TeaPublicans' False Patriotism

"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel."

Samuel Johnson

Last week, the candidates for the TeaPublican Party's nomination for President took questions by video. The most noticeable question came from Stephen Hill, a soldier who asked them what their respective positions were on reinstating Don't Ask, Don't Tell.  Hill, who referred to himself as a gay soldier, was booed by a handful of audience members.  At the time, none of the so-called Presidential candidates defended this active member of the military, while later, a handful (Rick the Santorum, Gary Johnson, and John Huntsman) belatedly acknowledged the hateful behavior of their followers. Given the conventional wisdom that Republicans, as opposed to Democrats, support for our men and women in uniform, this incident is just one more example of the myth of GOP patriotism.

The claim of Republican support for the US military stems in part from the Vietnam War.   The media of the time, the so-called Liberal Media, ran stories of service personnel returning from Southeast Asia only to face verbal and sometimes physical abuse from those protesting the war. These reports were overstated and only minimally true.  However, the public impression of liberal/leftist/Democrat disdain for war veterans took hold and remains with us to this day.  Over the past forty years, Republican politicians and pundits have consistently repeated this charge with vigor supported by their allies in the so-called Liberal Media. Now what began as the usual lazy reportage/create conflict to engage the audience tactics of daily journalism has morphed into a "truism" that is never challenged.

For those who follow this blog, the perpetration of the myth of GOP support for the military is another example of Rule #3, Project your negatives onto your enemy.  Richard Nixon faced George McGovern in the 1972 election as the strong supporter of the military, despite McGovern's sterling combat record.  McGovern campaigned to end the war, while Nixon was going to "win" the war.  McGovern was held up to ridicule because he was willing to negotiate an end without victory.  Nixon won and, as we found out, was negotiating all along to end the war.  But McGovern was the "peacenik" and Nixon, the patriotic warrior. Those who vilified McGovern and the peace movement were, in fact , wrong on the issues and the process.

Over the past forty years, this meme has played out often.  Who can forget  the millions of dollars spent by Republicans to neutralize John Kerry's war record when compared to George "The Deserter" Bush.  Or the Saxby "Did Not Serve" Chambliss campaign in Georgia that compared wounded combat veteran Max Cleland to Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden in the wake of 9-11.  So, it's not the response of the bozos in the debate audience that is surprising, although disheartening. They have been fed the mythology of Republican support for military personnel for years so, when confronted with a active soldier who demonstrated the falsity one of their other cherished beliefs (gays will destroy the military), they booed him.  They might claim that they booed the "gay" and not the "soldier" as a flimsy rationale.  What is more troubling is that the bozos on the podium, who aspire to the Presidency, could not, or would not, set aside their need to court the TeaPublicans long enough to defend a soldier on active duty in a war zone.  Just imagine if a Democrat or Keith Olbermann had done the same thing:  Remember our new standard for the so-called Liberal Media: IOKIYAR (It's OK If You Are A Republican).

Reality Television Is Anything But Real

In 2000, the US version of Survivor debuted and, as the conventional wisdom goes, the "reality" television explosion on US television began. At that time, I was still teaching college students about media aesthetics and analysis and it was not difficult to see the onrushing tidal wave. These programs, including game shows such as Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? were cheaper and easier to produce than narrative dramas and comedies. The audiences flocked to these programs and then producers began to pump them out, both original concepts and concepts borrowed such as Survivor. I had no personal interest in these shows, but one thing bothered me that continues to this day. That is the practice of labeling these shows "reality television." Since then, the label has become ubiquitous. Networks (both broadcast, cable and satellite) and syndicators continue to offer these types of programs.

The problem for a grouchy old guy like me is that while these programs are certainly "television", they are hardly "reality." At the same time, the question raised by the use of the term reality television is as old as the technologies that allow humans to fix an image from reality. A prime example would be the photographic work of Matthew Brady and Alexander Gardner in the mid 19th century. We have come to see their images of the Civil War as real, although we know that at least some of the images were rearranged and partially staged. The soldiers were indeed dead, but not as they were in the images rendered.

