Ok 4 days left until the Big Day. Time to resurrect the ol' poliblog.

My prediction: Kerry will win, 279-259. That's my conservative estimate. Right now I am feeling confident that he has more momentum and will pull out Ohio, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, and (gulp) Wisconsin. Every article I've read on new voter registration seems to be a positive sign.

But I am not so sure about Wisconsin. If he loses there it's 269-269.

Is it possible that all of the polls, in neglecting to account for newly registered voters, are being skewed towards Bush? Might Kerry win all of the swing states?

For anyone interested in how the latest electoral map is shaping up, check out http://realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/RCP_EC.html

Then there is the Florida can of worms. I hope we don't need Florida to win, but if we do (and by the by I am not saying we're going to lose Florida, I just would rather not depend on it because of the Jeb Bush/Kathleen Harris tag team), it's going to be another mess. They've already lost a ton of absentee ballots.

"America is great, everyone should be grateful to be in America, even Black people. But if you Black, America is like the Uncle who paid your way through college, but molested you."

--Chris Rock

Writing a lot of papers makes me scan political blogs to goofoff.

One thing I've noticed that I find fascinating: democrats seem to be genuinely surprised that Kerry's campaign hasn't taken off in terms of the poll numbers. It appears that, no matter how badly dubya fucks up (Abu Ghairb, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, scandal, lie, scandal) somewhere near fifty percent of the public continues to back him up. It seems like they feel that once Kerry's unleashes the pure, whitehot fury of his liberal platform, the Republicans, in particular Rove, Cheney, Bush et. al, should simply wither away back into the darkness like vampires in the sun. Since this hasn't happened, despite Kerry's shiny new 25 million dollar ad campaign, everyone seems a little despondent.

Why isn't this earnest, centrist, fiscally conservative, decorated, pure bred candidate simply slaying Bush in the polls? Why can't Americans see the light?

Again, I think this is yet another example of the blindness of the political left and inability to understand the right's ideological strategy. The underlying situation of significance is simply this: this country is divided in terms of culture and thus ideology, not politics. Republicans understand and exploit this every single day, while democrats remain charmed by their liberal illusion that people care about issues and their votes represent their interests in policy. This position is no longer true.

What is becoming more and more clear is that this country is divided along ideological lines, not politics. This divide is clearly supported by a glance at the Times list of non-fiction top sellers. The Atkins diet stuff aside, these books represent the far side of both spectrums. Moore vs. Coulter, O'reilly vs. Franken, etc. This divide is not indicative of increasingly partisanship in terms of issues -- Americans are not becoming more interested in politics. Rather, they are becoming more interested in finding discursive justifications for their cultural ideologies. These books feed upon that, providing comfort to those who see their worldview as beseiged (thus the cross-accusations of "bias" levelled against each other by both sides as well as the sense of victimization).

So why is Bush still up? Because the republicans deeply understand this. The vast majority of people who vote in this new era of modern politics don't give a shit about issues. Bush could lose the war in Iraq disgracefully, kill ten thousand soldiers, crash the economy and still hold steady at 47 percent or so. Why? Because he has (or better yet, Rove has) exploited the cultural fears of an entire subpopulation of the United States. For this population, the election of a democratic candidate is the first step towards the destruction of their culture, equal to the destruction of their identities as American. For them, American is a dominantely white nation made great by puritan values and low taxation. No gays allowed. No abortions allowed. Women keep quiet. These are not just fringe issues, these are cultural markers and the Republicans have been apt at using them. Thus, "latte-drinking" and "volvo driving" become dirty words along with "liberal." These terms conveniently represent the whole array of values that are in opposition to the conservative American ideology. Asking a conservative of such a mindset to vote democrat is tantamount to asking him to burn his houses, move into a commune, and marry a dude named "Ted".

So where does that bring us? Nowhere really. So far it's still a deadlock. Red states, blue states. It's becoming less and less of a unfunny joke and more and more of unescapable nightmare for me that the next President of the United States will elected on a coin flip, a whim, twenty thousand people who woke up on the wrong side of the bed . . .

New template! Looks nifty, very centered. It's like a really nice soccer jersey, what with the big ad at the top and all.

I'm going to start blogging more often. One of my favorite political blogs, the left-leaning centrist "CalPundit" got moved to the Washington Monthly or the Atlantic Review or something like that, so I lost track of it for a while. Anyway, he just put up an interesting blog about the advantages/negatives of blogging, be it as a form of journalism or just to further the public discourse on current political issues. I thought it was interesting read, I'll link it later.

Also, Andrew Sullivan wrote a column for The New Republic about the intrigue of a Kerry/McCain ticket. That would be amazing, a complete slap in the face of the bipartisan divide through Washington. But he points out that McCain is prolife and pretty loyal to his party (personally, not through his stances, for sure), so for now that possibility remains in fantasy land.

As for the Abu Ghraib abuses, I'm really with Ed on this. Not surprising at all. If you're a prisoner in an occupied land, being subjected to wearing women's underwear on your head would probably be the last of your worries. The rapes and mass graves, that's bad. But the whole situation is pretty rotten.

I talked with my cousin on the phone yesterday for the first time in a while, and he pointed out that it's unfortunate (blatant Democrat bias here) that it seems like Kerry really hasn't been able to capitalize on the Abu Ghraib fallout. Right now he hasn't captured the public's attention, but once he picks a running mate, the race will really be on.

The summer will be very interesting, with the Presidential race and the supposed turning-over of Iraq on June 30. Also, I will be interning with the Lead Investigator at the Hilo Public Defender, and Matt is interning in washington DC with an Asian American advocacy group, so I'm sure we'll both have interesting stories and insights to share.

