Technical Difficulties

 "Helpless and Knockin' on Heaven's Door" - Neil Young and Bob Dylan and the Band

Acftually "Knockin' on a Dragon's Door" or so it seems.

So sorry about comments being knocked out.  I am trying to get some assistance from Typepad, but that may take a bit.

I am also heading off to Boston for my 30th college reunion and a family visit.  I am traveling sans laptop -- I will feel positively naked I fear -- so posting may be a bit spotty.  I am going to try to see a bunch of people I haven't seen for a while in old fashioned face to face contact, so I may not be able to get things fully up and running for a bit.  Hang in there with me.

Have a great weekend all.   

Comments

[TypePad Support]

Hi, this is Melanie from Typepad support! Can you let me know how you contacted us for assistance? I don't see any Help tickets on your account, any emails, or forum posts, so I'd really like to track that down if you can help.

I've got your comments working. Thank your readers for sending us a heads up on Twitter! :)

[Paula B]

Melanie----Nancy and I sent numerous frantic Tweets last night and this morning. Can we post a Typepad Emergency Contact box somewhere on Cogitamus, so readers can get to you quicker? Thanks for your help.

[kathy a.]

yay for comments!

have a great trip, SC!

[Sir Charles]

Thanks.

[oddjob]

Glad you're/we're back from commenting silence. Enjoy the reunion.

[nancy]

Paula -- Can't say that I'd call my one tweet frantic, but there's a trick replacing @ with .@ that sends the message public. I suspect from a business standpoint, Typepad then has extra incentive to provide a fast fix. Also when there's a glitch, there's also a queue. A twitter or two lets them know that a particular blog isn't idle and comments are active. Different queue.

I have to say, I admire the intrepid solo daily blogger who goes months without more than maybe a handful of comments. I guess the activity must be rewardingly cathartic in and of itself somehow. Morialekafa on the sidebar is one -- I think she runs a fine blog. Spartan as can be. She's a retired UCLA anthropology professor living in Bonner's Ferry, Idaho.

Happy reunioning Sir C. Looking foward to hearing what your father has to say about Mitt and the wearing of that LE uniform.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Morialekafa -- my discovery, btw -- is male, he listed his name on the short story he published recently and has mentioned his wife and kids frequently.

Great writer, great curmudgeon.

[nancy]

Interesting Prup. I'd been reading sporadic entries and jumped to *female. Why'd I do that I wonder? I remember a time in comments when KN had to clarify that he was not a she. Also was going to recommend the blog to you. Heh.

My apologies, if needed, extended to Morialekafa. Still. Nice blogging.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Actually, if we can find someone to handle tech details -- don't nobody have a smart sun, daughten, niece, nephew, something, who could/would serve as 'technical adjunct' or whatever? Or, Jayhawk, how are you at such things?

If we get somebody, maybe we should redo the blogroll a bit -- this dates back to litbrit. And two I also suggested, Hunter of Justice and Law Dork are pretty inactive last I looked.

Meanwhile, Desert Beacon, Blog for Arizona, and Religion Dispatches all deserve slots.

Oh, and I'm not sure why you slipped on morialekafa. I have to keep reminding myself DB is female -- or did until recently when she's been using it in discussions -- but then I don't tend to think of female economists -- the only one I know of is Joan Robinson.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Before I try and squeeze in a discussion of unions while the 1st game of the Subway Series plays out -- if not, later tonight -- I want to mention the latest Mitt-steak (that Democrats should dine on).

From Benen/Maddow,

Romney said of Obama:

"[Obama] wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policeman, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people."

If the Democrats don't use this, I really am going to believe that the election is like a baseball game where both managers have bets on the other side.

And I know of no one else who has suggested it, and I'm only saying it is a remote, but noticeable possibility, but the more I watch Romney, the more I am beginning to wonder if he was the one truly mentally disturbed Republican candidate. We call Bachmann or Paul crazy, but that only means they have crazy ideas.

But the stories of his youth, the constant lying -- I assume most of you have seen Benen's every Friday symmary of his lies of the week -- and the type of totally blind stuff like this that he blurts out, all make me wonder. And yes, politicians frequently lie, but even the Nixons, the McCarthys, the Palins all would base their lies on a small -- and frequently irrelevant -- kernel of truth. No candidate I can remember has so consistently made things up out of literally nothing. (The Falwells, the Farahs, the Corsis do, but they aren't candidates.)

In fact, to quote Steve:

As Rachel explained just last night, "Mr. Romney gets caught saying things that are factually wrong, and the thing that is different about him is that he does not mind; he doesn't fix it; he doesn't even try to worm out of it. He doesn't appear to feel any shame about it at all -- and he's happy to keep telling the lie once he knows it is a lie."

