Birds on Wire
Reading a newspaper, I saw a picture of birds on the electric wires. I cut out the photo and decided to make a song, using the exact location of the birds as notes (no Photoshop edit). I knew it wasn’t the most original idea in the universe. I was just curious to hear what melody the birds were creating.
I sent the music to the photographer, Paulo Pinto, who I Googled on the internet. He told his editor, who told a reporter and the story ended up as an interview in the very same newspaper.
Here I’ve posted a short video made with the photo, the music and the score (composed by the birds).
(Birds on the Wires from Jarbas Agnelli on Vimeo.)
(Via A Welsh View)
Equality Before the Law
Andrew Sullivan was busted for possession of pot at the Cape Cod National Seashore. Normally, Sullivan would have to pay a $125 fine like everyone else. But Sullivan has an application for change in his immigration status pending and such a conviction would probably result in his automatic disqualification.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office refused to explain to Robert B. Collings, the judge handling the case, why they sought to dismiss the charges. The many other defendants in court facing the same charges that day were not so “lucky.”
Moral: It pays to have friends in high places.
I Don’t Want To
. . . write, talk, think, or watch TV about September 11, 2001.
Having been there, it’s in me like a permanent piece of shrapnel. I startle when someone matter-of-factly states today’s date.
I still turn on the news every morning with a subliminal apprehension that something horrific has happened to New York City.
There were concentric circles of trauma on that day and I was pretty far from the bull’s-eye (though not as far, living below 14th street, as someone who lived up in the 90s). Unlike those who lost someone that day, on the one hand, and those for whom it was only a media event, on the other — still trying to make it real to themselves — I have the luxury of not writing, talking, thinking, or watching today, any more than this.
I’m In Shock.
It seems as if, just like that, J has been accepted into Duke Hospice.
It was recommended to me to have him evaluated for it, and his doctor was willing to refer him, largely for my sake. The common perception of hospice is that it’s for the terminally ill with less than six months to live, but that’s no longer strictly accurate. Having an incurable, chronic, progressive (even slowly progressive) illness that admits of only palliative care can be enough, though they reevaluate you every six months. I thought that J’s relative alertness and general health might disqualify him, but his degree of helplessness, incontinence, and dementia may have overridden that. The nurse who came to evaluate him seems to have assumed from the get-go that he was in. (Seems. I’ll let you know if they change their minds. But it doesn’t look like it.)
This may mean that someone will come to bathe him and change the bed as many as five times a week. It means that we will no longer have to pay even copays for covered medications. (Screen Actors Guild’s health plan drug program has been providing them, already a great break; but in hospice, Medicare covers them 100%.) When the intake nurse went out to her car and brought in three bags of bed pads and adult diapers, and said “You won’t have to buy these any more,” I thought I had died and gone to heaven. If I don’t have to buy those, I can hire someone to take care of him once a week so I can go out.
It means that if he gets agitated in the middle of the night, as he occasionally does — demanding to go outside and see if I haven’t been lying and he isn’t actually in Greenwich Village — I’ll have someone to call for advice, and an emergency supply of anti-anxiety meds in the house. (You know me, the anti-drug — but hey.)
They have a small respite facility, which means that if I ever need or want to get away for five days — for medical, family, or burnout reasons — and there’s a bed open, he could stay there and be cared for around the clock.
For a compulsively self-reliant, stoical type like me, the prospect of having these kinds of help is about as believable as being teleported to Oz by a tornado. I won’t believe it for a while. Then I’ll feel guilty for adding to the deficit. And then I’ll get the bends.
Race: Danger or Distraction? Bomb or Bomb Scare? [UPDATED AGAIN]
Tonight on MSNBC I heard a parade of Democrats, including Ron Reagan, saying solemnly that they thought Joe Wilson’s “outburst” last night was about race, that such incivility would not have been directed at a white President. (Bush II was booed in the same chamber.) I had to turn it off. I blew my stack on Twitter, because it seemed to me they had all received their talking points and were setting up a story line in which opposition to Obama’s health care plan could only be motivated by racism. Makes me nuts.
