Review: E-mails show pettiness, not fraud

From the AP via MSNBC:

E-mails stolen from climate scientists show they stonewalled skeptics and discussed hiding data — but the messages don't support claims that the science of global warming was faked, according to an exhaustive review by The Associated Press.

The 1,073 e-mails examined by the AP show that scientists harbored private doubts, however slight and fleeting, even as they told the world they were certain about climate change. However, the exchanges don't undercut the vast body of evidence showing the world is warming because of man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

More here.

I've resisted posting on this "scandal" because recognizing it almost gives it a sense of legitimacy, and legitimacy is one thing this controversy lacked from the get-go. That is, it strikes me as extraordinarily implausible that some emails from a few scientists involved in global warming research somehow render moot the mountains of evidence which firmly establish human created global warming as fact. I'm also keenly aware of how right-wing cyberspace lunatics love to manufacture bullshit "reality". So I was immediately sure that these emails amounted to nothing, and was dead set on ignoring it all until the whole thing went away.

But what the hell. The AP was nice enough to spell everything out for us, so why not dance on the grave of yet another conservative attempt to send us all to hell? Moral of the story: until they start consistently telling the truth, everybody should be wildly skeptical of everything the right wing has to say. You know, the boy who cried wolf and all that.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

STAR TREK
Space Seed

From Wikipedia:

"Space Seed" is a first-season episode of Star Trek: The Original Series, that was first broadcast on February 16, 1967 and repeated on August 24, 1967. It is episode #22, production #24, written by Gene L. Coon and Carey Wilber, based on a story by Carey Wilber, and directed by Marc Daniels. It went on to serve as a basis for the 1982 film Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan.

The episode guest-stars Ricardo Montalbán as Khan Noonien Singh, and Madlyn Rhue as Lt. Marla McGivers.

Overview: The crew of the Enterprise awakens a powerful dictator from Earth's war-torn past.

More here.

Of course, this one is fucking great, easily in the top five. I mean, it's a great story, with some fascinating sci-fi ideas, most notably the notion that selective genetics might do us all in someday, but it's also got the old concept of the space travellers from the past frozen in suspended animation. Wonderful stuff. It's also anti-authoritarian, narratively asserting that strong charismatic leaders shouldn't be trusted, and you just have to know that I love that.

But what really makes this episode hum and zing is the acting. Ricardo Montalbán and William Shatner are cut from the same cloth. They're both way bigger than life, and amazingly comfortable in that shape and size. It's almost as though they feed off of each other, getting better with each scene. Khan is easily Kirk's greatest and most worthy adversary.

Go watch "Space Seed" right now.


"Well, either choke me or cut my throat."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

RON REEDER LIVE IN CONCERT!

Tonight, Wednesday, December 16th, at the Neutral Ground coffee house, 5110 Danneel St. in Uptown New Orleans. Ten to eleven p.m. Come watch me, for the third time, sing original songs and a couple of covers, recite Shakespeare, and ramble on about art, culture, and politics in much the same way I do here at Real Art.

People appear to be enjoying what I'm doing. Maybe you will, too.

"A splendid time is guaranteed for all!"

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Obama urges banks to boost lending

From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

President Barack Obama told top bankers on Monday to explore “every responsible way” to increase lending, saying they were obliged to help repair the American economy after being saved by the taxpayer-funded bailout.

In a statement after more than an hour with the executives, Obama said he reminded them that much of the financial crisis that took the U.S. banking system to the brink of collapse had been “of their own making.” He also exhorted the executives — both in private and in public — to drop their opposition to an overhaul of the nation’s financial industry.

More here.

Oh god, this is so pathetic. Please, sir, please, could you stop fucking us over? This is the most disgusting moment of the Obama presidency thus far. When you are President, you don't politely ask federal entities, which is what recipients of the bailout funds are now because the federal government owns them, to do the things you want: you fucking dictate terms; you order them to do your bidding.

Nonetheless, President Obama continues to pretend that these banks are privately owned companies. Probably because of the persistence of powerfully influential right-wing delusions of laissez-faire absolutism. But that's all over now; we no longer live in a world where the market can do no wrong. We can no longer trust these too-big-to-fail organizations to do the right thing--actually, we could never trust these uber-banks to do the right thing, but now it's achingly obvious that that's the case.

Obama had better get his shit together, had better stop pussy-footing around, adhering to economic ideology that is as defunct as Aristotelian physics, or things are just going to get worse. The Reaganomics model doesn't work. We cannot return to the glory days of the go-go 90s, which is clearly what the President's goal is, because it was all an illusion in the first place, nothing but a precursor to today's broken economy.

I'm really starting to think that we're all fucked.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Disaster and Denial

From the New York Times, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman on the persistence of now totally discredited right-wing economic ideology:

Talk to conservatives about the financial crisis and you enter an alternative, bizarro universe in which government bureaucrats, not greedy bankers, caused the meltdown. It’s a universe in which government-sponsored lending agencies triggered the crisis, even though private lenders actually made the vast majority of subprime loans. It’s a universe in which regulators coerced bankers into making loans to unqualified borrowers, even though only one of the top 25 subprime lenders was subject to the regulations in question.

Oh, and conservatives simply ignore the catastrophe in commercial real estate: in their universe the only bad loans were those made to poor people and members of minority groups, because bad loans to developers of shopping malls and office towers don’t fit the narrative.

In part, the prevalence of this narrative reflects the principle enunciated by Upton Sinclair: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” As Democrats have pointed out, three days before the House vote on banking reform Republican leaders met with more than 100 financial-industry lobbyists to coordinate strategies. But it also reflects the extent to which the modern Republican Party is committed to a bankrupt ideology, one that won’t let it face up to the reality of what happened to the U.S. economy.

More here.

Yeah, it's not even really an argument anymore. (And by "argument," I mean in the Monty Python argument-sketch sense: an argument is a set of propositions intended to prove a point. Not the right-wing sense of running your mouth until the other side gets sick of it and quits the exchange.) Yet we continue to see a seemingly endless parade of conservative commentators, activists, and politicians who seemingly have no understanding at all that some of the most foundational principles of their economic views, deregulation, free markets, etc., have been utterly shattered by real world events. I mean, there's obviously still some room to talk about how some regulations are bad, or how certain parts of the market ought to be freer than others, but until the right wing acknowledges that their laissez-faire absolutism now resides in the same file cabinet as phrenology and alchemy, and incorporates this development into their discussion of economics, they're just a bunch of gibbering monkeys.

The corporate news media taking their voodoo bullshit seriously doesn't help matters much.

Krugman ends his essay by tossing the problem to the Democrats. It's up to them, he writes. But the Democrats, even the true liberals among them, take laissez-faire absolutism seriously, too, even when they disagree. As a political party, they're incapable of dealing with this mass denial of reality. It's truly a Gordian Knot. Who's going to step up and cut the damned thing in two?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Why We've Stopped Fighting Back Against the Forces of Oppression

From AlterNet:

Shortly before the 2000 U.S. presidential election, millions of Americans saw a clip of George W. Bush joking to a wealthy group of people, "What a crowd tonight: the haves and the haves-more. Some people call you the elite; I call you my base." Yet, even with these kind of inflammatory remarks, the tens of millions of U.S. citizens who had come to despise Bush and his arrogance remained passive in the face of the 2000 non-democratic presidential elections.