Now it could be nothing, but I think of the fixed grin, the 'never heard of the Internet and how things stay around' consistency, and the rest. I think f some personal experience I've had, and fictional portrayals, and I can easily see that veneer cracking, that privilege letting him down, and a full-scale meltdown.

Anyone think I'm totally nuts on this?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

The last two paragraphs are me, not Steve.

[nancy]

Prup -- i don't think it's a slip unless i'm derelict in not immediately proceeding to a blogger's profile to find "male" specifically designated for a gender-whatever nom de net.

also too -- wife and kids. my neighbors, michelle and heather, could write blog entries using those words. 'wife and kids' doesn't tell me as much as i'd like to know in order to locate someone in context. maybe that shouldn't matter -- but sometimes, to me, it does. especially with a blog where one wants to regularly visit.

[oddjob]

I remember a time in comments when KN had to clarify that he was not a she.

And that was thanks to my faulty assumption. To this day I have no idea why I read KN's comments as coming from "she".

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I have my own ideas -- gee, whodathunkit -- about Wisconsin, what it means for the state of unions, and what it meant for the usual blundering of the Democrats. They forget -- in general -- that anyone exists below the middle class, they have at least since 1988, and they treat the middle class as economically determined in their attitudes. They don't see that, from that angle, unions are not popular or capable of generating support -- even from union members who are economically, and think of themselves as, middle class.

I'll work back to that later, but the Democrats forget two other things. First they forget how union rights -- and every other major Progressive Program from FDR through LBJ -- was 'sold.' And they -- and some unions -- forget why unions wre even 'salable.' (And why the same arguments have turned from convincing to off-putting.)

That 'selling' -- and this is in no way a negative word, any program has to reach people who will support it, it has to be 'sold' and only our cynicism assumes 'sold' implies insincerity or dishonesty -- was never done through a 'bidding war.' No progressive or Democratic policy for all that time was sold as a 'bidding war.' It was never sold to voters on the grounds that 'you yourself will be better off if this is passed.' (Even when it could have been argued that way, it wasn't.)

Perhaps the most obvious example, and most absurd counter-example would be Civil Rights. No marcher ever said -- or was dumb enough even to think about saying -- 'Vote for us and we'll give you the right to vote.' No, we had to sell that one to voters who would, if anything, suffer some slight -- and in some cases major -- loss by supporting it. (At the very very least a loss of 'white privilege.')

Even a program like Social Security, that could have been sold as a future economic benefit to viters, mostly wasn't. There was some of that, some of an attempt to use the Leynesian approach -- and spoke the wheels of the Townsend Plan -- but mostly it was, 'Do you want your parents to have to keep working until they die? Do you as an American want a society where old folks can't relax and enjoy the benefits of the years they have worked? Aren't you ashamed, when you hear of an old person begging a church or a social group to help them to keep from starving, from having no place to stay?"

All of these programs were sold as part of an ifealistic dream of American as it could be, as it had moved towards, as it had the wealth and resources to become. Yes, workers who wanted unions would vote Democrat, but consumers as well would 'look for the Union Label' before buying clothes, even if the ones with the label cost more, because they had learned that a good, healthy society gave unions rights and supported them.

Again, the GI Bill could have been sold as 'Vote for us, you Veterans, and we'll give you a college education.' It could even have been sold as what it turned out to be, the greatest example of government-aided 'mobility' in history and the advantages that had on the economy of the fifties and beyond.

Instead, it was sold as 'America, these veterans risked their lives for you. They deserve this reward, and we know you will give it to them and be glad to pay such a little price to honor those who might have, had things gone differently, paid a much stiffer price.' (And, ironically, most of the returning servicemen tended to vote Republican and caused the swing of 1946 -- and the 'Do Nothing 80th Congress.' Yet no progressive ever has, afaik, regretted having supported the GI Bill on those grounds.)

But we abandoned that idealism, and more, we failed to realize that unions were special cases, that the idealism had to stretch even further in thier cases.

But time has run out for me for now. (And I still haven't told you about the oppossum that came to visit, nothing political just a delightful 'flying hoo-hoo.')

More later.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Given the age of the kids and the wife, it would be highly unlikely an 82+ year old person -- born on Black Friday -- would use the term for a same sex relationship, or that such a relationship would have kids, though of course I am a product of one that did.

