I have a contrary impulse to question the forcefulness of that statement. Can't we trace the evolutionary process that developed Democracy as a government system (in India, Greece, and here), to a "rational debate from first principles?" Patrician scholars in each place (under some pressure from other classes ) conducted the debate, each time, before the system was actually implemented.
In practical application, there's no arguing the definition of democracy as "a mechanism for achieving governance by the consent of the governed." But I'm not sure I'd want to say that the system isn't "remotely about rational debate from first principles." Rational debate was a strong associated element in the evolution of "democracy" in Greece, Rome, and the U.S -- even if they all ultimately wind up giving it just lip service.
My understanding of what Patrick is getting at is that a democratic government system doesn't necessarily imply universalist, egalitarian consideration of any notion that any citizen (or representative) wants to bring before the government.
But I do like the rational debate thing as an associated feature of democracy (as opposed to the notion that democracy reduces to tight-lipped sworn enemies meeting, casting lots, and bitterly abiding by the results instead of killing each other).
As Scraps de Selby might point out, if he were lurking here, the National Space Program dispatched The Tick to the Moon (in Season 2, Episode 15), to clean up Chairface Chippendale's mess. The "C" was successfully blown up, but the Tick was distracted by an encounter with Omnipitus, Eater of Worlds. In subsequent episodes of the Tick, the moon looked like this.
The Berman essay touches harmonics on a theme that Patrick and I have gone back and forth about for years. Old stuff isn't intrinsically better than new stuff because it's old, but new stuff isn't intrinsically better than old stuff because it's new, either.
The best s-f programming that I've been to at conventions frames discussions of both old and new stuff in terms of the ongoing dialog and evolution of the field. I think the Berman essay is a bit unfair. I might simply be an old and tired reader who proves her point about Boomers. But I think she picked the worst examples in citing "vintage" classics that aren't worth young people caring about. I'd still throw "Fancies and Goodnights," "The Dying Earth," or "Citizen in Space," up against more contemporary stuff.
I haven't liked Asimov's much in the last ten years -- but I don't blame it on the stories being all about old people and their issues or on their being all about young people and _their_ issues. David Marusek's "The Wedding Album" is about old people and I think it's one the best short stories of the last ten years. Vinge's "The Cookie Monster" is about young people and it's also a great story (although that one appeared first in Analog).
Many thanks for posting the Sante link, which I would otherwise have missed. I'm glad of it for the sense of cogent appreciation it communicates of Dylan's works. Maybe others, like Arthur, will be inspired to reinvestigate them.
Sante makes subtle points about intrinsic differences in Dylan's poetry in the '60s and the acclaimed 1974-1975 "Blood on the Tracks." But I itch to take issue with some of them. I love a lot of Dylan's work from the '70s and believe that "Forever Young" (from the 1973 Planet Waves album) is as good as anything he's ever written.
(Arthur, if you remember, I'd also like to work on your prejudice against Dylan's voice. Every time you claim he can't sing, I point you to MP3 samples that offer some small validation for his 1966 boast that "I could sing like Caruso, if I wanted to.")
There's no MP3 link to Dylan's best cover of "Spanish is A Loving Tongue" (the B-side of the "Watching the River Flow" single). The sample version on the Dylan website (that I've pointed you to, twice) is mellifluous. But that version is susceptible to the echo'd claim that he was simply indulging in self-parody. It includes a female backup chorus and mariachi instrumental break. When critics level the parody/kitsche accusation against Dylan, I think many of them are fixated on "Self Portrait" and the now O.P. 1973 cover album that includes "Mr. Bojangles," "A Fool Such As I," and a bunch of other ballads. But there's a song on that album that I love, too: "Lily of the West." (Emma Bull also does a good cover of that one on one of the Flash Girls albums.)
I wanted, early this morning, to put my two cents in over whether it's undeniable that both McCartney and Lennon did their best work with one another.
Mileage varies, and I think it's partly a matter of temperament and taste. You wouldn't get an argument from me, if you're talking about songs that work like a perfectly-designed swiss watch both lyrically and musically.
