Last night I caught a part of the show “Tough Crowd” in which Colin Quinn was arguing in favor of racial profiling. His argument was roughly this : “If I see an Irish guy stumble out of a bar, should I automatically assume that he was just in there for the peanuts?” In other words, why shy away from stereotypes if they have a basis in fact? Rather than get on a rant about why stereotyping is just another example of self-fulfilling prophecies and selective observation (I’ll just say this : If the prevailing stereotype about young black men was that they were all nerdy, suddenly every black guy would start looking like Urkel), I want to clear up the misconception that the liberal objection to racial profiling is another example of political correctness run amok.

The real problem with racial profiling is that it doesn’t work. While these examples are about fighting terrorism, I think they’re probably applicable to any type of racial profiling.

The real reason we should elect Howard Dean is because it might make Saturday Night Live funny again. This whole “having a retarded frat-boy for a president” thing hasn’t worked out (comically or otherwise), especially after the twin tragedies of 9-11 and Will Ferrell’s leaving the show. With a Howard Dean presidency, SNL can count on four years of comedy gold!

I wonder if I’m the only one who wanted to watch this debate, just to see what the hell Howard Dean would say in response to the last few days of media criticism. For those who missed it, here’s his response :

DEAN: You know, I’m not a perfect person. I think a lot of people have had a lot of fun at my expense over the Iowa hooting and hollering, and that’s justified. But one thing I can tell you is that I’m not kidding about what I say.

The things that I do are things I believe in. I think it’s important that the president of the United States be willing to stand up for what’s right and not stand up for what’s popular.

I did it with No Child Left Behind. That was a mistake a year ago, not just now that everybody’s suffering with it. I did it in Iraq. And I did it when I stood up for civil unions for gay and lesbian people my home state when it wasn’t popular. And I’m willing to do it again as president.

Pretty good response, but not the joke I was hoping for. Of course, the class clown of this race had a good one liner for us :

SHARPTON: Well, first of all, let me say this. I wanted to say to Governor Dean, don’t be hard on yourself about hooting and hollering. If I had spent the money you did and got 18 percent, I’d still be in Iowa hooting and hollering.

(LAUGHTER)

(APPLAUSE)

SHARPTON: So, don’t worry about it, Howard.

(LAUGHTER)

DEAN: Thanks, Reverend.

Hopefully, this will stop the near-endless loop of Dean screaming state names on the news.

Ever since I first saw Roger & Me ten years ago, I’ve been a huge fan of Michael Moore. When I was in college, I remember sitting in my dorm room watching TV Nation with my stepbrother, awestruck that something this radical would ever be shown on TV. In the years since, I’ve been the first in line for any of his movies, books, and television programs (not that you actually wait in line to watch TV, but you know what I mean).

In the wake of the success of Stupid White Men and Bowling for Columbine, there has been a flurry of criticism of Moore and his methods. Whether fueled by ideological differences or personal grudges, his work has been picked apart so much that it’s hard to have a conversation about him without using the words “Yeah, but…” Because of this, even his staunchest defenders have been forced to concede that he’s an amusing blowhard who’s sloppy with the facts. In short, he’s our Rush Limbaugh.

This is what I had in mind as I ate dinner with him following the “Bush in 30 Seconds” awards ceremony. When Dan told me that he was going to introduce us to Michael, I expected a Franken-esque brushoff. Within minutes of meeting however, we were already discussing the reasons for his pending endorsement of Wesley Clark. He was not only incredibly down-to-earth, but he was a lot more pragmatic than the raving left-wing nut who the media loves to hate.

A while later, however, he said something that I was convinced was another one of those lies that conservatives love to pin on him (I’m paraphrasing here) :

“Right after I gave the award to the guy who won the contest [Charlie Fisher who created Child's Pay], he pulled me aside and said ‘When I read the letter from the soldier that you posted on your website, I cried for fifteen minutes.’”

