Because it's there.

The Wizard of Oz (again)

nobody@vox.com(randomrambling) — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:23:53 -0500

I wrote the following more than a year ago. TNT has been showing it so I thought I would post this again. I have one important (and obvious) point to add. The 'munchkins' are the 'little people' being all of us.

TBS showed The Wizard of Oz last night, or the night before, again and again and again… I have written about the political symbolism before but feel the need to do it again. The last time I looked stuff up but I am going to pull a ‘Stephen Colbert’ and write about my thoughts from the gut. (For those of you who like looking stuff up, that came directly from Mr. Colbert’s performance at the 2006 White House Correspondence Dinner.)

The first thing to note about this legendary movie is the infamous suicide that takes place in the background. Now you can research this and believe the stories that it’s a hoax, my gut tells me this is totally true. Right after the Wicked Witch of the West sets fire to the Scarecrow, the trio set off on the Yellow Brick Road singing. If you look carefully, you have to have the DVD, you will see a figure walk out and place a chair in the background. The figure then stands on the chair and is next seen swinging from a rope. Don’t believe me? My roommates and I spent hours reviewing this DVD frame by frame (and you had better ways to waste your time in college?). I think it’s true. Don’t believe me. Look at the DVD and trust your gut.

The Wizard of Oz, the book, was obviously published before the movie (no, dud, idiot). The story took place during a time of political turmoil – I’d bet my life that people then said that whatever election came around then was ‘the most important election of our lives!” If I had a million dollars I would give it to the campaign that said, Yes, we would like you to vote for us but you, this election’s not that important. If you’re too busy… On second thought that could be a way the GOP will suppress turnout. Anyway…

What did the whole thing mean? In the book, Dorothy’s shoes were silver, not ruby. At the time we were moving from the gold to silver standard and oz is the abbreviation for ounces , you know measurement. The Emerald City was Washington. The Scarecrow was Midwest farmers without much intelligence. The Tin Man was industry without any heart. The Cowardly Lion was Congress without any courage. The Wizard was the president without any power. The wicked Witch of the East was eastern bankers. The wicked witch of the west was the untamed western US. What the movie could do that the book could not, was use color. Kansas scenes are all black and white vs. the bright colors of Oz to show the depression, perhaps also the dust bowl but that’s conjecture.

Side note; Judy Garland was not slated to play Dorothy. They wanted a blond – a younger girl and they wanted to use less makeup. People think she was lucky for landing that role. I don’t know. At the end of her life, after she became an alcoholic, she said she had ‘rainbows coming out of her ass.’ I am sure she was speaking metaphorically because otherwise, that would suck.

Why does this matter? It matters because we write off a lot of things as being ‘just entertainment.’ I do not support censorship in fact my point is the opposite. It is easy to watch movies like Syriana and get the take home message but it’s often more subtle. In that way it’s more special. The Wizard of Oz was a story about populism and that theme still resonates today.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

I like the media

nobody@vox.com(randomrambling) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 13:55:50 -0500

I like the media

I know, I know, everyone loves to hate the press. I feel like everywhere I go people are whining that things would be better ‘if only the media would cover things right.’ Well, boo-fucking-hoo.

When George Clooney gave a press conference to ask the media to quit following him around I thought it was a pretty douchebag move. You call the press to come to an event where you tell the press not to cover you? Are you fucking serious? Oh, right, you are serious. I would have been far more impressed had he said something like the following:

“I would like to thank all of you for coming today to my press conference. I have a request to make, not of the media covering this event but of the fans who will read about it. I owe, all of in Hollywood owe, everything to you. You are the reason we have careers. For that, I cannot thank you enough. Having said that, I would like to make a deal with you. If you stop buying People and the Inquirer, the paparazzi will stop stalking us. The situation with the gossip press has gotten totally out of control and does more than take away our privacy. It endangers us, our families and innocent bystanders. I cannot stress enough how much it means to all of us that you enjoy our work. We promise to share details about our lives with you if you will stop buying the magazines that send photographers after us all the time. As the consumer, you have the power to stop this. Please consider helping us with this problem.”

I have no illusion that this would end the paparazzi crap but it would have been more honest and to the point than what he did. And that brings me to my real point, if you don’t like the press coverage of an issue or topic, do something about it. You can boycott certain outlets, sure, but there is more you can do. Support press you like by buying it. Write the sponsors of the press you dislike and tell them. The press produces a product to be sold. That probably seems pretty basic but for a long time, the news divisions of certain companies were not required to make money like the other departments. ABC News wasn’t expected to make the same money as the entertainment departments until Disney took over. In local news, the adage is ‘if it bleeds, it leads.’ Bottom line: if consumers stop buying the product they are selling they will change it.

