Primary Ambivalence

But Clinton’s LBJ remark reveals something more worrisome than racial tone-deafness – a theory of social change that’s as elitist as it is inaccurate. Black civil rights weren’t won by suited men (or women) sitting at desks. They were won by a mass movement of millions who marched, sat in at lunch counters, endured jailings, and took bullets and beatings for the right to vote and move freely about. Some were students and pastors; many were dirt-poor farmers and urban workers. No one has ever attempted to list all their names.

Barbara Ehrenreich, January 15, 2008

When politicians offer nothing, and the people demand nothing, then the powers-that-be are free to continue doing whatever they choose. The death knell of participatory politics can often be a very noisy, celebratory affair – such as we have witnessed in the call-and-response ritual of “Change!” “Hope!” and other exuberant but insubstantial campaign exercises.

Glen Ford, January 9, 2008

Here’s the “Election Overview: Stats at a Glance.”I’ve been wanting to write this sort of post for some time, but I thought it might be most useful once the primaries were settled. I am thinking that my first big decision is this week, so I need to look over this information now.

I am not in the least bit tempted by the Republicans. I think the party is infected with a kind of criminality that has not been seen since reconstruction. Honestly, somewhere Nixon is blushing. So to me the obvious choice is between Senators Obama and Clinton.

One good source of data is OpenSecrets.org, which tracks the money for all of the candidates, from the House to the President. I’m not sure it helps me decide which Senator to pick, though.

One place to start is the “Election Overview: Stats at a Glance.Obama’s dramatic sounding claim that he will refuse all PAC money turns out to be less that it seems, since PACs have contributed only about 1% of the total money in the Presidential campaign.

The PAC percentages are reported here by Capital Eye. Senator Clinton raised “$748,000 from PACs, or less than 1 percent of her total receipts.” This more than the leader among the Republicans, Senator McCain, “at $458,000, ” also, “a little more than 1 percent of his total.”

Here’s OpenSecret’s table of major educational contributers. It’s not surprising to find that the majority of these schools give their money to the Democrats. One predictable exception is the Apollo Group, whose holdings include the University of Phoenix.

None of that is going to help me pick, however. My favorite writers also seem split along these lines. Barbara Ehrenreich mistrusts Senator Clinton, for example, because of her history of top-down, wonk politics. It’s hard to disagree.

The progressive Black writers at Black Agenda blog mistrust Obama’s opportunism. Glen Ford, has described what he calls “Obama’s descent from vaguely progressive rhetoric to shameless pandering (to whites) and vapid “Change!” mantra nonsense.” It’s hard to disagree with that too.

I hope that the primaries settle the issue cleanly; otherwise, there’s real potential for problems. I have to be stay skeptical, though, given that neither candidate is substantively progressive, even if the election of either if them will be a progressive landmark. Is it possible to become more progressive in office?

A Wilderness of Mirrors


These with a thousand small deliberations
Protract the profit of their chilled delirium,
Excite the membrane, when the sense has cooled,
With pungent sauces, multiply variety
In a wilderness of mirrors. What will the spider do,
Suspend its operations, will the weevil
Delay? De Bailhache, Fresca, Mrs. Cammel, whirled
Beyond the circuit of the shuddering Bear
In fractured atoms. Gull against the wind, in the windy straits
Of Belle Isle, or running on the Horn,
White feathers in the snow, the Gulf claims,
And an old man driven by the Trades
To a sleepy corner.

Tenants of the house,
Thoughts of a dry brain in a dry season.

T.S. Eliot, from Gerontion

I work out out a local gym every other day or so and I am always amazed at what I see around me each time I go. There are mirrors everywhere, as if the point were vanity instead of health. This is why so many people I know avoid these places. Who wants to compete against all of these young bodies?

The narcissism is only the start, though. Or, rather, the narcissism is, uh, only a reflection of a more profound self-absorption. I’m not talking about the usual complaints of isolation: everyone alone on their “equipment” listening to their MP3 players. Actually, I wish more people would use MP3 players.

The problem, rather, is that people seem to not have a clue about how to be social. The gym itself is quite small but it has plenty of windows and it’s rarely crowded. So I often work out alone with the lights out. It’s not dark at all, especially on a sunny day.

I like the idea of saving energy, for one thing, and the natural light is much more pleasant than the fluorescents, which I swear I can see flickering. Any time another person comes in, however, they inevitably flip on the light, without acknowledging me in the slightest way.

I was raised to believe that this was a pretty rude thing to do, but it’s only the start of it. There’s one women who comes several times a week to work out and then shower and get dressed, apparently for work. She uses a small, brightly lit bathroom off of a medium-sized room that people use for warm ups and stretches.