Perhaps the "political genius" of the Bush-Cheney regime was in their full realization that Americans were so broken that the regime could get away with damn near anything. And the more people did nothing about the boot slamming on their faces, the weaker people became.

And

When people become broken, they cannot act on truths of injustice. Furthermore, when people have become broken, more truths about how they have been victimized can lead to shame about how they have allowed it. And shame, like fear, is one more way we become even more psychologically broken.

U.S. citizens do not actively protest obvious injustices for the same reasons that people cannot leave their abusive spouses: They feel helpless to effect change. The more we don't act, the weaker we get. And ultimately to deal with the painful humiliation over inaction in the face of an oppressor, we move to shut-down mode and use escape strategies such as depression, substance abuse, and other diversions, which further keep us from acting. This is the vicious cycle of all abuse syndromes.

Much more here.

Yeah, I know, it sounds kind of whiny. I'm usually not one who readily embraces victim oriented narratives about politics and society--personally, I'm much more fond of storylines where the oppressed rise up against their oppressors, empowering themselves instead of cowering in dark corners. But if you're able to get past the sort of Lifetime channel metaphor in the essay, it's a great read.

Indeed, it hits on several of the themes about which I write here at Real Art, social isolation, debt and fear of job loss, corporate control of the political class, schools as training for submission to authority, social control through psychiatric meds and institutions, television as a means of normalizing capitalist control over society, commercialization and commodification of everything. Really, the point here is that our collective political life, whatever that means these days, is extraordinarily influenced by forces that we don't really think of as being political, and these forces, when viewed in their entirety, greatly serve the elites at the top of the heap, while rendering the hopes, dreams, and fears of most Americans quite meaningless.

That is, our great democracy is totally fucked up, nobody is doing anything about it, and nobody appears to understand the situation enough to actually do anything about it, even if they wanted to.

Go read this essay. It's good stuff.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Annise Parker elected Houston's next mayor
Nation watches as city becomes the largest
in U.S. to choose an openly gay leader

From the Houston Chronicle:

Annise Danette Parker was elected mayor of Houston on Saturday, winning her seventh consecutive city election and becoming both the first contender in a generation to defeat the hand-picked candidate of Houston's business establishment and the first openly gay person to lead a major U.S. city.

Parker, Houston's current city controller who first emerged in the public arena as a gay rights activist in the 1980s, defeated former City Attorney Gene Locke on an austere platform, convincing voters that her financial bona fides and restrained promises would be best suited in trying financial times. Parker, 53, will replace the term-limited Mayor Bill White on Jan. 1.

Her victory capped an unorthodox election season that lacked a strong conservative mayoral contender and saw her coalition of inside-the-Loop Democrats and moderate conservatives, backed by an army of ardent volunteers, win the day over Locke, a former civil rights activist who attempted to unite African-American voters and Republicans.

And

Instead of being turned off by a politician reluctant to promise the world, voters responded to Parker's straight talk about all that might not be possible in the coming years.

Dozens of Houstonians interviewed by the Houston Chronicle said they appreciated her often blunt answers that made Locke's proposals seem vague.

And

While some voters acknowledged it was a matter of concern, many saw no problem voting for a gay candidate, especially given Parker's assurances that she did not intend to expand gay rights through her position as mayor.

Ray Hill, the dean of Houston's gay activists, saw victory in more ways than one.

“For me, it means 43 years of hard work has finally paid off,” Hill said. “For Houston, it means we have finally reached the point where being gay cannot be used as a wedge issue to divide the community and prevent us from reaching our aspirations. Annise Parker is not our mayor — she is the city's mayor.”

More here.

Wow. I didn't know my hometown was capable of this.

In all honesty, I must admit that I'm pretty terrible when it comes to understanding local politics. I mean, I guess I've got a decent macro understanding of how Houston works: real estate developers and business, big and small, essentially own the city, and run it to best suit their interests. That's why it's so fucking sprawling. That's why it buys culture from New York City rather than supporting the many talented individuals who actually live there and labor in obscurity. That's why the pollution is so bad. That's why the only thing worth doing, if you're not into corporate chain entertainment and dining, is inside the Loop. That's why mass transit is so shitty and irrational. And on and on. So yeah, I've got an understanding of Houston politics, but I'm woefully uninformed when it comes to the nitty gritty nuts and bolts of how things get done in the Bayou City.

On the other hand, compared to my understanding of local politics in New Orleans, which are just impenetrable, my views on Houston are f'ing brilliant. But that's still not saying much. Anyway, keep all that in mind as I make a few observations on this mayoral win in Houston:

1. Yeah, it is quite significant that H-Town elected an out lesbian as Mayor. Sure, Houston has a relatively huge gay community, but it's also Texas. The steers and queers thing is really just a joke. Historically, there's been a lot of homophobia in the city of my birth. I really can't believe she pulled this off.

2. It's also worth noting that her runoff opponent was an African-American man. That is, the two choices here were historically oppressed minorities, no white men at all. If we've got shit like this going on in Houston, you know, Bush country, and a black man occupies the White House, I think it's safe to say that we really are becoming a more diverse country. Way cool.

3. I think it's probably a good thing that Parker beat the business candidate, if only because business, as a special interest in H-Town, has been far too dominant for far too long. And it's not as though Parker was a tax-and-spend California liberal, either, not as though Che Guevara was forcing ship channel workers onto collective farms. It's simply that cities have more concerns than commerce, and hopefully Parker gets that.

4. I like that Parker's rhetoric avoids promising a chicken in every pot, and that voters are attracted to that. It's refreshing to hear someone from the political class shoot straight--it's been so long since John McCain was that guy, I'd almost forgotten what it was like.

5. The article kind of implies that conservatives might be losing power in Houston. This may be true, but remember to keep in mind that liberals ain't what they used to be, and a liberal in Houston usually gets along well with a conservative from New England. That is, Houston may be moving into an era when it will simply be less far right, rather than more liberal.

6. Along those lines, is Houston going to become the San Francisco of the Southwest? Absolutely not. Not in a million years. I mean, this is Texas we're talking about.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

Becky's other cats...

Dash



Reine



Be sure to check out Modulator's Friday Ark for more cat blogging pics!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Are Liberals Pathetic?

Why, yes, they are.

From AlterNet, my favorite Harvard Master of Divinity, journalist Chris Hedges, gets right at what disgusts me about contemporary American politics:

Liberals are a useless lot. They talk about peace and do nothing to challenge our permanent war economy. They claim to support the working class, and vote for candidates that glibly defend the North American Free Trade Agreement. They insist they believe in welfare, the right to organize, universal health care and a host of other socially progressive causes, and will not risk stepping out of the mainstream to fight for them. The only talent they seem to possess is the ability to write abject, cloying letters to Barack Obama -- as if he reads them -- asking the president to come back to his "true" self. This sterile moral posturing, which is not only useless but humiliating, has made America’s liberal class an object of public derision.