“Bullshit”, I thought. “There’s no way somebody was crying for fifteen minutes over some letter”. (You can read the letters here.)

A while later, when we were at the after-party, Tom and I ended up hanging out with Charlie. When I mentioned that we had met Michael Moore, he gushed about how much he loves Michael Moore’s work and said “Have you read the letter on his homepage? After I read it, I cried for twenty minutes.” Wow. It turns out, Michael wasn’t lying after all.

Now if this had happened to one of Michael Moore’s frequent detractors, I’m sure they would have spun it to make him look bad. They’d probably write an article called “Stupid White Man” and make the argument that Moore can’t stop lying (Something like : “Moore said fifteen minutes when Fisher cried for twenty. Can he get anything right?”) For me, however, I feel like I’ve seen first-hand what happens when you give media spin too much credibility (conciously or subconciously).

[And speaking of Michael Moore being unfairly trashed, here's a prime example of what I'm talking about. This Salon interview is one of the most dishonest pieces of journalism I've ever read. After you've read that, check out my letter to the editor that they printed a couple weeks later.]

Just in case you missed this article from every other blog (or Andrew’s comment), check this out :

Republican staff members of the US senate Judiciary Commitee infiltrated opposition computer files for a year, monitoring secret strategy memos and periodically passing on copies to the media, senate officials told The Globe.

From the spring of 2002 until at least April 2003, members of the GOP committee staff exploited a computer glitch that allowed them to access restricted senate communications without a password. Trolling through hundreds of memos, they were able to read talking points and accounts of private meetings discussing which judicial nominees Democrats would fight — and with what tactics.

The office of senate Sergeant-at-Arms William Pickle has already launched an investigation into how excerpts from 15 senate memos showed up in the pages of the conservative-leaning newspapers and were posted to a website last November.

With the help of forensic computer experts from General Dynamics and the US Secret Service, his office has interviewed about 120 people to date and seized more than half a dozen computers — including four Judiciary servers, one server from the office of senate majority leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, and several desktop hard drives.

But the scope of both the intrusions and the likely disclosures is now known to have been far more extensive than the November incident, staffers and others familiar with the investigation say.

Republican staffers illegally breaking into senate property in order to steal files….hhmmmmm…how is this any different than Watergate??

Here’s some good advice for Howard Dean from Liberal Oasis :

In the first debate with Walter Mondale in 1984, Reagan?s performance was so shaky, doubts grew about his old age and his faculties.

His 26 point lead in the polls was cut in half. Mondale was back in it.

But in the next debate, when Reagan was asked about his age, he was ready. With perfect comedic timing, he said:

I want you to know that I will not make age an issue of this campaign.

I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent?s youth and inexperience.

Not only did the crowd roar in laughter, the joke reversed the doubts that he was losing it, because he put himself in command of the room.
. . .
A great joke about the ?Iowa Yell? could do the same for Dean.

He once was the most likeable candidate, the one best connecting with the people.

Showing he can skillfully laugh at himself would put to rest notions that he?s lost it, and remind voters about his likeable traits.

I couldn’t agree more. The media’s been playing that speech so much, the prevailing view of Howard Dean is of a hyperactive jackass. If he can’t deflect this, he’s done.

In order to brush this off, Dean needs a good joke that will poke fun at himself. As LO said, it’s got to strike just the right tone. It can’t be too wacky or too awkward. Do you guys have any suggestions for what Dean should say? Here’s mine :

“If you thought that was wild, you should see what happens when I win.”

Well, George Bush’s third state of the union was no match for the Nyquil that put me to sleep for half of it. Luckily, I was able to wake up and catch enough of it to see how awful it really was. And not just awful in that liberal/conservative way that I would categorize almost all of his speeches, but awful in the sense that it was a boring laundry list of issues and his weak defense of his conservative stances.