[oddjob]

Having watched Romney as gubernatorial candidate, governor, and then twice presidential candidate I'm inclined to agree with this assessment/rant written today by Andrew Sullivan:

...Yes, the level of deception is so great it's breath-taking. But Romney, I'm increasingly inclined to believe, is a businessman all the way down. His ethics are about getting, as he put it, 50.1 percent of the vote in any state. He does not believe there are any ethical or principled reasons not to try and get to that 50.1 percent however he can. A businessman can compartmentalize core moral and political questions into marketing. The goal is 50.1 percent saturation.

So he marketed a bunch of policies when running in Massachusetts - blithely becoming pro-choice out of deep conviction and personal experience, implementing Obamacare on a state level as a centrist conservative, being "more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy" on discrimination. But now he is not running in Massachusetts, he will simply change the policies. He favors a constitutional amendment criminalizing all abortion, total repeal of Obamacare, and will not stand by even a gay national security spoeksman if it means offending the religious right. This is who he "is". If a line will work against Obama, he will use it, regardless of its truth. Because there is no truth in Romney's world. There is only advertizing.

There is something increasingly chilling about this shape-shifter, isn't there? He views himself as a product to be marketed to different audiences at different times. And the actual content of that product is completely malleable. It can change as swiftly as Mormon doctrine, when market share is at stake. To predict Romney, in other words, you simply have to merely examine the market he's selling to.

I have no expectation of any kind of psychological meltdown because I don't think that's where Romney's head is at.

It's like Don Henley wrote:

(The Devil speaks)

"Today I made and appearance downtown.
(I am an expert witness, because I say I am.)
And I said, 'Gentlemen - and I use that word loosely - I will testify for you.
I'm a gun for hire. I'm a saint. I'm a liar.
Because there are no "facts", there is no "truth" - just data to be manipulated.
I can get you any result you like. What's it worth to ya?
Because there is no wrong, there is no right.
And I sleep very well at night.
No shame, no solution,
No remorse, no retribution.
Just people selling t-shirts;
just opportunity to participate in this pathetic little circus.
And winning, winning, winning' "
- From Midnight in the Garden of Allah

[oddjob]

Romney's never not had that plastic smile and horrible lack of ability to emotionally connect with average voters. There's nothing I see now that I didn't see when he ran for governor. He's just the same as he's always been, except back then he ran as a centrist New England Republican. The man has no moral core except for doing whatever it takes to make the next sale.

[nancy]

Jeez Prup. 82+ born on Black Friday. Was I supposed to catch that too? I guess.

Also If we get somebody, maybe we should redo the blogroll a bit -- this dates back to litbrit. And two I also suggested, Hunter of Justice and Law Dork are pretty inactive last I looked.

We?

Well, I'm just a happy camper visitor here. And for the record, I miss litbrit.

[Bill H]

Jim, "But we abandoned that idealism" is an important concept which you voiced very eloquently. I can hardly express how much I enjoyed reading that. Today it's all about voting for policies because they directly benefit me, but that is not what liberalism is about at all.

I support universal healthcare, for instance, not because I think health care is an individual right. Whether it is or not is not the point. We call ourselves a "great nation" but to deserve that title a nation has to take care of its citizens. A nation which lets its people die of preventable illness, which lets its people lose the fruits of their labor due to illness, is not a great nation. It isn't about making sure that I, or my family, or my tribe has its needs met; it's that my nation meets its responsibilities.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Thank you, Bill. I want to take a (for me) brief look at how we abandoned that idealism and some of the things that happened in the 1968-74 period. I've mentioned some of these things in the past, and i keep threatening to do an in depth, 10,000 word or so look at the whole question.

But the key to the change was a series of events involving Vietnam and the protest movement, and the key fact that Vietnam was "the liberal's war." (And it also involves one fact that we in the protest movement fought against as much as the pro-War liberals fought against admitting their mistake. We could never fully accept that both parties were acting from the same idealism that I've spoken about above. The pro-war liberals were sincere, and both sides really -- at least at first -- believed in democracy and detested Soviet-style Communism. (Later the more exotic and poetic versions of Mao and Ho were tempting, but briefly.)

But they were such a majority, so certain they were right, and as we became more and more persuasive, they became more and more defensive. We had to get them to challenge their own certainty, and one way we did -- honestly, not tactically, but with the same result -- was to get them questioning their own self-honesty and their own ideals. Were they defending merely a regime they mistakenly thought could lead to democracy -- or at least would be better than Communism -- or were they in truth defending American imperialism, oil interests -- always they first suspect in wars -- and the hegemony of white male Europeans.

We had help. The 'vengeful ghosts' of Charles and Mary Beard were causing their usual havoc, with no Winchester to salt and burh their bones. The innovations that the college students were adding, the new 'relevant' criteria was as strong an attack on the thought of people acting ideally.