I am not disappointed in Obama. I don’t feel betrayed. I don’t wonder when he is going to be Obama. I did not vote for the man. I vote socialist, which in my case meant Ralph Nader, but could have meant Cynthia McKinney. How can an organization with the oxymoronic title Progressives for Obama even exist? Liberal groups like these make political satire obsolete. Obama was and is a brand. He is a product of the Chicago political machine. He has been skillfully packaged as the new face of the corporate state. I don’t dislike Obama -- I would much rather listen to him than his smug and venal predecessor -- though I expected nothing but a continuation of the corporate rape of the country. And that is what he has delivered.

And

The imperial projects and the corporate state have not altered under Obama. The state kills as ruthlessly and indiscriminately in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan as it did under Bush. It steals from the U.S. treasury as rapaciously to enrich the corporate elite. It, too, bows before the conservative Israel lobby, refuses to enact serious environmental or health care reform, regulate Wall Street, end our relationship with private mercenary contractors or stop handing obscene sums of money, some $1 trillion a year, to the military and arms industry. At what point do we stop being a doormat? At what point do we fight back? We may lose if we step outside the mainstream, but at least we will salvage our self-esteem and integrity.

More here.

An internal conversation I often have with myself revolves around how I moved so far to the left, ideologically speaking. I was raised in a conservative Republican Southern Baptist home in Texas, so it only makes sense that the first few times I voted I was supporting conservative candidates. After a few years in the theater department at UT Austin, surrounded by liberal artists, it only makes sense that I started voting for Democrats in the early 90s.

Okay, that part's easy to figure out. Conservative to liberal. Sure. But how did I end up further to the left than the term "liberal" implies? Some of my more liberal friends in college had turned me on to Noam Chomsky, who I read voraciously in the mid and late 90s. I started listening to Pacifica radio when I moved back to Houston. I found out about Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States. And, obviously, I found all their arguments persuasive.

But this above linked essay totally hits the essence of why being a "liberal" wasn't enough for me: the far left narrative of the way things work in the US is the only explanation that makes sense to me. Howard Zinn, for instance, has described the American liberal as an apologist for the establishment. That is, liberals say lots of nice things about oppression and the working class and war and how the wealthy, rather than regular ordinary people, control the nation, but virtually all their "efforts" to effect the change about which they always wax sentimental amount to nothing. In the end, even though they pay lip-service to righting it's wrongs, American liberals support the establishment, and just don't have the stomach to push for the drastic alterations our society needs in order to be more just and fair.

To me, this description, liberal as pro-establishment apologist, makes a whole hell of a lot more sense than the gobledy gook bullshit we constantly hear from Democratic politicians, labor leaders, abortion rights activists, and the rest of the usual gang of inside-the-beltway idiots, about why they have to constantly cave in to conservative demands. I mean, if I take what they say at face value, I really don't understand them. Not one damned bit. They make no fucking sense.

I mean sure, I often call myself a liberal, if only because its too damned difficult to explain to most people where I actually sit on the American political spectrum, but like I've said in the past, when justifying my voting for Ralph Nader, liberals and I are not on the same side. Yes, we have similar rhetoric, but we also have very different meanings when we use it. Until liberals start to actually mean what they say, we have virtually no chance of undoing the corporate hostile takeover of our nation. Judging by how Washington liberals are behaving these days, I don't see that happening anytime soon.

'Nuff said.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

STAR TREK
A Taste of Armageddon

From Wikipedia:

"A Taste of Armageddon" is a first-season episode of Star Trek: The Original Series. First broadcast on February 23, 1967 and repeated July 20, 1967, episode #23, production #23, and was written by Robert Hamner and Gene L. Coon, and directed by Joseph Pevney.

Overview: The crew of the Enterprise visits a planet whose people fight a strange war with a neighboring enemy.

More here.

The "strange war" is fought with simulated nuclear weapons. That is, it's all done on computers, without any actual nukes; software on both planets calculate what would happen if real missiles were to reach their targets, and casualties, real people, are then ordered by their respective governments to report to disintegration chambers to die actual deaths. The idea is to preserve culture and infrastructure without losing all the dying. Nifty idea. Kind of like exclusively using neutron bombs, which kill by radiation, rather than with massive explosions.

Of course, this horrifies Captain Kirk, who believes war should be about destruction, which compels him to concoct yet another justification for defying Star Fleet's Prime Directive, forcing these two hypothetically warring civilizations to fight a real war--ideally, faced with holocaust, the two planets will sue for peace.

While "A Taste of Armageddon" has some interesting concepts, there's really nothing intellectually or artistically redeeming about it. Both philosophies presented here, fake war with real death and real war with real death, are morally reprehensible. What makes this episode fun is that it's straight-up action and adventure, lots of ass-kicking and shooting, Kirk's cowboy diplomacy--indeed, the episode's one true Federation diplomat is portrayed as a stupid fucking pussy. Episode highlight: Kirk taking out six alien security guards in less than three seconds using only his fists.

If you dig kicking ass in space, this one's for you.

Watch it here.



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

JOHN LENNON

October 9, 1940-December 8, 1980

Happy XMas (War is Over)

So, this is Christmas
And what have you done?
Another year over
And a new one just begun

And so this is Christmas
I hope you have fun
The near and the dear one
The old and the young

A very merry Christmas
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear

And so this is Christmas
For weak and for strong
For rich and the poor ones
The world is so wrong

And so happy Christmas
For black and for white
For yellow and red ones
Let's stop all the fight

War is over
If you want it
War is over
Now





$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Historic EPA finding: Greenhouse gases harm humans

From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

The Obama administration took a major step Monday toward imposing the first federal limits on climate-changing pollution from cars, power plants and factories, declaring there was compelling scientific evidence that global warming from manmade greenhouse gases endangers Americans' health.

The announcement by the Environmental Protection Agency was clearly timed to build momentum toward an agreement at the international conference on climate change that opened Monday in Copenhagen, Denmark. It signaled the administration was prepared to push ahead for significant controls in the U.S. if Congress doesn't act first on its own.

The EPA finding clears the way for rules that eventually could force the sale of more fuel-efficient vehicles and require plants to install costly new equipment or shift to other forms of energy.

Energy prices for many Americans probably would rise — though Monday's finding will have no immediate impact since regulations have yet to be written. Supporters of separate legislation in Congress argue they could craft measures that would mitigate some of those costs.

And

But business groups said regulating carbon emissions through the EPA under existing clean air law would put new economic burdens on manufacturers, cost jobs and drive up energy prices.

"It will choke off growth by adding new mandates to virtually every major construction and renovation project," declared Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which in recent months has been particularly critical of the EPA's attempt to address climate change.

More here.

'Bout fucking time.

This really should have happened years ago, but couldn't because, you know, psychotic right-wing assholes occupied the White House, which controls the EPA. But just because the conservatives are out of power doesn't mean they're not going to pitch the mother of all fits about this. Indeed, the above linked article goes on to assert that a massive wave of lawsuits aimed at tying up the EPA for a long time to come is all but inevitable.