Like I said before, I fell asleep through most of it, but from what I’ve been reading (both in commentary about the speech and its transcript), I missed all the war talk. When I woke up from my chemically-fueled slumber, I saw what must be the worst speech Bush has ever given. In fact, it’s hard to believe this is the same guy who gave that incredible speech a few days after 9-11.

Is conservative discontent with the Bush Administration so great that Bush needed to veer this far to the right? I’d think that a better strategy would have been for Bush to seem more moderate in an effort to tar the Democrats as liberal extremists. I would have assumed that he would go with a “don’t change horses midstream” approach to reelection. Instead of running on his own merits (or lack thereof), it seems that Bush has done a lot of the hard work for us by turning this election into a choice between two very different candidates.

There are so many things worth criticizing in the speech, that I could spend all day. Instead, I’ll just treat you to a few of my favorite parts.

On healthcare :

A government-run health care system is the wrong prescription. By keeping costs under control, expanding access, and helping more Americans afford coverage, we will preserve the system of private medicine that makes America’s health care the best in the world.

Of course we have the best healthcare system in the world. For those that actually receive care, that is. Compared to every other industrialized country, we cover the lowest percentage of our population while paying the most per capita.

On drugs :

To help children make right choices, they need good examples. Athletics play such an important role in our society, but, unfortunately, some in professional sports are not setting much of an example. The use of performance-enhancing drugs like steroids in baseball, football, and other sports is dangerous, and it sends the wrong message — that there are shortcuts to accomplishment, and that performance is more important than character. So tonight I call on team owners, union representatives, coaches, and players to take the lead, to send the right signal, to get tough, and to get rid of steroids now.

Did they really cut all the space stuff for this??

On gay marriage :

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people’s voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.

There’s the line in the sand, and I think it’s ultimately Bush’s biggest mistake. The Democrats can fight this one off easily without even being tarred as the party of gay-wads (as little kids or the president might say). Yeah, gay marriage is a definite wedge issue, but going to the extreme of amending the constitution can be fought on that merit alone. The argument should be that the constitution shouldn’t be trivialized by something as relatively minor as “defending” marriage. If that doesn’t work, they could always say,t o borrow a phrase from conservatives, “the government should get out of our lives”. Of better yet, “I dunno about the president, but I’m more concerned with catching terrorists and providing healthcare to the millions of uninsured than keeping committed same-sex couples from having inheritance rights.”

Tonight, Bush is giving his annual State of the Union address (timed, or course, to steal headlines from the Iowa caucuses). While it should contain the standard wolf in sheep’s clothing proposals (or should that be “elephant in donkey’s clothing”), I can’t help but think that there’s a big surprise in store. Bush clearly needs to set the agenda for the next year as well as frame the debate to put the Democrats on the defensive.

Last year, he did this, in part, by announcing a program to try to help stop the spread of AIDS in Africa. What made this proposal so shocking was that it was an issue that conservatives couldn’t even be bothered to mention before (not unlike human rights abuses pre-Iraq). Of course, like most of his proposals, this one just turned out to be another conservative Trojan horse, used to sneak a radical agenda past an unsuspecting public.

Will this year be the same? I’ve already written about my fears that Bush’s “visionary” Mars plan is going to be used to cripple gathering of environmental data, but I can’t stop shaking the thought that there’s another big proposal that’s going to be announced. There’s a few ideas that have crossed my mind, but the one that keeps coming back to me is health care.

What if Bush unveiled a program that he calls “universal health care”? Well, it would put the Democrats on the defensive. Big time. Regardless of what the details of the plan actually are, Bush could easily use his bully pulpit to tout a faux-single payer solution that would make him look like a genius to voters while only moderately pissing off his conservative base. The way I see it, universal health care is gonna happen eventually. If Bush gains the upper hand, he could spin it in a way that would save his big business buddies millions in healthcare costs for employees, funnel the handling of this healthcare through private insurers, make the Democrats look less progressive on this issue than he is, and hide all the costs in deficits, cuts in other programs, or a payroll tax increase. If he sees the writing on the wall, what to stop him from taking the issue and twisiting into another conservative handout to the rich?

