the defeatists!

Angst is for Leonard Cohen.

Why do we bother to establish things like Halls of Fame and lists? Is there a human gene that requires rank ordering things that really are unique? The best hamburger? The best muscle car? The uniquest unique thing of all? 

As soon as you start this process, you're trying to rationalize your own likes and dislikes. There are things that can be quantified and rationally explained. Sports Halls of Fame are an example here as are things like the Triple Crown in Baseball. You win the triple crown if you lead the league in average, home runs and runs batted in. There's also a pitcher's Triple Crown, and it happens more often than the batter's, but not that often. It's quantitative -- also, meaningless. The most dominant players in the history of baseball don't show up very often; you have a really good year. So what?  

The folks at Gibson have once again compiled a list , this time of the top 50 American Bands. Well, great. It's a fun exercise, and produced some interesting fan comments, mainly along the lines of "what the hell were you thinking when?..." I agree with many of the Bands being on the list, scratch my head at some others, and wonder what was driving the rankings? I think they probably had pigeon races. Three legged pigeon races...I can agree with number 1...Bruce Springsteen and the E-Street Band. If you've been awake since 1976, it's hard to skip that one. Then it gets into trouble...

I have two major complaints -- Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers is ranked at number 24. Bands outranking them include such exceptional organizations as Sly and the Family Stone, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, Buddy Holly and the Crickets and The Ramones. What the hell is that all about -- Eddy Veder has done guest turns with Petty. The Ramones covered a Heartbreakers cover of a Searcher's song. Hell, Veder has just released an album of ukelele music. What the hell? I think that being ripped off by Ronald Reagan and Michelle Bachman and John McCain should result in at least a ten place bump in the standings. 

My second gripe is the failure to remember the bands in the 60s that made Rock and Roll. The Beach Boys get a mention and that's great, at Number Nine. Of course, they stopped being a great band about the time of the Manson Family Circus, but they continued on. How about, and this is crazy on it's surface, but "The Monkees?" The Grassroots? The Boxtops? Jay and the Americans? Mitch Ryder and the Detroit Wheels? What the hell were they thinking?

And of course, Paul Revere and the Raiders. There is a strong movement among Rock Cognoscenti -- Steven Van Zandt and gang at Wicked Cool Records and Underground Garage as well as others including Tom Petty -- to question why these guys aren't in the Hall of Fame. I think they weren't pretentious enough. They had costumes, and appear to have really enjoyed performing and to continue to do so. Seriously watch a Boston video and see if you think they're having fun...and then watch something from those guys. No great banks of amps with special effects and electronics...a bunch of Fender Amps and guitars, some silly uniforms and a lot of smiling and goofing around.  The band has been around in a variety of incarnations, but Paul Revere and the other players have been constants. There's a new drummer and vocalist. I think that a lot of bands went south when they decided to become "featuring" someone. There's a famous story about the Stones where Jagger decided to refer to Charlie Watts as "his drummer." Watts proceeded to knock him on his ass, and threatened to keep doing it. Personalities are important -- but when someone makes the band about them, there are problems. Charlie realized that. Seriously, were the Animals really any good after they got pretentious and Eric Burdon got top billing? Were Dianna Ross and the Supremes better than The Supremes? When Paul Revere and the Raiders became a "featuring" band with Mark Lindsay, things went south. But, it appears in seperate incarnations, they're all still having fun. 

Ultimately, that's what rock and roll is about. Van Zandt talks a lot about the difference between the art form of "Rock" with it's self-indulgent, navel staring quality versus rock and roll. He appreciates both, but has a marked preference for" getting your emotions and feelings delivered in three minutes or less..." It's supposed to be fun. Angst is for Leonard Cohen. 

Update. I hit publish on this thing, and went to take a shower. While I was in there, I thought of some other omissions -- The Band, for example. The Doobie Brothers. Where's Booker T and the MGs...the Funk Brothers? The Muddy Waters Band is one example; the Junior Wells Band with Buddy Guy. Paul Butterfield Blues Band. Ike Turner and the Rhythm Kings, or Ike and Tina...Buck Owens and the Buckaroos...Any list is doomed, unless it's a telephone book.

Went from being an art student to writing songs...some you don't want to hear

Ray Davies is still alive and kicking. Which is kind of fun, given that he's been shot in New Orleans pre-Katrina and has a hate-love-hate relationship with Dave Davies and probably with himself. However, at 66 he's running a festival in England with people like Sonic, Nick Lowe and Madness. Interesting, opinionated and an underappreciated genius..and, I get to read about him in the Wall Street Journal. What the hell is that about...I found this interview comment especially telling. 

Many of your songs are about everyday people. Have you observed anything lately that might be a lyric in waiting?