We were right about the evil of Vietnam, about how we were 'destroying the country to save it' and were also destroying our own country. And the liberals almost all eventually moved to our side. But (like liberals often are) they had their self-doubts, and our being right about one thing convinced many of them that they had indeed been hypocritical in their professed idealism. (Remember this was not long after a time when the 'ideal liberal' William Fitts Ryan of NY, always acted as if, any time he got more than 25 votes supporting him, he had to reexamine himself to make sure he wasn't 'selling out.) And the masochism of the liberals frequently caused them to embrace those who castigated them the most, the Panthers, the Cleavers, even the first stirrings of those who rejected the peacefulness of the protests and suggested direct action.

They were pretty lost, the liberals and centrist Democrats, To a certain extent they -- like the culture as a whole -- were waiting to be led, were waiting to watch this new spirit advance and bring the change, the emphasis their ideas promised.

They redecorated parts of their village, prestigious parts, for these new, braver, more consistent, more radical liberals to occupy...

And the houses stayed empty. And that part of the story will have to wait until I am more awake. Hopefully tomorrow morning.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

On a completely different topic, we discussed the Mormon contingent in the Salt Lake City Pride parade, but, as I mentioned, this was the first of at least ten the contingent plans on marching at. The next is tomorrow in DC, and I am hoping that anyone who can report directly can tell me what the attitude of the audience is to them and what response they get -- and are there any Mormon counter-protestors aimed at them?

I hope you've been reading the Brooks pieces, her analyses and interviews with the 'ordinary Mormons' behind the groups are worth knowing about.

[Bill H]

Your mention of the "Salt Lake City Pride parade" triggered a memory that still makes me chuckle. My sister, a liberal and not a Mormon, has lived in Salt Lake City for many years. I visit her from time to time, and it is a really nice city. They celebrate "Founders Day" on June 24th with a huge parade which traditionally includes teams of draft horses.

One year they invited the Busweiser Clydesdales, who accepted. Well, the horses didn't accept, their managers did, but you get the point. They showed up, however, with a wagon advertising Budweiser Beer, which did not exactly thrill the Mormons. The Budweiser people said words to the effect of, "Well what the hell wagon did you think we were going to bring?" and "Why do you think we even have these stupid horses to begin with?"

The Mormons said that no way were they advertising beer in their "Founders Day" parade and offered Budweiser one of their plain wagons for the Budweiser Clydesdales to pull. What Budweiser's response to that was is not recorded, but it almost certainly was impolite, and their horses were not in the parade.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Bill, we mentioned the Mormon presence -- in full church dress -- at teh Salt Lake City Gay Pride Parade before, and you might enjoy the coverage. But these Mormons are going all out in ten different cities to show that not all Mormons are bigots.

And on the LGBT front, there apparently was the first 'Same Sex Marriage' at a military base -- in fact not a marriage but a religious 'committment service' conducted by an Army chaplain -- last month at Fort Polk, and -- seemingly after Bryan Fischer brought it up on his radio show and in his column -- the local Congressman is in an uproar about it and CNN (not CNS) is giving it the full 'equivalence' treatment.

(I linked to the Fischer piece because I have mentioned him as America's most prominent all-purpose bigot -- he specializes in homophonia, but hats Muslims, Mormons, liberals, bears, and a lot of other things -- but you really need to experience him yourselves. AZctually this column is relatively mild for someone who would not merely reverse Lawrence but would argue for reinstituting the biblical penalties.) You might glance at some of his other columns while you are there -- only make sure you can shower after.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Didn't get back to the continuation promised, but will manage to get it in sometime during the day or evening. Maybe the points I already made will draw some initial comentary?

[Sir charles]

Hi guys. Writing from fenway park. Life is good.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

One quickie, and maybe I'm the only one who mised this when it happened, but I was checking out the same sex ceremony story on Stars and Stripes and the commentary got around to "Article 125" which was the regulation against 'sodomy.' I was unaware, and extremely glad to discover that, in the mark-up to the 2012 Defense Department Authorization act -- page 9:

It 'repeals Article 125 of the UCMJ, relating to the offense of sodomy.'

Given this would have made a good proportion of the sexual relations between maried heterosexuals illegal, we can only celebrate, but did I miss this, or was it just not publicized enough?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I seem to be having a trouble remembering to close blockquotes today, again the last paragraph is mine.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Hey, Sir C? I know that security at ballparks is tight, but did they make you surrender your capital "C" going in -- or is it just 'no capitals when I'm away from the capitol?'

Btw, how does Matsuzaka look from the stands -- and where the fuck are you in case the camera looks over there?

