j a c k *

Bash, Break and Borrow...

It is the strong version of the Copernican thesis - where ever you are is, by definition, unimportant. As far as I can tell there is exactly one person who has agreed with the reverse of that thesis all along, that instead we are at an important moment, and has methodically pursued the chance for the Republican Party to be the one that determines the shape of the new constitutional order.

His name is Karl Rove, perhaps you've heard of him.

Daily Kos

The always-interesting Stirling Newberry attempts to connect the dots between the day to day tactics and the long term strategy of the GOP.  As with any serious analysis, he doesn't dally with psychology.  It's not about strong fathers versus nurturing mothers; it's not a matter of projection or frames; no one cares about anyone being a dry drunk or a latent (or actual) homosexual.  It's about the money.

Looking at politics from the point of view of money gives some of the same insight as looking at biology from the point of view of the genes.  Genes selfishly strive to replicate themselves.  The cost of that replication, to the host body which expresses the gene or to the community which shares the gene is irrelevant.  The gene's environment may curb or enhance its replication, the differential rates of replication serving as a measure of "success," but that's the end of it.  While this turns our normal view of the world on its head, we find that many things are easier to predict and understand.  Evolution itself follows as an obvious corollary.  There is clarity in the view that life is something that genes do to us, not that genes are something we use to carry out our lives.

Likewise we can see politics as something caused by money, not by us.  Certainly dollars cannot act intentionally any more than strings of DNA, but it pays to look at it as if they do.  In essence, selfish dollars look for a place to park themselves so they can collect rent from other dollars.  The big dollars on the Monopoly board today are all parked on oil, and the longer they park there the bigger they get.  While I don't agree with everything in Newberry's thesis it's certainly well worth reading.  He makes a very good effort at explaining at lot of things, even the Clinton impeachment, from within this framework.  Social Security, he argues, is a linchpin for the liberal republic because it allows us all to have a better retirement than any other possible system of private plans.

I would like to say more about his concept of Bash, Break and Borrow at a later point.  Read it yourself for now.

- jack*

A Memetic Frivolity...

I'm going on vacation.  The family's going to bum around Monterey for a few days, and go see the Great White Shark.  I really need it.

So in the spirit of doing nothing serious today, I'll follow instructions I found here, which have been propagating virus-like from site to site.

1. Grab the nearest book.
2. Open the book to page 123.
3. Find the fifth sentence.
4. Post the text of the sentence in your journal along with these instructions.
5. Don’t search around and look for the “coolest” book you can find. Do what’s actually next to you.

The nearest book is Roget's Thesaurus, and next to that is the American Heritage Dictionary.  Neither contain sentences as such.  Next to that is Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, which has been on my desk but I haven't looked at for two years.  Nevertheless, I try it.  Page 123 is a large picture with three sentences of text above it.  No matter how I parse it, there is no fifth sentence.

That's all the books on my desk.  Behind me is my office bookshelf with assorted magazines, technical publications, reference manuals for various computer graphics APIs, math texts, and a few volumes on philosophy and science.  There's no particular reason why I would pick any one of these over any other, so I have to make a judgment call.  I pick Science and Religion: Are They Compatible? because I read it recently and it's relatively easy to pull out of its stack.

They omit flood geology and the obsession with Genesis, and draw heavily on the Islamic tradition of perceiving a harmonious, complex universe as a clear sign of divine creation.

- jack*

Green vs. Greenspan...

The Kyoto Protocol went into effect Wednesday, at last ending the threat of Global Warming, once and for all.  Well, no.  In fact the country with the greatest worldwide carbon dioxide emissions, although involved in the negotiations, did not sign the agreement.  You've heard of this rogue state: The United States of America.  The self-proclaimed Greatest Nation in History has opted out of this historic treaty.  But why?  Amid vague assertions about the treaty being "flawed," we find the real justification: it would hurt the economy.

When did "the economy," whatever that is, trump all other public interests?

