouldn't teach your child about birth control, or that your kids should go to college. She believes it's acceptable for the First Dude to listen in on Alaska cabinet meetings. She believes in grifting, like grifting the RNC for shopping sprees at Neiman Marcus. She will be, after Jan. 20, the most dangerous person in American politics. At least in my opinion.

Problem! She's governor of Alaska. Now Alaska, it seems, is quite far away from the mainland US. A guy like Rick Perry, or Mark Sanford, or Bobby Jindal can go jet off to Iowa or NH easily and build a national following. But Wasilla is rather farther away from Iowa and NH than Austin or Columbia or Baton Rouge. What's a governor to do?

Of course, one answer is that unlike those three men, Palin is quite widely known. So she can just run for President (you know she will) based on name recognition. It worked for Hillary Clinton (sorta), although not for Rudy Giuliani. So she can run for reelection in 2010 and win, and still make a credible run for President. But there's another, more interesting scenario: Run for Senate! Senators, it seems, don't do shit. Look at Obama and McCain, especially McCain: They didn't attend to their Senate duties at all (or hardly at all) during the campaign. Washington DC is much closer to Iowa/NH than Wasilla. Now, yeah, I know, there's an incumbent senator already, a Republican: Lisa Murkowski. Palin, you might recall, beat an incumbent Republican governor in 2006. His name? Frank Murkowski, father of Lisa Murkowski, a former Senator who appointed her to his vacated Senate seat when he became governor. That's some pretty ballsy nepotism. A little too ballsy - although Lisa won reelection in 2004 (by 3 points), Frank was consistently unpopular for his first term. Don't you think it would be tempting for Palin to slay another Murkowski? I know I do.

What would a Palin/Murkowski battle look like?

Interesting results. And that's why I think she'll go for the Senate. Being governor will get a lot harder soon enough. Those checks everyone in Alaska gets are gonna be a lot smaller with the decrease in oil price. And the reason she is so popular in Alaska is because of the checks.

Anyway. I've done an awesome job of answering the question: What does Sarah Palin's future look like? And a piss poor job of answering the question: So what do they do with Sarah Palin?

Here's my answer: Well, shit. They really can't do anything. McCain's campaign couldn't control her at all (just look at the insider accounts), so the RNC/Republican muckety-mucks definitely can't control her. She's a maverick ;) dontcha know. Seriously, I don't see her responding well to pressure. If they pressure her not to run for Senate, they will fail. Unless they bribe her of course. But Sarah Palin has expensive tastes. Same goes for President.

So we'll have Palin to kick around for many years yet. What does this mean for the Democrats? If Obama makes things better, the Democratic Party will be fine. They have a lock on the youth vote and minorities, as I explained earlier. If everything keeps going to shit and there's no improvement by 2012, that will be troublesome for Obama and the Democrats. I suspect Palin will be the Republican nominee in 2012. If she becomes President, God help us all. She certainly won't.

To follow on from my Moment of Zen yesterday, here is another pretty funny video. Wang Cares.

Music Performance

Back in November I was talking to my Latin professor, at first about the topic for my final paper, but then about music. He said something to the effect of that it must be wonderful to play in orchestra, to feel like you are an integral part of the whole.

Back in December I decided to give my parents copies of the recordings of any ensembles I had played in at Swarthmore (orchestra and chamber stuff). I was in an ensemble that played Appalachian Spring in fall 2007 and our recording held up really well, I was impressed with how good we sounded.

Anyway, my Latin professor's comment has been kicking around in my head since then. What do I feel in orchestra? Do I ever feel like I am an integral part of the whole? The truth is I do not. I know I am (at least a bit) important, since I'm the only bassoon. But usually I'm just concentrating on my part (don't screw up) without trying to pay attention to my surroundings. Appalachian Spring - it was quite a revelation to finally hear everyone else. I was pretty narrowly focused on my own part, or listening for a cue to signal hey I've gotta start playing again soon. I'm particularly thinking of the strings here - during the rehearsals, I only paid attention to them if they screwed up. I paid more attention, perhaps, to the flute and clarinet and piano, partly because they were closer to me, partly because their tones were distinct, partly because I was relying on them for cues more than the strings. Orchestra - pretty similar situation. I pay attention to the cellos, I guess, when my part is doubling them and Andrew (orchestra director) says we need to blend better. I'd say when I'm consciously trying to fit inside the sound of another group in the orchestra, that's when I feel most like an integral part of the whole. But that doesn't happen too often, so I guess you can take that as a sign that I am a poor musician, or at least that I'm not as good as I think I am.