And if you want more immediate coverage of something, use Twitter. Seriously. CNN must spend eight hours a day reading Tweets. Personally, I don’t need CNN to read Tweets, I can go to Twitter myself and would prefer they do some actual reporting but it is one way to get their attention.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Don't be hatin'

nobody@vox.com(randomrambling) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 16:32:47 -0500

Paranoia

My first real job was for Senator Feinstein (D-CA). Like many recent college grads and recent arrivals in Washington, DC, I got an internship on Capitol Hill that led to a full time job. I lived in a group house on Capitol Hill with five other people. It was fantastic.

One thing I learned pretty early on was how much more in common I had with staffers across the aisle than I expected. Sure, we disagreed on just about every public policy issue in the world but our lives were pretty similar otherwise. We worked in the same building and went out to the same restaurants and bars. Being a Hill staffer is a lot like going back to college. Especially at that point in a career. Moreover, although we had our differences I always felt that we were united by a central theme: the desire to make the world a better place. We just disagreed on the best way to reach that goal.

I cling to that world view – that Democrats & Republicans, liberals & conservatives are all working in politics because we want to make a difference. That’s the whole basis behind the saying, “Politics is the art of the possible.” Yes, it is. My problem is that it seems the people across the aisle from me don’t necessarily feel the same way about me. That saddens me.

When George W. Bush got into the White House I had every reason to be upset. I had spent almost two years on the road doing advance for President Clinton and Vice President Gore. I exiled myself for almost six months because I was just too bitter to be around people. No, I did not believe (at least not then) that the 2000 election had been stolen. I actually found it more comforting to think we just lost because when you work on campaigns that is always a possibility. I was just tired, sad and depressed. The combination made me awful to be around.

Never did I think that George W. Bush was like Hitler. Nor did I come up with elaborate theories to discredit him and his election. Even when, about a year and a half into his presidency, I started to think the 2000 election had been stolen, I didn’t think his presidency was illegitimate. Moreover, it seemed pointless to argue the point because it was a fait accompli. As opposed to some of his policies as I was, I even gave him credit when he stuck by his campaign promises such as drilling in ANWR. I don’t support that policy and am glad Congress said no but during his campaign he said he would support it so when he did, well, that’s the point of campaigns. As Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) put it so eloquently, “Elections have consequences.”

In poll after poll and from anecdotal Facebook and Twitter evidence, I see that many on the right aren’t just upset that we have President Obama they are rabidly upset. It’s no longer enough to say you oppose someone’s positions, their entire character needs to be destroyed as well. It’s not enough to say “liberal policies are bad for America” you have to say “Liberals hate America and the Constitution. They have ended America as we know and we now live in a tri-state nation called the ’North American Union.” And/or “Obama cannot be president because he a, was born in Kenya b, lied about being a Muslim c, his health care plan will force you to kill or be killed and d, he eats puppies for breakfast.” The scariest part of that last sentence? Only choice d has not been uttered by at least five conservatives I know. Polls show that conservatives hate Obama more than liberals hated Bush II and that only 22 percent of Republicans think he was born in the US.

Oh, well. We Democrats will go back to making the world better. The right wing can go back to watching Glenn Beck.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Funny, scary, true

nobody@vox.com(randomrambling) — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 23:31:07 -0400

I found this and wanted to share. Love the guy with the giant cross who 'didn't know' about the tea parties.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Why bills devoted to huring one group hurts every group

nobody@vox.com(randomrambling) — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:25:02 -0400

Bills of attainder and why the ‘defund ACORN’ may hurt groups you like

This post is not about ACORN. I mention that because really, it isn’t. Hell, I don’t think the ‘defund ACORN bill is about ACORN but that’s also another topic. This post is about ‘bills of attainder.’ If you don’t know what they are, they are bills that signal out one group or individual for punishment. Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution bans them. This was not something, like the Bill of Rights, that was added later. The point is those groups/people should be prosecuted in the legal system. It says that people or organizations cannot be punished for political reasons.

