Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Blame, Blame, Blame

The attempted murder of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and the death of six bystanders in yesterday’s mass shooting in Tucson, Arizona have sparked a debate about how toxic our national discourse has become. That discourse barely had time to neutralize before it turned toxic again a few hours later. Before suspect Jared Lee Loughner was even named as the suspect, left wingers took aim at the Tea Party and Sarah Palin for the gun imagery she has brought to bear (and bears) in our national debates, and her targeting of Giffords in particular. This, they say, wasn’t an isolated incident by a crazy person but the spawn of a right-wing firmament that breeds crazy in crazy nurseries.

A couple of years ago, for instance, Fox pundit Bill O’Reilly repeatedly called Kansas abortion provider George Tiller a baby killer and mentioned him some 28 times on his show. Tiller was later murdered by Scott Roeder, shot in the eye while he was inside his church. The right has since Barack Obama’s election become more ominous in its rhetoric, more martial in its imagery and apocalyptic in its pronouncements. A disempowered group of Americans in 2008 turned to millenarian fury (a sign of their fear). Thus Giffords and others had gotten threats for their support of the health care bill. People were showing up at protests during those debates brandishing guns.

And so there was an anticipation building up among liberals that something like this was bound to happen sooner or later, perhaps even a dark wish that it happen to reveal the true animal spirits on the right.

So once there was news of a shooting, it seemed like a good time to immediately assail Palin’s bulls eye imagery, and the crosshairs she trained on Arizona’s Eight District in a 2010 political poster, which Giffords herself called an implied threat. Or for that matter it was worth remembering that Ann Coulter once called Bill Clinton assassination worthy. Or that Glenn Beck has joked about killing opponents and that his whole ideology is based around conspiracy theories that appeal to our country’s many lunatics.

At some point, rhetoric does indeed turn into threat, as I think it did in O’Reilly’s case. The First Amendment doesn’t cover threats. You can’t draw a line through a person’s name and smear it in blood on a poster. But it’s not like the right doesn’t know this. Instead its more clever exponents play with the contradictions. Palin and Glenn Beck do it with an edge of satire that their audience is likely aware of on some level, as obnoxious and destructive as it is to progress, as anathema as it is to people with brains. Yes it’s sad that some dummies do take it seriously (not realizing that Palin is less about policy than media whoredom or not recognizing that Beck is little more than a snake oil salesman/pitch man for gold investments). But the left uses imagery just as often, and with the arrogant vouchsafe that it’s OK for us because we’re right after all. A lot of us called George Bush a war criminal because we thought he had left at least a hundred thousand people dead in Iraq by lying about the reasons for going to war. Are there ramifications of using that language? Could it be used by a crazy person who thinks George Bush is literally a wanted criminal and who might in a deranged state somehow take action on that notion?

This is one reason I can’t blame Palin and Beck for Giffords. And that has made me a very lonely lefty this week.

Call it First Amendment fundamentalism or just sadness about how quickly the situation was exploited. Nobody on the left had the sense to wait a few hours to see who opened fire at that Safeway, and when it turned out to be a moonstruck college dropout/armed forces reject with paranoias about mind control, libs had to spin like mad when they realized they had literally jumped the gun. All of my heroes are now doing the mushy blogs about how toxic our political climate has become and trying with limp avail and flimsy proof to lay it at the feet of Palin.

Yes, Loughner used some right wing symbols about the Constitution being under attack and about the integrity of gold-backed currency. But he was mainly weaving that into a dark, solipsistic ideology all his own, barely recognizable to even NRA members. Who in the hell on the right wing has ever argued about government control of your “grammar structure”?

My heroes Keith Olbermann and Paul Krugman have taken this story with the dutiful drudgery of football players taking their positions at shirts and skins scrimmage. Krugman did not offer his usual elegant hard numbers to back up his weak contention that this was an invariable outcome of right wing hate-mongering–but just swiped at Palin in a pro forma rant,  trying to convince us she’s more to blame than people who used to call George Bush Hitler. Before 5 p.m. yesterday, conservatives already had been roused to defensive anger and were in pretty good stead to bat away the arguments that Jared Loughner’s  insanity in any way resembled their own behavior. The anti-bodies had kicked in, and there would be no reason, if I were a right-winger, to listen to the criticism. The left made a prima facie judgment and showed the right it will blame Sarah Palin for anything, even small pox, car wrecks or dog mange.