Shit like this, right-wing resistance to combating global warming, gives me a lot of empathy toward George Carlin's giving up on the human race in the latter years of his life. Science, especially climatology, is now dead certain that global warming exists, human activity is causing it, and the end result will necessarily be the destruction of civilization. So why the hell are so many Americans opposed to doing anything about it?

Business opposition I understand. Businesses, while staffed by humans, are not themselves human beings. They're soulless, emotionless, short-sighted organizations governed by procedural rules, motivated solely by increasing profits and nothing else. Of course businesses are opposed to doing anything about greenhouse gasses: they don't give a shit about the end of civilization as long as they continue to make money. I mean sure, the end of civilization is bound to be bad for business, but I did say businesses are short-sighted, didn't I?

What I don't get are individuals who oppose getting serious about climate change. I don't understand how people can simply dismiss hard science--I don't understand why people don't accept evolution, either, but that's another story. I don't understand how people can scoff at EPA plans to regulate carbon dioxide emissions by observing that CO2 exists naturally--I mean, that's true enough, I suppose, but using such a fact in such a way betrays what is obviously a willful ignorance of the entire global warming phenomenon; that is, saying that carbon dioxide exists in nature, and should therefore not be regulated, automatically disqualifies one from the whole conversation. I don't understand why people say the same thing over and over, that fighting climate change will hurt the economy, without acknowledging that climate change itself will hurt the economy far, far worse than efforts to fight it ever possibly could.

Actually, Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman asserts that if Congress gets in on the regulation act, the economy would hardly suffer at all, but I guess that conservatives rule out anything he has to say because he's a Bush-hater.

Anyway, this news is way cool. It's also yet another reminder that, in spite of all my criticisms, President Obama is about a thousand times better than what we had before. At least he's serious about governing the country.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FROM THE REAL ART SPORTS DESK
Texas Edges Nebraska 13-12 to Win Big 12 Championship

From the Houston Chronicle:

But at Cowboys Stadium, in the biggest game of his life, his moment found him anyway. And on a night when Nebraska’s superstar lineman threw Lawrence’s larger teammates around and UT’s Heisman Trophy candidate quarterback nearly threw the game away, it was Lawrence whose 46-yard field goal as time expired lifted the No. 3 Longhorns to a 13-12 victory in the Big 12 Championship Game.

With the victory, UT (13-0) likely advances to a Bowl Championship Series title game showdown with Alabama on Jan. 7 in Pasadena, Calif.

The Longhorns nearly didn’t get that chance. One play before Lawrence’s kick, Nebraska players stormed the field celebrating after Colt McCoy inexplicably ran a play and threw the ball high out of bounds with time running out. The stadium clock showed 0:00 after the play, but a replay official reviewed it and ruled McCoy’s pass hit the turf with one second remaining.

More here.

Well, I've always said I love a great defensive struggle.

It's just that I wasn't expecting this one at all. I mean, last week the Aggies shut down the Texas defense and ran all over the field; this week the Cornhuskers (it's really hard not to say "Cornholers," but I'm trying) shut down the Texas offense. Naysayers insist this all means that Texas has no business playing against the Crimson Tide in the BCS championship game. The way I see it is that we won, both times, against good but radically different teams, in different ways. That is, Texas knows how to win, especially when it looks like they're not going to.

Despite their struggles these last two games, the fact that they won them both makes me feel good about taking on Alabama. The Longhorns don't get flustered. I mean, that big-ass defensive tackle playing for Nebraska, the guy who created so much mayhem again and again behind the Longhorn offensive line, by himself should have scared the fuck out of Doctor McCoy. But no. He just kept on playing. Another day at the office. And in the end he did just enough to pull it out.

Okay, the shades-of-Les-Miles clock bullshit at the end is troubling, but this is the only time I've seen Texas flail around in this way in years--LSU's Tigers, conversely, do this shit all the time. This was a fluke moment, not likely to be repeated. Personally, I think we're ready, and Houston sports analyst guy Richard Justice agrees. Indeed, struggling to win these last two games is actually good for Texas: there's no way they're going to the Rose Bowl thinking it's a gimme; they'll be tough and hungry, desperate for redemption in the national spotlight.

It's time. Let's do it again. Hook 'em 'Horns!


Hunter Lawrence kicks the game-winning field goal.
Ronald Martinez / Getty Images

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

THE STAR TREK CALENDAR PICTURE OF THE MONTH IS...



...Captain Pike!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

Frankie



Sammy



Be sure to check out Modulator's Friday Ark for more cat blogging pics!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

PRESIDENT PEACE-PRIZE MARCHES TO WAR

From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

Obama: Afghanistan not lost, remains challenge

Declaring “our security is at stake,” President Barack Obama ordered an additional 30,000 U.S. troops into the long war in Afghanistan on Tuesday night, but balanced the buildup with a pledge to an impatient nation to begin withdrawing American forces in 18 months.

In a prime-time speech at the U.S. Military Academy, the president said his new policy was designed to “bring this war to a successful conclusion.” The troop buildup will begin almost immediately — the first Marines will be in place by Christmas — and will cost $30 billion for the first year alone.

“We must deny al-Qaida a safe haven,” Obama said in articulating U.S. military goals for a war that has dragged on for eight years. “We must reverse the Taliban’s momentum. ... And we must strengthen the capacity of Afghanistan’s security forces and government.”

And

He said he was counting on Afghanistan eventually taking over its own security, and he warned, “The days of providing a blank check are over.” He said the United States would support Afghan ministries that combat corruption and “deliver for the people. We expect those who are ineffective or corrupt to be held accountable.”

More here.

Okay, but how on Earth can we get Afghans to take over their "own security" while combating corruption? This was always, and still is, the problem in Iraq, which many strategists argue is a much less complicated situation than the one in Afghanistan. While I don't think everything President Carter's national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski says about global conflict is worth even listening to, he's got some good observations about President Peace-Prize's plans for the mountainous "nation" that neither the British nor the Soviets could conquer:

Brzezinski also cautioned that it would be hypocritical and counterproductive for America to stress that Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government be purged of corruption.

"Who are we to seriously be preaching [such] a crusade?" he asked. "We have a financial sector that is voraciously greedy and exploitative, to put it mildly. We have a Congress which is not immune to special interests. And we have an electoral system that is based largely on private donations which precipitate expectations of rewards. The notion of us going to the Afghans and preaching purity is comical... I think we should just quit that stuff."

Brzezinski also expressed reservations about a counter-insurgency strategy that is too reliant on bolstering national institutions, noting that there is "a very complex" mix of different ethnic and tribal groups that have historically opposed foreign or even central authorities.

Of course, Brzezinski goes on to assert that what we need to do is work more closely with local authorities, rather than with the US created national government, which seems sensible enough, until you consider that we're talking about some twenty ethnically-controlled autonomous regions. That is, Iraq is tough enough, what with Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds: Afghanistan, with seven times the number of Iraq's factions, doesn't even come close to what we in the West would consider to be a nation state. And it never has.

So what Obama's talking about is good old fashioned "nation building," but the rub here is that he wants to build a nation where one has never existed. Maybe the conservatives have gotten to me, but I'm really starting to buy into one of the Bush II platform planks from the 2000 campaign: the US should not be in the business of "nation building," especially in places where such a thing is virtually impossible.