The early days of cinema demonstrated clearly the seeming division of real from fiction. Again, conventional wisdom maintains that the Lumiere Brothers (France) first films were taken from the real world while Edison (actually Dickson's) films hinted at narrative structure. Porter's Life Of An American Fireman (1903) is often credited with breakthroughs that are the mainstays of narrative visual fictions to this day.[Note: French magician and filmmaker George Melies was producing sophisticated narrative fictions by 1896.]

John Grierson is often credited with popularizing the term "documentary." He defined the genre as "the creative treatment of actuality." The director Alfred Hitchcock is quoted as saying "In feature films the director is God; in documentary films God is the director." They are making the same point: while the images in so-called documentary are from the real world, they are subject to the same manipulation as the images created to be manipulated in fictional narratives.

So, to my point, the so-called "reality" programs are themselves fictions. They are subject to the vagaries of image capture (angles, frames, etc). They are subject to the editing process, where the images are made to conform to the Aristotelian narrative construction we have come to expect from fictions. Even when attempts are made to circumvent those constraints by filming the real world in real time (see Warhol's Empire for example), the pull of the narrative and the limitations of the frame make it a work of fiction. Reality is that which you experience in with your own senses in real time: everything else is fake. Just think of the footage never shown on Survivor and you will understand that reality television is anything but real. There may be sounds and images of reality, but they are always constructed as fictions.

Unserious Friday: A Stroll Down Coliseum Street

Given the seriousness of my recent post, I thought today should be a change of pace. So, come with me as I walk down the actual Coliseum Street on my way to work.


View Larger Map

I live on Coliseum Square in the Lower Garden District and I walk to my job on Camp Street each morning. When I step outside my door, I see the park across the street, usually with a few folks walking their dogs while some are sitting on the benches. I do walk "down" the street, because in New Orleans, the direction I am walking is "downtown," going toward the Central Business District (CBD) and the world-renowned French Quarter (Some other Friday, I will get into New Orleans' unique directionality caused by living in a crescent of the Mississippi River).

For a couple of blocks, it's mostly residential houses built over the last century or so. The neighborhood used to be kinda sketchy, but since the Crescent City Connection (aka the Mississippi River Bridge) was completed and bridge ramps were removed, the neighborhood has revitalized (and is somewhat gentrified). Since it is an Historic District, the houses retain their older charm, smaller versions of the houses further Uptown in the Garden District proper.

Walking down Camp Street, I pass St. Theresa of Avila parish church. As you might imagine, you can't walk too many blocks in New Orleans without passing a Catholic Church.

Next is Bridge House, a complex of residential buildings and a thrift store/used car lot that is home and workplace for recovering addicts rebuilding their lives. Across from the Bridge House store, and right on my walking route, is a little pocket park dedicated to Margaret Haughery, the Bread Woman of New Orleans, who fed the poor in the late 1800s. It is ironic to me that as I cross Calliope Street there are homeless men "living" under the bridge overpass, stark evidence that our poor and homeless are still here.

Once I cross Calliope, pronounce "CAL-lee-ope," I am in the CBD. Just one block in, there is a cluster of three museums and the Contemporary Arts Center (CAC). Two museums are dedicated to war: the Confederate Museum (which has a sign on front that says Civil War Museum) and the National WWII Museum, Tom Hanks' gift to New Orleans. Next to the "Confederate Memorial Hall" is the Ogden Museum of Southern Art, part of the University of New Orleans, and across the street is the CAC. Quite a combination of ideologies in small space, if I don't say.

I am now three blocks from my building. Beyond the CAC, the street is mostly small buildings that house residences, small shops, galleries and parking lots/garages. One place that sticks out is Ozanam Inn, a homeless shelter for men run by the Society of St. Vincent DePaul. Two blocks further and I am my place of business.