That makes her stronger, folks.

I’m a leftist, and do believe the Tea Party has created a toxic environment of anti-government panic and often destroyed sensible discourse with meaningless sloganeering. My late mother once told me that in her job as a tax preparer, she came across people who wanted to cash out of all their stock holdings at unattractive bases, take big tax hits or do other forms of financial violence to themselves just because Fox News has told them America had gone socialist. My mother’s prescription: “Fox News should be banned.” And this was a woman who had voted for Bush.

Just another example that conservative thinking is going to do real harm to many disadvantaged people (a lot of them conservatives) in the long run. They will slash necessary programs, push an anti-government agenda that forces more out-of-pocket expenses on poor people, destroy the middle class, accelerate wealth disparity, put us more in debt to the Chinese and force depressions on us if they have to. But it’s hard to prove or see that kind of insidious violence, and that makes lefties want to pin something more tangible on right wing leaders. How about a murder?

The fact is that there are lots of ways to slice the orange on this story. The most horrible is the one none of us dare bring up: We could point to the tragic irony that Giffords is a gun rights advocate and maybe ask if this is a good time to bring up the issue again in our national discourse. We could have taken aim (note the harmless metaphor) at Sarah Palin’s gun stances rather than Palin herself. Instead, we played into her hands and won her more sympathy.

Or we could have noted the irony that Giffords has not been easy to pigeonhole and she’s a good example of our less doctrinaire politicians. The sad thing is that maybe we need more of her, not one less. Our all-too-necessary political center is being attacked when it ought to be protected.

Instead, we liberals painted ourselves into a corner and made this contradictory statement: “The political atmosphere has become too toxic … and it’s the other side’s bloody fault.”

Jared Lee Loughner has been identified as the suspect in the shooting of Rep. Gabrille Giffords, and the name has already sent the Web community rushing to MySpace, Facebook and YouTube. Supposedly, his MySpace page is already down, though some people who captured it beforehand say there was a farewell note.

The man in custody is accused of shooting 18 people and killing six, including a child and John M. Roll, a judge for the United States District Court who had received death threats over the years for his decisions on illegal immigrants, which were seen as too lenient.

A YouTube page for Jared Lee Loughner from Tucson links to a creepy world of text-only videos that offers his “final thoughts” and lays out a creepy manifesto of government mind control through currency and grammar. In one Tea Party-worthy outburst, he blasts Americans for not reading the Constitution, but in the next he says the government is trying to control your “grammar structure.” (Note to you, whether you’re a killer or not, the phrase “grammar structure” is a needless variant and “grammar” alone would do.) The guy seems to have found some connection between human syntax and mind control that he wanted to share with the world.

He says one of his favorite activities is “conscience dreaming.” He also blasts people in District 8 (Giffords’ district) for their illiteracy.

I have no way of knowing whether this person is really responsible for multiple murders, but if he is, this is America’s first glimpse of him:

I think it’s important for people to know if this is the person, because if he is and he’s crazy, then the blaming of the Tea Party should cease immediately. There are too many real things to blame them for.

Giffords Shot

A horrible tragedy in Arizona today. Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat in the House of Representatives representing the eighth district, was shot in the head outside a supermarket in Tuscon at close range. Seventeen others were shot as well, six of them killed, including one child. Giffords was originally reported to be dead, but later it was reported she survived, and it appears she will recover.

There is already rampant speculation about who is responsible: perhaps a febrile Tea Party sympathizer (Sarah Palin and others targeted Giffords as a traitor on the health care bill), or a member of a drug cartel (Giffords is outspoken on drug enforcement) or an anti-immigration activist (Giffords was reportedly soft on Arizona’s new racist immigration bill). A lot of liberals are already blaming the overheated and sometimes militaristic rhetoric on the right, including Palin’s, for the shooting. (An immigration judge was shot as well.)

