So Trent Lott finally went down yesterday. He made the announcement after apologizing for his statements five times (or more depending on how you count). The blood was in the water and increasingly that blood was let by his fellow Republicans, as they came to better understand the impact his remaining the top dog in the Senate could have for the future of the party. So he had to go, obviously. Ain't politics grand.

Can you imagine the conversations he must have had with some of his best friends before he made his announcement yesterday? "Trent, I know you're not a racist. Most of your Republican friends know you're not a racist. But for the good of the party . . . man, you gotta step down." Sniff, sniff. Because, no doubt, many of his friends are just as blind to their own prejudices.

And they'll continue to pander to that whole spectrum of folks in the future: everything from those who pine for the days of the Old South, to those who explain about segregationist policies and slavery and racism that "you have to understand, it was different times back then" to even the shameless frothing at the mouth neo-nazi types. Of course, the last of these groups, to be fair, the Republicans will actually go out their way to avoid, and, I believe, truly do disagree with. But the Republican Party should ask itself (should have already, not just now), why are these types always attracted to the Republican Party? I don't think I've ever heard an honest answer to that question. Then again, I don't think I've heard the question asked.

Bill Clinton reacted with what I thought was a glorious eruption of righteous anger to the events within the Republican Party this week. As reported on CNN, the former President said it was "pretty hypocritical" of Republicans to criticize Lott for stating publicly what he said the GOP does "on the back roads every day." Preach it brother. "How do they think they got a majority in the South anyway?" he said. "I think what they are really upset about is that he made public their strategy."

The Bush Cabinet vs. The Will of the People

This list hopes to be a comprehensive, growing catalog of the outrageous beliefs and behavior of Bush cabinet members: men and women whose views clearly do not represent those of the average American.

John Ashcroft, Attorney General

Anti-Gay Beliefs: Ashcroft believes homosexuality is a sin. Source: Washington Post

Narrow-Mindedness: Ashcroft also believes it's wrong to dance, drink or gamble. Source: Reason

Prudishness: Ashcroft spent $8000 of taxpayers' money to cover the exposed breast on the art deco statue, "The Spirit of Justice," at the Justice Department. Source: BBC

Religious Intolerance: Ashcroft told Bob Jones University: "America is different. We have no king but Jesus." Source: CNN

Trent Lott, Senate Majority Leader - Resigned

Anti-Gay Beliefs: In 1998 on the Armstrong Williams Show Lott declared homosexuality a sin and lumped homosexuals with alcoholics and kelptomaniacs. Source: PBS

Latent Bigotry: No doubt, Lott does not believe himself a racist. His record seems to indicate otherwise. Source: NYT

Senator Don Nickles, future Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee

Anti-Gay Beliefs: Nickles was against James Hormel's nomination to be U.S. ambassador to Luxembourg. Source: Slate He told Fox News Sunday, "One might have that lifestyle, but if one promotes it as acceptable behavior, I don’t think they should be a representative of this country. I think it's immoral behavior, and I think a lot of other behavior is immoral and shouldn't be treated as acceptable behavior."

Feel free to contribute your own examples, but please provide a reliable source for your information. I'd like this to be a truly authoritative catalog. In every case, I've found the allegations in multiple reliable sources, but I have listed only a single source, purely for the sake of economy.

Excellent NYT piece by Paul Krugmanon how the Republicans (at least those in power) jockey for respect with both racist and tolerant folk alike. See also Joshua Micah Marshall's stream of articles which helped instigate the whole Trent Lott controversy.

Lott has become emblematic of this whole issue. No doubt, Lott doesn't even believe he's a racist. Just like the folks at Bob Jones University who didn’t allow blacks to attend until 1971 and long stood against interracial marriage. The school only recently (March 2000) got rid of a rule which restricted students of different races from dating. According to a report I heard the other night on BBC radio, Lott came out in defense of the school's policy at one time. Nice.

By the way, I went to school there. I had friends affected by the policy. Friends who were asked to stop dating. They got rid of the rule when Bob Jones Jr died (the current president is Bob Jones III - they like to keep the school in the family), but I know the sentiment persists. Getting rid of the rule may even have only been a matter of political convenience. I do think that perhaps after Bob Jones Jr died, the door was opened for some things to loosen up there a little. We're speaking very relatively, of course. Still no movies, no ciggies or booze. No rock 'n' roll. No kissing and cuddling or sex before marriage either. Nonetheless, the words of Reverand Lovejoy seem appropriate: "Let me just remind you that the church is changing to meet the needs of today's young Christians."

So here's a slender ray of hope: it really seems that gradually, over the decades, even the most conservative groups are moving towards more tolerant and liberal behavior. I'm not prophesying Nirvana in our lifetime. But maybe things are getting better. Let's just hope we don't blow ourselves to kingdom come before we get there.

On that thought, some scientists believe that the reason we've never been contacted by extraterrestrial life forms is because by the time they develop the means to communicate with us, they’ve also developed nuclear technology and they terminate themselves before they’ve had much of a chance to ring us up. Nice thought, huh?