Mind you, I know I suck in college. I was good in high school. Back then I never thought too much about trying to consciously fit into the ensemble. In my defense, bassoon is a peculiar instrument - there never are very many in any ensemble (except a bassoon ensemble) and they provide color. (For instance, I provide the color blue.) When the bassoon is exposed, it is meant to be heard and to stick out. If not the composer is writing badly.

Anyway! I feel troubled that I don't feel like an integral part of the whole in orchestra. I have no idea what to do about it. I feel another question coming on: well, that sensation is supposed to be an incentive to do orchestra. Why do I do orchestra? For fun. It gives me something to do. I enjoy playing bassoon. The music we play is (generally) more interesting than the music from HS. The folks in college orchestra are much better (better behaved and smarter) than folks from HS band or orchestra. The orchestra needs a bassoon. Probably some other reasons that I forget. I find orchestra worthwhile and I intend to do it until I graduate. But I feel a little sad that I'll never feel like an integral part of the whole.

An appendix on piano: I've always liked playing piano better than bassoon - bassoon doesn't get the melody too much, solo piano always gets the melody. No eight-note chords or thundering octaves on bassoon. I always feel like I'm performing for an unseen audience whenever I practice piano, unless I'm in the early stages of learning a piece - when I'm playing it hands apart and trying to see how it fits together, what the patterns are. Is that weird? Maybe! I'll probably have much more to say about piano in future entries.

Upon rereading this, it occurs to me that I may have been making an unconscious metaphor about alienation at college, or something. You probably shouldn't take it that way. At college, I don't feel alienated. Mostly I feel busy and that I have too much work to do. And when I'm as busy as I usually am I can't waste that much time on angst. Unless it's angst about classes! :D If you would like to read a metaphor about alienation I suggest the Metamorphosis, by Franz Kafka.

When I was writing a xanga I randomly sometimes inserted moments of Zen. Today I was reading a blogger on the Atlantic, Ta-Nehisi Coates, who I like to think of as the senior black blogger (ala Larry Wilmore) for that magazine. Moment of Zen. Hope that link works.

Scott Free

What happened?

Scott McClellan was the press secretary for the Bush administration. He was the sweaty guy who had to dole out lots of thick BS in answering the press's inane questions because the Bush administration didn't like being truthful about their real intentions.

Anyway, he left in 2006. Flash forward a couple years, as the Bush administration sucks more than ever, and we get yet another self-serving book settling scores and blaming everyone in the administration but the author, who shall remain blameless. We've seen this pattern from George Tenet, Paul Bremer, and (according to recent news) Alberto Gonzalez. Also, Paul O'Neill, but that was something of a special case.

Is McClellan a special case? I'd say one difference between him and the guys I named above is McClellan wasn't responsible for anything important. He was the front man, not the director of the CIA. He didn't create the BS, he just slopped it onto your plate like at a cafeteria. It's probably worth recalling his background - he was one of the old Texas hands, like Karen Hughes, who came with Bush to Washington. His mother is a figure of some fame in Texas. Her name is Carole Keeton McClellan Rylander Strayhorn, and my parents voted for her for governor in 2006. My point is that McClellan is a true believer, the type of person who saw that Bush worked on a bipartisan basis with Texas Democrats like Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock, and who believed that Bush would work on a similar bipartisan basis with Democrats in Washington.

Did Bush work on a bipartisan basis with Democrats in Washington during his two terms?

No.

Of course people in the reality-based community like you and me figured that out years ago. But perhaps being in the White House bubble imparts a different perspective. Now it's probably worthwhile to look at what was in the book. Most of it concerns his time in the Bush White House, first as deputy press secretary under Ari Fleischer, then as press secretary. There's information about his experiences during 9/11 (he was in Florida with Bush), his experiences during Katrina, his relationship with Bush, how he was hired in 2003 and fired in 2006 (ah, we'll get to that), and most of all the Valerie Plame scandal. We'll get to that.

Humanizing Bush - yeah, McClellan includes some anecdotes that show his personal relationship with Bush, who I must say comes off pretty well. McClellan claims he still likes and admires Bush. I think a lot of people hate Bush so much that they forget that Bush is a person, capable of kindness and warmth to his friends, like Scott McClellan. But that being said, Bush's administration has a record which speaks for itself. And the responsibility for that record rests with the president. Also I doubt McClellan is a friend of Bush anymore.