I think this is a big mistake. It’s too early to make pronouncements about who is responsible. And even if it were a Tea Party activist, liberals ought to be more thoughtful in their response. Not all Republicans or even Tea Party activists are responsible for one act of violence, any more than all Muslims were responsible for 9/11. There is no legal basis for saying Palin or Beck (who sometimes had Giffords on his show) ever made actual violent threats or encouraged violence as a means to score political ends.  The rhetoric of right wingers like Beck and Palin is sick, perverted, fetishistic, often full of categorically wrong facts and, if you throw in Rush Limbaugh’s windbaggery as well, even cryptically racist, too, but not criminal.

Giffords is a smart public servant who doesn’t toe any party line really as far as I can tell. She’s for gun rights and for immigration reform. It seems, if anything, she’s dedicated herself to being open minded. So I don’t see her as a right wing bete noire or Democratic mealy mouther either. It would be sad if she left us. And for many reasons, including her all-important life, I’m not in a hurry to make her a left-wing martyr this afternoon.

Lots O’ Music

Yes folks, ER Salo Deguierre lives!

I don’t know if anybody has noticed, but I’ve uploaded some 13 new tunes to my home page in the last month (all of which are on the right hand side of this page). Some of these are songs I had previously posted elsewhere, including MySpace. But most of it comes straight out of the archives–a mix of old songs and new. There are things I wrote 18 years ago (like the folk song “Hemingway,” one of my first compositions), things I recorded three years ago but never showed anybody (like “New York Christmas, 1945,”) and a few ditties I rattled off in 2010 (like “Window Train Movie.”) I’ve got a couple of other items in the hopper, but you should probably expect less music from me for a while as I turn my attention to fiction projects that badly need my attention.

If you like any of the stuff here, please comment! I’m very proud of some of these songs, though they may indeed betray the steep learning curve I’ve faced with the recording process. I hope the amateur passion of my kitchen table rock will help you overlook some of my admitted sloppiness.

[2023 update: I forgot that I very briefly called my music act ER Salo Deguierre when I started uploading songs to the internet more than a decade ago. Of course, since then I have released 32 albums under the name Salon de la Guerre. You can find my music link at the top of my home page.]

If you are interested in either Facebook, Goldman Sachs, the SEC or securities regulation in general, you’ve probably been following this controversy about investment bank Goldman’s deal to secure extra funding for Facebook. A special investment pool for wealthy investors will allow rich investors into the social networking company through backdoor channels that skirt SEC rules so that the company doesn’t have to do an IPO yet. Usually, companies must go public when they have 500 investors. So Goldman set up a special purpose entity in which several investors magically become one. It’s a deal that’s got some people apoplectic, because as always, it will allow the wealthiest Americans to get into a private company early. When Facebook eventually becomes the kind of company that we mere carbon-based life forms can invest in, it could well be a less attractive investment. Why do I say that? Yes, I use Facebook, and love it. Yet, you might be shocked when I tell you–Facebook is actually just an Internet bulletin board. It might still be a dog someday. Small shareholders might be the last ones in and get the least value. The large investors are buying because they know you’ll be there to take it off their hands later. Remember AOL-Time Warner? Almost a hundred billion dollars flushed down the toilet?

While others gripe about the rules of trading, I’d like to step back and ask another timely question: Given the many ways the wealthy rig our system, why is our tax system protecting them? From stock options to special purpose entities to private equity investments to poor corporate governance to outrageous signing bonuses, the rich already have many great advantages to suck value out of our investments. We are to believe as small investors that we are participating in the great wealth-generation of capital, but we do so at a disadvantage to those who get in early and to others who trade at lightning speed. So why are we laboring under the delusion that continuing low marginal tax rates for the wealthy are fair and/or productive?

Many people shrug and say that it’s a necessary evil of capitalism–that the rich need more advantages than the rest of us because they will reinvest and give us jobs. But then you might have also noticed that American companies are posting record profits–and sitting on them without doing much new hiring. The American worker, meanwhile, has seen her wages stagnate while unemployment has remained at 9% to 10%. Corporations are sending their reinvestments overseas.