The other day, after pretzeling away on the Swiss Ball for ten minutes or so I bunced up to hit the elliptical and flipped the light off on the way out. Five minutes later she marched out to the main room to demand, angrily, that I not turn out the light when she was in the bathroom.

Now, I might be able to sympathize with a women suspicious of darkness in a gym. Still, it did seem odd that she took such affront, as if no logic but hers could make sense. She wasn’t showering in the dark or anything. She’s not the worst of the bunch, though, by any means. That honor goes to Macho Man.

The worst Macho Man experience is when he has shown up before you. First, every light in the gym, ffrom front to back and often including the bathroom, is turned on. I suspect that he warms up with light switches. Second, the television is blaring CMT and the stereo is blasting some awful classic rock station.

Meanwhile, Macho Man is on the treadmill, huffing and puffing loudly, running with heavey clumping strides, sometimes giving off sharp, dramatic grunts. He has the TV turned up loud because he can’t hear it over his own noise. Then, after about ten minutes, he hops off– that’s no metaphor– and trots off to the weight room.

He has the stereo turned up because he has to hear it from across the gym. Next, after another ten minutes, he comes bounding back into the room and hops on the stationary bike for another ten or fifteen minute round of thump, huff, puff, and grunt. Sometimes he brings his friend and they do this routine together.

It reminds me of how certain people drive so recklessly in bad weather, seemingly unaware that they are risking the lives of other people. Luckily, all that is at risk here is irritation. Well, Macho Man might be causing some sort of unpredictable havoc on his body. He’s pretty young though, so I suppose the clichés about invunerability apply.

The owner of the gym is very differant. I often see her on Saturday mornings, when she comes in to clean. She always says hello and wants to start a conversation even if I am clearly listening to my MP3 player and straining away at the end of a long work out. To her, though, it’s a scoial situation and she at least wants to make the effort.

And there”s the older couple who come in whatever clothes they happen to be wearing at the time… They certainly didn’t buy any special shoes. There’s something refreshing in the fact that they don’t know the proper costume. But it is also very odd to watch them take truns struggleing on the stationary bike, both in ill fitting jeans and flannel shirts.

Bush’s Legacy

When I was a child growing up just outside New York City during the 1970s, I learned to be afraid of getting mugged. But this is not that. The criminals I’m talking about don’t bop anyone over the head and steal hundreds of dollars. These criminals slowly take $5, $10, and $20 from me, often with a smile. They pop a surcharge onto my monthly phone bill. They pad my TV bill with services I didn’t ask for. They drain my bank account — drip, drip, drip — when I’m not watching. These hidden fees keep me up late at night like the sound of a leaky faucet. I feel like I have to watch everything all the time, because it’s so easy to miss some statement on some form with some asterisk that means the company can take even more money from me. And when that happens, I suffer from what I call small print rage.

Am I crazy? Or am I just paying attention? One thing I know for sure: I’m not alone.

Bob Sullivan, from Gotcha Captialism, on MSNBC

[Gotcha Capitalism website; Bob Sullivan on Fresh Air]

Censoring Science: Inside the Political Attack on Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming is Mark Bowen’s account of the struggle that ensued between Hansen and the Bush administration over a basic principle: a government scientist’s right to speak freely to the press. Censoring Science intertwines three separate but closely related stories. The first narrates the step-by-step attempts of a low-ranking NASA press staffer and right-wing ideologue, along with other officials, to censor Hansen. The concatenation of detail is not initially gripping — a timeline of events would have been helpful — but as it accumulates, the case is ultimately compelling. Bowen’s demonstration that censorship spread far beyond Hansen, affecting many climate scientists in NASA and in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, is convincing and disturbing.

Michael Oppenheimer, Nature Reports Climate Change, January 16, 2008

[James Hansen on Fresh Air; Interview with Hansen on Columbia News.]

We’ll be hearing a lot about legacy today and in the next year. Setting aside Iraq War II, Katrina, and other high concept disasters, Bush and company have a rich list of accomplishments. Here are two areas in which their successes are more nuanced, fine-grained, and so perhaps longer lasting.

The first continues a long Republican tradition of refusing to regulate and of allowing their corporate cronies full reign. I think it’s reached some sort of Orwellian tipping point where we no longer expect anything but a kind of ongoing con-game in every transaction.

And the second suggests something of the profound depth of political corruption, down to the level of individual government scientists forced to play the role of political mouthpiece. Once these folks start talking again– this year, or the next– all sorts of things are going to look different.