So, that is my walk every morning (and afternoon in reverse). I experience the socioeconomic diversity and disparity of New Orleans every day and I am a better person for that walk.

Don't Have Much To Say

Sometimes it is really hard to be proud of the U.S. judicial system. We have today a case where there is compelling evidence that the State of Georgia, with Supreme Court approval, executed an innocent man. The essential facts of the case are not very complicated. Interpretations of the facts in the Troy Davis case are disputable and that is the problem. As the screen shot from Think Progress above states, the question is "too much doubt." While we have a judicial standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," that standard is not be any means an objective standard. The decision on the part of the state to execute one of its citizens is bound up in the political, social, economic, racial, religious currents of the time, place and culture. One person's "reasonable doubt" can easily be another person's "firm conviction." Some believe that the initial verdict is sacrosanct, while others maintain that all evidence is relevant up to the very end of the life of the convicted. However, to argue that death penalty cases are argued on the basis of complete knowledge of the act is ludicrous. And the Troy Davis case, even for those who believe that the execution is a justifiable state action, demonstrates that fallacy.

Here's more versions of the story to contemplate. The first is from Troy Davis' sister. The second is from The Christian Post. The third is from a conservative blogger who has a few words for his fellow so-called conservatives.

When you have the capacity to take someone's life by executive action, when is doubt "reasonable?" When there is doubt. Beyond that, I don't have much to say.

Some Modest Proposals Emenating From The "Buffett Rule"

In the past few days, we have seen the articulation of a public policy guideline that has been labeled "The Buffett Rule." While it would have been nice if it had been the Jimmy Buffett Rule (as in One More Ticket To Margaritaville), this rule comes from the mouth of billionaire Warren Buffett (Omaha is quite a far way from Key West). As we attempt to fix our economy in the face of TeaPublican vows of "No tax increases no matter how idiotically we define tax increases," Buffett was quoted as saying he should be paying his taxes at the same rate as his secretary at a minimum.

This attempt at creating some fairness in a tax code corrupted by the failed premise of supply-side economics demanded by TeaPublicans and acquiesced to by fearful Democrats got me thinking about other areas of public policy that could be improved by Buffett's definition of fairness.

1. Constituents must have the same health insurance and health care options as their elected representatives. This is a no-brainer. Every federal legislator who deliberates and votes on health care has a range of options for health insurance coverage. They cannot be denied coverage for preexisting conditions. So what's good for the Congress critters should be the standard for everyone else. A corollary to this rule, is that if you vote against government regulated equity in health coverage, you must get your own health insurance in the so-called free market.

2. All available safety devices should be standard on all automobiles. For years I have noticed more luxury car advertizements that point to safety features as their chief selling point. My question is, "Are rich folks more deserving of safe cars than the rest of us?" If a safety feature is demonstrated to save lives and prevent injury, shouldn't they standard on all cars. Yes, I know, this is an example of the free market in action, but that is my point: safety only for those who can afford it or safety for all (with the concomitant reduction in the costs incurred by cars that are less safe).

3. If someone holding elective office wants to change party affiliation, they must resign and run under their new party banner. When you are the object of a "bait-and-switch" scam, you have civil and possibly criminal means to rectify the situation and punish the miscreant. When you vote for a D who turns into an R after the election (or the other way around), that should be considered fraud. This is not like reneging on a campaign promise. The candidate who uses the resources of a political party and its supporters to gain election who then switches parties is guilty, at a minimum, of theft of services, if not alienation of affection. So, if you change parties, go back to the voters.

So, here are some things to talk. Maybe we can start a true grassroots movement around one of them, as opposed to the AstroTurf techniques of the folks behind the Tea Party Express. Maybe I'll send these off to Jimmy for consideration.

[Note: My use of the terms Congress critters and D & R is an homage to the late, great Molly Ivins]

I Told You So: TeaPublican Talking Points Revisited

Last week I wrote a long (at least for me) blog post about Three Rules to guide you in understanding how TeaPublicans deflect attention from their own unpopular agenda by obfuscation and lying. Over the past few days, we have been treated to three prime examples of this process in action.

