Bloggledygook

Bill Bennet Endorses Eugenics... Or Maybe He Doesn't.

I've read, re-read and re-re-re-read Bill Bennett's comments on abortion and black babies (linked up the wazoo by now, so what's the point?) and I'm still having a hard time wondering what all the fuss is about.

Try to eliminate the fact that it was Bennett who was speaking. If anybody else was making a point about the Freaknomics postulate that legalized abortion resulted in lower crime rates. The quote might go something like:

"Okay, if this were true, that abortion has resulted in lower crime rates in the 90s, why not take it further and abort all the poor people? That will lower crime even more."

The intended impact of this statement, though not technically a reductio ad absurdum (because Bennett is not talking about a logical result so much as a policy decision) would be to illustrate the poor reasoning of the argument by pointing out the adsurd policy choices that could be drawn from it. And this conclusion is the fact that more poor people commit crimes than rich or middle class people, so if we want to reduce the crime rate, let's get rid of (abort) all the fetuses of poor women and voila, no crime problem. The problem here is that not all poor people commit crimes, so you have a case in which you burn the village in order to save it.

"Why," you say, "that's ridiculous. And repugnant."

Exactly. The point has been made. Unless of course, you're into knee jerks and any mention of race gives you the gridgies.

But let's look at it this way. Bill Bennett, as far as I know, is not a racist Valerie Solanas, who is famous for shooting Andy Warhol, but also advocated the abolition of men because men rape. Solanas was serious, though crazy. Bennett isn't saying that this is a good idea. Every critic is focusing not on wnat Bennett said, but what the project that he meant. And that, to them, is that he considers blacks innately inclined to crime.

So far I haven't heard Bennett actually endorse Eugenics, but if he does, I'll blog about it.

This, somehow is getting more traction than the conservative line about a year ago that posited that abortion is what has kept the Democratic Party out of power and will continue to do so as long as abortion is legal. The thinking, and how this can be measured, I don't know, is that more liberals get abortions. Liberals vote Democrat. Less liberal babies have been born, so less Democratic voters.

However, Levitt points out that most abortions don't eliminate births so much as put them off, so there is a delay rather than a reduction. Bennett illustrates that he did not understand Levitt's argument. I'm not sure I understand everything Levitt writes, but here I think that he's basically saying that delaying pregnancy allows a woman to have children when she is more economically enabled, thus keeping her and her family out of poverty and thus reducing crime. In this, Levitt is agnostic on race. Bennett chose to extrapolate to make a point and ended up sounding like a nut.

I am getting tired of having to defend conservatives, especially those whom I find to be slithery and worthless. But really, all the wailing about Bennett is ridiculous. And if we're going to decide that any discussion about race makes one a racist, well... where's the next stupid remark going to come from? Bennett's fault is that he's stupid. He's not a racist.

It's An Honor Just To Be Nominated.

I'm going to be honest and real here for just a second.

It's very encouraging for a poor, lonely blogger to have other bloggers whom you respect and whom you self-servingly refer to as your "peers" notice and approve of your work. I have been so honored in the past by The Watcher's Council and was nominated a second time this week for a post that I wrote here. I didn't win the non-Council category this time around. That went to this post by a blogger I have not read before, but after today I certainly will. Erudite and funny. I also think that it is a particularly amusing synchronicity that Cassandra and I wrote posts with the same title within days of each other. But hers blows mine away. And that's not to be construed as sexual harassment in any way.

The Council winner is here and the roster of posts nominated is here.

Reading over the various posts nominated is both fascinating and humbling because of the talent on display. I have to start taking my education more seriously.

So thanks to the Council for the nomination and the vote.

Judith Miller Released, Will Testify While The Times Investigates Itself.

I'm beginning to like the extra-long headline. Makes me feel like Bill Keller, his very own self.

Judith Miller obviously can't take "yes" for an answer. Turns out that Scooter Libby has let her off the hook. Twice. Once, a year ago. The second time, ten days ago. So why would Miller go to jail? Does she like using the toilet in front of other people? Does she have some weird Martha Stewart fixation and wanted to be in prison just like Martha? Is she just incredibly dense?

