A Christmas Day

Christmas Day, when we remember the original "birther" controversy

Don't Let the Perfect Be the Enemy of the ... Already Perfect

I've read this and heard this already, but Nate Silver is the one I'll quote. He said that yesterday he was distressed because Obama's speech was not more "joyous and celebratory." though he feels better today. All I can respond is that a somber, thoughtful and by any measure *eloquent* speech was appropriate in the moment.

My wife and I and, I wager, a strong majority of Americans were already joyous and celebratory. The fact of Obama's election is something from which one almost fears one might wake up. I think of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes:

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?”

My friends, I thought the election of a man with such a name and such a pedigree in such a country at such a moment in our history was impossible. Who was optimist enough to put it in the category of "improbable"?

Hope and joy were a given yesterday morning. Obama had the wisdom not to wallow in our ecstasy. Had he gone in for poetry he might have permanently damaged my health, to wit:

It was a miracle of rare device,
A sunny pleasure-dome with caves of ice !

A damsel with a dulcimer
In a vision once I saw :
It was an Abyssinian maid,
And on her dulcimer she played,
Singing of Mount Abora.
Could I revive within me
Her symphony and song,
To such a deep delight 'twould win me,

That with music loud and long,
I would build that dome in air,
That sunny dome ! those caves of ice !
And all who heard should see them there,
And all should cry, Beware ! Beware !
His flashing eyes, his floating hair !
Weave a circle round him thrice,
And close your eyes with holy dread,
For he on honey-dew hath fed,
And drunk the milk of Paradise.

Our Odds-On Favorite

I'm no David Hume expert, but I think what he was saying was that it's all a matter of probability. That's what we live by -- likelihood, not certainty. As my wife and I watched Obama's inauguration this morning, the tears and the goosebumps came, subsided and came again throughout the whole spectacle but particularly during his somber eloquent speech.

And I thought: No guarantee of a good outcome now, only a greater probability, just as whatever Bush undertook, no matter how easy and beneficial it seemed at inception, was fraught with disaster.

As the wise man said: When Bush offers to pour you some coffee, pray for asbestos balls.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]">

Among the Sweet, Some Sour

There are so many positive things to be said and thought on this the eve of Obama's inauguration, and as I roam the newspapers and the Internet, I find great pleasure in those thoughts that I also entertain but just haven't happened to write down and -- even better -- the striking insights that had never occurred to me: wow.

But I also take pleasure in the flip side. My word, how Obama's ascendancy is going to chap the butts of some millions of diehard racists and rightwing haters for whom the caste systems of race, religion and mad nationalism prop up their fragile sense of self worth.

I read as a kid that when Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown the British played a tune called "The World Turned Upside Down."

Anybody have the sheet music?

Of course, we need maintain scrutiny of these haters for reasons other than joy in their distress and confusion. There's a lot of hot air out there, but I have no doubt there's some cold blood, too. The Secret Service is about to start its Super Bowl season, and I expect perfection.

Off the Record

Those of you who have been following the resignation of the Obama advisor after a British journalist failed to follow her instruction that her "monster" comment was off the record might have missed the journalist's interview with Hunter Tucker Carlson in which he praised the supine attitude of beltway journalists toward commands from their betters.

A friend sent this message:


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/08/carlson/



Scroll all the way -- there is a lot of cool stuff here.



We were taught that nothing is off the record unless agreed upon ahead of time.


Were we wrong?

To which I replied:

Carlson: full of shit. American beltway reporters: all too often conduits for misinformation and objects of manipulation. Now, the interesting ethical dilemma is how often allow sources to speak anonymous, which concession to high ethics is often the only way to get important information before the public.

But letting folk who have been interviewed time and again play the "oh by the way don't quote me" game: bullshit. Now, Jessica Mitford the muckraker wrote about an interview in which a source said he did not want to be quoted, and she said something to the effect, "Well, restate it if you are unhappy with how it sounded." He did, and she said, "No. I will use both." My *only* criticism of the Scotsman's reporters is that the highest ethical act would have been to say immediately, "No, I will be using that. Perhaps, you'd like to elaborate." Letting people think you won't use something could be seen as dishonest, though perhaps the Scotsman's reporter assumed the Yank should have known the quote was fair game and that she understood that silence in response to her request did not mean it would be acceded to.

One last point: When you are quoting inexperienced folk who have never been interviewed, I think you proceed with compassion. You really might "hurt" them with no good reason. At minimum, if *they* announced in mid-interview that something is off the record, you stop and say it isn't and then go over the rules again. Oh. Off the record is supposed to mean you are supposed to behave as if you have never heard what is OTR, that you can't repeat it later on to get confirmation. OTR is not the same as "not for attribution."

Editor's Note:

Buckminister replies: Then OTR in the press is the same as in real life. Someone tells you something, and no one else (and I mean no one else) ever knows about it. Thought as much. Thanks for the clarification. I was surprised by the smarmy one's attack on The Scotsman journo, it was ruthless & efficient and he "won". She was rattled. And, like me, rather surprised! I'd *never* heard of anyone arguing that you could invoke OTR retroactively! A child can see that this means that nothing is ever really *on* the record...

And a Little Child Shall Lead Them. If a Little Child is Unavailable, How About the Don Rickles of El Cerrito?

Brother Bob Wieder explains how to solve a nomination deadlock at the Democratic convention. I kept looking for the irony but I couldn't find any.

Granny Powah

Former student Katie Crozier's Republican grandmother loves her some Obama!

This is promising.

Something I Want to Read Again Later

So I'll link to Jane Hamsher at Firedoglake talking about how difficult it is to make sure the contest between Clinton and Obama does not turn toxic as partisans try to tease out the difference between what we might call hurtful but unintended "racism/sexism" (its uncertain nature indicated by those quote marks) and cleverly constructed and carefully aimed Sexism/Racism (the pernicious thrust of it indicated by those loud capital letters).

What she says strikes me as smart and necessary. But sometimes you want to read something again later to make sure, so I park it here.

She concludes:

I don't know how to repair the situation other than to acknowledge that people's feelings are legitimate with regard to what they hear no matter the intent, and presuming malicious intent is a great way to make an enemy of someone who probably really wants to be an ally.

Easier to say than to do but disastrous not to try to do.

Chimes at Midnight. Maybe More Like a Fire Alarm

Last night in bed I said something to the effect that well, I guess, we may not vote for Edwards in the primary, figuring his quest is now impossible, in which case it'll be Obama for us, right?

And my wife said no. This is going to be a frank and useful discussion.