Certainly there are many concerns to weigh in making policy, and the effects on the money supply, job growth, currency valuations, and consumer confidence are nothing to trifle with.  These are vital concerns which affect us all.  On the other hand these are very complex factors.  The relationship between any policy decisions and changes in macroeconomic measures is difficult to verify, even with very careful study.  Predicting ahead of time that a specific treaty will be "bad" for "the economy" is difficult, bordering on impossible.

Of course the current administration does not deal in certainties.  In fact it has a history of amplifying doubt to suit its rhetorical needs.  It's very happy to express doubts over the scientific consensus behind Global Warming, and it will try to balance that small doubt with unjustified certainty that the economy will suffer if we try to do anything about it.  In the game of public opinion poker, Bush sees your science and raise you a depression.

We worship the economy, and Greenspan is our pope.  Even though we can't explain exactly what it is, we know that the economy can make our lives happy, or it can make our lives sad, and we want to please the economy.  It's a system of faith that allows the cryptic statements of one man, who happens to wield enormous power by setting an important legal interest rate, to weigh in on deeply moral matters that will affect our families and loved ones for years to come.

When did macroeconomics take root as the measure of our self-worth?  Am I a better person if housing prices continue to rise?  If my working for less pay means we have a stronger balance of trade, does that mean my salary cut is patriotic?  Are capital gains for me better than a good education for all children?  At what point do we tell Greenspan: No?  Who questions the economy card?

Some communities are starting to fight back, a little.  In Boston, for example, some leaders have gone as far as to say that they are looking at implementing local versions of Kyoto despite the administration's foot-dragging.  Among their justifications: global warming is bad for the economy.  For the reality-based, the knife cuts two ways, not just one.

- jack*

Mrs. Bold Moves...

My first grade daughter's Patriotic Pageant is tonight.  She's already been treating us to the haunting strains of Proud to be an American, The Liberty Bell, and The Melting Pot.  Of course, the songs she's practicing are part of an extracurricular music program funded by parent and community donations.  Uncle Sam is not picking up the tab for this, and in a more poor neighborhoods the little tykes probably wouldn't be learning these lyrics.

Lynne Cheney was recently on the Fresh Air radio show discussing this issue of school curricula.  She's doing the circuit hawking her new children's book about heroes of the Revolutionary War.  Schools, Lynne Cheney said, don't focus enough on the good things about America.  It's OK to talk about slavery, she thinks, provided that the emphasis is on how America realized it's bad mistake and got all better.  The McCarthy Era, on the other hand; why focus on it so much?  Of course, she seems quite eager to flush awkward facts of history down the memory hole.  Terry Gross asked her some tough questions, bless her heart, some of which left the Second Lady stammering.  Regarding her now out of print 1981 novel, Sisters, and Cheney repeatedly denied that the book contained any lesbian characters.  As a student of history, she feels that looking on same-sex intimacy in the 1880's as lesbianism is "presentism," and her novel tried to put it in historical context.  Who would have thought that a potboiler in the romance genre could have so much intellectual heft.  Is Mrs. Cheney arguing for cultural relativism?  Is she, while denying that her husband's re-election was in any way predicated on getting out the vote of religious radicals, saying that the Biblical prohibitions against homosexuality were different only 1.25 centuries ago?

Anyway, back to the present.  Cheney's new tale is about Washington crossing the Delaware -- a bold move, she explains, which turned the tide of war.  He went on the offensive, even while losing, and his victories emboldened and reinvigorated the American troops.  I'm sure that Mrs. Cheney, that arch anti-presentist, could not possibly be making an allegory to a more modern leader who also pointed to a map grid far across the water and said, "the enemy is gathering there -- we shall attack them first."  I bet there were a bunch of liberal namby-pambies back in the Revolutionary War who whined about every little defeat, unlike the sunny disposition of General Washington who saw every setback as a new opportunity.  Or perhaps it's an homage to an episode of Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist.  Dr. Katz, the spineless liberal, finally takes his worthless and insufferably smug adult son to task and tells him to leave home.  Ben agrees, and calls his father later in the day to say that he has taken a long lease on a huge apartment.  When Dr. Katz gently asks him how he's going to pay the rent, Ben says, (I'm paraphrasing from memory): "That's not how you get things done Dad.  You have make bold moves and let the chips fall where they may."