The New York Times, Miller's paper doesn't know, either. In fact, The Times can't get a straight answer from... itself:

In written statements today, Ms. Miller and executives of The New York Times did not identify the source who had urged Ms. Miller to testify. Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times, said that Mr. Fitzgerald had assured Ms. Miller's lawyer that "he intended to limit his grand jury interrogation so that it would not implicate other sources of hers."

Here's a bit of advice for reporters David Johnston and Douglas Jehl: Why don't you just walk down the hall and ask Bill Keller?

Much about Ms. Miler's role in the matter remains unclear. Mr. Keller, the newspaper's executive editor, has declined to say whether she was assigned to report about Mr. Wilson's trip, whether she had tried to write a story about it, or whether she ever told editors or colleagues at the newspaper that she had obtained information about the role played by Ms. Wilson.

Those damn fat cats at The Times! They're just hiding the truth from The Times! There is something, I don't know, bizarre? about a newspaper reporting on itself and still not getting the story right. This is like Dan Rather saying that he wants to be the one to break the story about those forged TANG documents.

Miller still can't, or won't explain why she went to jail to protect a source who released her from any obligation, a source, I will add, that is part of no story ever written by Miller. Then, a month before the grand jury is to be dissolved, she decided to testify. About what?

Hopefully, The New York Times will be on the hunt for the truth.

Payback's A Bitch.

There are enough reasons to dislike Tom DeLay. Let's start with his grinding the House to impeach Clinton and move on to his many cronies that have used their expressed proximity to his high office in order to reap money and influence. Let's remind ourselves that this is a leader who is so married to pork that he had the temerity to declare the battle against government waste over and won. Let's also remember that his re-redistricting of the Texas Congressional delegation was not the finest moment in Republican politics. And his demagoguery of Terri Schiavo's suffering was as ugly as the other side's glee.

Still, Tom DeLay would not be as much a target for Democratic retribution if he wasn't so damn successful. Yesterday, the Democrats got their payback. And it was a big mistake. I have read as much as I could find about the indictment that Ronnie Earle let loose today and I have to say that even though DeLay is rightly considered innocent until, well, you know, this doesn't seem to me to be anything more than a way to get DeLay out of power.

On the face of it, the case looks like money laundering. Corporate money (which is not allowed to go to Texas State candidates) was given to Delay's PAC, and then sent to the RNC. The RNC took money from a separate account and sent it back to the state. However, this isn't illegal in Texas, where the loophole was kept in for just this purpose. We can go into the campaign finance reform farce at a later date.

So Earle can't indict on money laundering so he pulls out the cheapest trick: conspiracy, which is basically easy to bring and hard to prove, unless you're a ham sandwich. But whatever, the Democrats are rejoicing because the GOP has already replaced DeLay with Roy Blunt (MO) and not David Dreier, the Congressmen whom partisans like Duncan Black and Kos love to point out is gay. The GOP missed a chance of stuffing the multi-culti into the democrats face by elevating Dreier, but they lost their nerve and caved to the rabid religious right.

DeLay crashed Brit Hume's party last night and took up the last half hour knocking softballs out of the park. Hume was obviously both amused and delighted at DeLay's quiet rap on the studio door asking to be let in. And Hume obliged, because, well, who wouldn't? And as Hume makes no bones about where his sympathies lay, it was a no brainer. And it was a shrewd though ultimately empty move on DeLay's part. Hume's show is the only reason to watch FOX after 6 p.m. and he allowed the Congressman to vent and tell his side of the story. One would imagine that had Ronnie Earle asked, Hume would have had him on, too.

So DeLay skulked around the FOX DC bureau all night it seems, showing up later on Hannity & Colmes to go over yet again what a piece of Texas sludge Earle is. I think he also appeared with Greta later on to enlist in the search for Natalie Holloway.

Previously, Nancy Pelosi took the bit from her mouth and expressed shock, shock I say, as to the demonstrable level of GOP corruption. Because, you know, Democrats are pure of heart and chaste of soul. But that only came about from being in the wilderness for so long. And meanwhile the Republicans are doing the quarantine cha-cha away from DeLay even as they pinch in to get him that long-overdue gold watch.