Iraq, as a nation state, may yet succeed, but only if the US decides to tolerate a dictatorship as brutal and despotic as the one it replaced, which is no doubt happening right now. Afghanistan, however, is quite literally a Forbidden Zone. There's just nothing we can do there.

If we were really serious about ending Islamic terrorism, we'd get serious about ending our support for Muslim dictatorships, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which enrages the entire Islamic world. And we'd tell Israel to get it's shit together on Palestine, or no more billions to fund its war machine. Of course, we'd have to reevaluate the role that oil plays in the global economy, too, so I don't expect this to happen anytime soon. But it is the only way.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

STAR TREK
THE RETURN OF THE ARCHONS

From Wikipedia:

"The Return of the Archons" is a first season episode of Star Trek: The Original Series. It is episode #21, production #22, and was first aired February 9, 1967. It was repeated by NBC on July 27, 1967. The screenplay was written by Boris Sobelman, based on a story by Gene Roddenberry, and directed by Joseph Pevney.

Overview: The crew of the Enterprise encounters a world controlled by an unseen leader.

More here.

Oh, but this one is so much more than a simple encounter with "a world controlled by an unseen leader." Yeah, it's one of the better "parallel Earth" stories. Sure, it offers a glimpse of the future's past, with the Enterprise investigating the loss of the USS Archon nearly a century earlier. And it's got one of those fabulous logic battles between Kirk and a powerful sentient computer. This one would be fun, no matter what.

But it's the social situation in which Kirk and crew find themselves, and its ramifications for our culture, you know, us viewers back here in the late twentieth and early twenty first centuries, that truly make this episode great. The people of Beta III exist in a sort of group consciousness, which allows for some sense of individuality, but which can also be stripped away at the whim of the apparition-like Landru whenever he requires "The Body," that is, his subjects, to perform a group action. Generally, these people are calm and peaceful, with a psychedelic gleam in their eyes, offering well-wishes and love to whomever they may encounter. Except, of course, during "Festival," when Landru causes his people to release their inner demons, spending entire nights literally raping and pillaging their own civilization.

They're just like us.

No, seriously. Think of the bloodthirsty Southern Baptists who love the death penalty, love torturing prisoners of war, love hating homosexuals, and who love you and Jesus. Think of the perfect suburbs with their underbelly of sleaze and anger. Think of the entire US population twenty four hours before, and then twenty four hours after, 9/11.

"The Return of the Archons" has always creeped me out, from the first time I saw it when I was four or five, right up until today. The notion that all our minds are being controlled somehow, that we only pretend to be peaceful and loving, that animalistic violence is just a surface scratch away from it's full bloody glory, that everything we value and believe in is a monumental lie, I think I've instinctively feared my whole life.

The more I think about it, the more I realize how psychologically disturbing this episode is. I've read a few reviews of this one on the web, and, generally, people rate it as average: they obviously don't get it. Go check it out. It's great.


"It is done."

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

OUR "LIBERAL" PRESIDENT: TOLD YA SO!

From the Houston Chronicle:

Scientist: U.S. effort on climate ineffectual

Prominent climate scientist James Hansen on Monday dismissed President Barack Obama's recent pledge that the United States would cut its carbon dioxide emissions as “completely ineffectual.”

Hansen said Congress, which is considering a cap-and-trade bill to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and the president, who pledged a provisional target of reducing greenhouse gases by about 17 percent of 2005 levels by 2020, should pursue a carbon tax instead.

“These are completely ineffectual approaches,” Hansen said in an interview.

Obama made his pledge last month in advance of his planned Dec. 9 visit to an international meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark, where policymakers hope to craft a global treaty to reign in a warming climate.

By making such pledges and appearing to address climate change, Hansen said the U.S. government, is guilty of “greenwashing,” the practice of disingenuously spinning products and policies as environmentally friendly.

More here.

And from AlterNet:

Is Obama Following in the Footsteps of Bill Clinton?

Today, it’s crucial to ask where Obama is heading. From the stimulus to healthcare, he’s shown a Clinton-like willingness to roll over progressives in Congress on his way to corrupt legislation and frantic efforts to compromise for the votes of corporate Democrats or “moderate” Republicans. Meanwhile, the incredible shrinking “public option” has become a sick joke.

As he glides from retreats on civil liberties to health reform that appeases corporate interests to his Bush-like pledge this week to “finish the job” in Afghanistan, an Obama reliance on Congressional Republicans to fund his troop escalation could be the final straw in disorienting and demobilizing the progressive activists who elected him a year ago.

And

When you start in the center (on, say, health care or Afghanistan) and readily move rightward several steps to appease right-wing politicians or lobbyists or Generals, by definition you are governing as a conservative.

More here.

Okay, I have to admit that I'm getting some wicked pleasure out of the confusion and disillusionment being suffered by stupid liberals who believed against all reason that President Obama was somehow going to be their progressive savior. It was in-your-face obvious during the campaign that Obama is a corporatist conservative Democrat, and it's ram-it-in-hard obvious now. I mean sure, FOX News guys and their ilk go on and on with their "socialist/fascist" oxymorons, but the far right wing has gone drooling gibbering crazy, and doesn't really make much sense anymore: Obama's multi-billion dollar spending spree is all about trying to save the corporate capitalist establishment, restoring the conservative institutions which own and run our society to the position of strength they enjoyed back in the 90s--conservatives ought to love Obama, just as they ought to have loved conservative Democrat Bill Clinton; I guess they just can't get past the whiff of good vibes that goes with being a Donkey.

On the other hand, the preordained failure of Obama to govern from the left, to make the real changes that this country desperately needs, is extraordinarily disturbing: the American political system, and therefore its government, is fucked up broken bad. We continue to regress, not nearly as quickly as we did under eight years of the giggling boy-president named Bush, but the course of our nation is definitely going backward, not forward.

Maybe it's time to embrace nihilism. Either that, or go on a year-long Jim Morrison binge. Whatever.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

THE STAR TREK CALENDAR PICTURE OF THE MONTH IS...



...Mr. Scott and Dr. McCoy!

I just barely managed to squeeze it in, but I really wanted to get this one posted because it's a great shot, what with the Jefferies tube and all. Anyway, expect another STCPOTM, for December, soon.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FROM THE REAL ART SPORTS DESK
Jasper forces OT for LSU; Arkansas misses tying field goal

From the AP via ESPN:

Les Miles trotted to the edge of the boisterous student section at Tiger Stadium, pumping his fist in triumph.

LSU's embattled coach was one week removed and a world away from the Tigers' late-game debacle at Mississippi.

The Tigers calmly drove 41 yards in 1:08 to set up Josh Jasper's game-tying 41-yard field goal with 4 seconds left in regulation, then the kicker made a 36-yarder in overtime to lift LSU (No. 15 BCS, No. 17 AP) to a 33-30 victory over Arkansas on Saturday night.

And

LSU stormed the field after Tejada's field goal sailed wide, celebrating their victory in the battle for "The Golden Boot" with Miles, who'd been under fire from fans since the Tigers' loss at Ole Miss the previous weekend.