Most Americans believe that the tax rates on the wealthy should rise. And yet in the last election they elected a Congress that made sure rates wouldn’t.  What gives?

Could it be an abiding belief among many Americans that the wealthy deserve the big money for some reason? They work for it, don’t they? Splenetic Fox commentators insist the richest 1% are actually working 400 times harder than those in the bottom 50%. But let’s keep everything honest here: they aren’t. Corporate governance is a sham. People are vastly over-rewarded in corporate America for things they don’t deserve, including the people who got bonuses in 2009 for destroying our economy. Some companies are responsible in the way they compensate their employees. But we have to trust them to do it.

Yes, capital creates wealth, but only to a point. But somewhere along the way, lower taxes simply prompt the wealthiest not to reinvest but to hoard. These nuances, if not lost on supply siders, are conveniently ignored. And when they address their arguments to lower income people, they try to appeal to what they think is an innate sense of fairness. The rich work hard for that money, don’t they?

Well, yes, if you consider a used car salesman lying to you and selling you a shitty car with a bad engine for three times its book value working hard.

I was very amused to see “chicas desnudas” as one of the search terms that directed someone to my blog today. For those of you who are regular readers, you’ll know that I do a parody of the TV Guide listings sometimes. A very old entry lists “chicas desnudas” as one of the highlights of “Real Sexo” on Spanish HBO. A very obscure old blog post, but I’m not picky.

I just want to let everybody know that this is a Spanish friendly site, and I am personally happy to have all immigrants, illegal or otherwise, in our country. To hell with Arizona!

Taking over the gavel from Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House of Represenatives, John Boehner today said he would end “gridlock” in Congress, and by that he meant replacing the word “gridlock” and replacing it with a more soothing word like “stalemate.” If not that, “impasse.”

“Americans said they want an end to ‘business as usual,'” said Boehner, invoking a timeworn phrase well-known by Americans to actually be part of business as usual. “Thus the time has come for change,” he said, carefully choosing his cliches for maximum efficacy.

He vowed to get rid of gridlock. He also vowed to vehemently thwart the efforts of Democrats, even though, technically such an effort would cause gridlock. “It will not technically be gridlock,” Boehner said. “But something more like a Mexican standoff.”

“Americans hate gridlock, and by that, I mean they hate the word ‘gridlock,'” said Boehner. “Thus, Republicans vow to get rid of this word and use words instead like “stumbling block,” “roadblock,” “deadlock,” and “standstill.”

Boehner denied that Republicans in the past had been “obstructionist.”

“That’s just an ad hominem attack on people participating in the naturally occurring process of ‘gridlock,'” Boehner said. “Name calling like that is not going to help us get beyond gridlock and move on to something more politic like a nice ‘logjam.'”

Whether it be logjam, stalemate, gridlock, Americans are tired of it, Boehner said. Even though most Americans also agree that gridlocks keep Congress from spending their money.

“And I guess in that sense, gridlocks are good,” said Boehner, who, stopping to think about it, realized he had vowed not to spend more money. “So I guess what I’m saying is: Never mind what I said before. I will not actually end gridlock at all. Gridlock for everybody!”

The decorum on the House floor then broke down into anarchic cheers, dancing, gunfire and smoke.

This year, my sister-in-law Kathy served us this cake for Christmas. It’s a true Willy Wonka creation, almost every part of it edible, even the parquet floor under the chimney.

Kathy makes these creations with ganache and fondant. I’m not sure what these things are, but I’m pretty sure they were stolen from the Germans and chemical company IG Farben at the end of World War II, along with the country’s rocket technology, in “Operation Paperclip.”  Asking Kathy her trade secrets will likely get you a Vulcan nerve pinch and a swift death.

It’s January 1, 2011, and today I have eaten two dishes of black-eyed peas to augur good luck and fortune in the coming year. It prompted me to research the tradition of feasting on this vigilant legume. The cowpea was supposedly domesticated 5,000 years ago in Africa; its consumption spread throughout the continent and it was brought to the U.S. along with the slave trade, making it one of the staples of southern heritage. Everybody in the south eats it, even my family in Oklahoma. Its vouching of good luck stems from Jewish culture (it is associated with Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year), and Southern culture (the bean supposedly was the salvation of starving Confederate families during a Union Army siege). Also, Fergie is a member.