On a lighter note, I'd like to start a list of wacky beliefs and behavior by the blokes in the Bush cabinet. So if you happen upon this and can send me examples, please do. You know, stuff like John Ashcroft spending $8000 of taxpayers' money to cover the exposed breast on the art deco statue, "The Spirit of Justice," at the Just Department. Bizarro stuff like that. Or in 1999 when Ashcroft told Bob Jones (see a pattern here?): "America is different. We have no king but Jesus." Wow, the Kennedys must have been offended. Honestly, these people don't represent the views of the average American, do they?

If anyone clicks on this link below I believe I earn points towards a DVD player or something. It's for the CSI telly show. Or the soundtrack for the CSI telly show actually.

Click Here to be Sucked into Yet Another Predatory Marketing Vortex

You probably hafta sign up or something, but what the hey. I'm only taking up cyberspace. "Cyberspace." Boy, that term already sounds quaint and outdated, doesn't it? Kinda like "the information super highway." Silly now, isn't it? Don't hear it any more, do you? In fact, you hardly even hear "the world wide web" anymore either. Just "the web" thanks. We can't handle too many syllables at once for a single count noun object.

Notice also my quaint and naive use of the words "Click Here" in the self-serving link above. I'm pretending not to be web savvy. Am considering adding a huge image map next.

Oh, and to learn more about the aforementioned marketing operation Click Here, my Discerning and Highly-Favored Friend.

(Yes, I'm altering the HTML these dudes provide on their site. Ain't I a rebel? Living right out there on the friggin' edge, I am.)

Folks interested in the field of information architecture will want to check out the latest edition of the O'Reilly (or Polar Bear) book Information Architecture for the World Wide Web by IA gurus Lou Rosenfeld and Peter Moreville. It's no understatment to call this book the Bible for information architecture.

Will Self is knocking the Booker Prize for not recognizing superior writers like Martin Amis and J. G. Ballard and for generally going with safer authors. Good on 'im. You'd think the Brits were better than that. Self's scathingly satirical Great Apes was one of my favorite books in recent years.

Well, I'm sure I wasn't the first to mention Atlas Shrugged and Enron (and friends) in the same sentence; neither will I be the last. USA Today weighs in. Well, "weigh" may not be the right word. But the paper does point out that "CEOs put the book down knowing in their hearts that they are not the greedy crooks they are portrayed to be in today's business headlines but are heroes like the characters in Rand's novel." I'm assuming the paper's being ironic.

From Metropolis magazine, an incredible first-person account of architect Laurie Balbo's flight from the World Trade Center last September. Bablo wrote this piece at the recommendation of a counselor. It's gripping, written with tremendous immediacy, effectively reminding us of the incomprehensible horror experienced by thousands on that day.

"Before that Tuesday,"she writes, "the benchmark of my life had been childbirth. This experience blew that one away. It was bigger, meaner, louder, and more public. It was raw and it was fast. It defies placement in a natural order, too monstrous to ever digest."

New York Times interview with Peter Saville, the charming and eccentric designer of those, well, charming and eccentric New Order album covers.

We still appear to be making war with Iraq. I still haven't heard any good reasons for this, especially after Iraq's promised to allow inspectors in. Hussein finally meets our demands and we're coming anyway? Who's the promise breaker now? Why are we throwing cartons of matches on the fire? A year after 9/11 and I'm back to feeling deeply disturbed and sad again.

Donald Rumsfeld today said we shouldn't wait to attack Iraq until we have a smoking gun. "If we wait for a smoking gun in this instance," he reasoned "we'd find it after the fact. That's a little late." Brilliant stuff. No chicken or egg quandary there.

Governed by this mentality, should we beat up all the bullies in our neighborhood before they punch us out? Should we go lock up all the folks we think might commit murders in the future? Call it the Minority Report mentality. Saddam may be a bona fide monster, but he still hasn't managed anything remotely resembling an attack on the United States. Has he attacked and invaded his neighbors? Certainly. Is that why we're threatening to attack him? Hardly.

So, if we're going to attack Iraq, let's blow up North Korea and the rest of the Middle East while we're at it. They may attack us one day, too.

Iraq has finally agreed to allow UN inspectors in to do their jobs. And because of *this* Bush and his cronies are incensed? Kofie Annan accepts a letter from Iraq allowing inspectors back in without consulting the Security Council. And for this Bushites are fuming? Obviously, they're angry because it undermines their friggin' war effort. Shouldn't it be the policy of the United States to avoid war? That's the essence of the Powell Doctrine, framed by the man who's been remarkably silent on the issue over the past few months--until now that the inspectors have been allowed back in and war looks less likely. It's a shame when a man with backbone like Colin Powell is the one relegated to the wings while all the dippy, adolescent-minded politicos yammer and wave their hands in their breathless efforts to engage the war effort.

I'm more afraid of what Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and John "The Baptist" Ashcroft will do to this country in the next year or two than Saddam Hussein. And what they'll do now that'll have unknown and potentially horrific repercussions in the years from now.

Absolutely brilliant cartoon by David Rees, "Get Your War On," satirizing the War on Terrorism. Dilbert meets Doonesbury, only way more piercing, way edgier. Warning: Not at all for the faint of heart. Not coming to a family newspaper near you any time soon.