Here in my adopted home state of Louisiana, we have a true class act in Senator "Diaper" Dave Vitter. This weekend, Vitter has taken up the charge that President Obama has been engaged in "crony capitalism" in the thoroughly bogus Solyndra scandal. The charge is that the Obama administration gave undue, if not illegal, preference to campaign contributors whose government-backed company failed. The problem is, Diaper Dave has been urging the Department of Energy to provide loans to companies owned by his campaign contributors. To make him even more of hypocrite, the companies he was shilling for offer old technologies in competition with the green solutions that Solyndra was unsuccessfully working toward. Remember rule #3: Project your weakness unto your enemy.

Two more examples from the national stage. Mitt "The Flipper" Romney has blathered on about his business savvy as opposed to the career politician and community organizer in the White House. Romney opined that the jobs plan announced today by Obama would not create jobs, but actually lose jobs. Well, The Flipper has a slight problem since his most successful private sector job as head of Bain Capital had the Mittster responsible for the loss of thousands of jobs as his venture capital firm oversaw the demise of numerous business to benefit his shareholders. Combination of rule #3 and rule #2: Obfuscate the simple.

Finally, we have Paul Ryan, aka Ayn Rand's love child, crying that Obama's jobs plan is "class warfare." What gall. Here is the guy who has proposed gutting most of the major government programs to help the poor and the middle class whining that millionaires being asked to pay more taxes (which are at an all-time low in that tax bracket) is an attack. On whom? Even billionaire Warren Buffett has called for more fairness in the tax code. We are even calling it the Buffett rule: CEOs should be taxed at least at the same tax rate as their employees. Name calling certainly comes under rule #1: Vilify your enemy, with rules #2 and #3 thrown in for good measure.

There you have it, playing out right before your eyes. At the same time, just remember the real TeaPublican slogan: Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

Three Simple Rules To Predict TeaPublican Talking Points

One paradox of our contemporary national political situation is that polls continuously demonstrate wide-spread support for policy choices favored by Democrats and liberals, while at the same time seeing their political choices defined by their opponents and most Main Stream Media as "out of touch." A good example would be the recent Debt Ceiling so-called crisis, when House GOP leadership held a routine vote as hostage for more concessions from the President and the Democrats, while polls indicated the public supported a clean raising of the debt limit.

How can this be? The explanation is actually simple. A good starting place are the techniques used by Lee Atwater in the Bush-Dukakis campaign. Atwater viewed our national politics as a zero-sum game: I win by making you lose and policy consequences be damned. That brought us Dukakis sitting in the tank and the infamous Willie Horton ad. The major glitch in those years was when Bush I caved to economic reality and went back on his phony pledge of "no new taxes." Bush lost to Bill Clinton and ever since then, the GOP (whom I refer to today at the TeaPublicans) have stuck to a very simple game plan.

Here it is: The guiding principle is that you play to feelings not reason, since feelings cannot be subject to facts. You accomplish this with three simple steps:
1) Vilify Your Enemy;
2) Obfuscate the Simple; and
3) Project Your Negatives on Your Enemy.

A quick example is our current incoherent public debate about raising the debt ceiling.
1) Vilify Your Enemy: Labeling those who advocate government intervention to create jobs as Socialists, Communists, and Fascists (all at the same time).
2) Obfuscate The Simple: Conflate raising the debt ceiling with a massive increase in Government Spending so the average person thinks we can solve our problems by having the U.S. Government default on its fiduciary obligations.
3. Project Your Negatives on Your Enemy: Blame Obama and the Dems for the current problems when they in fact stem primarily from eight years of Bush II mismanagement, abetted by Congressional Republicans, culminating in the burst housing bubble and the Bush Bank Bailout.

