Assurances and Updates

1. No, I am not Kerry's speech writer, and the fact that the first words uttered by him today on the campaign trail were "how about those Patriots!" does not mean that he and I communicated in any way last night. Whether he blogged here -- that I cannot say.

2. From NBCNews I learn that one reason the FCC is responding to the halftime horror is that it comes at the tail end of a season of (NBC words) "potty mouth" television. Specifically, viewers had been horrified to hear Diane Keaton at the Golden Globes use the "s" word. Did I really miss this? I don't like to think that I tune her out every time she makes an acceptance speech.

The half-crazed halftime of the Super Bowl

A reader wrote: “don’t you wish you had tuned in to see the scandal?” Well now, I actually saw the moment now so richly discussed and savored, on this morning’s Today Show. I was flicking around looking for a weather statement (so how MANY inches of snow are we getting in the end?), and there was Ms. Jackson, only this morning it was with a digitally altered upper-body. Not that my wee non-Super Bowl voice matters in the least, but the pyrotechnics following the “moment” were equally, if not more disturbing.

But the reason I mention all this now is because I just read on CNN that the FCC is launching a “thorough, swift, and immediate” investigation of the incident. Will they hold hearings? Will we see somber politicians examining the garment in question to consider the credibility of the “we did not know” defense? Keep us posted, FCC, we want to read every word. Visuals, re-enactments, etc. would also be welcome.

Some musicians sure do know how to capture the spotlight. Must be in the genes.

The physical but not moral superiority of humans over birds.

In 1979 I bought a bird feeder.
In 1981 I learned that hanging a birdfeeder may 1. domesticate the birds and therefore render them incapable of surviving in the wild 2. spread bird viruses since the feeders are left in an unsanitary state by well-meaning individuals who nonetheless don’t relish the idea of scrubbing a birdfeeder with bleach at least once a month.
In 1982, therefore, I removed the feeder.
In 1999 I noticed that the Audubon Society was promoting bird feeders and I reasoned that they wouldn’t do so if the enterprise was more hazardous than beneficial to the bird population (unless the goal was to reduce the population of sparrows and humming birds, which I doubted).
Welcoming the new millennium with a warm human heart, in 2000 I contemplated buying another feeder (the human heart translates its impulse to the brain, leading to action, at very reduced frequencies come wintertime).
In 2001 I tabled the feeder idea since we were experiencing a severe woodpecker problem, with many holes in our wooden exterior to prove it and the last thing I wanted was to encourage any flying thing anywhere near the house, unless it would be a predator that would once and for all eradicate the woodpecker in a Darwinian, and therefore acceptable in Madison, manner.
In 2003 I was in the pet store buying dog things and once again I was drawn to the feeders: so many, so enticing, so noble. I bought a simple model that seemed never to require cleaning, having no perch, no plastic, nothing where excrement could accumulate. Up it went.
In 2004 I read about the bird flu in Asia; this made me wonder if perhaps birds should be further from, rather than closer to the houses of human beings. But the feeder remains suspended, and it will probably remain thus, until spring comes and I step outside again. It also has long lost its feed, and so the once hope-filled birds are now left to their disappointment as they read the writing on the wall: this house comes equipped with a cold human heart and a strong hand that wields favors in an arbitrary and capricious manner. One of the saddest of human traits is that guilt rarely spurs action.

Moving on, but not on your screen

On January 12 I posted a link to MoveOn’s contest for the best commercial, depicting failed policies of the current administration. It appears that the organization raised enough money to air it during the Super Bowl, but CBS said “no.” Read about it on MoveOn’s web site. Our resident legal expert on media law tells us that CBS was perfectly within its rights to do this. The fact is that CBS had already faced this issue in a law suit in the 70s when a group called Business Executives' Move for Vietnam Peace sought to force CBS to air one of their issue ads on the radio. The court ruled that nothing in the law compelled the station to run the ad.

Should charities feed the poor?

Ann’s blog , referencing my Sunday post on the Salvation Army (below) suggests that the answer is “not necessarily.” She writes:

Consider too that it is more centrally the role of government to provide the basic economic safety net. Government should not feel free to shift that responsibility onto private charities. And private charities are especially important doing what government shouldn't be doing, especially with respect to providing religion and similar spiritual support for people. Is it wrong to choose spiritual care over food?