(UPDATE II, Sunday the 13th: James Pinkerton nails Maureen Dowd doing her duty for the cause: “Some people just can’t believe a black man is president and will never accept it.” Pinkerton comments:
The cultural elites can’t have it both ways: They can’t simultaneously trash the middle class–labeling reasonable skepticism of Obamacare as “racism”–and then expect that same middle class to simply take the elites’ word for it that Obamacare is a good idea.
And I agree with Pinkerton’s terse prognosis: “bad politics. It’s not going to work.”)
This led to a fascinating conversation with my brother David (True Ancestor), that I’m reproducing here, starting with Twitter. (Still can’t bring myself to say “my tweets.” I’d prefer a George Carlinesque “brain farts.”)
Sometimes I wonder if Obama was elected largely because his race is such a convenient way of ending an argument and silencing debate.
Tremendous barrage of “it’s race, it’s race” on the Left’s pet channel MSNBC today. A concerted campaign–this is how they plan to pass HC??
To get back to the subject of liberal Dems browbeating on “race” theme–I am disgusted beyond measure. This is exact flip side of Birtherism
My own bro falls for & perpetuates the “it’s race” meme re: Joe Wilson http://tinyurl.com/ljsvnt I bet a very liberal white prez wd get same
Here my bro’s so right tho: “I see signs all around me that people are pissed off and paranoid, self-righteous and self-absorbed.”
Please pause here and read David’s post. It’s a very good and very thoughtful expression of the alarm that is the theme that has sincerely gripped many liberals (and David, as you can see, is no ultraliberal), just as alarm at loss of freedom to an overweening State is the theme that has sincerely gripped many conservatives.
I would have been astonished no matter who called the President a liar, and no matter who the president happened to be. But because Barack Obama is an African American man, in a room populated mostly by white men, it seemed to me that a little bit of mob mentality spilled over the decorous bounds inside of which presidential speeches have always been safely held. The fact that Joe Wilson hails from South Carolina added to the chill in my blood.
I don’t consider rough politics out of bounds. I don’t consider Barack Obama beyond reproach. I don’t consider all Republicans bad people (I vote for them sometimes). But moments like this disturb me deeply. It makes me wonder anew whether the animus against Barack Obama is heightened because many cannot stomach the thought of a black man being president.
I commented:
On the other hand, Obama’s race is very convenient for Democrats. No one can criticize his policies without being suspected/accused of racism. (I’m not suggesting that Joe Wilson’s incivility was legitimate criticism. I doubt it was a spontaneous outburst either. More likely it was a bid to be on the 2012 ticket.) That’s THE big theme on MSNBC today (as much a propaganda organ of the L as Fox is of the R). That so sucks — it’s one of the tactics that makes people feel like something’s being put over on them by trickery, thus aggravating the paranoia.
A lot of conservs on Twitter, and NOT crazies, are saying Wilson shouldn’t have apologized (in their wishful fantasies at least), because they believe the president WAS “lying” (illegal immigrants WILL be covered de facto because there’s no test) and somebody had to say it. These people are in a sincere (if well-fanned) panic about “statism,” and I think THAT has zero to do with Obama’s race.
David responded:
First of all, saying that Obama’s race is convenient for Democrats takes nothing away from the very real peril of racism, and the very real possibility that it may be playing a role in the way Obama is confronted, and the way he was confronted last night.
Furthermore, all leadership, in all eras, in all countries throughout time, have sought to take advantage of the convenient. That this is no different doesn’t make it less real or any less ominous. To merely view it cynically is to deny that racism occludes sensible judgment of Obama — judgment that could help mount a more effective opposition, that could lead to better legislation, and that could do less damage to the perception and the effectiveness of leadership in Washington. Racism is a flame that can be fanned. Last night, I felt the heat. Like a fever, it was a heat that chilled.
My concern was not aroused by any talking head on any network with an ulterior motive or an agenda; it arose as I watched the event unfold in real time, unadorned by commentary. Not only that, in what little commentary I watched afterwards (a bunch of talking heads on CNN, followed by Larry King’s interview of John McCain), the issue of race was never brought up.