Mr. Davies: Just the joy of seeing people in these troubled times who are basically just getting on with their lives. I was in the studio today. It's in a real down, blue-collar area. Over the road there's a Pakistani shop that's been there for eight years, or it's the Turkish café. The neighborhood is still struggling, and that's what I like to celebrate in my songs, the act of living. The characters. Everyone's got a soundtrack. Some you don't want to hear.

I find that telling because I keep wondering why and how we're all going to survive our current economic and cultural cesspool. There are bacteria that thrive in slime and gunk and dark, and there are humans who do the same. And, yet, there are still people who hope and watch and live.

I had to run some errands, and stopped at the grocery store. Saw a guy I've met before, who is now reduced to begging, sitting on the curb with a everything he owns because the mission has exhausted its space long since -- he used to work detailing cars but the GM dealership closed down. I gave him $20 and wished him better days. That's Davies, I think -- giving us music instead of a handout and wishing better days for us all, because the act of living entitles us to that. 

 

Realizations arise...

When I contemplate mortality, and I accept that mine is rapidly approaching, I often think back to a really awful movie, The Hunger with Catherine Deneuve, Susan Sarandon, and David Bowie. A soft porn, kinda lesbo porno vampire flick, Bowie plays a totally unredeemable character who suddenly discovers that the idea of eternal life sold him by Deneuve is really not going to turn out the way he thought she meant. There are some nice touches throughout the film, of course. That's not the problem...it's just unredeemably sad. 

Kind of like the Anthony Wiener thing...like Bowie in that filem, did he not realize that power and glamour were kind of incomplete promises?

So, when I saw this trailer, I was surprised. I think it's very cool, by the way. And, ultimately, I feel old. I'm looking forward to the film, and it makes me aware of how age trips up on you. I saw something this week that reminded me that Sergeant Pepper came out 44 years ago. I was 16, and I saw it in a Woolworth's window while waiting for a bus to go up to my first real job. Bought it on the way home...and, frankly, still not sure why it's "The Greatest ALBUM OF ALL TIME..." Anyway, here is the trailer to the last Harry Potter film. Enjoy...

 

murder now the path called "must we"

Oh Capn, My Capn

American Power is not a mythical tale.  it's not a story.  it's not a transformational capability or capacity. it's not freedom.  it's not a beacon of hope in this world.  it is fucking ordnance.  

how many multiples of 10 is Obama worse than WBush?  I'd like to know.  WBush wore the cloak of Myth that is American Power like a ten dollar suit; it did not fit him and he just looked bad in it.  yes this is to accept that such a thing does fit a human being, but no this does not justify it.  Obama is the full silk Italian suit, and he's pissed if it doesn't look good on him.  people complained that WBush was a crony, that he was somehow a false leader, because he was just working for his pals at Halliburton and Enron, his daddy, the Saudis, etc. et al. ad. inf.  look at the language that was put forth: WBush abused, misused and made a mockery of the power bestowed upon him.  he wasn't cut for the throne, he was a hack, a C student at best who was a failed businessman that rode his family's coattails wherever they would take him.  WBush was callous,  a former drunk.  he was a rank amateur dressed up in big people garb playing a big person part.  well what's worse, that, or someone that fully believes in the rightness and necessity of American Power?  someone that rightly fills the part?  WBush used the power for his own devices, his own wars, his own debauchery, for his own constituency and his own people.

CHANGE.  

Obama uses American Power because it is American Power.  he doesn't need a reason, an excuse, because there is no justification for it, and that's all a Dear Leader needs to know.  he's the worst - and by that I mean the biggest - purveyor of the falsehood that is American Power.  I'll take the former WBush over the L-D Obama any day.  when you embarrassed WBush, he looked a fool.  when you took a peek under the cloak, he'd hide and grin sheepishly, covering his nuts with his scrawny, chicken-shit hands.  Obama on the other hand gets pissed off and comes back at you for revealing his naked self.  Obama is a worse purveyor of the mythology and singular teleology that is American Power and Primacy in this world, because he's a wholesale believer in it, and because he was popularly elected by a bunch of folks that want to believe in it, and that do believe in it.  he's no skeptic of American Power.  neither are his supporters.  neither was WBush.  but Obama is a worse leader because he wholeheartedly believes his own bullshit.  WBush just thought it was a joke, like everything else: it was just a job, the best job he could get given his background, connections, and talents.

it's like your view of belief, Capn: 

'Belief is, at its core, an emotional commitment to some claim or view.'

we have all this ordnance, now we must rationalize its very existence. we must now create the arguments for its existence, and its continued existence.  hence the President and his Speechifying.  

but it's just ordnance.    

America may have saved those poor fucks (flaps arms) in that Libyan town that day, but honestly, America has only deflected the violence into other forms, and in other directions.  people that want to kill each other want to kill each other.    

what America is doing in that region in the first place, is all you need to know about American Intention.      

