Month: March 2012

Today on the Dish, Andrew situated the Cameron and Obama Administrations in the same, intelligently conservative sphere, opened up about last night's dinner at the White House, aired a disturbing video of interviews about Obama in the Deep South (prompting dissent and further discussion here, here, and here), half-heartedly lamented the end of the GOP debates, and parsed Shelly's approach to funding in what remains of the primary. We chronicled an "enough, already" reaction to anyone pretending the GOP contest isn't over, noted that Romney had a good delegate month ahead of him, watched Mitt squirm when pressed on his former love for mandates, wondered whether he'd ever pick Santorum for veep, worried that Santorum's brand of conservatism would come to define the Republican Party, debated zombie Newt's effect on the race, and started a "Get. Out. Now." watch for the ego-maniac. Gingrich's $2.50 gas pledge was ridiculous and the GOP fielded an (un)-Orthodox candidate for Congress in New Jersey. Ad War Update here.

Andrew also explained why no priest could ever come out as gay and mocked the Pope's extravances. We made the conservative case for subsidized birth control, kept up the chronic pain and medical pills discussion, checked out an idea to save money by paying Congresspeople more, worried about our infrastructure, and examined the theory that overtime was counterproductive. Strange things surrounded Zionism and "Zion Square," #Kony2012 educated us on how social media does and doesn't work to advance causes, a screed against online publishing got refudiated, and fictionalizing journalism was not okay. Science explained love of violent movies, sibling rivalry, and a glorious light effect (follow-up here). Cool Ad here, Yglesias Nominee here, VFYW here, MHB here, and FOTD here.

– Z.B.

(Photo: US President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron listen to national anthems during a welcome ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House on March 14, 2012. By Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images.)

Ugandans pan the video:

Charli Carpenter draws lessons from the social media controversy:

The video's value is its ridiculousness. While every single critique of Kony2012 is valid, this is precisely what makes it such a remarkably effective teaching tool both about Uganda and about critical media studies – and part of what made it, so far, an effective awareness-raising tool. Part of why it went viral was precisely because of the backlash. Invisible Children would have been less effective had they aimed for nuance – both because the message would have been lost on the uninformed and because it wouldn't have provoked the backlash. What is heartening about this episode is the rapidity with which educators and pundits – not to mention human rights claimants - responded to the video with correctives, satire and clarifications. If we read this video as a catalyst rather than as the message itself, it served its purpose brilliantly.

Ari Kohen bashes the backlash:

Also to blame [for the video's failure] are all those who gleefully tore apart Invisible Children in the wake of the video’s virality, especially those with real expertise in the region and in the fields of human rights and conflict. The reason I say that they share some of the blame is because of the way they reacted to the “Kony 2012” video and campaign. It’s one thing to critique the organization and to discourage people from buying merchandise as a way to deal with grave violations of human rights. I have no problem at all with that; indeed, I agree with it. But it’s quite another to offer precious little else by way of an alternative.

Previous Dish coverage of the phenomenon here, here and here.

Jack Shafer tears into Truman Capote for fictionalizing parts of In Cold Blood:

To be generous to Capote, perhaps he was not completely aware of his own inventions. "Truman used to talk about how he never used a tape recorder or notes or anything doing that book," George Plimpton told the New York Times when Capote died in 1984. "But sometimes he said he had 96 percent total recall, and sometimes he said he had 94 percent total recall. He could recall everything, but he could never remember what percentage recall he had."

Puerto Rico votes on Sunday. In an interview with El Vocero newspaper yesterday, Santorum said that English must be the "principal language" of Puerto Rico as a prerequisite of US statehood. The Romney campaign is now taking a different approach. Here's Craig Romney making the case for his father in Spanish: 

Translation here. Meanwhile, Santorum's Super PAC knocks Romney in Illinois as "Obama lite": 

Alex Burns has more: 

The Red White and Blue Fund has aired contrast spots against Romney before, but this is the most aggressive effort yet to define his Massachusetts record in negative terms. The spot has about $300,000 behind it, a source confirms. … The Romney campaign is crying foul over the ad, pointing to a fact-check that calls the claims about Romney's budget record "misleading."

