"SPINCERITY", THE DECLINE OF DEMOCRACY, BORAT, PORN MOMS ETC.

IMAGE OF THE DAY (POSTED A FEW DAYS LATER BECAUSE THE ENTRY LOOKED TOO TEXT HEAVY)

BILL CLINTON DOUBLE TRIBUTE OF THE DAY:

Here is essential subtext of Ted Haggard's recent statements: "I did not have sex with that Gay prostitute...not one time...I only bought crystal meth...but I did not inhale. I mean swallow. Yes, I had oral sex with that Gay Prostitute. One time. But I did not swallow Yes, that's it." Nice to see that the Republicans have learned from Bill Clinton after all.

Now, if the Democrates could only learn a thing or two from Karl Rove. Which brings us to...

DECOY COUNTER ATTACK OF THE DAY:

It is well known that the president of the largest manufacturer of electronic voting booths, Diebold, is on record as saying he would do everything in his power to make sure the Republicans won Ohio in 2004. So when I saw an article entitled "Investigation into Voting Machine tampering" I figured, OK, better late than never. They're finally gonna look into possible electronic abuses that during the 2004 elections. Imagine my surprise then when I discovered that far from being an investigation into alleged Republican bias, it was an investigation into alleged Democratic bias! Yes, evidently one of the smaller manufacturers of electronic voting machines is based in Venezuela. And, evidently, someone from the company was supposed to have some kind of a connection to anti-Satanist (err, I mean Bush-hating) Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. Anyhow, another shamelessly bold pre-emptive decoy attack. Another weapon of mass distraction. Much like Bush attacking Kerry for not being a real war hero. Brilliant. Why can't the Democrats dream this kind of stuff up? Oh, yes, because the poor godless enemies of family values are handicapped by the vestigial presence of a conscience.

ARTICLE OF THE DAY:

Nice article about the state of Democracy by Michael Kinsley in this week's NYT Book Review. Makes the case that the biggest threat to Democracy in America is the rampant intellectual dishonesty in Politics--a dishonesty (which he distinguishes from outright lying) that undermines the basic contract with the electorate on which representative democratic government is predicated. In other words, if candidates cynically assume positions that do not reflect their true feelings or give an indication of the actions they will take once elected to office, then the idea of meaningful voting is undermined. Another way of saying this of course, is he objects to the triumph of spin over sincerity. ( "Spincerity"--if you will-- trumps sincerity much as Truthiness trumps truth.). While he doesn't take the media to task for failing to expose these inconsistent and disingenuous posturings (which, again, he tries to distinguish from outright, readily ascertainable lies), I would argue that such inconsistency or cynical expediency is in itself a reportable fact that can be construed to constitute "news." In other words, if they do not ever analyze or critique the spincerity in political discourse, the media is simply complicit in the undermining of meaningful democracy. If they do not actively distinguish between truthiness and truth, they become mere collaborators with and propagandists for the spinmeisters in power. While I admire Kinsley's attempt to be truly (rather than truthily) fair and balanced, I do think he lets the media off too easily in his otherwise very astute analysis of the forces undermining our Democracy.

NEW TERM OF THE DAY:

Spincerity. The artful and political expedient simulation of sincerity. First cousin of "Truthiness" and "Authenticitude."

NEW AMERICAN MOTTO OF THE DAY:

Truthiness, Spincerity and the Pursuit of Authenticitude.

STRATEGIC OBSERVATION OF THE DAY:

It is striking to me how strategically shortsighted the Democrats are. Right now, they are dedicating all of their energies to an attack on the war that feels essentially small and opportunistic. Things are not going well. Public opinion has shifted. Let's ride that wave to victory. Which is fine, as far as it goes. But it is not a sustainable or meaningful platform to build on. It is reactive and circumstantial and does not free them from the contradictions (i.e. I was for the war until I was against it) that have plagued their attempt to establish a coherent narrative on the issue.

Moving towards 2008, they must start framing the issue in the larger and more compelling terms of homeland security. Indeed, their core positioning should be: We will make America safer and stronger, by being smarter. (This is the thought, not the wording--as the word "smart" will no doubt come across as an attack on the troops!). Anyhow, from this core positioning, everything else naturally flows. The war is bad because it is making us less safe rather than more safe, as our own national intelligence survey concluded. Boosting sympathies and recruitments for the terrorists is not smart and makes us less safe rather than more safe. Actions in the name of homeland security that do not have truth and moral authority on their side (read: the dishonest selling of the war, the creation of secret prisons, the implicit authorization of torture and the deprivation of basic human rights), undermine rather than promote our safety and security. Alienating allies by arrogant and dishonest unilateral actions is not smart and makes us less safe rather than more safe--particularly as we are in acute need of these countries' intelligence in order to battle our actual rather than imagined enemies. Etc.

The "smarter, stronger, more secure America" positioning not only gives the Democrats a compelling framework for attacking the mistakes of the recent past, but for framing a platform for future action--on both the international and domestic fronts. I.e. Lessening our dependence on foreign oil is in the interests of our national security. And while our administration occasionally pays lip service to energy independence, it does not deliver the funds to make it happen. We will. Having a healthy and well educated population is essential for keeping America strong and safe. Which is why will make sure everyone has access to decent schools and decent medical care. Protecting the environment and attempting to reverse global warming is essential for our security and, indeed, for our survival as a people. Which is why we will devote moneys to the development of clean energy technologies and create financial incentives for environmentally enlightened actions etc. Etc. Etc. The positioning allows the party to justify each of its domestic and international proposals in the context of a larger collective societal benefit: Keeping us safer and stronger. And it finally allows the Democrats to define the national discourse on their own terms.