LSU botched the end of that game with poor clock management and play-calling. Against Arkansas, Jefferson and the Tigers looked like old pros in the 2-minute drill.

More here.

Okay, it's been disappointing this season, to say the least. Losses to both Alabama and Florida have meant that LSU will not be playing for a national championship this year, which is okay, I guess, because you just can't win it all every year. But it's been doubly frustrating to know that the Tigers have an extraordinarily talented roster, which, excluding the Gator's wunderkind Tim Tebow, is probably as good as 'Bama's or Florida's.

It is not unreasonable to ask what the fuck is up with LSU. And after last week's humiliating upset at Ole Miss, it is not unreasonable to demand to know what the fuck is up with LSU.

I've defended Les Miles here on numerous occasions while local sports radio guys lambasted him, not for losing, but for not winning in the way they thought the Tigers should. I mean, c'mon, he won a fucking national championship, for chrissakes! But Miles has been sloppy these last two seasons. Weird off-the-field dramas distracting the team on Saturday. Bizarre play calls. Uninspired performance in big games. Chronic inconsistency. Maybe he's been sloppy the whole time, and I just haven't noticed it. It's like Miles has done some bizarre shit, which succeeds against all odds, and the sports writers dub him "The Mad Hatter," and everything's A-okay. Maybe he's just mad. Or just a hatter. After losing to the Rebels last week, I started to think that maybe Les Miles has just been lucky.

So okay, we beat the Razorbacks, which is good because they're a good team. And Miles was really careful this week to avoid the bullshit that made him lose last week. That's good, too. But I can't keep from wondering whether he's a great coach, or simply a good coach with enough flaws to keep his talented players from playing as well as they ought to.

Yeah, the SEC is the toughest conference in the nation and all, but is Les Miles up to the task, good enough to beat Nick Saban or Urban Meyer or Bob Stoops or Pete Carroll or Mack Brown? As usual, I guess we'll have to wait until next year to know for sure.


LSU running back Trindon Holliday, right, returns a punt around Arkansas
linebacker Jerry Franklin (34) for a 87-yard touchdown in the first half of an
NCAA college football game in Baton Rouge, La., Saturday, Nov. 28, 2009.
(AP Photo/Bill Haber)

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FROM THE REAL ART SPORTS DESK
McCoy, Longhorns get best of Johnson, Aggies in Texas shootout

From the AP via ESPN:

COLLEGE STATION, Texas -- Colt McCoy and Jerrod Johnson embraced at midfield after their Texas shootout Thursday night.

McCoy still has his eyes on a national title and the Heisman Trophy. And if Johnson's dazzling display was any sign of things to come, the Texas A&M quarterback could be a leading contender next year for college football's most prestigious award.

McCoy threw four touchdown passes and dashed 65 yards for another score, and No. 3 Texas overcame a huge game by Johnson to wrap up an undefeated regular season with a wild 49-39 win over the Aggies.

"What a treat to watch two quarterbacks like that," Texas coach Mack Brown said. "Fans around the country on Thanksgiving got a treat to see two quarterbacks play that well, two offenses play that well."

The Longhorns (12-0, 8-0 Big 12) have only next week's conference championship game against Nebraska standing between them and the BCS title game.

For a while, it seemed as though Johnson just might rally the Aggies (6-6, 3-5) to a gigantic upset, opening the door for TCU and Cincinnati to vault into the national championship picture.

More here.

If I'd had no personal stake in the game, I would have loved it. Instead, as always when the Longhorns are in danger of losing, it was a major nail-biter. And the prospect of losing to the Aggies...awful, just awful. Of course, we won, and it's always great to beat Texas A&M. But who knew that they would open up the great Longhorn defense like a can of cat food? I mean really, the Aggies put up some five hundred and thirty yards of offense on the Texas d. I've been saying for weeks now that Texas can beat either Alabama or Florida, but now I'm not so sure. If the militaristic right-wing rednecks of College Station can run the ball up and down the field, what's Tebow going to do?

On the other hand, as the sports analysts like to say, you can just throw out the stat books for such a rivalry game, and this one was played at Kyle field, where the 12th Man really does exist. Maybe this was the test the 'Horns failed last year in Lubbock. Maybe we've got nothing to worry about.

We'll see how they bounce back against Nebraska.


Colt McCoy was a threat running
and throwing the ball Thursday.
(Thomas Campbell/US Presswire)

I'll get to the LSU game tomorrow.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FRIDAY CAT BLOGGING

Introducing Becky's third cat...

Roi



I reminded Becky that once you pass the two cats per one human ratio, that the cats take over, but she really, really, really wanted little Roi to join her pride. But now I ask who owns whom?

Be sure to check out Modulator's Friday Ark for more cat blogging pics!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Atlantis crew surprised by Thanksgiving feast

From the AP via the Houston Chronicle:

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — Space shuttle Atlantis' astronauts thought they were going to give thanks with pantry leftovers Thursday as their mission drew to a close, but found turkey dinners awaiting them.

The meal switch was revealed Thursday morning when a TV interviewer brought up the absence of turkey dinners aboard Atlantis. “That's not going to be on your menu today, is it?” the interviewer asked.

“Shockingly, yes, I think it will be,” commander Charles Hobaugh said as some of his crew members grabbed the still unopened pouches of turkey and trimmings, and let them float around.

Hobaugh, a no-nonsense Marine, had made it clear before the 11-day flight that he did not care what he ate on the holiday, be it beef brisket or tofu. He made no special meal requests.

But somehow turkey ended up on Atlantis — smoked and irradiated — along with pouches of candied yams and freeze-dried cornbread stuffing and green beans — just add water and bon appetit.

More here.

Commenting on yesterday's Star Trek episode post, which took the Enterprise back to 1969 to interact with the USAF and NASA at the height of American space exploration, my old pal Shane wrote:

Made back when America was madly in love with the space program.

Indeed. There was once a time when a story like this would have been on the front page, and would have led off the evening news. When I was a very little kid, the powdered drink Tang's main advertising campaign was that astronauts drank the stuff while in orbit. Seriously, people went nuts for all this shit. Space food was a minor topic in national discussion for a while there back in the day.

Today, space food is just a sidebar blurb, which is a drag because such minor news status is yet another disappointing reminder that the final frontier is more Hollywood than national dream made reality. Longtime Real Art readers are probably aware of what a space geek I am: I'd really, really, really love another space race of some sort; I'd really love this country to get serious again about NASA.

But I have no idea what it would take. I mean, the first space race, back in the 60s, took place in front of a Cold War backdrop, tapping into anti-communist and patriotic cultural strains, which made supporting NASA as American as apple pie. Somehow, it seems unlikely that space travel can be tied to fighting rag-tag fundamentalist terrorists with turbans, beards, and low tech improvised bombs. Just not the same thing as the mighty Soviet Union.

Maybe the shitloads of water they've found in lunar soil, which makes Moon Base Alpha a distinct possibility in the near future, could do the trick. I guess we'll see about that.