First Read has an early look at spending in upcoming primaries: 

Illinois (3/20): Restore Our Future $2.3 million, Romney $923,000, Gingrich $16,000 Louisiana (3/24): Restore Our Future $465,000, Red White and Blue Fund $244,000, Santorum $32,000 Winning Our Future $3,000 Wisconsin (4/3): Restore Our Future $508,000.

Previous Ad War Updates: Mar 14, Mar 13, Mar 12, Mar 9, Mar 8, Mar 7, Mar 6, Mar 5, Mar 2, Mar 1, Feb 29, Feb 28, Feb 27, Feb 23, Feb 22, Feb 21, Feb 17, Feb 16, Feb 15, Feb 14, Feb 13, Feb 9, Feb 8, Feb 7, Feb 6, Feb 3, Feb 2, Feb 1, Jan 30, Jan 29, Jan 27, Jan 26, Jan 25, Jan 24, Jan 22, Jan 20, Jan 19, Jan 18, Jan 17, Jan 16 and Jan 12.

Eric Spiegel explains why the decay of America's infrastructure is so damaging to the economy. He touts public-private partnerships as one way to modernize infrastructure:

We have hundreds of military bases in the U.S., and they are in disrepair. The buildings are old and their energy efficiency is poor. They're looking at putting smart micro grids in to handle their own power generation. Micro grids could be solar, could be gas, and could be different things. When you take a look at the numbers, these things are basically self-funding. In other words, the government doesn't have to make the investment.

It can get private money from companies like Siemens who will do what we call performance contracting. We'll pay to modernize the military's grid and share the savings with the federal government. We can do the same thing with rail systems, highways, universities, data centers. We can use a lot of private money to drive this. The rest of the world is doing this in a big, big way. We need to make it easier to do here.

Relatedly, Ezra Klein worries about the fate of the highway bill. Brad Plumer adds that the long-term transportation picture doesn't look any better. 

A reader writes:

Your reader may not be the Messiah, I think my dog might be. Harry has a lighting effect of his own, plus attitude.

Ronald Bailey unloads on Newt's pledge to secure $2.50 gasoline as president:

Why doesn’t Gingrich promise free daily ice cream and cake for everybody while he’s at it? … While it is true that the Obama administration has ruled out drilling on vast areas of the federal estate, the number of oil and gas rigs operating in the U.S. has nonetheless increased markedly in recent years. Indeed, it is not surprising that as the price of petroleum soared so too did the number of drilling rigs. The oil and gas rig count has increased to more than 1,900, up from around 700 [PDF] in 2000. … 

If Gingrich wants to lower oil prices, perhaps he should stop his saber-rattling against Iran.

"If there’s an effective diplomatic outreach here that pushes back the prospect of a military confrontation with Tehran, we probably have something on order of $20-$30 a barrel geopolitical risk premium that could drop out of the oil price very dramatically," wrote Tim Evans, energy analyst at Citi Futures Perspective in New York in the Financial Times. Oil consultant [Michael] Lynch agreed. "The recent run up the price of oil is almost completely the result of concerns about losing Iranian oil or Iran attacking shipments in the Strait of Hormuz," he says.

Dan Klein profiles Rabbi Shmuely Boteach, a GOP candidate for Congress:

Boteach lives in Bergen County, [New Jersey] one of the nation’s few jurisdictions that still has blue laws, forcing businesses to close on Sundays. While for years he’s waged a high-profile campaign to encourage "family Fridays," as a lawmaker he says he’d promote quality family time partly by extending blue laws across the country. When Boteach talks about values, he’s not just talking about the family. He believes that the economic crisis was exacerbated by a culture that equates money with happiness and confuses greed with entrepreneurship. It’s when values are eroded, he believes, that the government feels the need to step in.

But Boteach differs from his evangelical counterparts on key social issues, telling Klein:

The social-sexual obsession is destroying America and the Republican party in particular … How are we going to fix marriage by focusing on gay men?