 

 

Official Defeatist Stuff and People and Things...

After accepting Tiffany as the official Defeatist Goddess, and Cthulhu as our offical Defeatis presidential/gubantatorial/senatorial/school board nominee, we began to fill out our pantheon. Crispin Sartwell, Hipster and Amish Farmer wannabe is the official prophet...

There was Cairo the Offical Defeatist Wonder Dog.

Then there was Fleshy, the Offical Defeatist Cat.

Pearls Before Swine, the Official Defeatist comic strip.

Julia, the official Defeatist Baby...

And now, Bob the Squirrel, the official Defeatist Squirrel.

Of course, Melissa remains the offical Defeatist Troll...

Not Atlas Shrugged but Lord of the Flies...

now i was 15 in 1973, and as the years went by it dawned on me, as it dawned on a lot of folks, that there wasn't going to be a revolution. also it is a bit hard for an anarchist to contemplate the actual mechanisms and results of actual revolutions. none of the twentieth century revolutions eventuated in anything that resembled the rhetoric of the revolutionaries. and every successful revolution of the twentieth century eventuated in a totalitarian regime. and i got sidetracked of course: love, poetry, philosophy, drugs. i remained committed to the ideas, which i found in emma goldman or developed for myself, and i have tried to express them or stay true to the anti-authoritarian impulse, of which i have found over the years that i have an inexhaustible supply. but i also made some sort of peace with some sorts of authority (even my own: the hardest task).

Crispin "Bowties and ee cummings are cool" Sartwell, 12-15-2010

Way back when we first started this thing, one of my bros found a political-social index that ranked you on a left-right, libertarian-statist matrix. We all were various combinations of left-libertarians...I believe that I was the furthest to the left, and Mr. Fun was furthest to the right although more libertarian than I. Of course, that calls into question the real meaning of Libertarianism.

Well, Christopher Beam in New York Magazine has a great article on just that topic. It's kind of anti-libertarian, but only in so far as the more radical and Objectivist types push it. Reading it, I realized  that the most conservative of the founders, Hamilton and Adams were probably the most statist; Jefferson and Madison would have seemed far more liberal, in all senses of the word, as well as the least statist. Intersting how that happens...When Ron Paul accuses the Federal Reserve of covering up Roswell or whatever other nefarious doings, he is the spiritual heir not of Hamilton but of Jefferson and Andy Jackson.

The thing about libertarianism is that it's really not a left/right thing but a high/low thing. Someone who is totally libertarian is...well, possibly Crispin "Snakewalk" Sartwell, who is in fact an anarchist, a professor of Philosophy at Dickinson and owner of an extremely large and disturbing collection of pictures of John Mayall. (He also is the Stig on Top Gear -- the real one in England, not our phoney version. And a practicing Druid...) However, Crispin is far too generous and kind -- except to his students where he channels Nick Lowe and Dave Edmunds by being cruel to be kind -- to fit the extreme social libertarian mode. Crispin, as a philosopher, knows that when you carry thing to their logical extreme, they tend to warp and become illogical. Light bends in atmospheres, and ideas bend in connection with reality. Pure light and pure ideas are interesting concepts, but what mainly of Platonic importance; we can argue about the essence of libertarianism or of light in the abstract -- however, getting things done and maybe getting some ambient lighting in the cave would be more illuminating. We can argue about Orcs all we want, but it's of little practical use unless you're an animator, a writer or a fan of Atlas Shrugged...Crispin, far more articulate than I, puts it well, as he always does even when (or perhaps especially when) I disagree with him.

 

The New York Magazine article nails that aspect of libertarianism really well --

Consider the social side of Libertopia. It’s no coincidence that most libertarians discover the philosophy as teenagers. At best, libertarianism means pursuing your own self-interest, as long as you don’t hurt anyone else. At worst, as in Ayn Rand’s teachings, it’s an explicit celebration of narcissism. “Man’s first duty is to himself,” says the young architect Howard Roark in his climactic speech in The Fountainhead. “His moral obligation is to do what he wishes.” Roark utters these words after dynamiting his own project, since his vision for the structure had been altered without his permission. The message: Never compromise. If you don’t get your way, blow things up. And there’s the problem. If everyone refused to compromise his vision, there would be no cooperation. There would be no collective responsibility. The result wouldn’t be a city on a hill. It would be a port town in Somalia. In a world of scarce resources, everyone pursuing their own self-interest would yield not Atlas Shrugged but Lord of the Flies. And even if you did somehow achieve Libertopia, you’d be surrounded by assholes.(AXE Emphasis Added)

Beam earlier makes the point that a radically libertarian reading of the Constitution probably is closest to the original intent of the Founders. However, that original intent or idea had all sorts of provisos about the common good, the general welfare, justice and so on. Thus there was room to evolve, and the government has expanded in order to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. Does it go too far at times? Yeah...but, in a libertarian world, a truly libertarian world, there is no agency to really do those things. Beam points out that out and does it exceptionally well...Citing a former Cato Institute Wonk who left because he was either too intellectually pure or not pure enough, Brink Lindsey, who says that "The dominant strain of libertarianism these days is—and I’m not using these words in any kind of pejorative sense—radical and utopian,” he says that mainstream libertarianism is pretty far out there.