My wife and I use that expression between ourselves.  When I say to her "you've got to make bold moves, and let the chips fall where they may," I mean it as a way to explain that I have acted rashly and made a big goof, and that I'm sorry.  When Lynne Cheney writes it, albeit in analogy, she means it the same way her husband does.  It means, "don't question me, or you're not a patriot."  Perhaps in a few years first graders will have a song about it.

- jack*

Say the Left Thing...

In order to convince the American people of the urgency to privatize Social Security, the president has used words such as “crisis,” “bankruptcy,” and “collapse.”

Let’s look at the definition of these three words, according to the Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary.

Crisis:  “a situation that has reached a critical phase.”

Bankruptcy:  “utter failure or impoverishment.”

Collapse:  “to break down completely.”

Is it true that Social Security is in crisis?  Is bankrupt?  Is collapsing?

The answer is a resounding NO.

Sen. Boxer, D-CA          

Senator Boxer is once again leading the fight for Democrats.  Here she pushes back on Bush's push for destroying Social Security, in much the way I think is exactly right.  The debate is not about what to do about Social Security, or even whether there is a crisis.  The real debate, and I think the real opportunity for genuine emotion from Democratic Congressional leaders, lies in the manner in which Bush and his people are selling their proposal.  They are using words meant to fan the flames of doubt, to create panic and urgency in people's thoughts when there is no need for it.  They are essentially crying "Fire!" in a crowded theater.  Whether their exact utterances can be pegged as lies or not is irrelevant.  They are speaking in a way that is totally irresponsible and reckless.  This is the real issue.

Boxer takes on their tactics directly, calling out how the words they use do not match the reality of the situation.  She also calls this what it is -- the deliberate dismantling of Social Security -- citing a confidential White House memo.  She stops short of calling anyone a liar, however, and avoids pointing fingers by switching to the passive voice in her conclusions.  This may be prudent at this stage.  If the administration continues with their deceit, which they will have to now that they are committed to this course, it will be time for calls demanding they stop.  When they continue crying crisis and saying private accounts will solve the problem (while at the same time covering themselves with official statements that say their proposal will not fix the problems), then it will be time for outrage.  The opportunity is huge, if only the rest of the Democrats can follow Boxer's lead and speak up.

There are signs that other leaders are also preparing the groundwork for this assault on the credibility of the President and his minions.  Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made a radio address on Social Security which, although it mainly pointed out the factual difficulties with Bush's plan, did end on a note critical of the President's tactics.

If the president wants our support and the support of the country, he should stop advocating change based on ideology. He should scrap his privatization proposal and start working in a bipartisan way toward a common-sense solution.

With Social Security on the chopping block, this is no time for Democrats to be squeamish about being branded "too liberal" or "partisan."  Truth is a moral value after all, so calling the administration on it's scare tactics isn't just good politics, it's the right thing to do.

- jack*

The Anti-Rush...

I basically concluded – I felt this going in but I felt it more powerfully coming out – that there's been an infrastructure built by the right over the last 40 years, since Goldwater lost in '64, It's included the building of think tanks and things like the Media Research Center, which tries to extract anything out of context that makes it look like the mainstream media has a liberal bias. And this has been pounded, and pounded, and pounded in by the unbelievably right-wing terrain of talk radio. This pounding has been internalized by the mainstream media and they are now doing the job of the right.