Granted these are all stream of consciousness, worst case scenario predictions that will probably never really happen. But then again, I never expected Bush to pretend he cared about human rights abuses by dictators or the AIDS crisis in Africa either.

Wow. Gephardt out? Dean in a distant third? Kerry winning? This is going to be an exciting primary season. A few thoughts :

For those of you who don’t quite understand the complicated ins and outs of the Iowa caucus system, this mp3 gives you a good idea of what it’s like to be there in person.

Hey Democrats, I hope you’re writing this shit down.

President Bush installed Judge Charles W. Pickering of Mississippi on a federal appeals court today, defying senate Democrats who had stymied the judge’s nomination on grounds that he is unsympathetic to civil rights causes.

The president named Judge Pickering to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, through a device known as a recess appointment.

An appointment like Judge Pickering’s, which are made while Congress is not in session, simply bypasses the senate confirmation process. But the appointment is only valid until the next Congress is seated in January 2005.
. . .
Judge Pickering’s supporters and detractors hold such opposite views that they could easily be talking about a different person.

As a student, Judge Pickering, who is now 66, wrote a law review article that appeared to suggest ways to remedy problems in the state’s laws prohibiting interracial marriages.

He bolted the Democratic party in 1964, the year that a credentials challenge by a largely black group from Mississippi ultimately led most of the state’s all-white delegation to walk out of the party’s national convention.
. . .
Much of the debate over the judge has turned on his actions on the bench in 1994, when he went to lengths to reduce the sentence of a man convicted of burning a cross on the lawn of a mixed-race couple. Judge Pickering’s supporters said that he had sought to reduce the sentence only because he believed that others involved in the incident were more culpable and had received far lighter sentences.

And like last year’s affirmative action speech, this appointment of a racist judge is nicely timed to coincide with Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Republicans always find new ways to throw a wink and a nod toward the most racist and hateful members of their party.

One of the reasons I support Howard Dean is that he’s one of the only Democrats I’ve ever seen call the Republicans on this tactic. Here’s an excerpt from Black Commentator that does a much better job explaining it than I can :

Howard Dean?s December 7 speech is the most important statement on race in American politics by a mainstream white politician in nearly 40 years. Nothing remotely comparable has been said by anyone who might become or who has been President of the United States since Lyndon Johnson?s June 4, 1965 affirmative action address to the graduating class at Howard University.

For four decades, the primary political project of the Republican Party has been to transform itself into the White Man?s Party. Not only in the Deep South, but also nationally, the GOP seeks to secure a majority popular base for corporate governance through coded appeals to white racism. The success of this GOP project has been the central fact of American politics for two generations ? reaching its fullest expression in the Bush presidency. Yet a corporate covenant with both political parties has prohibited the mere mention of America?s core contemporary political reality: the constant, routine mobilization of white voters through the imagery and language of race.

Last Sunday, Howard Dean broke that covenant:

In 1968, Richard Nixon won the White House. He did it in a shameful way ? by dividing Americans against one another, stirring up racial prejudices and bringing out the worst in people.

They called it the “Southern Strategy,” and the Republicans have been using it ever since. Nixon pioneered it, and Ronald Reagan perfected it, using phrases like “racial quotas” and “welfare queens” to convince white Americans that minorities were to blame for all of America’s problems.

The Republican Party would never win elections if they came out and said their core agenda was about selling America piece by piece to their campaign contributors and making sure that wealth and power is concentrated in the hands of a few.

To distract people from their real agenda, they run elections based on race, dividing us, instead of uniting us.

Dean?s Columbia, South Carolina, statement is equal in political import to Lyndon Johnson?s framing of the need for affirmative action, in 1965.