Second, the non-crazy conservatives to whom you refer believe the president was lying; I believe they are wrong. There are reasonable interpretations on both sides, pointing to the fact that weaknesses in the legislation could allow illegal immigrants to be insured. Most of the CNN panelists I saw, and stuff I’ve read today, said they felt that could and likely would be addressed in upcoming negotiations. Whether or not Obama was lying does not make what Wilson did OK, any more than yelling invective at Bush, Bush II or Reagan at a similar (or any) occasion would have been OK.
If “somebody had to say it,” that somebody could have done much more good for their cause by saying so in a more intelligent way at a more propitious time. I don’t mind that somebody had to say it; I strenuously disagree that that was the forum and the moment in which to do so, and there seem to be many — including about $300,000 worth of South Carolina Democrats, and virtually every leader on both sides of the aisle in both the House and Senate — who agree with me.
I answered (warning: I get a little vulgar):
To merely view it cynically is to deny that racism occludes sensible judgment of Obama — judgment that could help mount a more effective opposition, that could lead to better legislation
It’s not a matter of viewing it “cynically.” Of course there is racism out there. What’s frustrating is that no one can criticize Obama without being accused of it!! That makes him, in a weird way, bulletproof (I know how ironic it is to use that metaphor, and I’m still worried about assassination attempts myself). And he and Democrats are willing to take full advantage of it. It means that his being black is, after all, an obstacle to his being an effective president, because of variants of race-ism on both sides.
I believe that while one edge of the hysteria about Obama is racist, much more of it is ideological, and that part would be much the same directed at a white liberal. Christ, look at the insane attempts to destroy Clinton, who wasn’t even that much of a liberal. Just a Democrat.
Which leads to the insight that Republicans are just as willing to fan fringe racism to get power back as Democrats are to fling accusations of it [to hold on to power].
In this climate, those who are, in fact, trying to mount a sane and civil opposition (Gingrich, Pawlenty, some of the others with counterproposals to the public option) can hardly even get heard. Everyone’s walking around with a (metaphorical) hard-on, with adrenalin in full flood. It’s very scary. But Democrats are fanning the flames in their own way, because it will let them off the hook if Obama fails. You must consider how creepy it is to have legitimate policy disagreement blamed on racism. Wouldn’t that make you paranoid if the roles were reversed? It would look like a diabolically clever way of silencing debate and ramming through an agenda. Even if you believe in that agenda, getting it done that way will have too high a cost.
I’m scared sick too, I just think there’s blame to go around. Dangerous times.
And:
If “somebody had to say it,” that somebody could have done much more good for their cause by saying so in a more intelligent way at a more propitious time. I don’t mind that somebody had to say it; I strenuously disagree that that was the forum and the moment in which to do so, and there seem to be many — including about $300,000 worth of South Carolina Democrats, and virtually every leader on both sides of the aisle in both the House and Senate — who agree with me.
Jeez, I’M not arguing that “somebody had to say it,” or that the president was lying! I’m trying to tell you why Wilson might have been angling to be on the 2012 ticket! Some people were saying he was a hero (until he apologized), and that’s not about race at all! The hysteria about immigration and “statism” was in full cry on the Right before Obama was a gleam in the Democratic party’s eye. The point I’m trying to make is that the Democrats are so fixated on getting the public option (and I’m not sure Obama is, but he’s captive of the base) that they are going about this in a way that feeds into it and aggravates it, as extremes so often do incite each other.
David replied, in response to my first just above:
Yeah, you hit on it. It’s the whole hard-on for battle that’s got me a little on edge. It seems there’s almost a bloodlust. How can you can negotiate when you just want to murder the person across the table.
Do you really feel that “no one can criticize Obama without being accused of” racism? I feel like he’s been roundly, and in large part justifiably, criticized for his handling of this issue, among others. His approval ratings haven’t been bulletproof, nor should they have been. I don’t read as much as you do, but I simply haven’t seen any “legitimate policy disagreement based on racism.” In either direction. (Remember when Clarence Thomas referred to his confirmation hearing as a “high-tech lynching,” and the opposition just withered on the spot? That, to me, was a classic example of what you’re referring to.