When you try to explain to folks that that the Teapublicans are lying hypocrites, then you are accused of being mean and nasty and the whole process starts all over. Even the President and the Democratic leadership have fallen for this ruse, while the GOP, who got us in this mess in the first place, gain political victories at the expense of sane, rationale public policy. And it doesn't help that most media engage in false equivalence (for example, both parties do it), when it is clear that the GOP have a singular goal: take control of all branches of government while their policies are opposed by a majority of the public.

These tactics are not new. In the U.S. they have been used mostly in elections in the past; now they are used legislatively. They are being used in a disciplined manner by one major political party and their allies at Faux News and the Tea Party Express.

If you think I am wrong, I have a suggestion: In future, when you hear the President or a major Dem leader offer a policy recommendation, apply the three principles outlined above and I guarantee they are an infallible predictor of the GOP talking points that you will hear a few hours later. Go ahead. Try it!

It also important to note that these tactics are not new by any means. For better or worse, Martin Luther, Samuel Adams, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Goebbels wrote this playbook. Now it's John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity marching at the forefront of our willing descent into madness.

Jindal To Return University Degrees

NEWS FLASH: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has reportedly endorsed Texas Governor Rick Perry's bid for the GOP nomination for U.S. president. There is speculation that Jindal's endorsement is a bid to position himself as viable Vice-Presidential candidate.

Over the past few years, Jindal's shifting positions on issues of importance to social conservatives, including statements that doubt evolution, man-made global warming and participatory democracy have become concerning to the various educational institutions that have awarded degrees to Jindal. Brown University, where Jindal majored in public policy and biology and University of Oxford, where he received a degree in public policy with an emphasis on health care issues have both gone on record as disapproving the use of their degrees to enhance Jindal's political career given his transformation into a lunatic TeaPublican and Perry disciple.

In order to stem this growing controversy, Governor Jindal has announced he is returning his degrees to Brown and Oxford. "These are just scraps of paper issued by secular heathen institutions that want to bring down these great United States," Jindal said. "Now that I am hooked up with Rick Perry, who needs intelligence and education. We just make things up. That's a lot easier than actually studying and thinking. If I had known this before, I wouldn't have wasted my time at those elitist degree mills."

Baton Rouge Magnet High School has yet to comment.

A Giant Leaves the Building

Today in New Orleans we bid farewell to Wardell Quezerque, a seminal figure in the musical history of New Orleans. He worked as an arranger, writer, and producer for uncountable recording sessions across decades of popular music. "Barefootin'" and "Mr Big Stuff" are two particularly memorable recordings. His influence, however, is unmeasurable, as he worked in the seams of the music industry, both here in New Orleans and nationwide. He wasn't a performer or a big name producer as some of his proteges became, such as Allen Toussaint and Mac Rebennack (aka Dr. John), but many musicians in this city consider him their "teacher."

I have a friend who became very close to Wardell over the years, acting as a sort of caretaker whenever she was in town. That's how I came to meet Wardell just last year. They were totally social occasions, usually over dinner. He was a man of many moods, as I have been told, but in my few brief interactions, he was gentle man with stories to tell. I did get to witness him at work at one of his sessions for his final piece, an orchestral setting of the Passion. Seeing him in the studio, listening so intently to the performers and advising and guiding them to the sound he wanted, was a humbling experience for me.

I hardly knew him as a person, but the sound of New Orleans music in the 1960s and 1970s will always resonate with the heart, soul, and genius of Wardell. Indeed, today a true giant has left the building.

The Saints and The Sinner

For those of you following this blog (if there is anybody following this blog), the title of this post is reminiscent of an earlier post about my conflict between the last Saints preseason game and a gig I was playing. This is not a repeat, since this time there is a real, on-the-record sinner at hand with a schedule conflict with the Saints' opening game tonight.