Libertarian minarchy is an elegant idea in the abstract. But the moment you get specific, the foundation starts to crumble. Say we started from scratch and created a society in which government covered only the bare essentials of an army, police, and a courts system. I’m a farmer, and I want to sell my crops. In Libertopia, I can sell them in exchange for money. Where does the money come from? Easy, a private bank. Who prints the money? Well, for that we’d need a central bank—otherwise you’d have a thousand banks with a thousand different types of currency. (Some libertarians advocate this.) Okay, fine, we’ll create a central bank. But there’s another problem: Some people don’t have jobs. So we create charities to feed and clothe them. What if there isn’t enough charity money to help them? Well, we don’t want them to start stealing, so we’d better create a welfare system to cover their basic necessities. We’d need education, of course, so a few entrepreneurs would start private schools. Some would be excellent. Others would be mediocre. The poorest students would receive vouchers that allowed them to attend school. Where would those vouchers come from? Charity. Again, what if that doesn’t suffice? Perhaps the government would have to set up a school or two after all.

And so on. There are reasons our current society evolved out of a libertarian document like the Constitution. The Federal Reserve was created after the panic of 1907 to help the government reduce economic uncertainty. The Civil Rights Act was necessary because “states’ rights” had become a cover for unconstitutional practices. The welfare system evolved because private charity didn’t suffice. Challenges to the libertopian vision yield two responses: One is that an economy free from regulation will grow so quickly that it will lift everyone out of poverty. The second is that if somehow a poor person is still poor, charity will take care of them. If there is not enough charity, their families will take care of them. If they have no families to take care of them—well, we’ll cross that bridge when we get there.

Of course, we’ll never get there. And that’s the point. Libertarians can espouse minarchy all they want, since they’ll never have to prove it works.

It's also worth noting that we basically tried to do all the stuff noted above and none it worked. When every bank printed money, it didn't work. My "Bank of AXE" fifty dollar bill might not work so well in Orange Country where they're mainly using "Bicycle Sites Bank" money. If I say I have a bank, I can print money...yeah, didn't work in the 1800s, and won't work now. Private Toll Roads as opposed to public roads? Didn't work. Private charities -- with a severly weakened government safety net, they're in trouble. Eliminate it, and have you seen Angela's Ashes recently? One can argue that privatization of natural monopolies is an example of extreme libertarianism, and I think that -- if we consider Enron as a great example of this kind of thinking -- one would be right and establish Beam's position of true minarchy would result in being surrounded by greedy assholes.

Government should provide that which can not be provided equitably or adequately by the private sector. For example, the Food and Drug Administration outsources the responsibility to review research proposals for human subjects in clinical trials to Institutional Review Boards. That works reasonably well, except that the people paying for the review are...the people who are trying to get the trials done. I used to work for one of those boards, and frankly, I found there to be a serious disconnect between the idea of making money reviewing the ethical standards of a research proposal and then taking money from the people you're reviewing. In no way do I question the integrity of the organization -- far from it. There was a motive in making certain that the research proposal conformed to and that the research was then conducted in strict accordance to the rules -- nobody likes to be sued for gross negligence or go to jail for corruption. Since the airwaves are now crowded with commercials for various law firms that talk about suing for serious side-effects, the big Pharmaceutical companies don't want anything to screw them down the road; approval of shody proposals would result in bad research, risk to subjects and possibly huge damages.

By basically outsourcing this responsibility -- approving research as meeting FDA requirements -- the FDA was putting responsibility for that piece of the approval process  in hands that made sense and that had a strong economic motive to do a good job. However, if you outsource operations of a major airport to the private sector or even sell it to the private sector you are guaranteed problems if there is a crunch between regulation and requirements versus profitability. If you like spending days with the several thousand of your closest strangers waiting for someone to get the runways cleared and the planes deiced, then such an arrangement would be right in your comfort zone. However, if you're not insane, you want the people making decisions to allocate resources to be primarily driven not by profit for shareholders but services for stakeholders. The focus of the constituencies is different -- and, the common good in this place should outweigh profit.

 

Taking a dip in the cleansing waters of ice cold intellectual purity

One of my brothers alerted me to this post over at IOZ. I was impressed, and I dislike Frank Rich's smarmy feel almost as much as IOZ, so it seemed like a reasonable thing to do to import the link and then cross-post my comment. Well, it seems like a reasonable and lazy thing to do. Visit Who is IOZ and check Monsieur's current bete noire...