But I'm partial to several songs from _Imagine_ (plus "Instant Karma," and "Power to the People") as some of the Lennon I love and remember best. I like the "real world" grit and soul in them.
When it comes to McCartney without Lennon, I like some of the stuff that veers toward Ray Davies territory, like "SingAlong Junk" (+ "Band on the Run" for its subliminal stfnal imagery). But solo Lennon sticks to my mental ribs a lot more than solo McCartney.
My inner 12-year old is still fascinated by the central conceit of E.E. Smith's Lensman books in this well-known and cleverly-repackaged modern adaptation.
If Kimball Kinnison had a team of writers exploring the theoretical limits of his Lens, throwing Faust's bargain at him, redeeming him from Hell, and otherwise exploring the heights and depths of his career, I might be willing to read what they wrote.
Well, cheating and citing books recently read, I recommend Bob Dylan's Chronicles, v. 1 ( reviewed here by Paul Williams. It's not as ego-driven as you might think, but more a "Jazz Country" artist's diary that wakes me up to the love of creation and composition. (Lots of anecdotal information about people and places in the '60s East Village folk scene.)
Also recommended, Will Eisner's A Family Matter, Dropsie Avenue, and the most recent Fagin the Jew.
I'm currently reading Charlie's Iron Sunrise, since I liked Singularity Sky; waiting for a library copy of Strange & Norrell -- but everybody's reading those.
It would seem that what probably happened is that facts "bounced off" the conservative frames that people held.
I'd like to find some more-than-anecdotal information on this subject.
I'm still under the impression that tens of millions of Bush voters may never have grazed eyeballs on accounts of mismanagement of the war and the prisons at high military and executive levels, seen information on the legal papers written by Alberto Gonzales in support of torture, seen information on the legal actions taken against Halliburton by DoD, seen information on Kerry's actual Senate voting record that refuted Bush/Cheney talking points, seen analyses of the implications of Bush's policies on the environment, education, and almost everything -- said accounts not being generated by Democrat campaign people, but by military generals, newspaper reporters, economists, and other career professionals.
Convince me that this information is *easily* available, but simply discounted in areas that voted for Bush, and I'll be more willing to believe that there isn't a communication channel bottleneck happening in their local media.
Last week, Bruce Baugh expressed some practical skepticism around my notion of grassroots Democrat organizations forming alliances with teachers, writers, and radio djs in areas of the country that voted heavily for Bush in November.
Freelance writers split fairly evenly between people already committed to one or another of the major parties, to one of the minor parties (Libertarian or Green, and occasionally another), and to none.
Alternative radio DJs will reach some young potential voters, but there already is a serious get-out-the-vote effort there.
It seems to me like the people most likely to be affected by propaganda through teachers, writers' groups, and alternative DJs are people who likely already have been affected.
I wanted to reply, last week, to expand upon what I was driving at, but was busy with work deadline stuff.
Something that I'd like to get a bit more reality on is how much exposure did Bush voters get to factual information on the headline issues that I listed in my first message.
Did they see the same analyses we read and discard them as "liberal lies and propaganda" or did they simply not see, hear, and read discussions of these questions other than what they got from Bush and Scott McLellan reprinted in newspapers -- with commentary from Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, and local Fox News affiliates?
When I mentioned Democratic grassroot outreach to freelance writers, I was thinking about people who write daily columns in business sections and Sunday Supplement submitters. When I mentioned radio djs, I wasn't thinking only of music djs, but also of radio news departments, and talk show/interview people. I'm probably biased by my experience of how community activists influence media in progressive urban environments -- but I'm under the impression that there are small activist cells and pockets of cultural allies for Democrats all over the country. Writers, teachers, artists, radio djs are the categories that came immediately to my mind for people who might cooperate with Democratic party activists in organizing and participating in grassroots information distribution campaigns. Tom Becker contributed some ideas on establishing a Democratic broadcast network in the Midwest. I'm wondering whether it might be possible to create/sell more alternative, syndicated news and interview packages on the PBS/KPFA model -- or create a syndication service that distributes all kinds of radio packages.