Also, read "Only Love and then Oblivion," a Guardian article on 9/11 by one of my favorite authors, Ian McEwan.

911 Statistics

3025 number of people who died last September 11, 2001 as a result of the terrorist attacks
3044 if you count the hijackers on those planes
2,801 number of confirmed dead at the WTC
19,858 the number of human body parts recovered from Ground Zero
10,000 approximate number of children lost a parent due to the events on September 11th
10 percentage of those killed were emergency workers–people who entered the buildings after they were struck
5 number of dollars a man from the poor nation of Malawi scraped together to help the richest nation through its time of grief
105 babies have been born to widows of September 11th victims
83,000 individuals lost New York jobs
600,000 pints more than usual donated in September and October
21,000 number of bombs dropped on Afghanistan over the past year
2 billion dollars per month it costs America to engage the war on terrorism

These statistics were taken from no single source. I just noted them when and wherever they hit me. That being said, The New York Times hit me more often than not. Please email me if you come across an appropriate one.

It's now barely into 9/11-02. Everything's quiet, and I hope it stays that way. Earlier this evening I came across this powerful new poem, "When the Towers Fell" by one of my favorite poets, Galway Kinnell, in The New Yorker. I had some thoughts of my own about 9/11 today and with any luck, I'll find time to put them down tomorrow. For now, my eyes are tired. They feel like they've been scrubbed with steel wool.

Peace.

Update: The New Yorker link is broken now, but here's a link to another copy of Kinnell's poem.

Save Free Speech, Support Steve Earle!

Steve Earle is currently being vilified for his new album Jerusalem (not even released yet) by various folks, mainly of the knee-jerk right-wing variety. He's written a song called John Walker's Blues which some claim is anti-American and compares John Walker Lindh (remember the "American Taliban"?) with Jesus. No, it doesn't. It attempts to get into the mind of Lindh and show us what this misguided kid might have been thinking when he was wandering around the desert in Afghanistan like John the the Baptist, getting hairier but not getting any wiser. So yes, this is yet another case of folks mistaking the voice of the narrator in a work of art for the voice of the writer. Anyway, some of these folks are suggesting we boycott stores selling the CD, radio stations playing it, etc--your usual anti free-speech, let's repeal the Bill of Rights stuff. Though so far, I haven't heard of anyone trying to ban the CD itself. Yet.

The Nation recently covered the right's attack on Earle as has Salon. The New York Times published an interview with Earle in which he explains the song as well as his thoughts on the John Ashcroft and Dick Cheney. He also clearly explains his thoughts about Lindh and the Taliban on his web site: "I don't condone what he did. Still, he's a 20 year-old kid. My son Justin is almost exactly Walker's age. Would I be upset if he suddenly turned up fighting for the Islamic Jihad? Sure, absolutely. Fundamentalism, as practiced by the Taliban, is the enemy of real thought, and religion too."

If you haven't heard Earle's music, he's a tough, gravelly-voiced "country" singer who's music isn't likely to be played on your local country station any time soon. He had a hit back in the '80s with Copperhead Road, then spent a stint in jail for heroin possession. After recovered from his addiction, Earle entered an incredibly creative and productive period of his life: he's released 7 albums in the past 8 years, written a book of short stories, a play, and he's even appearing in the TV show, The Wire. He's a damn fine and thoughtful musician.

Support free speech and go buy his new album, Jerusalem.

Christopher Hitchens, a fine lefty writer, wrote a review of Martin Amis's new book Koba the Dread for this month's Atlantic Monthly. I had a problem with his review, so I wrote a letter:

On Hitchen’s review of the Martin Amis’s Koba the Dread: I know far less about the events involved than Hitchens or Amis, and Hitchens writes far more authoritatively about the era than I ever could (and I enjoy reading his writing); however, he also (somehow) misses the point.

Amis is absolutely correct: figuratively speaking, nobody does know about the horrors perpetrated under Stalin, not compared to Hitler's atrocities. In the language of argumentative hyperbole, simply read “nobody” as most of us, the overwhelming majority of us even. This hyperbole is understood; there’s no intention on the part of Amis to deceive by exaggeration here, as Hitchens would normally understand were his eyes not clouded by his personal engagement in the proceedings.

"Nobody" does know of Yezhov and Dzerdzhinsky, nor of Vorkuta and Solovetski. The fact that there exists an apparently rich body of literature on the subjects, largely ignored by the rest of us certainly says something about our culture, our narrow attention spans, and perhaps most pointedly, the selective interests of the media, Hollywood and publishers (those informing everybody, feeding and shaping our limited interests). When the average person thinks of atrocity his mind jumps to Hitler. Stalin’s not even a close second. It's just Hitler. Why that is the case is a problem ripe for investigation. But Hitchens passes on this opportunity entirely.

Instead, he focuses on those statements Amis makes which affected him most personally. The fact that the whole piece seems to center on this anti-nobody argument undermines Mr. Hitchens credibility since it soon dawns on the reader that the piece serves simply as an opportunity for the writer to lick his wounds, an opportunity to ask to be understood. He does nothing to dispel the visceral and obvious truth of Amis’s thesis.