In short, Democrats need to start calling the Republicans on this early and often. It’s not enough to issue a quick statement in response to these incidents and forget about it the next day. They need to bring it up over and over again. The Republicans have been talking out of both sides of their mouths for too long. Americans need to realize that you can’t court racists and be committed to racial equality at the same time. Based on voting records alone, it’s pretty clear which side most Democrats fall on. It’s time for the Republicans need to pick a side and be honest about it.

For all you out there who live in the L.A. area and love to rock out, there’s some great rock shows coming your way in the next few days worth checking out. The Mr. T Experience is touring in support of their new album (which is fantastic, by the way). You can get tourdates at Dr. Frank’s site. If you’ve never seen MTX perform live, you’re missing out. Not only is their music incredibly catchy, but Dr. Frank is one of my favorite lyricists ever. (For a great example of this, download the mp3 and read the lyrics for the song “Institutionalized Misogyny”).

Also this weekend, is a show by The Muffs. This Saturday’s show should be really great not only because they’ll be playing stuff from their upcoming album, but they’ve got two kickass opening acts. Visqueen, which is the new band from Fastbacks lead singer Kim Warnick, and The Checkers, a local Blondie-esque rock band who make frequent use of the design skills of our own Tom Neely. If you plan on going, get there early. This one will sell out fast.

With the Iowa caucuses coming in a few days, everyone is watching the polls like a hawk. A few bloggers now have pointed to this latest Zogby poll that shows John Kerry opening a five-point lead. Lemme be the first to call “bullshit” on this one :

Candidate	1/13-15	1/12-14	1/11-13	1/10-12	1/9-11	1/8-10
MA Senator John Kerry	24	22	21	17	16	15
Former VT Governor Howard Dean	19	21	24	28	26	25
MO Congressman Richard Gephardt	19	21	21	23	23	23
NC Senator John Edwards	17	17	15	14	12	14
Retired General Wesley K. Clark	3	3	3	2	2	3
OH Congressman Dennis Kucinich	3	3	2	3	3	2
CT Senator Joseph Lieberman	1	1	1	1	2	3
Civil Rights Activist Rev. Al Sharpton	.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	1	1
Undecided	13	11	13	12	14	14

Something about these weird three-day polls that overlap each other rubs me the wrong way. Like all polls, even if the results can be somewhat trusted, the margin of error should be considered before drawing any conclusions. In this case, the MOE is big, and the additional caveats are just crazy :

Polling results will be released daily through Monday, January 19th, the date of actual caucus voting in Iowa.Zogby International conducted telephone interviews of a random sampling of 503 likely caucus voters statewide over a three-day period. All calls were made from Zogby International headquarters in Utica, N.Y., from Tuesday (1/13/04) thru Thursday (1/15/04). The margin of error is +/- 4.5%. Slight weights were added to party, age, education, union, and gender to more accurately reflect the voting population. Margins of error are higher in sub-groups.

Huh? Not only does the MOE almost completely cover Kerry’s lead, but they’ve been tinkering with the results. If they’re adjusting these findings to “more accurately reflect the voting population”, can I assume that whatever measure they’re adjusting against is based on polling as screwy as this one? And what exactly are these “sub-groups”, what’s the MOE, and why is it higher in some more than others?

With a sample size of only 503 people, here’s all you need to know : Al Sharpton’s 0.1% showing equals 0.503 people. So either only half a person supports Sharpton, or these results are garbage.

Here’s what Margaret Cho had to say about the opening to the “Bush in 30 Seconds” awards on her blog :

Moby and Vernon Reid opened the show with the best version of the “Star Spangled Banner.” I’d never heard it with thrashing guitars before.

Really??? Okay, somebody needs to email Margaret and tell her about Jimi Hendrix. I was so bored with the opening I leaned to Tom and Dan and whispered “How ‘Woodstock 94′ of them.” Hell, I’m surprised Moby’s cover band didn’t end the ceremony with a 30-minute rendition of “Give Peace A Chance”.