In any case, I’m eating cowpeas today for prosperity and fortune, even though I don’t believe either is won by luck. As far as I know, only Will.I.Am has found fortune with black eyed peas. I honestly don’t remember if I ate them last year, and if I did, whether it would have done me any good. My dirty secret is that I don’t like them. But maybe more of this lucky legume a year ago would have helped me avoid one of the worst years of my life.

It probably won’t surprise you, Dear Beauty Is Imperfection reader, that I’m happy to see this hated year come to an end. It’s surprising to me how many people I know who have endured some heartache in 2010. Two people close to me got breast cancer. A friend’s father had a stroke. Other family members suffered heart problems, car wrecks, and penury. Around the beginning of last year, a friend of mine lost an application on a co-op apartment in Fort Greene she’d waited months for, likely because of her race. And she continued to have problems adopting a baby. But put aside the problems of my friends. Consider that 17% of the country is unemployed (or underemployed) and they’re also likely wanting to see this year end.

I turned to my wife in bed one night last March, feeling pangs of fresh paranoia, and said, “Too many people I know are having problems. I’ve never  believed in bad luck, and yet I feel like it’s time for us to have some.” Perhaps, I hoped, we’d already paid our due to the angry Gods. We were kicked out of our apartment in early January, the second time in two years that a landlord had invoked a sale as a legal means to evict us (which is really crappy luck). And yet our relocation, one block away, went smoothly. We landed on our feet in a nice place with lots of new plans and dreams to pursue, perhaps a new Web show.

Yet, at the risk of sounding like Eeyore, I thought we still had bad luck coming and started looking over my shoulder.

How wrong things indeed went a few weeks later. I was sitting at home with some free time after finally unpacking and organizing the house, getting ready to sit down and compose some music when my sister called and told me my family had been in a car wreck in Luling, Texas. My mother, stepfather, niece and nephew and my mother’s foster daughter had been on the way to the beach. For reasons we’re still not sure about, their car ended up in the opposite lane very early one morning on the way to Corpus Christi and ran into two teenagers in a truck.

My nephew woke up in a hospital later, turned to a pretty therapist and asked her “Is this a dream?”

Within a few hours, he likely was wishing it were. My sister arrived in time to break the news that my mother had died instantly, my stepfather some 12 hours later. An autopsy suggested he had suffered a heart attack, perhaps while he was at the wheel, though we’re still not sure what really happened. The kids, all of whom survived, tell different stories about the last moments. So I have to satisfy myself knowing that the last moments of my mother’s life will always be surrounded in mystery.

I arrived in Texas two days later to see the somewhat strange sight of my niece covered in bruises with a blood stain on her forehead playing a Nintendo Wii game console in Dell Children’s Hospital, trying to dance to the Austin Powers theme. My nephew was in a wheelchair,  but sometimes too giddy to stay in it, and tried to walk around with what might have been damage to the growth plate in his knee. We were at the Ronald McDonald House for days, where I was treated to free food cooked by volunteers and images of moms on the walls that caused me horrible weeping fits. I was told to write an obit by the funeral home director. He was very nice until he demanded a mid-three figure payment in cash, not easy to get in a pinch out of state. I suggest to you, reader, that you not die in Luling.

My family, especially my sister, got a crash course that week in discussing death and dying with a 7- and 10-year old. They wanted to know why they would be allowed to see my mom, who had automatically been embalmed under Texas law since she was not immediately claimed, but not their grandfather, who had died later but donated his organs and was no longer viewable. Why were we cremating them? Why didn’t the kids get a choice in these matters? What was my mother going to be like when they saw her one last time? Would she seem like herself? Would she have a smell? These were all things the children asked; and trying to help them stay strong allowed us to stay strong for ourselves.