Space food

Anyway, happy Thanksgiving!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

STAR TREK
TOMORROW IS YESTERDAY

From Wikipedia:

"Tomorrow Is Yesterday" is a first-season episode of Star Trek: The Original Series. It is episode #19, production #21, first broadcast on January 26, 1967, repeated July 13, 1967, and was remastered in 2006 for syndication broadcast on May 5, 2007. The screenplay was written by D.C. Fontana and directed by Michael O'Herlihy.

Overview: The crew of the Enterprise travels back to 1969 Earth and must correct damage they caused to the timeline.

More here.

This one blew me away when I was four years old. I mean, it has Kirk and crew visiting twentieth century Earth, interacting with the US Air Force, like only three years before I first saw the episode! I still have the image, burned forever in my brain, of the Enterprise flying through the blue sky, on the television set my family owned back in 1972. Definitely a keynote memory for me.

But my love for "Tomorrow Is Yesterday" goes beyond simple nostalgia. I mean okay, it's cool to see Star Trek placed in what is more or less our era, but this is a good time travel story, exploring the potential paradoxes and harms which could stem from knowledge of the future contaminating the past--indeed, much of the story is about keeping the Air Force from learning anything about their future visitors at all. And there are some great characters. USAF Captain Christopher is, in his own way, every bit as cool as Captain Kirk. The Air Force security guards are a lot of fun, too. Not the greatest episode of the series, but definitely good.

Alas, CBS appears to have disabled the embedding function for this one, so you've got to go there to see it. But that's okay. Here you go. Really, this is a good one.


Lieutenant Colonel Fellini: I am going to lock you up for 200 years.
Capt. Kirk: That ought to be just about right.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

OLD NEWS
Jimmy Carter says 'You lie' outburst was based on racism

From the AP via the New Orleans Times-Picayune back in September:

Former President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday that U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson's outburst to President Barack Obama during a speech to Congress last week was an act "based on racism" and rooted in fears of a black president.

"I think it's based on racism," Carter said in response to an audience question at a town hall held at his presidential center in Atlanta. "There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president."

The Georgia Democrat said the outburst was a part of a disturbing trend directed at the president that has included demonstrators equating Obama to Nazi leaders.

"Those kind of things are not just casual outcomes of a sincere debate on whether we should have a national program on health care," he said. "It's deeper than that."

More here.

"Well yeah," I thought when I first heard this, "obviously." Liberal friends all agreed. Definitely racism. "But impossible to prove," I thought almost as quickly.

I mean, as ludicrous as some of the radical right's views on health care reform are, it doesn't make conservatives racist to simply disagree with a black President. And yeah, some of these right-wing nuts are toting around guns at tea-bagger parties and town hall forums and whatnot, but we saw the same thing, more or less, back in the 1990s with President Clinton, who is white. How can you convincingly argue, in a public forum, that opposition to health care reform is "based on racism" when health care reform as an idea is racially neutral, and when a white Democratic President was treated approximately the same way by conservatives a decade ago?

I mean, I wouldn't personally go as far as Carter did, asserting that racism plays a central role in motivating Obama's critics, but race is almost certainly a major factor here. At this point in history, the Republican "Southern Strategy" is well understood: the South didn't go red by accident; for decades Republicans have been rhetorically exploiting the irrational racist fears of Southern whites in order to get them to vote for the GOP against their own interests. Code words like "crime" (black men will slit your throats) and "states' rights" (principally, the right to discriminate against lazy, criminal, and drug-addicted black people) and "welfare queen" (who is always a big fat black woman driving a Cadillac to pick up her welfare check) are now deeply embedded in Republican mythology. It's pretty tough to be a Republican these days, especially in the South, without buying, at least, some of the racist bullshit.

So it's out there. Racism is necessarily a part of modern conservatism in the United States. I mean, clearly, most Republicans don't think of themselves as racist, but they're very quick to tell you that most crimes are committed by blacks, or that they hate welfare, or that they want to get the federal government off "the people's" backs: I'd bet my copy of The Autobiography of Malcolm X that many, if not most, of these Republicans see black faces in their minds when they're talking about these issues.

But how can you expose the content of people's souls during an argument? How can you prove that when Republicans talk about "states' rights" that they're actually talking about turning back the clock on civil rights, especially when they won't even admit it to themselves?

President Obama was wise to steer clear of this one. It's an argument liberals can't win. At least, not today. I mean, liberals and conservatives don't even understand the term "racism" in the same way: to conservatives it's about how individuals treat each other; to liberals it's about individuals, groups, and institutions of power. When the left and right discuss racism, it's a fucked up conversation. They're not talking about the same thing.

For now, it would be better for liberals to keep pounding away at the limited right-wing definition of the word "racism," opening conservative eyes to the racial injustices they refuse to see. Because playing the race card in the way that Carter did simply makes them feel persecuted and self-righteous.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

FORT HOOD SHOOTINGS: TERRORISM/NOT TERRORISM

From MSNBC's Rachel Maddow show a couple of weeks back, right after running a montage of FOX News personalities insisting that the shooter, US Army Major Nidal Hasan, is a terrorist:

TURLEY: Well, first of all, I think that the Army is going about this in the right way. In fact, they‘re taking a very measured and unprejudiced view. They‘re actually investigating a crime.

Criminal investigators and lawyers and judges don‘t have the luxury that some people have on television to just simply say this must be terrorism. Why? Because we want it to be terrorism. Words have meaning in the criminal code. And that‘s what brings the integrity to the code. It brings this legitimacy.

And you can‘t just simply say that because somebody kills a large number of people, that it‘s terrorism. There are plenty of people that act out of rage.

If you take away a few of the aspects of this case, you would have a typical disgruntled worker shooting. We have these shootings all over the country where people are disturbed and disgruntled and isolated, and they come in and they shoot people in their workplace. Now, some of them are perfectly unhinged and they will latch on to religious views or political views. But what they‘re really acting out of is mental illness.

And so, when you really want to do justice, then you first have to start by defining what the crime is. And I think that these investigators have done a good job. They don‘t see evidence thus far that he‘s an actual terrorist.

Full transcript here.

Oh, I see. The liberal position is that Hasan is not a terrorist.

Apparently, according to Maddow, the reason conservatives are so dead set on labeling the Fort Hood shootings as terrorism is so they can lambaste President Obama for being a shitty national security guy. Okay, that makes sense, and it's probably even true--after all, the whole "terrorists are gonna get you" line has been pretty much the only idea that's gotten any traction for Republicans with the US electorate over the last decade or so; of course, they're going to go as far as they can with this.

But political motivations don't always make an argument wrong.

That is, sure, Hasan is an American. Sure, he's a disgruntled worker. Sure, he's probably deeply disturbed, psychologically speaking. But he's also, clearly, a radicalized Muslim, with intense anger toward the US government. So angry, in fact, that he attacked and killed over a dozen US soldiers. Personally, the only difference I see between Hasan and the 9/11 hijackers, between Hasan and desperate Palestinians who strap bombs to their chests and blow themselves up within dense crowds of Israeli citizens, between Hasan and the men who attacked the US Cole in motorboats loaded with C-4, is that Hasan is an American and the others are not. All these terrorists were also disgruntled. All these terrorists were psychologically disturbed enough to see suicide/homicide as a damned fine idea. Why is it that they're terrorists, but Hasan is not?