Louisiana's own "Diaper" David Vitter (R-Hypocrite) has proudly announced he will attend a Saints' party instead of being present for President Obama's speech on jobs. At least one other LA House rep isn't showing either, but at least he was brutally honest: he didn't want to listen to Obama explain why TeaPublican rhetoric and policies on the issue of jobs is totally wrong. If those policies are such a good idea, why did job creation falter during the Bush administration's exercise in tax cuts/no new taxes/little government stimulus?

But back to my point. Given his public record as a client of the Washington madam, Diaper Dave is an embarrassment. His seeming glee at announcing his absence for the Saints' game is breath taking. Is his sports jones more important than a discussion of creating jobs in a faltering economy? Is his arrogance insulting to those who expect our legislators to attend to the people's business? At least others such as Rep. Landry (R-Idiot) state policy differences for their headline-seeking absences. At least they admit, although they don't know it, that they are petty, vindictive men who act like children who don't want to take their medicine.

Vitter has set a new standard for incivility and I, for one, am ashamed to be his constituent. As Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute wrote in the article linked above, "I simply cannot recall a time in the past when lawmakers openly gave the finger to the president of the United States on a huge issue like jobs...It is frankly depressing." Yeah, tell me about it.

Mother Nature's Response to Rick Perry's Prayers

For those of us on the Gulf Coast, this was a scary weekend. For some in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama, Tropical Storm Lee brought devastating rains and some powerful winds, though not the potential hurricane force weather that was predicted. The remnants of Lee are now crawling through the South and towards the Northeast, where they don't need anymore rain. So, in the face of the damage, it's hard to see anything comical, yet recently announced GOP Presidential candidate Texas Governor Rick Perry has some explaining to do, in the words of Ricky Ricardo.

Back in April, Governor Perry came forward with a plan to end the drought in Texas. He asked everyone to pray for rain in an official state proclamation. Given that we are now in September, it seems as if Pastor Rick's solution is not working. This weekend, Tropical Storm Lee seemed to be the answer to those prayers, just as the con man Starbuck in The Rainmaker is saved by fortuitous rainfall.

But not so fast, my friends. After this weekend, Reverend Rick might be looking for a new solution. You see, the one place in Lee's path that escaped the worst of the storm was New Orleans. Yes, that party town, that home of jazz, that bead-laden city of excess. And that's not all. The reason that New Orleans was spared the worst of Lee was because of the hot, dry air over Texas. Somehow, that air was sucked into the middle of Lee and landed on the south shore of Lake Pontchartrain. So, while Slidell (slightly east of NO) was on the national news, New Orleans just got wet. My street, that floods in a heavy thunderstorm, was always passable.

Even more "miraculous," this was the weekend for Southern Decadence, which some call the Gay Mardi Gras. While the weekend was wet, folks were still here having fun and spending money. At the same time, the acceleration of the winds not only kept Texas dry, it enhanced the chances for wildfires.

So, Father Rick's self-serving, self righteous, hypocritical, and possibly illegal call for prayers seemed to have backfired, as well as his entire televangelist schtick. While his state remains in a climate similar to Hell, bohemian, avant-garde, multi-cultural, and Democratic New Orleans was just fine.

Now, Ricky, you have some explaining to do.

Saints v. A Sinner

Tonight is the last preseason football game for the New Orleans Saints. The Superdome, where the so-called game will be played, is just about walking distance from my house. Tens of thousands of Saints fans will be streaming in to watch guys play, most of whom are not going to be on the team next week when the season really begins for the Saints in Green Bay, WI. I will not be one of the many who will watch the game tonight primarily because of the reasons I wrote about in a previous blog post.

But that is not the only reason. I am playing a gig tonight at a local coffee house. Imagine my effrontery to think that anyone would want to come hear me play my music when the Saints are playing football, even if those players will no longer be Saints in a few days. I guess that qualifies me as a "sinner" in the eyes of Who Dat? Nation. Don't get me wrong. I am a football fan (though, I hope, not a fanatic). It's just my life is not ruled by the NFL schedule, except when playoff time comes around. Then I will be proud to be Saint, although I will always be a sinner.