Al Franken, from an interview at AlterNet

My morning commute is about 30 minutes, so since we started getting Air America on a local AM radio station, I have been listening to (minus commercials) about 15 minutes of the weekday Al Franken show.  It's well worth seeking out.  While it's sometimes funny or has interesting guests like Joe Conason and David Brock, that's only a small part of what Franken (and the other hosts at Air America) are starting to accomplish.  He is putting together a story.  Franken's narrative attempts to weave together the disparate threads of liberal thought into a mosaic, a single big picture into which all the different issues make sense together and support each other.  This is essential work if we are to get past our own hot-button issues and build a progressive movement in this country.  And the conservatives have a long head start.

Rush Limbaugh has been telling stories for years.  His legions of listeners, his "ditto-heads," have worked with him to create the conservative mythology, a heartwarming tale of down home heroes fighting impossible odds.  The American citizen, working hard to raise his family and support his neighbors, is confronted by the evils of the left.  Liberals want to take away his Bible and teach gay sex in school.  Democrats want to take more of his paycheck and give it to lazy welfare cheats and obscene artists.  Feminists want to neuter men and take the fun out of everything.  Terrorist hate him for his freedom, and the French look down on him as ignorant.  The conservative fairy tale casts middle-class whites, one of the most affluent and privileged demographics, as the downtrodden victim.  And who will save them?  Conservatives, Republicans, and now Bush.  Rush manages to take the American Dream and spin it into GOP talking points.  He's remarkably successful.

And it doesn't matter if most of what Rush says is patently false.  Al Franken has a regular segment on his show where he debunks and explodes several of the many, many lies that Rush speaks every day, while his conservative friend, acting as "resident ditto-head," tries to justify or explain them.  Some of the lies are very funny, but the segment is incredibly frustrating.  (It's my least favorite part of the show, and yet I always seem to hear it because of when I drive.)  Franken often does a good enough job that his friend agrees that Rush went too far, or got it wrong.  He never accepts that it's a lie, however, and he always insists that Rush's main point was still correct.  He has faith that the story is right, even if much of the evidence used to support and demonstrate it is egregiously false.  If anything, Franken is showing us what not to do: don't try to convert the faith-based with logic.

Rush deals in humbug, or putting it less politely, B.S.  All he has to do is pull enough random lint out of the air to be able to spin his yarn.  His listeners believe the story because they want to believe it, and whether his facts track reality or not is not relevant to this objective.  Franken has a more difficult task.  He cannot build a narrative out of whole cloth; he has to respect the facts.  He has to take a measured view of reality and make sure that everything fits together.  He even has to concede the other guy's point when he's right.  He also has to tell a tale that people mostly don't want to hear -- that the government has been taken over by reckless radicals.  That's not part of the American mythology; it's not supposed to happen here.

Some have argued that framing the debate is more important than the facts themselves.  In some ways that may be true.  On the other hand it sure helps to have the facts on your side.

- jack*

The First Value...

H. pylori is in the news again.  It was back in the 1990's that the plucky bacterium, Helicobacter pylori which colonizes the inhospitably acidic mucous in the human stomach lining, first started making headlines as the real cause of peptic ulcers.  Up until then the treatment had been bland diets and deep breathing, but now ulcer sufferers could look forward to real relief from a simple course of antibiotics.  It was also implicated in some kinds of stomach cancer, so discovery and treatment was a remarkable achievement.

But the story didn't end there.  Researchers have now discovered that H. pylori may also be involved in regulating stomach acidity in otherwise healthy humans.  When its environment becomes too acid, the bacteria releases toxins that inflame the stomach lining, triggering a reduction in acid levels.  For the last 50 years or so, increased sanitation and widespread use of antibiotics has reduced the overall infection rate for H. pylori, and we have also seen an attendant increase in acid reflux disease and esophageal cancer across the same populations.  It's speculated that its decline may also be a factor in epidemic obesity because of its role in amplifying or suppressing the stomach's appetite signals.

So should we have it or not?  Is it a good bacteria or a bad bacteria?