If DeLay is guilty, then he deserves jail. But, and it pains me to say this, I don't think that the DA can prove a thing. But that is not the point. The damage, as they say, is already done. DeLay is another Trent Lott, now. He will likely keep his office, but he will never be Leader again. And that's what the Democrats wanted.

I say that this is a mistake because when DeLay in acquitted, as he probably will be, the Democrats will have done nothing than increase the alienation that the party engenders in many parts of the country. If they think that suddenly Texas is coming back to the Donkey, they are mistaken. And Texas is the only state where this story will play. So the Democratic party continues to pay to its "base" as if it is going anywhere. And this vaunted base just moves the party further and further into the leftist wonderland and leaves true liberal and moderate Democrats feeling ignored and confused.

So Democrats of a certain stripe will rejoice for a while, and those who would rather prosecute based on ideology than fact will twirl in their collective oblivion and, come 2006, wonder why the rest of the nation is still so damn stupid. The Democrats would be smart to take their argument of rampant cronyism and incompetence in the GOP to the people rather than to a grand jury. This looks like harassment because the Dems haven't exactly look competent themselves. And they still haven't realized that when politicians accuse other politicians of corruption, most voters see nothing more than a bunch of kettles and pots.

The reason DeLay should not be Leader is not that he is corrupt or successful or nasty. It's because he has failed to make good on the promise the GOP made when they finally took the House back in 1994. What happened to shrinking government, making it more efficient and accountable? What happened to individual and state's rights? Part of what I called at the time The Contract On America was to rid Congress of the old boys way and clean out the halls of power. Well, not much cleaning has been done and even now, with a Republican Senate, the GOP has proven in practice that their words didn't mean a thing.

However, the Democrats are hardly in a place to now be the party of reform, since they have spent so much time being the party of No. We'll see, of course, but the Dems aren't going to get anywhere with the current leadership. Remember that the only two Democrats to win the presidency in the last forty years were centrists from way outside the Beltway.

I would bet that somewhere last night, Bill Clinton, the most successful Democratic politician of this era, watched all the news shows and clinked glasses with whomever he was with. He may even have allowed himself a congratulatory cigar. And as he raised his martini to his lips, he said, almost to himself, "Heh, Tom. Payback's a bitch."

Constance Motley, RIP.

When we talk of heroic figures, especially in this country, too many times athletes or entertainers or politicians who least deserve it are mentioned most frequently. Heroism is not bravado, but the courage to stand in the face of injustice and danger, quelling the natural fear and deciding to forge ahead anyway. There are, almost by definition, very few who possess the qualities that make one heroic.

Constance Baker Motley was such a person. A daughter of immigrants from Nevis, Motley's fire for justice was ignited when, at 15, she was turned away from a public beach because she was black. between then and now, Motley worked for racial justice, working on the most important cases in the country's civil rights movement and with leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. Robert  F. Kennedy, Thurgood Marshall and Medgar Evers. She died yesterday in Manhattan.

From civil rights leader, she became Manhattan borough and finally a federal judge in 1966, the first black female federal judge.

Constance Motley is not a household name like Marshall of King, but without her, the civil rights movement would not have been as successful. She was the rock upon which the lives of millions of children have since been built.

Constance Baker Motley was 84.

Harry Hangs It Up.

Liberal liberty defender and blogger extraordinaire Harry of Harry's Place is giving up the pixels. Not all is lost, as his comrades will continue their good work and Harry will be around from time-to-time.

It is no coincidence that the blogosphere has become the natural home for the pro-liberation left and the rest of the ‘muscular liberals’ – after all, where else is there to turn to? The Guardian, for example, can open its pages to Tories such as Kenneth Clarke and Douglas Hurd and, further to the right from John Laughland on to Bin Laden supporters – anyone in fact, of any political shade, who takes either an anti-war or pro-Islamist position, but it has been notably reluctant to give a serious hearing to those on the democratic left who support the struggles of democrats in the Middle East. Well that’s your problem Seumas, old boy, because the debate continues anyway– the means of media production, distribution and exchange are at everyone's disposal now.