I guess I believe that the disinformation campaign of the Bush administration is gross enough to transcend the traditional conservative/liberal political divide of intelligent professional communicators in red state areas. It seems to me that even conservative, Republican-leaning business columnists might question the wisdom of Bush plans for social security and the tax system if they were encouraged to speak their minds on these issues. Similarly, independent writers, radio people, and teachers might form community alliances to organize discussions and distribute factual information. Democratic party organizers might help seed these efforts by providing encouragement, capital resources, and facilities.
Of course, the neocon/religious-right alliance will attack these efforts, ridicule them, spin them, and, ultimately, threaten people who organize and participate in them.
But, to me, the point is to try to make sure the truth _is_ actually out there, where a larger number of people are going to stumble across it. If/when that's happening, the next issue is trying to increase public acceptance of the truth with *honest* strategic rhetoric.
Upstream, Bruce was telling me that the problem with hoping people will publish the truth for Bush voters, on a larger scale, is that the media Bush voters read and the people they listen to won't do it.
This is the challenge that I'm interested in working on -- not so much the knocking ourselves out with ways to soft pedal and rephrase ("reframe") truths about Bush's incompetence and hypocrisy so that they won't hurt anyone's feelings.
Proceed with the working assumption that a certain number of Bush voters made the decisions they made because of lack of exposure to the information we have, not because they're possessed by memes that shut them off to what we consider to be rational analysis. (This may be a faulty assumption. Maybe all those voters had access to information about Bush's mismanagement of the military, the economy, and domestic security, and they chose not to believe what they were told. But, I'd like to brainstorm a bit under the assumption that some of them may have just lacked access to the truth.)
If lack of *easy* access to good information was a serious cause of the 2004 election results, grass- root Democratic organizations all over the country might act to correct that. Publish and distribute statements by experts that deconstruct Republican sophistries, publish hard statistics that local newspapers don't print. Make contact with local teachers, freelance writers, and alternative radio djs (slip URL lists to them). Organize local community discussion groups.
One of the more encouraging (to me) demographic voting maps that came out of the November election was this one. If the election had been determined by voters between the ages of 18 to 29, Kerry would have won the election by more than 200 electoral votes.
I think one way to persuade Bush voters to change is to present the truth to them from sources they're less likely to reject than the ones they usually see.
They need to see the following information from newspapers, on TV, and in other sources that they respect:
"Military analysts say Iraq situation on the ground is worse than ever."
"General who mismanaged Abu Ghraib promoted by Pentagon."
"New CIA director puts loyalty ahead of accuracy."
"Bush-favored Supreme Court candidate authored legal memos sanctioning torture."
"Democratic bidding process bypassed in assignment of Iraq reconstruction contracts: Halliburton fined for financial mismanagement."
"Scientists and conservation officials speak out on Bush environmental policies."
"New Medicare reform actually reduces benefits
to senior citizens."
"Bush SS privatization scheme will create unescapable debt for our children."
"How simplified 'flat tax' reform may affect your real income."
"Educators report 'No Child Left Behind' hurts schools more than it helps."
Somehow we need to find ways to get this stuff on the radio and get it into more prominent parts of the newspapers and Sunday sections these people read. Or get it into the pop songs they listen to and tv shows they watch.
I can't stand the idea that 51% of them make their voting decisions on whether their candidate will make abortions illegal, deny human rights to a non-threatening gay minority, and display the tablets of Moses in every courtroom.
I didn't sleep much last night, either. Don't know if I would have slept better if I were convinced that I'm going to escape unscathed from the country being more hated, more trillions in debt, stupider about scientific research, and stupider about the environment.
I believe that Bush is now likely to screw us up in ways that hurt worse than before. But I don't think the answer to this is only about screaming and fighting. Yes. Let's do that, if it does more good than harm.