Of course it's not intrinsically good or bad -- there is nothing in its genome which encodes its moral value.  As a bacteria it simply is.  It exists; it has properties and qualities which can be measured and understood.  It is a fact.  To make a moral judgment about it requires evaluating it relative to a set of values.  Values provide a rating system -- kind of a moral Siskel and Ebert -- that we can use to compare the facts about a situation or thing and determine if it's good or bad.  From there it's a short step to normative ethics, where we decide what we should do based on the facts that confront us.  The formula is: what is, measured by our values, determine what we ought to do.  But where do our values come from?

The conventional answer is: Nowhere.  Many traditions, from both right and left, insist that we cannot derive "ought" from "is".  They believe that values, the system that takes us from observations to prescriptions, are arbitrary and are not subject to reason.  The moral relativism of the postmodernists argues that values are specific to a given society at a given time, and that it's impossible to compare one set of values to another since to do so would require yet a third set of values.  Since I would use my values to compare my values to your values, my values will always come out ahead.  Any rigged contest like that would be immoral, thus all values systems must be equal on their own merits.  (Postmodernists stock in trade is the Stolen Concept.)

The moral fundamentalists, on the other hand, believe that values come from some supernatural or extra-rational source.  Whether relying on holy texts or what just "feels right," they argue that values come to us fully-formed and immutable.  Some external agency, whether God or some deep part of the soul (never the rational mind), gives us values which are complete and correct, and anyone who disagrees is either not seeing clearly or is trying to excuse immoral desires.  Despite deeply felt conviction, however, fundamentalist ethics are just as bankrupt as moral relativism and for the same reason.  Values themselves can be subject to testing.

Medicine is a great example.  Medical ethics is a complex and demanding field with a vast body of thought that stretches back to Hippocrates.  While the edifice is worthy of study on its own, it is rooted in some core values.  Doctors value life over death, comfort over pain, vigor over lassitude -- in short, all those attributes associated with well-being.  Could we imagine a system of values that would reverse these preferences?  Not really.  That's not just a modern or Western bias -- the core value of heath is universal because it's derived from human nature.  An alternate system of values will be about as successful as an animal born with a preference for seeking out and consuming deadly toxins.  Here we have a clear-cut case of an "ought" -- medical ethics -- being derived from an "is" -- the facts of human biology.

There is an even more essential value than the health of our bodies; that is truth over falsehood.  Getting things right matters.  Even if values were independent of what exists, it would be critical to have the correct facts about the world so as to apply our values correctly.  Without true inputs our judgments and actions are worthless at best, deadly destructive at worst.  But since values themselves also built upon an accurate apprehension of nature, the world, and of each other, truth is essential not only for deciding right from wrong, but in determining what is right and what is wrong in the first place.  Truth is the first moral value.

- jack*

Atlas Opted-Out...

Ayn Rand would have liked Bush's "ownership society."  In Atlas Shrugged, her turgid manifesto, the plot is driven entirely by her fictional heroes' desire to keep hold of their own stuff.  Values such as love, compassion and family all take a back seat to private property.  Human rights are passe if they stand in the way of ownership.  While Rand's book is 1074 pages and padded with long dusty lectures on the virtues of greed or the evils of altruism, her philosophy was best expressed by Fuzzy Lumpkins from the Powerpuff Girls cartoons.  He spoke for CEOs and filthy mountain men alike with his immortal words: "Git offa my propity!"

Rand's heroes, realizing that they cannot win their antitrust battle in the public square, decide to turn their backs on civilization.  Convinced that society will collapse without their greatness, they embark on a program of theft, sabotage and terror against the entire industrialized world, eventually retreating to an impregnable mountain stronghold where, safe behind their force field and warming themselves with their perpetual motion engine, they watch with glee as millions die horrible deaths.  They plan to stride forth like Titans and remake the cleansed Earth in their image, to be free forever to wallow in the avarice of unfettered capitalism.