Fortunately, my sister, a powerful force of nature herself, seemed to know how to handle all of these matters. As we tried to explain to children some of the most profoundly philosophical things humans have to grasp, weighty subjects that tax even the Kants and Nietzsches of the world, my niece doodled in a coloring book and my nephew very quickly slurped on a lollipop. To watch two developing brains compute tragedy was an eye-opening experience. My niece, who is younger, processes things more analytically. Try, if you can, to imagine a pretty little seven-year-old girl saying “Grandma died, but life goes on.” My nephew, who is older, who understood its permanance a little more and who processes things more emotionally, would be a different story.

If these problems weren’t enough, my mother took a smattering of small businesses down with her, and my family and I had to come together to save what we could after we returned to our home town of Oklahoma City. Two days after burying my parents, I walked into their offices and was accosted by renters asking me if we were selling the building, by clients wanting money back even though the accounts were frozen and creditors acting suddenly tight-fisted, if not like swine. With little business acumen, no real understanding of what we were facing–no idea how much paperwork we had to sift through, how many mortgages there were, what the phone passwords were, where the keys were or how much my mother had in assets (or debt) I had to open my mouth and say something inspiring and comforting. My first triumph that week was learning how to pick some of the locks. Later, I had to yell at a tenant who I believe was ripping off my mother and turn into the kind of mean-spirited landlord I’d fulminated against when I’d been kicked out of my apartment two months before. There were lots of people in my mother’s town to pray with, thankfully. Great people she’d helped who came out to help us. When my wife went back to New York, I spent two weeks patrolling my old neighborhoods and looking through pictures. I became obsessed with images of my mother when she was in her 20s or so, back when I first met her, and letters she’d written and any thing that might sum of a life in some way, even though few objects really can.

When I’d finally got back to New York, I received word that my mother’s little sister finally succumbed to cancer. I lost another aunt a few months later to complications with lupus and the medication she was taking for it.

By summer, my new motto was: Don’t leave the house.

But of course, it’s silly to call any year “bad.” Life is full of moments, very short ones, some of them ecstatic and some of them excruciating. A calendar page doesn’t foretell bad fortune anymore than Tarot cards, the guts of a Roman bull, Nostradamus or the movie 2012. A wise man once said that there are no happy moments, only happy memories. That’s a little cynical. And perhaps it’s just as silly to call 2010 or 2001 or 1929 a “bad year.” I had some happy moments in 2010. It’s just that happiness is something I don’t think we really understand. It never lasts as long as you think. Like many other feelings, it’s a physiological phenomenon. We might be momentarily content, but our bodies are always needing and desiring. That’s their job. When we get what we want, we have joy but the joy is fleeting and we’re on to the next thing, no matter how long we had struggled before. We have things that could make us happy but then we get distracted as easily as if we had sniffed something in the air. Happiness isn’t something you ever completely achieve. Likewise, sadness isn’t something you must keep. Maybe they’re both just metabolic processes, like digestion.

What does it really mean to be “happy” all the time, anyway? Sometimes it’s more gratifying to work. To struggle. Simply to persevere. To think there is some state we could be in where we would be nothing but “happy” constantly would be a form of insanity.

So this year, to honor my lost parents, I decided to go on needing and desiring and goal-achieving, the way living people do. My family and I had to decide how much we were going to let grief become part of our lives, and we decided, as Sophie said, “Grandma died, but life goes on.” To need and desire and to be distracted by stupid shit is, oddly enough, what it’s all about.

My friend who wanted an apartment and a baby, by the way, got them both. So even though 2010 started out painful for her, it turned out later to be joyous, and that means it ought to be for me, too.

So yes, 2010, go away, don’t let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. But I should also thank you, 2010, for some of the fleeting moments of happiness and maybe, just maybe, a bit of understanding and enlightenment. Thank you for the fact that I’m still alive and I have a wife and we still love each other and we have plans and goals and hopes. Thank you for the fact that I was able to spend New Year’s Eve 2010 driving around (very safely) in Oklahoma City with my very still healthy niece and nephew, having fun and laughing at stupid jokes.

To say anything else would be ungrateful for this beautiful accident called living.

Merry Christmas

Wishing all of you a merry Christmas.

Especially my beautiful mother.

Wherever you are.