Just a thought.

TV MOMENT OF THE DAY:

Jon Stewart and Sacha Baron Cohen as Borat on The Daily Show: A proud moment for Jew-kind. Borat spitting out the tea he'd just sipped when he learned that Stewart was of the Hebraic persuasion. It's probably a sign of societal progress that such mock anti-semitism can be publicly represented by Jewish comedians. (But perhaps it's also, at some unconscious level, some kind of a cathartic expression of internal ethnic ambivalence). Baron Cohen is to anti-semitism as Chappele is to anti-black racism: The priviledged self-mocking exponent/exposer.

Speaking of Borat. Here's the...

LINK OF THE DAY:

http://www.gofish.com/player.gfp?gfid=30-1000483&hid=2141213386

It's Borat singing "Throw the Jew down the Well." Amazing. In a weird way, the guy is doing something truly ingenious. Not since Colbert at the Washington Correspondent's Dinner have I seen something so gasp-inducingly funny, exquisitely discomfitting and, actually, thought provoking.

In addition to all the reflections it provokes about dormant racism in our society, the fact that it's such a catchy tune makes one think about the seductive power of melody to eclispe the meaning of lyrics. Do those people even know what they are singing? Were they more than merely melodic phonemes? For all the thought I gave it, the anthems of my adolescence could have been advocating arianism, bestiality or pedophilia and I probably wouldn't have noticed.

But, nah, let's not let those freaking anti-semite bastards off the hook so easily.

Throw the Jew hater down the well! Throw the Jew hater down the well!

QUESTION OF THE DAY:

Which is worse for a woman: To have her boyfriend addicted to internet fantasy sports or internet fantasy porn?

RESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM ACT OF THE DAY:

The NYT Headline on this last Sunday before the election. "GOP Glum as it Struggles to Keep Control of Congress." Nice to see them editorializing in favor of the Democrats for a change--as glumness is hardly an objectively definable or newsworthy state. Go NYT!! Better late than never! Finally spinning in the right direction!

IRRESPONSIBLE JOURNALISM ACT THE DAY:

The NYT joining the rest of the media in irresponsibly playing into the willful Republican misinterpretation of the Kerry botched joke and letting it become a distractive side show right before the election.

CORRESPONDENT'S REPORT OF THE DAY:

From Correspondent at Large (make that at Medium), Loren Parkins

Today's big news was that I went to the eye doctor, and discovered that I either do, or do not, have a bacterial infection in my eye. This is great news, because I spent an entire hour in the middle of the busy work day,not to mention another hour going and coming, sitting in the doctors office, after being told he was running "right on-time", (now I know that "on time" for a doctor means 1 hour wait.so go, check in with the doctor, then get a sandwich at the local lunch counter, relax, have a cup of coffee and browse the magazine section, it's going to be an hour, he's on-time!!) telling myself that if anyone KNOWS what's going on with my eyes, THE DOCTOR would. So when I finally got to see him and he spent 13 seconds looking in my eyes, and the next 4 minutes carefully washing his hands with special hand sanitizer foam and explained to me that I either did or did not have something in my eyes that would or would not require an antibiotic, I was truly relieved. Now I KNOW for SURE, that I either do or do not have a bacterial eye infection....And in this uncertain world, that kind of reassurance is invaluable.

ANOTHER QUESTION OF THE DAY:

Why is it that so many of the Teds in the public eye are really unpleasant characters? Ted Bundy. Ted Kazcynski. Ted Nugent. Ted Hughes (Of Sylvia Plath abusing fame) And now, the Very Reverend, Ted Haggard. Plus, Ted Williams wasn't such a nice guy. And lord knows Ted Kennedy has had his ignominious moments. In fact, among the famous Teds who come to mind, only Ted Turner and Ted Koppel seem to be decent guys. Maybe this is one reason why, after a brief early adulthood experiment with the name Ted, I went right back to Teddy...returning to my childhood appelation as the salmon to the spawning ground.

WISH I HAD MY CAMERA MOMENT OF THE DAY:

In a vegan restaurant, I saw a porn star holding her baby between her barely clothed breasts.

BUSINESS IDEA OF THE DAY:

Porn Star Moms. It'd make a hell of a coffee table book.

UNFUNNY, UNIRONIC APPEAL OF THE DAY:

Make some calls for Moveon.org or some other "Get Out the Democratic Vote" operation or at least donate a few dollars to the Democratic Party so they can run a few more stupid attack ads and get a few more stupid votes so we can all wake up on Wednesday morning feeling like maybe our country is a little less stupid than we feared.

IRAQ GOOD NEWS OF THE DAY:

No Shia, Sunni or Kurd gay-bashing religious leader was forced to resign after admitting to having repeated clandestine meetings with a gay prostitute during which he bought crystal meth but did not swallow.

SIGN OFF OF THE DAY:

My name is Teddy Vegas. And I approved this message.

Tags:   None

© All rights reserved.

Posted on 11/6/2006 ( Permanent Link )
Read 476 Times
 Send to Friend