But the Vernon Reid Experience wasn’t the lamest tribute to the sixties this week. That honor would go to Bush’s promise to send a man to the moon (35 years after we already did it) :

America has ventured forth into space for the same reasons. We have undertaken space travel because the desire to explore and understand is part of our character. And that quest has brought tangible benefits that improve our lives in countless ways. The exploration of space has led to advances in weather forecasting, in communications, in computing, search and rescue technology, robotics, and electronics. Our investment in space exploration helped to create our satellite telecommunications network and the Global Positioning System. Medical technologies that help prolong life — such as the imaging processing used in CAT scanners and MRI machines — trace their origins to technology engineered for the use in space.
. . .
Returning to the moon is an important step for our space program. Establishing an extended human presence on the moon could vastly reduce the costs of further space exploration, making possible ever more ambitious missions. Lifting heavy spacecraft and fuel out of the Earth’s gravity is expensive. Spacecraft assembled and provisioned on the moon could escape its far lower gravity using far less energy, and thus, far less cost. Also, the moon is home to abundant resources. Its soil contains raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. We can use our time on the moon to develop and test new approaches and technologies and systems that will allow us to function in other, more challenging environments. The moon is a logical step toward further progress and achievement.

Trickle-down technological innovation aside, what’s the real purpose of going to the moon and Mars (aside from woo-ing voters, that is)? I like the idea of having long- and short-term goal for our space program, and I love the idea of finally getting rid of the space shuttle, but if we’re gonna spend billions on this, shouldn’t there be a better reason than because it’s “part of our character”? If we’re going to invest money in the space program, I’d think we could get a lot more bang for the buck (scientifically speaking, anyways) by spending the money on unmanned missions. Of course, that kind of spending isn’t “romantic” enough to make an election-year platform.

By Bush’s own admission, most of the funding for his new venture will come from “reallocating” billions from other NASA programs. The question is, which programs will get cut to make room for Bush’s pander-fest? Well, based on his support for teaching creationism in schools, maybe it’s NASA’s experiments into the origins of life. Maybe Bush the oilman is more turned off by NASA’s renewable energy technology. Or maybe their research into climate change and holes in the ozone layer is threatening Bush’s efforts to deny the facts behind global warming. The more you look at it, the more it seems that NASA is one of the chief producers of research that contradicts the Bush Administration’s awful policies. With Bush’s new space plan, maybe they’ve found a way to kill two birds with one stone.

When I decided that I should try to visit ground zero while in New York, I had a pretty good idea of what it would be like. At least, that’s what I thought. I expected the same eerie calm that I experienced in high school when I visited Dallas and, in the middle of the night, stood in the exact spot where JFK was shot. The weird tranquility of that moment coupled with the burden of thirty (at the time) years worth of history and conspiracy theories sent shivers down my spine. Instead, ground zero was…well…sorta boring.

On the one hand, it’s really freaky to see a big open area in the middle of New York. In that sense, ground zero is like a giant open wound in a still healing city. But on the other hand, it’s oddly full of signs that life is moving on. They’re actively developing the area, there are very few tributes to those who died tacked onto the surrounding fences, and the only people who were standing around were curious tourists like myself. To be honest, the area seemed like it could have been any other wide open space in the middle of an overcrowded city. I kinda figured there would be a little museum or something there.

The really amazing thing about ground zero is the fact that it’s across the street from a 300-year-old church and graveyard that was completely untouched (physically, that is) by the devastation of 9/11. All around the church are gravestones that have been slowly rotting away for the last 200-plus years. The erosion is so bad in many parts that the grave markers resemble giant bars of soap that have turned into little white slivers from repeated use. Although the words that were etched into these grave markers have long since faded, they stand as a poignant reminder that there are bodies buried here. I can only hope that the eventual tribute that they build across the street will be equally timeless and affecting.