I’m still naive enough to believe that if you have real debate, you will not be able to stymie it with fear. But you don’t have to look too far back in history, or too far afield, to see how naive that belief might be.
And in response to my second:
I see your point. And I’ll predict this right now: he’ll [Joe Wilson] narrowly lose his reelection bid; he’ll claim to have been bullied by Emanuel into making his apology; he’ll become a champion of the victimized right; and he’ll wind up on the 2012 ticket. It may all have been choreographed, soon after Obama became that gleam in the eye you mentioned.
So I said:
Wilson’s already claiming that his own party’s leadership made him apologize, that it wasn’t from the heart! “Grassroots” Republicans are as mad at their own party’s elite as they are at Democrats. People like Peggy Noonan who disdained Sarah Palin are toast, with them!
No, I don’t mean that no one legitimately criticizes Obama without being accused of racism, but if you listen to MSNBC (the left’s Fox), today they paraded one person after another pushing that line — including Ron Reagan. It’s as if they got their talking points/marching orders, just like on the R when everyone starts parroting whatever Rush said that day. Wherever it’s coming from, it’s a stupid ploy, because it makes reasonable people feel like they’re being had. It’s a huge diversion/distraction from the question of what kind of healthcare policy we should have, and what better kind we can manage to get to given our disagreements.
And:
Remember when Clarence Thomas referred to his confirmation hearing as a “high-tech lynching,” and the opposition just withered on the spot? That, to me, was a classic example of what you’re referring to.
Oh, definitely! Definitely. Nothing was more cynical than his appointment.
There are people who are doggedly (blue doggedly?) trying to have a real debate; they’re just being drowned out. Too many people don’t have a taste or a hunger for substance any more, only for emotion. To continue the hard-on metaphor, lots of people are looking to be jerked off.
And David (thankfully changing the metaphor) said:
That’s what happens on the eve of a conflagration. The tinder is dry. A few sprinkles here and there are no match for the lightning.
UPDATE: The plot thickens: David sends “more on Joe Wilson” (presented as evidence for the prosecution?):
Allegedly member of a far-right group called Sons of Confederate Veterans, and one of only 7 SC Republicans who went against his own party and voted to keep the Confederate flag flying over the Statehouse.
(If you follow the link, you’ll see that the SCV is actually split into two warring factions, one that is innocuous and one that is virulent. No word on which one Joe Wilson is or was a member of.)
Does that change the equation? It does change the 2012 equation, I think.
The Devil’s in the Details
Quick impressions of the speech tonight. First third (description of the problem): enormously effective. He had me asking “can I trust my insurance?” and answering “probably not.” Second third (description of the solution): The wheels fell off. Or is it that the plan outlined had too many wheels within wheels, too many moving parts. Mind you, parts of this section of the speech were effective upon first listening but if you break it down, you get,
1. We want insurance companies, a huge part of the economy, to stay in business.
2. Insurance companies make too much money and we will pay for much of this plan by cutting back their executive salaries and profits.
3. The uninsured (the young) aren’t paying their fair share so they will be required to buy insurance.
4. The insurance companies will participate willingly in order to make money (profits) selling insurance to the formerly uninsured (the youth).
Something doesn’t balance out here. Does he want insurance companies to be profitable or not? Does this plan effectively throw young adults under the bus? They seem to be the only profit center in the plan as described.
Add to this the “Prime Minister’s Question Hour” feel of congressional reaction to this part of the speech and you have … well, a not very effective part of the speech.
The peroration was effective and seemed heartfelt. A good description of the relation between man and the city as understood by the progressive mind.
Conclusion: I came off impressed with Obama personally and still believing that the plan is half baked at best. In other words, par for the course.
A Capella Break
Impressive Michael Jackson a capella medley arranged by Yale undergrad Kurt Schneider and performed by classmate Sam Tsui.
(Via A Welsh View)
So You Call Yourself a Communist??
After all that’s been said and, especially, done, some actually do, as I’ve heard — with consternation — from both realpc and Ron.
They should be required to read this.