A reader adds to the popular thread:

A little anecdote: I work at a Catholic high school.  One of our guidance counselors, a nun, stopped by my house after school last week.  She brought a couple of sandwiches and we had a long, raucous conversation.  I love her.  She embraces the truth, never runs from it.  At one point, we were talking about the prospect of married priests.  She drew a long breath and said, "I could count on one hand the number of priests I know who aren't either gay or carrying on a relationship with a woman partner."  That was surprising to me, only because she doesn't speak in hyperbolic terms.  My response, a little incredulous, was, "So the Church is in denial about itself."  Her sage rejoinder:  "Ya think?"

Another writes:

In response to a previous reader comment on gay church musicians, I'd like to point out that many of these musicians are not necessarily members of the congregation or even Catholics at all, but rather professional musicians who depend on church employment for their income. I personally know an organist who was fired from a church position for being gay, and a change in the directorship of his current church will always put him in danger of termination on these grounds. It is grossly unfair to subject a skilled professional to the constant threat of being fired on doctrinal grounds, especially if they are not themselves Catholic, but this is what exempting religious organisations from anti-discrimination laws will get you.

Another:

I don't want to blame the victim here, but as long as we remain silent and not state clearly and openly who we are, why should the Catholic hierarchy speak our name? We don't. Harvey Milk asked us, "If a bullet should enter my brain, let that bullet destroy every closet door." As long as Catholics, active in the church and in church positions, stay in the closet, the church will never recognize us. Come out, come out, wherever you are.

Amen. Since gay priests are celibate and being gay is not a sin, why wouldn't openly gay priests be the most powerful advocates for the Vatican's position? But this immediately reveals why this isn't the case. Many gay and straight priests are not celibate, and a public declaration of homosexual orientation might open their lives up to greater scrutiny from their bosses. But also, the Vatican has made it clear it does not want gay priests being open about their orientation – because, despite their official language, they really do want to keep homosexuality stigmatized and invisible, because their doctrines are even less persuasive when talented able gay men represent the church itself. Also: if a gay priest came out in the pulpit, he would almost certainly be fired, as in the military.

But one can dream, no? What if every gay priest in the country came out on the same Sunday? What if the Pope finally came out? The truth is: the Catholic church has locked itself into a celibate all-male priesthood and Humanae Vitae and all the distracting, corrupting hypocrisy both have led to in the modern world. The current Pontiff is an almost perfect representative of these conflicts – and he has built his entire identity on layer after layer of denial. He can't change now; and he has ensured that the leadership of the church which he has effectively staffed now for almost thirty years is as screwed up on these relatively trivial issues as he is.

I have no optimism that this cruelty, hypocrisy and double standards will end any time soon. But I do have hope. Because in the end, I share John Paul II's belief:

"Be not afraid!" … Of what should we not be afraid? We should not fear the truth about ourselves.

Readers rush to defend this one:

I'm a gay Mississippian who thoroughly enjoyed voting for Barack Obama, has spent the last three years in exasperation as the right has painted him with every offensive lie it can dream up and will eagerly vote for him again in November.  So this criticism does not come from anywhere near the Hannity-Limbaugh-Fox & Friends axis: This video is PRECISELY the sort of condescending, self-congratulating, tautological garbage that fuels the stereotype of the mainstream media as a band of snotty elitists who sneer at everything that resides outside the Beltway, NYC, Hollywood or San Francisco.

My family and friends in Mississippi are well-educated, well-informed, tolerant, open-minded people of differing political opinions – which is more, apparently, than we can say for Bill Maher and the daughter of the former Speaker.  We're lawyers, judges, doctors, teachers, counselors, farmers, students, business people, writers, artists, entertainers and home makers.  Some of my family and friends in Mississippi are deeply religious; some are atheist or agnostic.  Quite a few are fans of your blog and of Maher's show. We hail from the state that gave American culture William Faulkner (estimated as second only to Shakespeare as the most widely read author in the English language), Walker Percy, Eudora Welty, Richard Wright, Barry Hannah and Tennessee Williams.  This is the seedbed of the blues tradition (Robert Johnson, Willie Dixon, Muddy Waters, B.B. King) and the home of Elvis Presley, so it's fair to say we invented rock and roll, for fuck's sake. 