I have read Harry since the begining, although I have never (I don't think) commented on the site. If you want to get a good handle on the liberal case for the war, Harry's Place is a perfect site to read.

I find that his personal political voyage closely mirrors mine, and it has been comforting knowing that there were like-minded bloggers out there.

I wish him well and will miss his fine and clear intellect.

DeLay Indicted.

It's Christmastime in Donkeyland.

House Majority Leader To DeLay has been indicted by a grand jury and will face conspiracy charges stemming from a campaign finance scheme:

DeLay attorney Steve Brittain said DeLay was accused of a criminal conspiracy along with two associates, John Colyandro, former executive director of a Texas political action committee formed by DeLay, and Jim Ellis, who heads DeLay's national political committee.

As per House rules, DeLay must step down from his post. David Dreier (CA) will be recommended for the fill-in.

"The defendants entered into an agreement with each other or with TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee) to make a political contribution in violation of the Texas election code," says the four-page indictment. "The contribution was made directly to the Republican National Committee within 60 days of a general election."

The indictment against the second-ranking, and most assertive Republican leader came on the final day of the grand jury's term. It followed earlier indictments of a state political action committee founded by DeLay and three of his political associates.

The grand jury action is expected to have immediate consequences in the House, where DeLay is largely responsible for winning passage of the Republican legislative program. House Republican Party rules require leaders who are indicted to temporarily step aside from their leadership posts.

However, DeLay retains his seat representing Texas' 22nd congressional district, suburbs southwest of Houston.

The particulars:

The indictment accused DeLay of a conspiracy to "knowingly make a political contribution" in violation of Texas law outlawing corporate contributions. It alleged that DeLay's Texans for a Republican Majority political action committee accepted $155,000 from companies, including Sears Roebuck, and placed the money in an account.

The PAC then wrote a $190,000 check to an arm of the Republican National Committee and provided the committee a document with the names of Texas State House candidates and the amounts they were supposed to received in donations.

The indictment included a copy of the check.

DeLay has had several ethical lapses, to be charitable, not the least of which was having his travel expenses paid by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who has some fairly nasty friends.

In related news, two days ago President Bush was heard telling DeLay, "Tommy, you're doing a hell of a job," which is the GOP's version of the mafia kiss.

Commander In Chief: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...pffft.

Some random observations on the new presidential, uh, drama:

Wow, does Geena Davis look bad. Did the producers force her to plump up so that she would have more "weight" or is the prospect of playing Hillary three years in advance enough to drive some people to slam the Hagen Daz?

I had very low expectations for the show and they were happily realized. We spent most of the time laughing at the dialog and I found myself looking at my watch and marveling just how long an hour can be. Sherry's opinion was that the writers must have assumed that they had to clear out all the Powerful Female clichés in the first episode.

But we haven't had a president since Jed Bartlett jumped the shark several seasons back, so I suppose that Mackenzie Allen will have to do. The show would have been much better, incidentally, if the president's name had been something like Abzug. At least then, all those nasty Republican tricks would have made sense.

One vérité element was that there were no Democrats present in the government, kind of like it is in "real" life. Another was the brain dead Republican president. The joke here is that even with his brain quietly exploding beneath a swath of bandage and an impressively large tube lodged in his right nostril, the doomed CIC was still more articulate than the actual specimen. Some other jokes were that he had tapped a female veep and a black chief of staff. We know that would would never happen. And for some reason, none of the speechwriters were Jewish. What's up with that?

Leave it to television to come up with a plot device that has the new skirted president flexing her military muscles by sending in the Marines to rescue a Nigerian woman who was set to be executed for "having sex" or something like that. Yes, it's The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sista-presidency. The achievement is quite impressive. The writers managed to condescend to almost every woman in America in under 40 minutes.

I'm not sure what to make of the feature that President Allen is an Independent. I assume that this is so she'll get nowhere with either party, which just might end up saving the Republic.