My comment at IOZ:

I am always glad to take a dip into the cleansing waters of IOZ's thought. It's been stunning to me that Obama has been called socialist for embracing a number of positions somewhere to the right of JFK. Looking at the numbers, I find it equally amazing that materially, the world was far more equitable and hopeful in 1960 than it is today. There was a lot wrong, no doubt, but fellow alum's Michael Harrington's The Other America did get somethings to happen that were good for the poor. I think the problem is that the spiritual/existential/social is not directly tied to the material. Thus, a gay closeted man in 1957 might have felt more financially secure what with the social safety net and basic expectations of near lifetime employment; at the same time, looking at another guy could result in being beaten up, arrested and/or ruined by gossip and innuendo. I suppose the beating can still occur -- not being gay, I have no experience here; and, we all risk arrest anytime we step outside the police's acceptable range of deviance. Gossip and innuendo can still happen of course. So, basically, nothing has changed since 1956 except we're all in danger of being fired, dispossessed and driven to a life of migrant farm working in West Virgina...or some other fate that is merely a prelude to death.

So, fifty years on all we've lost is hope. Existentially, that is...

On a totally unrelated note, glad to see that while IOZ still leads in articulate insanity and argument, you have some of the same admirers like Mac Cosmetics grace the site. I'm glad to see he contributes as much to you as he does to The Defeatists on-going dialogue with a evil and unhappy multiverse.

I do want to acknowledge that MAC COSMETICS also seems to read and enjoy IOZ. I recommend, MAC, that you visit Protean Wisdom, the Guys from Area 51 and of course, Shakespeare's Sister as well as Monsieur's site and ours...

No New York City Firefighter feels they're disrespecting their religion by being on duty on Chrismas or Christmas Eve.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Worst Responders
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

I've been not so quietly getting pissed at the country's stupidity for a long time. Well, I guess my irritation hasn't exactly been a secret to my friends, family and anybody who happens to ask...but this just pisses me off deeply. You want a story that symbolizes what's wrong with this country and whose fault it is?  THIS IS IT!  People who risked everything without hesitation are being disregarded by the nation, the state and the city but Donald Trump is going to get the money for a new hairpiece...there will continue to be folks to send the donations to fund the parties at the Lesbian-Bondage themed strip clubs. So the Republic is safe...because the Republicans can continue to stoke outrage over Islamo-terrorism while ignoring the American victims. Proving that the Islamoterrorists are kind of right about us...but, that's an irony for another day.

Stewart has probably done more segments this year on the legislation known as the Zadroga Bill than any other topic. The bill would provide $7 billion in benefits for those who first responded on 9/11 and are now experiencing subsequent health problems such as cancer and respiratory disease. While it passed the House, Republicans have blocked the bill from advancing in the Senate.

Stewart noted that, while the 9/11 first responders bill is stuck, Congress did manage to pass the controversial tax bill that will extend tax cuts to everyone including the super wealthy.

The untold story behind 9/11 is what's happened to the first responders who spent months there, twelve hours a day, seven days a week doing and seeing horrific things...and breathing in and getting covered with toxins while the EPA and Rudi 9/11 were saying everything was ok. No health hazards here.

 

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
9/11 First Responders React to the Senate Filibuster
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog</a> The Daily Show on Facebook

Well, a lot of them are sick -- desperately ill. There is a bill in the quque to cover their medical expenses and some compensation. It got behind the tax cut for the rich thing; it got behind the DADT thing; it got behind the speeches about retiring Senators things. The House did what it was supposed to do. The Senate -- no, not so much. Actually, the Republicans did the same thing to this that they have done to everything except dysfunction. They covered their ears with their hands and screamed about how awful it is! Two networks have covered it in detail...I don't mean a favorable mention or a barb at the Republicans which MSNBC has done. That's nice, but the Dan Choi channel has done a lot more on other things. Including, by the way, the whole issue of the filabuster. There's a lot more here that maybe, just maybe, if it had been fully covered by the media and campaigned on would have changed things in the last election and been the sort of issue that could have energized the American People.

Look, being an American should be about being a part of something greater than yourself. If not, then don't pretend you're a patriot. It's really simple -- brave men and women do things that probably are not rational, but they do them because it's their job, it's their duty, it's their country/city/family. You move toward the danger, not away from it. You don't stop to think "Gee, this might be bad for my health down the road..."

Well, at least two stations have covered this bill adequately. Fox News didn't mention in it's coverage that the reason the Senate was filabustering this was because the Republicans were filabustering it. So, fuck them, they're useless and evil.