I suppose I first learned of McClellan from watching the Daily Show so much - there would always be that sweaty guy spooning out the bullshit and you could tell he knew he was spooning out bullshit and furthermore he didn't like it. The reason for this was the Plame scandal, which is worth a very long entry on its own. Basically: Someone (Karl Rove, Richard Armitage, Scooter Libby) told some reporters that Valerie Plame was a CIA agent, and it's a crime to reveal that someone is a CIA agent. But for such a simple sort of crime - and certainly nothing so big as starting a war or neglecting a ruined city - this scandal has had some pretty astounding repercussions. For one, it caused McClellan to not like spooning out his bullshit. McClellan had to answer many questions about the scandal, naturally, so to prepare for these he asked Karl Rove if Rove had leaked Plame's name. Rove said no. McClellan asked Libby too, iirc - Libby said no. Turns out, they were both being disingenuous. McClellan disliked this, and in 2006 he decided to quit, but before he could announce that, Josh Bolten (chief of staff from 2006 on) fired him. That's a pretty good summary of the last half of the book. It's a portrait of McClellan becoming increasingly disenchanted with the Bush White House because of its tendency towards deception and the permanent campaign. Now we come to McClellan's thesis.

McClellan's thesis is that the Bush White House, like the Clinton WH before it, is always in permanent campaign mode. Always concerned with selling its product and not so concerned with hammering out compromises in Congress. The permanent campaign mode also led both administrations to not be honest enough with the public. To remedy this we need more bipartisanship and transparency in government. And here's where my disagreements with McClellan kick in. Transparency - yeah, I think everyone can agree we need more transparency in government. But bipartisanship? There's this strange bipartisanship fetish which is undercut by looking at the facts of the last 8 years. For the last 8 years, the Republicans have consistently been wrong and the liberals (not necessarily Democrats) have been consistently right. Too often acting bipartisan in Washington these days means agreeing to the Republicans' demands. How can you compromise with Republican ideologues who won't compromise? Seems to me if you act all nice and bipartisan with them, America gets screwed again. To that I say: Don't work with them, call them out! If they want to filibuster a raise in the minimum wage (for example), make them do it! There's much more I could say on this subject but this entry seems pretty lengthy already.

Would I recommend McClellan's book? Not really. If you've read this entry, you've read the book. But I suspect it will be a useful primary source in years to come for people wanting to understand the strange Bush years.

In October 2008, McClellan endorsed Barack Obama for President of the United States.

Old Wine in New Bottles

No parties at my house - my parents are not party people, so I celebrated New Years the same way I do every year - at 11:00, watching the ball drop on Times Square. This year I gave up Dick Clark and Jay Leno and was comforted by the sweet embrace of Anderson Cooper and Kathy Griffin on CNN. I wonder how many people watched that - it was about as surreal a piece of television as I've ever seen. They were in NY, but covering New Years around the country - in New Orleans, Las Vegas, and probably somewhere in the Pacific time zone. There was this one guy in a restaurant on Bourbon Street who made crab cakes especially for Anderson even though Anderson was unfortunately in NY. Also it was hilarious to see the CNN guy in New Orleans move through all the extremely drunk and shouting into the camera revelers on Bourbon Street. There were other bizarre happenings - more than I expected; I was only watching the show intermittently and sometimes flipping between that and C-SPAN which was repeating Obama's election night victory speech. (Which was interesting in itself - I feel even more strongly now that it was NOT a victory speech. It was far too sober for that. I actually kinda felt bad for Obama, because there is no escape now from his mighty burden.)

I was hearing fireworks all night from my bedroom so a bit before midnight I walked down to the neighborhood park to see what would happen. Heard a lot of fireworks - I think some folks were setting off firecrackers at my old elementary school. There was clearly a party on the other side of the subdivision, complete with a bad trombone rendition of Auld Lang Syne. To the southeast people were setting off fireworks close by. I could see them light up the sky. To the south were many more fireworks but much farther away, although I could sometimes see their pretty lights peek above the horizon. Orion and Canis Major were high and bright in the sky, although Canopus far to the south was covered by clouds.

Some people do New Years resolutions. They never seem to work out, so I'm too lazy to bother. I don't really expect 2009 to be a terribly good year, either for me or for our country. For me, the terrifying specter of graduation and my crashing into George Bush's economy are closer than ever. For our country, George Bush's economy will not magically go away under Obama. George Bush's Iraq and Afghanistan (now there's a clusterfuck) aren't going anywhere. You can make your own list of problems, etc. Maybe Obama will be able to do something about these problems, or maybe the country will merely have old wine in new bottles. I favor the former interpretation - Obama will certainly try to alleviate these problems. The country clearly wants him to succeed. But there are the opposing forces, and we'll get to those some other time.

This is the start of my 31 posts in 31 days. So if that Muslim fails, at least you'll always have these posts to comfort you. Let the good times roll.

Tomorrow: I review Scott McClellan's book, What Happened, which I got for Christmas!