It's a dreadful book.  It also happens to be the blueprint for the conservative moment of most of the last century.

Rich conservatives hate taxes.  Actually that's not completely accurate.  They hate paying taxes.  They especially hate paying taxes that go to support social programs like welfare, public schools and Social Security.  They don't use those programs themselves, and they resent that their not inconsiderable tax burden goes to benefit other people.  They clothe this core selfishness in a vast conservative philosophy which argues for unregulated markets, minimal government and ruthless Social Darwinism.  The young G.W.Bush summarized it with the eloquence of Fuzzy Lumpkins: "people are poor because they are lazy."

But they realize that they cannot win this battle in public debate.  Social programs are on the whole very successful, and despite years of right-wing propaganda on talk radio they remain quite popular with voters.  So instead they use a stealthier approach -- they withdraw.  Unlike Rand's heroes, however, they withdraw their support of government programs out in the open and without leaving the country.  They simply opt-out of those things they don't like.  School voucher programs, for example, are a way to opt-out of the public school system.  People have always been free keep their children out of public schools but their taxes still went to support the public school system.  Now, under the rubric of "choice" or "competition," those who weren't going to use public school anyway can get their money out as well.  Likewise Bush's Social Security proposal.  He wants to give wage-earners the choice of diverting some of their payroll tax into private accounts that they would own.  No matter what the final form of the legislation, what this does is allow people who don't need Social Security not to have to pay for it either.

The end goal is the same as as it was for Rand -- to destroy.  It works like this.  First point to minor problems in social programs and call it a crisis, insisting that opt-out policies will fix them.  Not only do they not fix the problem, but starving social programs of funds drives them deeper into the crisis that opt-out was supposed to address.  The solution?  More expansive opt-out policies.  Underfunded social programs go into collapse, unable to adequately service the needs they are designed for.  Declare them irredeemable, point out that socialism always fails, and privatize the system entirely.  Now you not only get to keep the tax money that would have been spent on a service that didn't benefit you, but you also get to make a profit selling that service to people who need it.

Bush has been very clear about his intention to tear down Social Security.  His efforts are part of that larger program.  When he asks for your support, tell him you opt-out.

- jack*

Disingenuous Casuistry...

Last year my I attended MoveOn event in my local neighborhood for a screening of the documentary UNCOVERED: The War on Iraq.  Despite some hasty editing (rushed because of the timeliness of the material) the interviews and other documentation spoke for themselves.  Iraq posed no threat, and professionals and operatives up and down the intelligence establishment were perfectly aware of that fact.  But as we got to the "future action" part of the meeting, it was clear that something was missing.  Everyone wanted to get this film in front of more eyeballs -- but then what?  The discussion petered out very much the same way the film did, and in the same way as many other attempts to organize opposition.  The logical conclusion is still fundamentally unpalatable.

Laying out bare facts is not enough.  The facts must be put together to tell a story that explains the why, not just the what.  The story that a rogue, corrupt regime has taken power in this country is not one that most Americans want to hear.  The media denigrate such ideas as "tinfoil hat" conspiracy theories, the realm of street people, left-wing loonies and Micheal Moore.  The facts are relatively uncontroversial.  Bush said there were WMDs; there were none.  It's the story that many will dispute -- and it focuses around one question: did he lie, or did he not?

Although many now agree that the war was a mistake, there are too few who are prepared to believe that the President, any President, would deliberately lie, especially to send the country into war.  So instead they believe something else, and the right-wing media machine gives them plenty of other things to believe.  It was Clinton's fault.  It was Tenent's fault.  It was Saddam's fault.  It was Ted Kennedy's fault (I've really heard that one).  In every scenario Bush comes away clean, while those who would impugn his integrity cannot be trusted because they have some axe to grind.