I respect Rachel Maddow, but the country is not going to become outraged over the delay of DADT reversal. It's not immediately revolting to the average person. There's a process, and it's grindingly slow for the folks involved, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. And, some of the characters she's lionized are not totally wonderful. You don't do political things in uniform; the wearing of the uniform is not intended to be a political statement. So, getting chained to the White House fence in the Army Combat Uniform might seem a nice symbolic gesture, but it violates the Unifomr Code of Military Justice. And, it's not cool with me.

But, the two networks that have done right by the First Responders of 9/11 are -- Al Jeezera, described by Jon Stewart as the network Osama bin Laden sends his mix tapes to -- and Comedy Central.

What the fuck is wrong with us? Why are we not enraged? Are we stupid? What is wrong with the Democrats? (Silly goddamn question, I know...) But if there was somebody in charge of the Senate with some balls, this could have been the issue. This, Veterans Benefits, Unemployment, Jobs, tossing families off insurance -- on and on and on because of the deficit. We don't want to stick our kids with a tax bill -- bullshit. So cut spending, change the rules of the game to benefit the rich so the rich kids of the future can have more limos. I don't think that most Americans are all-in with that sort of logic. But you know, I've been wrong before.

UPDATE: Shepard Smith appears to be a real Journalist working on Fox News! And a man with a conscience...Mirable dictu!

Any score less than a B should spell defeat! But, it won't...unless...

"Support the troops!" "Care for the VETS!" and yet, here we are. The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America is a reasonably non-partisan group and has published a legislative score care of its legislative lobbying and then looked who voted for what. Crusader AXE was not surprised at the lousy scores posted by lots of Republicans, but was kind of amazed at the extent of the correlation. In Arizona, for example, both Senators scored D. Really, John McCain. Linsdsey Graham scored a C and his buddy, Mr. Teaparty DeMint scored a solid F. Mitch McConnell and Jim Bunning both scored Ds. Only 3 of the 57 Democrats posted  a score below a C in the Senate was Russ Feingold (who manages to piss everybody off), Carl Levin, and Arlen Specter who was a Democrat for about 60% of this congress.

It would be interesting to compare the ratings of the Senators in the IAVA poll against a more right wing organization. It's hard to be an upstart organization for Vets and be totally nonpartisan but IAVA tries. But, take the Club for Growth -- they rank people by their adherance to their ideology. Since Vets  Download Comparison of Senators , CFG -IAVA does it on a more specific set of issues, we might see more mix than perhaps between other rankings. Well, we don't...Of the people with the top scores from the Club for Growth, all were Republicans, 1-15. Of the bottom scores, 86-100, all were Democrat, except Arlen Spector who was a Republican since Nixon. Four of the Club for Growth's folks top folks were Vets; four of the Club for Growth's bottom folks were Vets. One of the bottom 15 for the Club was rated by the IAVA as INC; however, Senator Al Franken of Minnesota is trending toward a B, and has voted with the Vets on 6 of 9 issues.

The lowest score of the Club for Growth's Top Performers was 70.16; the highest score for the bottom 15 was 3.01. Conversely, the highest score from IAVA for a Club for Growth Top Performer was C; two of the bottom 15 were rated C by the IAVA, two were rated A and the remainder were rated B. A couple of other interesting trends: one Democrat in a tough race went from an A+ rating to an A (Barbara Boxer) while another went from an A to an A+ (Blanche Lincoln).

Another interesting trend is the VOTE FOR/VOTE AGAINST TOTALS from the IAVA. In the House, I looked for names I'd recognize on the lists. Since Nancy Pelosi doesn't  vote as Speaker of the House unless there is a tie, I really don't know a lot of the Democratic House Members. So, this is totally subjective and perhaps odd, but I would guess that the vast majority of the Democratic Members were listed as C or higher. In the House, since they babble more than Democrats in the Senate, I was kind of stunned at the Republicans on the list that IAVA explains as "These legislators must improve their voting records if they are to legitimately claim that they support Iraq and Afghanistan veterans." Such great patriots as Michelle Bachmann, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Joe Barton, Roy Blunt, Dan Burton, Darrell Issa, Ron Paul Jean Schmidt and Louis Gomhert all claim to totally for Veterans and the Troops, but scored an F. Not a D, but an F. Now, a few Dems are probably sprinkled in here, I suspect but the only one I recognized was John Conyers of Michigan, who is a somewhat unrepentant leftist. Still...aren't these the people talking about impeaching the Senate and supporting oddball candidates who wander around in Nazi uniforms, worrying about GAYS, GODS, GUNS and "unAmerican congressional members," and so on? Oh, and apologizing to BP? Really -- the district that Joe Barton represents in Texas bleeds RED, WHITE and BLUE as well as Gray and AGGIE Maroon. Joe Barton hates the troops...And, Ron Paul? Seriously...Ron Paul? At least he's consistent. Not unlike Conyers and Feingold, he's not going to pander to a voting group but a D? On Vets issues?