Full Court Press: Mary Mapes, Katrina And The Media's Obsession With Itself.

It's been rather difficult for me to become exercised about the news lately, hence my lack of posting. My problem has been in defining what it is that I have to add to the cacophony that generally serves to obfuscate, and in some areas obliterate, any real sense of understanding. So I have refrained from adding yet another hollow opinion to the various strains of invective flu that passes for rational discourse.

Yet, today we have in front of us some evidence that those who peddle the news do so with more fervor for their own sense of self worth than for any attention to reporting facts.

Mary Mapes, the disgraced ex-producer of 60 Minutes, has a book out that seems to want to address everything but the facts of how she became an ex. In the extract on Amazon, she writes that she and her team had "made news" in the story she produced wherein Dan Rather used false documents to further an unsubstantiated claim that came to be known as "Memogate." Fine. Rand Simberg and Greg Sheffield fairly take her apart in the manner that has become a hallmark of good blog criticism. What Ms Mapes fails to realize even now is that her job is not to make news, but to report it.

Meanwhile, as the truth of the various stories of carnage in the Superdome come out, the LA Times takes the media--and its own reporters--to task for what has turned out to be a media riot in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. This comes as we hear how proud of himself and his comrades Chris Matthews is. For another take on this very same exchange between Matthews and Peter King, check out Crooks and Liars. The left and right have decided that this is the perfect time to pretend that the shoddy, unconscionably false reportage was based on some political calculus, when in fact it was based on a sort of institutionalized propensity to believe the worst about minorities and the poor. But did the media just make up the stories, or were they started as most urban legends are, from puffery and frustration and often sourced from the subjects themselves?

The protest in Washington got its fair share of media and blog attention, too, although it depends on who you read whether or not you think it was success. And by the way, it does matter that many of those involved in the protest have been the recipients of some undeserved gentle treatment by the media. That clear-thinking people, both for and against the war have noticed much the same features of the so-called anti-war protesters shows that the media have a festering problem with upholding the principles and practices upon which they claim legitimacy.

I have no patience with charges of either liberal or conservative bias when it comes to the media. If only the whole mess was that easy to clean up. You know the drill. Bush can't catch a break because the media are amassed against him. Or rather, Bush gets a pass every time because, you know, the media are owned by big corporations and who loves big corporations more than Dubya? Back during the Clinton years, the media were supposed to be out for Bubba's blood, remember? Or am I the only one who sat through hours of breathless tabloid titillation about semen stains, cigar dildos and orally-fixated interns? If we all had just listened to Christopher Hitchens, we would have found quite enough to be unhappy about.

The evidence so far is that the media are biased towards the media and everyone else can just go to hell. There are certainly reporters, editors and producers with agendas, but when was that not so? The agenda is not what matters. What matters is how we choose to accept our news. We are unfortunately in the position of having to take every news story and every news outlet as a lie until proven otherwise. I find it common practice to sit down with friends and defend my habit of watching either CNN and FOX (I really haven't warmed to MSNBC yet) or even worse, of watching both. I find that I have tired of the defense and have instead made it my business not to offer explanation why I think that neither channel merits unalterable fidelity.

The attitude displayed by the media whether in reference to their subjects or their consumers, is encapsulated by Dan Rather himself, through the conduit of Mary Mapes', if not exactly poison, then at least mildly toxic pen:

Dan told me he was confident in the story and that he was lucky to work with me. He signed off by saying something that had become a shorthand for us over the years: “F-E-A.” That was code for “F---’Em All,” a sentiment that needed to be expressed from time to time in any newsroom.

You see, those who hold the nation's news in charge have just such an over blown sense of mission and paranoia that the sentiment simply cried out to be spoken. Why? The answer may be that as keepers of the ultimate truth, or at least truth as they themselves define it, media habitues don't much like standing up to the same sort of scrutiny that they dish out to those whom they cover. Dan Rather means it when he says F--- 'Em All. Everyone is arrayed against him, and no one is worthy of demanding accountability from him.