But if 51% of this country's voters can look at what Bush has done and continue to vote for him -- we've got a problem worse than the thievery, incompetence, and callousness of his administration. And, I believe, it's a problem that can only be solved at the local level. If we want change, we have to give children as much of a chance as we can to grow up in environments that nurture the healthy values we believe in. So whatever we do that's actually good for them -- we have to keep doing it on a day-by-day basis while we're all being screwed by Republican folly -- that our generation may not escape from.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/anniesj/331112.html
Secret Service agents recently visited a teenaged girl and talked with her parents about something she wrote about Bush in her Livejournal. This was apparently the result of a complaint from another LJ member.
This may not be evidence that we're living in a fascist state; but it's a data point worth noting.
Mary Kay:
Did you miss the parts that have you moving to Seattle and turning into a Democratic party activist instead of founding and chairing the Bay Area Rasff relaxacon?
I agree with Terry. I'm worried about a bunch of other "October-November" surprises: war with Iran, forced-extension of military service contracts, raids on Iraq reconstruction money for "security measures," outrageous legislation that tries to end-run the Constitution, subversion of the electoral process, useless spending on anti-missile systems.
In the Rose Garden speech, I noticed that Bush said Congress had allocated 9 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq instead of 20 billion (of which 2 billion has already been spent). Could they be planning to blow another 9 billion dollars on the January McFranchise election project?
I think pulling the Bin Laden rabbit out of the hat is an extra side bet item that may or may not pay off.
(But I'm also, apparently, off in my own fuzzy liberal dream space. I want Kerry to be saying: "Look. Part of our plan for Iraq is to spend reconstruction money to give people their water and electricity back and create jobs for Iraqi service professionals -- instead of continuing to pass under-the-table money to hand-picked corporations like Halliburton. Ordinary Iraqis need to have credible evidence that we're sincere about helping them rebuild their own country if we expect them to stop actively or passively siding with insurgents.")
So what does everyone think of Digby's recent
negative campaign items, which offer possible evidence of George W. Bush using cocaine on into the 1990s, and drinking alcohol during his occupation of the White House?
Is winning the election worth campaigning by encouraging widespread dissemination of this type of stuff? (I have the feeling that what Digby's going after could damage Bush as much as the Swift Boat liars damaged Kerry, if it got wide newspaper or TV circulation. But I don't think I'd want to work at actively distributing it, myself.)
I can't make myself accept that that's what it takes to get enough votes for Kerry.
I expected nothing good from Rudy Guiliani, but I got sick and disgusted listening to John McCain, the "moderate" with integrity, last night.
"We are Americans first, Americans
last, Americans always."
(Womb-to-tomb, with little flags stamped on our foreheads to distinguish us from the inferior species born outside our continental borders)
I was thinking of posting a rant about McCain's speech on my 1-watt Livejournal. But Digby said it better than I would have, today -- with a few well-placed backup citations.
"Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind." Albert Einstein
"The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them". George Orwell
My AOL: I don't know whether McCain was foolishly straight-facing his way through a bad poker hand, or whether he actually doesn't see the connection between the Bush administration and debt, poor military management, corporate corruption, escalated terrorism, and international contempt for the United States.
McCain may very well have some integrity in respect to taking conscientious stands on issues that he understands. But his flag waving last night does not speak well for the breadth of his understanding.
N in Seattle:
I'm glad I asked my silly question, since it caused you to appear here. I'm adding your "Peace Tree Farm" to my list of blogs to check into on a regular basis.
(As for my being not even close, I'll leave you to check out this or maybe this to decide whether I'm totally hallucinating.)
One question I've wanted to ask about Digby's blog for a long time is this: "Is that Captain Marvel wearing a trenchcoat in the sidebar (shouting to us to cast our searchlights through the clouds of delusion)?"
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2005 | 6 |
| 2004 | 52 |
| 2003 | 46 |
| 2002 | 20 |
Total: 124 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Lenny Bailes:
Show all comments by Lenny Bailes.