Similar and starker in the Senate. There are nine members of the IAVA's A Team, defined by IAVA as "These legislators showed a consistent commitment to support our troops. On behalf of all veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we say thank you." All 9 are Democrats, and several -- Boxer, Lincoln and Wyden are in tough to relatively tough races. Some of these folks have nothing to gain electorally by pushing a pro-Veterans agenda. Christin Gillabrand and Chuck Schumer are from New York; the big concentration of veterans in New York are upstate and as a dumbass Irish guy from Syracuse, I know the liklihood of people in upstate going overwhelmingly for the Democrats. Gillabrand is not having a hard time against her opponent, but this is not what's going to put her over the top. 

Now, the Senate's D team is really interesting: Thirty-three members, and 32 of them are Republicans. Russ Feingold is a contrarian asshole, and if he loses, he loses. The Democrats need more party unity, and voting against the Reform Bill because it wouldn't require the appointment of Elliot Spitzer as Witchhunter Profundis with an auxillary of Brandeis Law Students as his sans coulettes for Wall Street showed that he's too pure for the world. And, it's consistent -- he's opposed to all entitlements, even those earned by blood. Fuck him. On the other hand, the Republicans... All those great patriots like Saxby Chambliss who won his seat from a Max Cleland by lying, innuendo and basically pissing on those of us who wore the uniform of this country; Lamar Alexander who took Al Gore's old seat in 2000 and used to look like a moderate Republican. Now, of course, that's a very endangered species. The two Senators from Arizona and the two from Texas are waltzing across the bridge of sighs; Kyl is just a rightwing jerk but McCain, Cornyn and Hutchinson claim strong patriotic, pro-troop, pro-veteran credentials. Well, you can claim whatever you want to; it's up to voters to pay attention. They probably won't but...maybe they will. I can understand Jeff Sessions place here, since a lot of Veterans are people of color, and he's pretty consistently shown he's not in love with people of color, except Clarence Thomas. He's also joined by his leader, Mitch McConnell and Sessions' (the temptation to type Secessions was extreme, but I managed to avoid the pun!) partner from ALADAMNBAMA, Richard Shelby. Of course, that favorite son of the south, John Thune of South Dakota is there...I know that the plains states have a relatively high proportion of veterans so this makes little sense, except he's counting on those farm boys as either being unable to read and count -- fingers and toes having been lost at Inchon or shot off in other conflicts over the years -- or he just plans to lie. Of course, the saints -- Coburn and Imhofe of Oklahoma (which also has a lot of Vets, what the hell is wrong with us? and our organizations? Are we stupid? One must wonder...)are joined by the sinners Ensign and Vitter.

I can dislike Feingold's position and still say that if he's defeated it will on balance be a bad thing; I can admire Ron Paul's attitude toward the Federal Government even though I don't agree with it and respect his consistancy. But, the overwhelming majority of these assholes are the guys who were upset when President Obama didn't wear a Flag lapel pin, and love nothing more than going to a Tea Party Rally and being cheered by folks who think that these guys are for them. They're not. They never have been. They never will be. And, it's up to us to help our deranged brothers and sisters to see the light.

Hey, if you think it makes sense to cut consumer protections and aid to Veterans, the aged and children, more power to you. Goddamn it, campaign on that. However, saying you're for liberty while wanting to cut Social Security benefits or VA medical care is simply impossible. Like an atheist going to Mass, Temple and the Mosque you're nothing more than a goddamned hypocrite. And, maybe someday we'll wake up...

Good books, lately? Or, Elvis is not a clerk at an adult bookstore in Hattiesburg

Well, robot readers  and actual people, I've had the good fortune to read some good stuff so far this summer. There have been more, and will be more, but these are all worth the effort to toddle on over to the local book store or hit the Amazon key and order.

Let’s begin with the history. An excerpt from S.C. Gwynne Empire of the Summer Moon appeared in the June issue of Texas Monthly, chronicling the initial raid of the Fourth Cavalry under Randal MacKenzie into the Commancheria, the Illano Escondido to attempt to capture the band of Commanche lead by Quanah Paker.  After reading the chapter, I immediately ordered the book – fascinating study of the campaigns of someone we don’t hear that much about, the “Anti-Custer”, Randal Slade MacKenzie.  MacKenzie is referred to as the anti-Custer for a number of reasons – one, of course, being that he avoided last stands and vainglory, focusing with a laser like intensity on the mission. MacKenzie is a tragic figure, but he won his insurgency through a combination of annihilation and negotiation.  The book discusses the Commanche nation with a great deal of insight and sympathy.  Since most people reading this are probably John Wayne fans and have seen The Searchers several times, the story of the Commanche is largely told through the story of Cynthia Ann Parker, the most famous of the captive whites brought into the tribe and her son Quanah, who ultimately became the first and basically last Commanche chief of the entire tribe after being defeated by MacKenzie and brought to the reservation.  Quanah seems like a sort of Hamid Karzai figure at the end, while Cynthia is very much a tragic figure.  It’s worth noting that the war between Texas and the Commanche continues in some ways because of the bloody nature of that conflict. The Commanche Wars created much of the myth surrounding the Texas Rangers; in Mike Cox’s second volume of the history of the Rangers, Time of the Rangers , he describes a meeting between a Ranger and a tribal educator in the 90s, where he was introduced as a “Ranger” and the woman responded, “The Enemy.” When he said, “No, ma’am, not anymore.” She scowled and walked away. There is no peace between the Rangers and the Commanche, Walker-Texas Ranger to the contrary.