But Rather is not alone, alas. Just spend a few minutes in the warm glow of Bill O'Reilly's ego and you will have your conservative Rather.

As for Mapes, and all those like her, I am reminded of Yum-Yum, Gilbert & Sullivan's little maid in The Mikado for whom the world has been made:

The sun, whose rays

Are all ablaze

With ever-living glory,

Does not deny

His majesty--

He scorns to tell a story!

He don't exclaim,

"I blush for shame,

So kindly be indulgent."

But, fierce and bold,

In fiery gold,

He glories all effulgent!

 

I mean to rule the earth,

As he the sky--

We really know our worth,

The sun and I!

 

I mean to rule the earth,

As he the sky--

We really know our worth,

The sun and I!

Observe his flame,

That placid dame,

The moon's Celestial Highness;

There's not a trace

Upon her face

Of diffidence or shyness:

She borrows light

That, through the night,

Mankind may all acclaim her!

And, truth to tell,

She lights up well,

So I, for one, don't blame her!

 

Ah, pray make no mistake,

We are not shy;

We're very wide awake,

The moon and I!

 

Ah, pray make no mistake,

We are not shy;

We're very wide awake,

The moon and I!

Knowing And Unknowing.

Critics delight in deriding Don Rumsfeld's slight-of-mouth when he talks about Iraq and the larger war on radical Islam. Of course, he doesn't call it a war on radical Islam because that is too direct even for the supposedly straight-talking Defense Secretary (incidentally, I think that it's about time we revert to the older, more honest moniker, War Department). There is much to criticize about the Secretary's handling or mishandling of Iraq, but even he has a moment of clarity from time to time.

Mr. Rumsfeld is famous for uttering "we don't know what we don't know." This statement has been taken as a sure sign of the old guy playing with truth, but this is one of his sentences that I am coming to appreciate. Truly, in more areas than we wish to acknowledge, we do not know enough to know that we don't know what we don't know.

In the spirit of that statement, I am going to attempt at least to embark on a project that on the surface looks like a hedge, but is, I hope, an earnest and honest pursuit of something.

I am throwing out all of my preconceptions, opinions, theories and beliefs and will try to look at things intelligently and dispassionately, no matter what evidence I find and no matter what conclusions I come to, if I come to any at all. The foundation of belief is at odds with intelligence and the moment we start to form theories and hold onto opinions, we lose the ability to remain open. Perceptiveness loses and understanding becomes virtually impossible because we don't want our beliefs challenged or our opinions changed.

This is a minor gamble, seeing that I have for the most part lost my audience already, for whatever reasons. I don't do this to provoke for the sake of it. There are bloggers all over the place who are amassing large readerships by holding onto dogma and slamming any alternative viewpoint. I can't compete. An honestly, I don't want to.

By coincidence, I have found this quote from Ken Kesey on Jack Grant's fine site:

I’ve never seen anybody really find the answer — they think they have, so they stop thinking. But the job is to seek mystery, evoke mystery, plant a garden in which strange plants grow and mysteries bloom. The need for mystery is greater than the need for an answer.
   -Ken Kesey

A good example of open thinking and inquiry is Jack's post here. And some of the comments are quite telling. Many people, upon having their cherished beliefs challenged resort to invective and ad hominems rather than engage in a search.

I had most of my preconceptions shattered on the morning of September 11, but I instantly veered into another, diametrically opposite set of preconceptions as if everything I had "known" before was false. So I lurched from polemic to polemic in search of a comforting and comfortable mindset. It was, and has been, harrowing at times. It has been painful much of the time as many friends have chosen to abandon rather than engage. But I have not been completely uncomfortable in my isolation. Complacent is a good descriptor. Fearful is another.

I am now more afraid of losing any sort of curiosity and understanding than in losing connections or ethereal associations. So if my traffic trickles to the seven a day I started out with, so be it. For those who want blanket endorsement of any particular agenda, look elsewhere. There are many blogs to pick from that are much more popular and much more cemented in their dogma. You know who they are.

I am dislodging my thinking and opening to mystery and inquiry. I hope that you will stop back, comment (if anybody's reading, anyway) and engage.