This is a stupid position for the left to take. Hasan is a terrorist. I mean, okay, the left has an argument, sure, but it's all legalese, all about protecting our darling "liberal" President, all quibbling over definitions, all rhetoric and very little substance. And it's doubly damning because it plays into the establishment narrative about combating terrorism, you know, the storyline that says we can win "the war on terrorism" by using force.

The point is that the awful act of violence at Fort Hood fully illustrates that radical Islamic terrorism, as a global movement, cannot be countered with more violence. When one of our own, an American citizen, joins the terrorists, it proves beyond a doubt that what we're really wrangling with is an idea, one that has some truth to it: American foreign policy pisses off hundreds of millions of people, some so thoroughly that they're willing to kill themselves while killing many others in order to extract what they believe to be crude justice. Pissing off millions more by waging war on them and others they consider to be brothers only creates more terrorists.

We cannot win a "war on terrorism." Indeed, such a notion is utterly counterproductive. Until we stop supporting the corrupt governments of the Muslim world, which oppress their own people, while giving us oil and strategic position in exchange for the billions we hand over to Muslim elites, radical Islamic terrorism will only continue to grow worse.

Pretending for partisan reasons that terrorists aren't really terrorists is tantamount to Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Expect more Majar Hasans in the future.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

OLD NEWS
WELL, ACTUALLY, IT WAS INDOCTRINATION...

From the New York Times back in September:

Some Parents Oppose Obama School Speech

President Obama’s plan to deliver a speech to public school students on Tuesday has set off a revolt among conservative parents, who have accused the president of trying to indoctrinate their children with socialist ideas and are asking school officials to excuse the children from listening.

And

The White House has said the speech will emphasize the importance of education and hard work in school, both to the individual and to the nation. The message is not partisan, nor compulsory, officials said.

“This isn’t a policy speech,” said Sandra Abrevaya, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education. “It’s designed to encourage kids to stay in school. The choice on whether to show the speech to students is entirely in the hands of each school. This is absolutely voluntary.”

More here.

Of course, this controversy was bullshit from the get-go. Obama's bland "stay in school" and "get good grades" address was the same sort of pablum every student gets every day, all day long, year after year, in various ways, in various forums. Only the paranoid, psychotic, and marginalized far right wing can "see" communist indoctrination embedded in such traditional go-school rhetoric. I mean, the conservatives never even had an argument, just a bunch loony raving.

I've filed this one away with black helicopters, New World Order fear mongers, "Birthers," and gun-toting Tea Baggers. You should, too. Like I said, it was total bullshit.

On the other hand, in one of the great ironies of this era that virtually no one caught, Obama's speech, while not socialist or communist in nature, was definitely indoctrinational. Long time Real Art readers may remember my countless assertions that, very contrary to conventional wisdom, American schools serve primarily to indoctrinate children into the culture of obedience and authority. Indeed, when the US public school system was just starting to get its shit together in the nineteenth century, famous education "reformers," such as Horace Mann, pitched the heavily militarized Prussian school system to the new super rich class of industrialists as the ideal way to create a docile work force for factories. The rest is history.

Today, you can get a high school diploma and be stupider than shit, but you fully understand, down to your bones, that there are rewards for obedience, and punishments for disobedience. Really, the entire debate about whether we have good schools or not misses the point: we have great schools, all of them, as long as it's understood that their function is to teach obedience, which they do extraordinarily well.

Part of the game, however, is that we all have to believe that what the schools are really trying to do is facilitate learning, which, of course, they do pretty badly for the most part--I mean, this doesn't really matter in a lot of ways because actual learning is only a secondary or tertiary goal for the schools; as long as teachers crack the whip, they're doing great. But because we're freedom-loving Americans, we just can't admit that one of our most invasive government institutions, education, runs utterly counter to our most cherished principles. We Americans, especially liberals, tend to glorify educators, mythologizing them in movies, television shows, books, and casual conversation. It's pretty sick, actually.

Anyway, it is in this context, the glorification of public education in order to divert attention from the schools' actual function, that the President made his speech. Really, one can interpret Obama's address as a plea to students to obey because obedience is the only way to "succeed" in school. That is, the speech was straight-up indoctrinational propaganda, totally sinister, just not in the way that the right-wing freaks understood it.

It's like I keep telling conservative friends: you have nothing to fear from Obama; he's here to save the establishment, not destroy it. I mean, c'mon. Right wingers ought to like all this Nazi obedience shit. It's totally up their alley. But why should I be surprised that large groups of Americans are stupid fucktards? They're just a product of their schooling.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

HIATUS UPDATE TWO

Okay, I give up. My computer wins. This round.

No need to go into excruciating detail, but when my computer crashed, oh, two and a half months ago, I saw it as an opportunity to do some much needed tuning up, clearing up my partitioned hard drive, reinstalling my operating system, yadda yadda. Suffice it to say, the partition has to stay for now, which means I'm only going to be using half of my hard drive's actual space.

Whatever. I'm starting to get sick of this blogging vacation. Look for me to be back online next week. I'll have a lot to say--I mean, you know, a lot's happened these past ten weeks or so, from the Obama school speech to the Longhorn's drive to the BCS championship, to this awful massacre at Fort Hood.

Yep. I'm gonna run my mouth with a vengeance.

Soon.

Meanwhile, if you're in the NOLA area this week, I'm doing another gig this Wednesday night, the eighteenth of November. Same place as last time, the Neutral Ground coffee house, Uptown, off St. Charles, at 5110 Danneel St., from ten to eleven p.m. The last show was a smashing success, lots of friends showed up to give me their rowdy support. I don't know that this time will be as wild as last time, but I'm proud of my show, and, at the very least, it appears to get people to think about issues. So come check it out if you're inclined.

And prepare yourselves for the return of Real Art!

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

HIATUS UPDATE

Okay, so about a month ago I said I'd be back online in about a week. Obviously, I was wrong about that. And after blowing seventy bucks with Best Buy's Geek Squad to learn that nothing is wrong with my computer, which took three weeks instead of the one week they promised, I'm feeling a bit frustrated. The good news is that Windows is now booting up, whatever the reason, so the next step is a a Windows reinstall. I'm trying to do that in the bits of free time I have here and there.

Does anybody know how to permanently remove a hard drive partition such that I'm able to use my entire hard drive?

Does anybody know how to keep Firefox from hanging, which is what's preventing me from posting from my laptop? I use Norton virus protection, if that's any help.

Also, mark your calendars. In the no-blogging downtime I've had lately, I've crafted an hour-long acoustic set with a couple of one-man theater performance pieces thrown in for fun. And I've got a gig:

Wednesday, October 14th, from 9 pm to 10 pm, I'm the guy performing at the Neutral Ground coffee house, 5110 Danneel, in Uptown New Orleans.

Yeah, that's right. I'm a musician now. Really, I'm approaching it as theater, but it's definitely in a music venue. I'll be playing old songs of mine with which some of you may be familiar. Hey Matt, remember "Love God" from back in high school? Apparently, people still like it. More on this later.

Anyway, the bad tech hiatus will be over soon. Hopefully.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$