This poses a particular problem for our representatives.  Especially Senators who generally represent purple states that partly support Bush and partly oppose him.  Senators are a craven and self-interested lot, but they are smart enough to know that calling Bush a liar on Iraq would immediately alienate them from a good fraction of their voters, not to mention creating a Constitutional crisis.  So they equivocate.  Questioned on the issue they say things like Bush "was not forthright," or he "exaggerated," or he "pushed unsound intelligence."  Anything to avoid the word "lie."  Of course his supporters say that he was duped along with everyone else (as if being a dupe is a positive character trait).

Some are starting to have trouble walking such a narrow tightrope.  I recently heard audio clips of Senator Joe Biden discussing this issue in the Senate (although I sadly could not find links or transcripts) and splitting legal hairs so fine he had to go back to his upbringing in Catholic school for relevant thought experiments.  Imagine, he mused, if a kid confessed to his priest about stealing a gold chain, neglecting to point out that the chain was attached to a valuable gold watch.  Would it be a lie?  No, he said, it would not.  In fact the kid did steal a chain, so even if there were salient facts omitted the statement itself was not a lie.

Given that this was an allegory for Bush's approach to selling the invasion of Iraq, it's useful to analyze it in some detail.  Confessions in the Catholic faith, as I understand it, are concerned primarily with forgiveness and salvation.  In this context if a child is willing to confess to something which is unquestionably true, despite the fact that he is not yet willing to cop to the more serious consequences of his actions, that is a good thing in and of itself.  The child should not be punished more if he was willing to confess only to a smaller part of the sin.  Because we are merciful we do not add "lie" to the sins he has committed even if he was not totally forthright the first time around.

But the President of the United States does not need to be treated so charitably.  He's not a schoolboy.  He's not a penitent seeking forgiveness; he is a man who sought the job and promised the voters that he would do it better than anyone else.  He is a man who put his hand on the Bible and swore to faithfully execute the office of the Presidency and uphold the Constitution.  The highest office in the land must be held to the highest possible standard -- anything else is cowardice.

Bush's current pogrom against Social Security is a perfect opportunity for Democrats to call a lie a lie.  In this case we need to employ the broadest definition of "lie":  pretend with intent to deceive.

Bush is pretending that there is a crisis in Social Security with the intend to deceive citizens that his plan will fix it.  There is no question that this is a lie.  It's a huge opportunity for Congressional Democrats to call this a lie.  Not politely question his facts, not try to "re-frame" the issue, not perform a tightrope act of nuanced hairsplitting -- just straight out call his bluff.  A lie exposed here, a lie exposed there; these things add up fast.  Pretty soon he's a known liar, and then, and only then, can we get back to the question of Iraq.  Perhaps at that point everyone will be wearing a tinfoil hat.

- jack*

Stop, Wait, Come Back...

This is why Sullivan's arguments are as politically ingenious as it is disingenuous; it forces Democrats to defensive positions that are highly popular deftly changing the subject from the positions of that canny George Bush. This line of argument is a trap--don't fall in.

I point you to the Lawyers, Guns and Money blog, where Scott Lemieux makes my point better than I do.  Politics has recently become like a horror movie.  Not one of the cool horror movies of the 30s and 40s where the monster is a suave gentleman who lures women into his lair because of his supernatural charm.  We're talking about the modern slasher flick.

The hapless teens first encounter the creepy janitor who tells them "never go into the basement."  Then the first couple goes into the basement looking for a place to be alone.  We can understand that -- the rational parts of their brains are overwhelmed by lust.  But when the next few teens follow the trail of blood into the basement, you want to shout "Don't go into the basement!  It's a trap!"  And yet they do.  Every time.

Why do they do it?  And why, given adequate warning, do otherwise rational Democrats walk right into Republican word traps to be slashed and murdered by simplistic hacks?  When the pundits say "don't you think that's a tragedy?" -- don't agree!  It's a trap!  Get out now!  Stop!

Too late.  No one listens to the creepy janitor.

- jack*