If Ms. Pelosi had stood for an hour with her camera outside Square Books in Oxford, or Turn Row Books in Greenwood, or Lemuira Bookstore in Jackson, she would have collected ample material to present a startling contrast from black and white Missisippians who have thoughtful political opinions and all of their teeth. But instead we have to sit here and take this tired barefoot-and-toothless Southerners shit from people who can't go a week without reminding each other how morally and intellectually superior they are to people who are quite obviously bigots.

Another also counters me:

Yes, the video does "speak for itself". It is the manifestation of why the Democratic Party, and left-leaning politics in general, are so totally irrelevant to many of the people who should, by all rights, be its base. The clip is patently offensive, and the fact that nobody on the left seems to get why is truly worrisome.

First, the setup: the extremely wealthy, Bay Area-raised daughter of Nancy Pelosi is going to go on a hick safari and cut together a bunch of clips of those dreadful rednecks she’s heard about all her life. Never mind that if she knew anything about demographics, she wouldn’t have to go all the way to Mississippi to hear these opinions; she could just travel a few hours northeast of the Bay into upstate California, where contempt of Obama runs just as deep. The problem, of course, is that these people don’t fit the stereotypes Alexandra needs for her caricature: they aren’t going to talk about the South rising again, and they don’t speak with a thick Mississippi twang. Moreover, what music would she use in place of the jangling banjos she can use for her highly academic "Shit Toothless Southerners Say" video.

Your dissenter suggested an alternative video that purported to interview gay people and only interviewed the most exaggerated lisping gay men from San Francisco. I think the better example is this: what if some white Republican filmmaker decided to go to Chicago and interview black people in the inner city about their views on Obama. Of the many individuals interviewed, the five most stereotypically black are selected, and each of their answers are cut up and sewn together so as to sound as absurd as possible. Then, they use generic hip-hop as a soundtrack.

This would also be obviously offensive, and for the same reason: it’s prejudice porn. Viewers (who obviously all already agree with the interviewer) see their every bias confirmed, from the production, with the banjo music serving as a screaming dog whistle declaring “THESE ARE REDNECKS, THEY’RE DUMB,” to the silly beliefs that maybe voting Republican will work this time (never mind that urban blacks keeping voting D and have yet to see any tangible benefit).

As long as this shit is accepted on the left, it should be no wonder that liberals are not welcome in white, rural America. It reeks of privilege, prejudice, and the superiority complex that taints the limousine liberal politics that run the Democratic Party. Until liberals can learn how to talk about the people they supposedly care about without this disgusting air of condescension and smugness, Mississippi, and everywhere like it, will remain a one-party state.

Another:

One of the subjects in the video, the man with the missing teeth, seemed to be a hoarder and is almost certainly mentally ill.  I find it highly objectionable to hold up a mentally ill hoarder on food stamps as a subject for ridicule.  His political thinking isn't the most coherent?  No shit.  Even liberal Southerners like myself feel resentment on seeing stuff like this.  I've been a social worker for the better part of a decade and have dedicated my working life to helping people like this man.  It's hard not to feel resentment against someone like Alexandra Pelosi who is able to make a much better living than I do by objectifying him rather than helping him.

Regarding the above video:

Maher went to great lengths to explain that Pelosi didn't single those folks out for how they looked or for their views. The stuff she didn't use looked exactly like the stuff she did. He said she had about 30 other interviews she left on the cutting room floor but they all looked like and expressed similar thoughts to the ones she did use. Now, I realize that means folks on the "right" have to take Maher and Pelosi at their word (something they're probably not very keen to do) but Pelosi is scheduled to be on his show tomorrow night, so you should be able to hear it straight from her.

Another reader who has her back:

I don't quite get the big deal regarding Pelosi's documented bigotry. Unless I missed an introduction where she says, "And this is how I think every single white Southerner feels!" why should we pretend we don't normally allow the media to interview a handful of lunatics who self-identify as a certain type and be outraged by what they have to say? There was no manipulation here, just folks speaking their (horrific) minds.

If 52% of Republican voters in Mississippi think Obama is a Muslim, according to recent PPP polling, I can't understand the harm in airing some of those views. Would Pelosi's critics prefer a reasoned, intelligent and less honky-tonk telling of how the President is a secret Muslim? Seeing as no such telling exists, I suspect, how can you fault her for relaying the voices of those 52%?