This, of course, is true. The economics of life are not the sole determinants of peace and well-being. And if we hold the Salvation Army accountable for spending money on their support of “Christian virtue” (see post, February 1) then why would we not argue that donations to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra should be channeled for the care of the homeless that routinely gather outside the concert hall doors? The moral dimension may be suggested by rephrasing it into the following question: should every gift help feed the poor? I’ll accept a “no” to that.

But I don’t think this is the question that the SA article (spelling out plans for community centers that will refrain from giving out social services and concentrate on teaching the poor how to live moral, good lives) prompted. In my opinion, the difference in the SA case is that the organization holds itself out to also put food on the table and to shelter the homeless. Like it or not, many rely on those services. And, when most people slip that buck into the bucket around the holidays, they do so with the idea that someone will eat and sleep better as a result of their donation.

Though we are left with little concrete knowledge of the donor’s reason for picking the SA for her enormous charitable gift, we can’t help but think that the money MAY have been better spent on bread of the real kind, rather than on preaching about virtue and bread of the abstract sort. Not to suggest that the SA can be anything but a band-aid to a bleeding wound. On the other hand, band-aids can be a very useful thing: they can even stop what is turning out to be a hemorrhage. But that, of course, is just my take on it.

�Lord of the Right Wing�

A reader sent this link to give me a bit of cheer on a Monday morning. The worst thing you can do to yourself is minimize the link after the cartoon is done. The irritating voice wont go away. Ever. Like the real one.

I understand that LOTR fans will particularly appreciate the clip. Update: no, it's hopeless, couldn't get myself to see it, so it's a done deal: I will not have seen LOTR before Feb 29 and I will, therefore, not enjoy the Oscars.

The votes that could make a difference

If every registered Democrat was asked to bring one person who had never voted before to the polls, would that change the number of red v. blue states come November?

Bob Herbert, in his op-ed piece this morning, writes a heartbreakingly vivid picture of elections in a place like South Carolina. He comments:

South Carolina is a state with plenty of poor people. The Bush recovery went right by the Palmetto State without even stopping to wave. "It's like a depression down here," said Wilbur Collins, an unemployed factory worker. "The plants are closing so fast, the workers don't have no place to go."
Parts of South Carolina are economic wastelands. The jobless rate in some counties is approaching 20 percent. The median income for blacks, statewide, is less than $15,000, and for whites, less than $30,000.
The anxiety over the absence of work is pervasive, and in some cases heartbreaking. At a forum attended by all of the Democratic presidential candidates except Joseph Lieberman, a woman named Elaine Johnson told Senator John Edwards about her son, Darius. She said she gave Darius three choices: go to college, get a job or join the military. He tried college, but that didn't work out. "He wasn't ready for college," his mother said. He couldn't find a job. So he joined the Army and was killed in Iraq.

I was listening to the community forum attended by the candidates. Afterwards, off camera, some were asked what they thought of the contenders. There seemed to be the feeling that nothing would change much for the poor of S.Carolina no matter who was on the Democratic ticket. One woman said: “now Bill Clinton, there’s our man – he really understood poor people.”

Though it’s hard to forgive Clinton for the great welfare sell-out, I can see their point. All the candidates made a lot of physical contact with the audience – there were hands empathetically touching arms, hugs, that kind of thing. But you had to wonder how many will remember the forum once next November comes and goes. That, of course, is the cynical voice that keeps voters at home on election day.

The silent voice of poverty is, I think, the one troubling aspect of a political democracy. Still, Herbert remains guardedly optimistic:

The idea is to make low-income voters a force too strong to be ignored. A recent study commissioned by the center showed that small increases in voting by low-income people could be decisive in several strategically important states.
Most Americans are unaware of the extent of the suffering that has fallen on the bottom 20 percent or so of the population. Many low-income Americans are leading lives of grim and sometimes painful determination, struggling to survive from one day to the next. The contrast between the real lives of families sinking beneath the weight of economic distress and the headlines that continue to insist that the economy is doing famously is extraordinary.

To bring out the vote.. there is no reason why in November, S.Carolina should appear blue on the political map. If it does, we wont need to wait for post-election analyses; we’ll know that once again we’ve failed to convince enough people that there is purchasing power in a vote, with a higher probability of cash value than a lottery ticket. The affluent, disproportionately showing up at the polls, have known this for years.