Now, Custer is a poster child for the way PR and bullshit can make a reputation. Custer was a brave man, a fantastic horseman, and a charismatic figure.  He was also a lousy officer and a not terribly effective commander. Custer made his bones at Gettysburg, taking a squadron of Michigan Volunteer Cavalry into action against Jeb Stuart’s Cavalry Division while Stuart was in column and not deployed. Why the rebel cavalry didn’t move from column to line, surround the Michiganders and save  Crazy Horse the trouble twelve years later is another of the missed opportunities during that oh so decisive battle. However, they didn’t; as more Union cavalry joined the battle, Stuart was stopped and forced to retreat, thus unable to link up with Pickett at the top of Cemetery Ridge and guaranteeing defeat for the South.  Nathaniel Philbrick's The Last Stand details the road to Little Bighorn.  In turns philosophical, exciting, and intriguing, Philbrick puts the battle in context of the time, the leaders, the men and their histories. He says, “We interact with one another s individuals responding to a complex haze of factors:  professional responsibilities, personal likes and dislikes, ambition, jealousy, self-interest, and, in at least some instances, genuine altruism.  Living in the here and now, we are awash with sensations of the present, memories of the past, and expectations and fears for the future. Our actions are not determined by any one cause; they are the fulfillment of who we are at that particular moment.”

Turning now to contemporary affairs, Charles P. Pierce has an interesting cover which, in light of the Dodge Challenger commercial showing Washington charging the British line in muscle cars abreast, is kind of funny.  Idiot America features Washington riding a T-Rex, and begins with a discussion of Pierce’s visit to the Creation Museum, where visitors are greeted with a dinosaur wearing an English saddle. Hilarity should ensue, but doesn’t.  Pierce’s book is thoughtful, provocative and kind of scary for those of us with a classic liberal twist to our thinking. Pierce identifies three premises that seem to underlie Fox News, the Tea Party Movement, Sarah Palin and the National Enquirer.  They are:               

Any theory is valid if it sells books, soaks up ratings, or otherwise moves units.              

Fact is that which enough people believe. Truth is determined by how fervently they believe it.               

Anything can be true if someone says it loudly enough.

The whole Vietnam Veteran as crazy person is a good example of this thinking. Crazy John Rambo and his bros sold a lot of books and moved a lot of units – movie tickets, posters, Rambo knives.  Everybody knows that Vietnam Vets, no, wait, all Veterans except those from WWII because they were the greatest, are PTSD-engorged psychopaths.  We all know this. The data that statistically, the average Viet Veteran is healthier, more successful , more stable and more grounded than the general population from the same era is impossible to believe, because it makes sense to blow up a Hind-D with a LAW fired from the front seat of a Huey, through the canopy, at basically point blank range. We saw it in the movie, it must be the way it is.

David Aaronovitch’s Voodoo History : The Role of Conspiracy Theory in Shaping Modern History covers some of the same turf but focuses on the paranoid. Aaronovich draws some inspiration from the classic by Richard Hofsteader, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics” but takes it deeper and makes a lot of it more relevant to today, when the John Birch Society is now seen by the Conservative Movement as kind of mainstream.  Aaronovitch points out that Hofsteader focused mainly on the right, while the conspiracy minded came from all dimensions. Back in college,  I recall listening to reasoned discussions about how the killing of buffalo – bison in North America, water buffalo in SE Asia – was a strategy to exterminate indigenous populations.  After a few seconds consideration, I figured out that these people were crazy. The author explains and documents that conspiracy theories generally fail to approach reality because they don’t apply Occam’s razor, the philosophical principle of simplicity. While stated many ways, this tool is pretty simple – given the situation and the known facts, the best explanation is the simplest in accordance to the facts. Don’t make it complicated. Unnecessary complication leads to bullshit thinking.  Dick Cheney is not an evil Cyborg from another dimension; he’s a very sick man with obvious delusions. Barak Obama was not born in Kenya but in Hawaii – why create the paper trail for a baby? Elvis is not a clerk in a 7/11 in Hattiesburg.