The problem with the ‘defund ACORN’ then becomes, who will their next target be? Let’s take a wild flight of fancy and suppose that liberals take totally control of Congress . These aren’t your garden variety liberals, they make me look like Rush. They hate the NRA (not signaling them out, it’s the only group I can think of right now) so they ban funding. While the group in question may or may not get money from the feds, it hurts.

Article I Section 9 prohibits any legislation that signals out a group for punishment, the idea being that the duty of punishments should be left to the judicial branch. People and organizations should be prosecuted judicially not persecuted legislatively. Moreover, the judicial process has remedies for those who commit crimes while the legislative branch does not.

Bill of attainder – definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

Bottom line: any bill that singles out one group is bad for anyone who works for any group. You are all about the Christian Coalition, this bill makes it ok to go after you, too. Now, legally, precedent means something . That provides the basis for other findings. And this all begs the question: why would Congress pass a bill that is unconstitutional? That is a very good question. The legislative branch makes laws and the judicial makes sure that they comply with the Constitution. If you are all – why bother passing something you know violates the Constitution? – I am right there with you. Having said that, this is the reason we have the ‘checks and balances’ system we have. Congress passes laws and the parliamentarian is there to make sure they abide by the rules of the House and Senate, not meet Constitutional muster. That’s not as bad as it sounds. There is a reason it is hard to get a job at the Supreme Court. (Not only ON but also AT) I talked about this with a Senate staffer who handles judiciary committee issues and he explained to me that Congress doesn’t have to make sure its bills are Constitutional because it is not their job. The legislative branch makes laws, the judicial branch interprets them and the executive enforces them.

The problem them becomes when un-Constitutional laws pass and become law. You may think this is about liberal organizations but DC v Heller was the first case the NRA won based on the Second Amendment.

There’s a poem:

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist; Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist; Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist; Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew; Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me." Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984)

I have been pretty upfront about where I am politically; I am a liberal Democrat. I find it ironic that some of the same people who claim to love our Constitution are willing to bypass it when politically advantageous to them. I am not talking about the Republicans in Congress who support this bill – it is not their job to adhere to it when writing legislation though I think it’s a different matter all together when they campaign with a pro-Constitution and pro-‘Defund ACORN’ message because that message is hypocracy, but the bandwagon jumpers who don’t see the far reaching implications of this bill. There are other ways to defund ACORN without violating the Constitution.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Confessions from a true nerd

nobody@vox.com(randomrambling) — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:13:57 -0400

Does anyone here watch C-Span? No? Beuller? Beuller?

Recently, and it's work related, I have been. The other night I was watching C-Span and wanted to watch because the always entertaining Michelle Bachman was speaking but then I remembered there was something on C-Span 2 that I had to watch (Congressman Steve Israel was going to talk about his use of social media to reach his constituents, truly riveting stuff). Just now I startled a colleague when I actually said, "OMG!! Yeah!! They are FINALLY voting on final passge of the HUD approps bill!!"

Wow. I so need a life.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

We’ll miss you, Teddy...

nobody@vox.com(randomrambling) — Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:27:37 -0400

We’ll miss you, Teddy

There is nothing I can write that is unique or brilliant to add other than my personal feelings. Living in a city where cynicism and callousness are often the response to events and tragedies of the day, I was caught completely off guard by how emotional Senator Kennedy’s passing made me this morning. I did not know Senator Kennedy but I wish I had the chance. My memories are more indirect. When I worked in the Senate, I would bring friends to the Senate floor when they were not in session and they always wanted to see his seat. I saw him at events and around the Capitol area and was always impressed with his staff and him. It seemed to ask too much of someone who has lost so much. You may think I feel this way because I am a liberal Democrat, which I am, but it is also from the deep respect I have for him and the work – the breadth and expanse of which is pretty amazing – he did to make our lives better and his ability to befriend and work with political advisories.

If I could say one thing to the Kennedy family it would be that while the phrases I am sorry and thank you, seem terribly inadequate at a time like this, they are the best tools I have. Today the world is darker because Senator Kennedy is no longer a part of it but generations of people will live in a brighter world because he was.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Not cool, not legal, bad for America

nobody@vox.com(randomrambling) — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:53:53 -0400

Elections matter. Campaigns have consequences. The rule of law as the basis for a civilized society remains paramount.

I am a liberal Democrat. I worked for the Gore and Kerry campaigns. As much as it pained me to watch, there is something awe-inspiring about the peaceful transfer of power. We can do something that many other countries cannot. That is something we should never forget and always celebrate.