[Linkmeister]

Capital "C" is probably reserved for the Charles River in Boston.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

One thing I said above needs correcting. I thought "Hunter of Justice" had become moribund, but that was some months ago. It has gotten a very good graphics makeover and is very readable, and Hunter is posting more than I'd seen her, Plus, she's added Rachel Kirkland, who seems to specialize in International news, like this:

Moscow's officials have just been given carte blanche to quash all pride events for the next 100 years--that's right, until 2112. The Tverskoy district court, a local-level trial court, put its stamp of approval on the city's homophobic stance, which was brought to the fore by Nikolai Alekseev, a noted gay rights activist, founder of GayRussia.eu, and former journalist....

This development follows on the heels of Alekseev's arrest in St. Petersburg under that city's new "gay propaganda" ban. The ban, which imposes a 5000-ruble (about $155) fine for "promoting homosexuality" among minors or "present[ing] homosexuality as normal behavior," has been mimicked in other regions of Russia and is gaining popularity among members of the national legislature, which may soon be considering such a country-wide ban.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Reopening the education question back here -- and I really am going to get those historical pieces done -- I was talking about the Louisiana voucher system. This article from AlterNet is a must-read, supplementing the previous Reuters article that gives most of the information about the schools that are receiving the vouchers:

The school willing to accept the most voucher students -- 314 -- is New Living Word in Ruston, which has a top-ranked basketball team but no library. Students spend most of the day watching TVs in bare-bones classrooms. Each lesson consists of an instructional DVD that intersperses Biblical verses with subjects such chemistry or composition.

The Upperroom Bible Church Academy in New Orleans, a bunker-like building with no windows or playground, also has plenty of slots open. It seeks to bring in 214 voucher students, worth up to $1.8 million in state funding.

At Eternity Christian Academy in Westlake, pastor-turned-principal Marie Carrier hopes to secure extra space to enroll 135 voucher students, though she now has room for just a few dozen. Her first- through eighth-grade students sit in cubicles for much of the day and move at their own pace through Christian workbooks, such as a beginning science text that explains "what God made" on each of the six days of creation. They are not exposed to the theory of evolution.

"We try to stay away from all those things that might confuse our children," Carrier said.

The Alternet article gives more background and more explanation of the plan -- which is worse than just giving schools like this money. And I find one of my questions has a different answer in Louisiana than in California:

Worse yet, there are no real checks in the system to hold sub-par private schools – including religious institutions – accountable for the quality of education students receive. As LSU education professor David Kirshner tells AlterNet, Louisiana’s voucher program “does not require that private and charter schools that accept public funds be subject to the same scrutiny of standardized testing that was used to indict the public schools in the first place. So what we have in Louisiana can in no way can be counted as a push from worse to better. Rather it is only a push from public to private.”

[KN]

Oddjob - yep I think the confusion comes from the fact that I am fairly content with myself as I am, and at the same time very self assured by having been through a few harrowing experiences. Thus I seem to have the point of view that is common to women, who have much the same kind of experience and are in fact, much like me, coerced in many ways to conform to that world view. But resistant of it.

The education issue? Well isn't it obvious. The whole game is to privatize education such that a) only the elite chiblins get the edukationin, and b) the teeming throng get jack. Or better still, some prosteletizing. And all of it is paid for by taxes.

[oddjob]

the teeming throng get jack

Or (at least at the higher education level) only by becoming burdened by such crushing levels of debt that they spend the rest of their lives being held back by it.

[Sir Charles]

The lack of a capital "C" indicates my still fumbling efforts at doing things more adventurous with my iphone than talking on it.

I fat finger that damn keyboard more often than I care to think about.

[oddjob]

I was ages 8-14 when Nixon was in office, so I have no first hand observations of his evil

You weren't paying attention. I was. I still remember how relieved I was when the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that his contention about the White House tapes being priveleged despite it being obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that they were evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the President was bullshit and that they had to be handed over.

That we, now that it's our turn to prosecute a criminal president almost certainly guilty of far greater crimes than Nixon was, refuse to do so is no small part of what I find so deeply troubling about present circumstances.

[oddjob]

???

Apologies. This doesn't belong in this thead.

[Paula B]

Thank you, oddjob!

Who are you calling criminal? Bush or Obama?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Huh??? Comments are open here but closed on the next thread. Does anyone -- even TypePad -- understand TypePad?

[KN]

I'll risk trying to comment.

It is true that the crimes of the recent past supass any historical precedent. But there is another and more subtle difference. The whole edifice of governmant has been infiltrated by right wing nut jobs at every level and in ways that are nearly impossible to correct.

I am running out of steam, it is late here, I meant to go back to the thread I was cut off from but now can't find it, so apologies to those whose comments I wanted to reply to.