An Invitation
This post was prompted by a thread Amba started concerning the seasons. Several of us wrote about the climate where we live or used to live. It was a little like a Travelog of personal views. So I am asking all who wish to write about a place in which they live or have lived. Mine will be posted as a comment.
You Get the President You Deserve.
I’m going to say this quick because I don’t have a lot of time.
Is Barack Obama really motivated by a bone-deep statist agenda? Is he most motivated by his own political survival? By a psychological need to reconcile conflicting viewpoints? By idealism? Or some combination of all of the above?
We don’t really know. What we do know is that he’s the democratically elected President of the United States and we’ve got a minimum of three and a third more years of him. (I hope that those of us who are still sane can all agree that a violent end to his presidency would be a catastrophe for this country we profess to love.) Rather than fantasizing about paralyzing him, or on the other hand, denying that he needs any improvement, how do we the people minimize the harm and maximize the benefit that we can get from these years?
It’s a truism of operant conditioning — a science of animal training that was applied to people in dolphin trainer Karen Pryor’s book Don’t Shoot the Dog, about which I once wrote a magazine article — that you get the best results by negatively reinforcing behavior you don’t want and positively reinforcing behavior you do. (Another good tactic in some situations is “extinction” — getting rid of behavior by ignoring it, because some behavior is designed to get attention and is fed by even negative attention. This might be the tactic of choice to apply to crazies at both extremes.)
Let’s be cynical and assume that Barack Obama’s deepest motive is his own political survival (although I don’t think that’s his only motive). If that’s the case, he is teachable. Never mind whether his coming to his senses about the Nancy Pelosi and Hugo Chavez agendas is motivated by a moment of illumination, a profound change of heart — we’re guessing his ideology is not much deeper than a chameleon’s skin anyway — or by a desire to stay in office (and we’ll cross that bridge in 2012). Motivations don’t matter nearly as much as actions — doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is better than doing the wrong thing, and in fact motivations often fall in line with actions, because we don’t like cognitive dissonance.
My point is that we can get something closer to the president we want for the next 3.33 years, and the way to do it is, yes, by loudly shaming the behavior we don’t like (Van Jones is gone!), and also rewarding with praise the behavior we do — such as exhorting fathers to be fathers and kids to stay in school. That may be part of what clever Newt, possibly because he knows a lot about animals, is up to, as he tweets about the text of the education speech:
newtgingrich Just read President Obamas speech to students.white House posted it. it is a good speech and will be good for students to hear
newtgingrich Remember that Presidents Reagan and Bush also talked to students nationwide. As long as it is non political and pro education it is good
By contrast, there are many on the right for whom this president can do nothing right from the get-go. And distortion is the stock in trade of partisans of both sides, for whom their side defeating the other side is more important than the health of the country. Cap’n Ed Morrissey at Hot Air does a word count on the text of the school speech and tries to paint it as an exercise in narcissistic self-promotion:
Update II: I’ve run the speech through a word frequency counter and found the following results:
- 56 iterations of “I”
- 19 iterations of “school”
- 10 iterations of “education”
- 8 iterations of “responsibility”
- 7 iterations of “country”
- 5 iterations each of “parents”, “teachers”
- 3 iterations of “nation”
In other words, Barack Obama referenced himself more than school, education, responsibility, country/nation, parents, and teachers combined. And to think that people accused Obama of self-promotion!
One assumes that many people will not read the speech but will take Rush’s word for it when he inevitably picks up this meme. However, many of the “I”s in the speech occur in such innocuous contexts as “I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school,” or “I’m here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia.” In a 44-short-paragraph speech, there are 5 short paragraphs about Obama’s own story, focusing mostly on his single mother and absent father and how such circumstances don’t have to stop you. Finally, there’s a little word that Cap’n Ed disingenuously “forgot” to include on his list: “you,” and its variants “your” and “yourself.” You find a word-count engine and apply it; I did a rough hand count. It’s over 160.
So do you want the demon socialist president of your political fever dreams — because he’ll be easier to defeat in 2012 — or do you want a president we can live with till then?
Ambiance 