In that spirit, I must admit to feeling some sadness when I see people threaten members of the current government. That is not because I like them, which I do, but because it cheapens the discourse and hurts our republic. We need an honest discussion, what we have is fear mongering. That helps no one.

As I said, I worked for the Goren campaign and was devasted -- completely, you don't work that long and that hard to have a campaign end that painfully without being upset. I knew -- not suspected but knew and told anyone who would listen, that if George W. Bush got into the White House, we would go to war in Iraq and I opposed that. I opposed most of W's policies. I never -- not once -- even thought he should be killed or injured. And then an ironic thing happened, I got a call from someone who had some pretty detailed logistical information about President George W. Bush's movements that day. I didn't like him but the idea that should I do nothing and someone be hurt or worse, was one that I could not abide. I called the Secret Service and let them know. They interviewed me for a long time and while I have no idea what they did, I do know no one was hurt that day.

Our republic depends on the ability to discuss ideas openly, threatening to use force against those with whom you disagree, achieves the opposite.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Table pounding and other things

nobody@vox.com(randomrambling) — Sun, 09 Aug 2009 09:51:59 -0400

Gallupbueredstates

There is a saying: If the facts are with you, go with the facts. If public opinion is with you, go with public opinion. If neither the facts nor public opinion are with you, pound the table. Over the past few weeks we have seen a lot of table pounding by opponents of heath care reform. Personally, I think that the only poll that matters is the one taken on Election Day but other people clearly like polls.

Gallup recently came out with the following data; they found that the country has shifted a bit since Barack Obama was sworn in, it has become more Democratic. http://www.gallup.com/poll/122003/Political-Party-Affiliation-States-Blue-Red-Far.aspx?CSTS=alert

Last November, we elected Barack Obama. This was not a close election. We also elected a Democratic Congress. Democrats said if they won, they would push for health care reform. If you were paying attention during the election, you should not be surprised that they are following through on their campaign promises. That’s what they’re supposed to do. When George W. Bush did things that he said he would do, I may not have supported the policy but I appreciated that he had been honest. I do not support drilling in ANWR, for instance, but he did. It should not have been a surprise that he actively worked to open up that area for drilling.

I have spent most of my life trying to get people more involved in politics. I worked on my first campaign when I was eight. I love that people are paying more attention to what is going on in Washington, DC. Democracy is not a spectator sport. My concern, therefore, is not whether or not the rallies or protests are staged or ‘manufactured.’ That question misses the point; people have a right to voice their opposition (or support, though people are more likely to do something when they are angry) to government policies. We need more dialogue and what we are getting is more debate. We don’t listen to each other. It’s kind of like a scene in Fight Club where the narrator and Marla agree that when people think you are dying they ‘really listen’ instead of wait ‘for their turn to speak.’

As Senator Linsday Graham (R-SC) said, “Elections have consequences.” He was referring to his vote for Sonia Sotomayor. She was not the person he would have selected but he feels the Senate’s job is to make sure the nominee is qualified, which she is. He could have been talking about a lot of policies. Health care reform is one of them. And if people are really unhappy, we can give Congress back to the Republicans next year. I would rather have the Democrats follow through on their promises and lose next year than wuss out and win.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Shut up!

nobody@vox.com(randomrambling) — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 00:16:51 -0400

Empahty-for-Powerless

Well, they keep saying it but when I find more concrete evidence, it’s still hard to believe. I understand that not everyone in the US voted for Barack Obama. I understand that the goal of the opposition party is to oppose everything the current White House does. Moreover, I understand that the mouthpiece of the GOP is FOX News and yet when I read this, I almost fell off my seat laughing. This is currently a headline on FOX news, which can, once again, safety put its slogan ‘fair and balanced’ to rest and they have proven they are neither. (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/07/ken-klukowski-sotomayor-obama/)

“Sotomayor's Confirmation Isn't a Win for the White House” – really? It’s not? And here I thought that when a president nominates someone for the Supreme Court and they are confirmed by the Senate, it’s typically viewed as a good thing for the president that did the nominating. Of course if your entire raison d’être is to turn everything the president and his party does into a bad thing, you will find a way to make this a win for your side.

President Clinton gets two American journalists released from prison, you say it’s bad for America. The government sponsors a program that people like (‘cash for clunkers’) and you say it’s bad for consumers. The first Latina to be nominated for the Supreme Court is confirmed and it’s really just about the 2010 Congressional election.

Except, it’s not. This is totally a win.

Read and post comments | Send to a friend