This is a depressing article written by a WaPo writer, taken from sfgate, about Iraq.

This news of Iraqi prisoners being tortured and mistreated really doesn't come as a surprise to me. It was only a matter of whether it would be leaked out to the public or covered up. The Bush administration had to stir up a storm of racial propaganda to be able to try to justify this war. I'm not sure if this is just something that one has to accept as an inevitable externality of war. These acts could've been fueled by racism or perhaps anger and grief over the death of fellow comrades.

Yes, would be Nader voters should cast their ballots for Kerry if they live in a contested state. That's pretty obvious to me.

On Saturday night, I went to a going away party for a local kid named Kimo. I don't know him very well, but he's moving to Oahu to try to become a nurse. A lot of people from his high school (he graduated last year) came, and all of his relatives and family friends. There was beer and good food and karaoke and a lot of awkward goodbye hugs from his high school acquaintances, which would have been hand slaps or pounds at any other party. I realized that it was because for most of the people there, it would be the last time they saw Kimo. It was a poignant moment for me; one of my favorite things about Hilo is the way people take care of each other and show love. I'm lucky to be able to see my close friends and family on at least a yearly basis, and it made me wonder about the people who I grew up with but fell apart from. Life is a funny journey, I guess.

Oh yeah, Matt, my friend John was really happy about what you said on the phone. He didn't say it at the time, but later he told me that he was amazed that someone in California likes his shit. I said he shouldn't be, because he has talent!

Question: Should Democrats planning on voting for Nader vote for Kerry instead? I know the poll numbers are going to change over the months but right now I hear Kerry and Bush are about even and Nader is holding a significant amount of support enough to give Kerry a decisive lead.

I'm going to sit down and write the lyrics from this song my friend did, it's really fucking with my head right now. I sent it to Matt and Edmund. I hope you guys liked it. This song seriously makes me want to cry, if you knew this kid you'd feel the same way...Hilo is really dead end for a lot of people, but that's not all bad, it's just the way it is right now. I dunno, I'll write more later and the lyrics too, but I gotta go watch this movie upstairs now. More later.

From an e-mail from my mom's friend, working on an Indian rez in Arizona:

This past few wks have been grounds for more thought for me. , looking at the community that I serve noticing the injustice of our society. The Pimas and Maricopas were the only people in the South West that did not fight with the white people. Being predominantly sedentary farmers themselves it seemed that accepting the white culture was not that chalanging. How ironic it is that after 100 years of Anglo domination the Pimas are the sickest people in the nation.



It brought much sadness to my heart when I realized that the dry desert of the reservation was once covered by the marshes of the mighty Gila River. The river was diverted by the white farmers in the twenties to water their own farms and subsequently by the Colorado River dams. Without firing a shot the whites turned the world of the Pimas and Maricopas upside down. These people went from complete self reliance to 60% unemployment in just 2 generations. To that were added the assistance of the Federal government in the form of Lard Sugar Floor and Cheese, creating the most obese and diabetic population in the world. Mix in a little alcohol and Bingo . . . The compadres of Ira Hayes are knee deep in shit. Mr Hayes was one of the Marines Raising the American Flag at Iwo Gima during world war two ( I am sure you have seen the sculpture) He died a homeless drunk on the Rez. Thank God for Johny Cash that revived his memory in a song.



Oh yes the community is working hard to rebuild the ruins. They invest heavily in farming and the 4 Casinos on the Rez but they are against what seems a superhuman task of bringing this obese, depressed and drunk community to its feet again.

Caucus and primary results be damned, you gotta love Dennis Kucinich.


From an sfgate.com article covering his Friday speech at UC Berkeley:

"We have people running for president who say they were fooled by George W. Bush,'' he told his backers in Berkeley. "What a recommendation. You're running for president, and you can be fooled by George Bush...''

...With national poll numbers in the low single digits, there isn't much Kucinich can say that will hurt him. As one of the more liberal members of Congress, he's making an all-out appeal to progressive voters.

Kucinich is calling for a national health care plan that eliminates the current profit-driven system. He wants the United States to pull out of NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, establish a Cabinet-level Department of Peace and set up a universal education program that will provide everyone with a tuition-free college education.

He also promised to kill the Patriot Act, which he said "is placing our democracy at risk.''

"The administration is taking this country in a direction that's profoundly undemocratic,'' Kucinich said. "Americans are being lulled into a false sense of insecurity.''

Kucinich won't even listen to suggestions that it's time to bow to the apparently inevitable and give up his battle for the Democratic nomination.

"I'm electable if people vote for me,'' he said. "I'm electable if the people of California say I'm electable.''

The Democratic field already has been cut to five, but even if just two people are running, Kucinich will be one of them, he promised.

"I'm going all the way to the convention,'' he vowed.

The Friday Flythrough

The Suntory Times scene is just an example of what Bill is missing out on, I guess...obviously if Coppola really wanted us to know what the director was saying, subtitles would have been provided. But clearly Bill doesn't know what the hell is going on and just says his little "For relaxing times..." line pretty much the same way the whole time, when the director is going on and on about tension and passion. To Bill (and to us), perhaps, giving such treatment to this matter is silly, but it serves to demonstrate how divergent our perspectives are. Because obviously this wild director dude is dead serious about this sheeit.

Ok, now to the media and politics issue. I think that although the internet could have a polarizing affect on politics, the internet is such an enormously powerful medium...we have yet to even see a fraction of the discourse to come about its influence, so I would hesitate to jump to any conclusions. One positive aspect of the internet is its accessibility, which can be further expounded into an argument for the internet as a crucial instrument in our democracy--blogging is a good example of the kind of grassroots political discourse which the internet accomodates.

Of course, I would imagine that there are significant socio-economic divisions present when it comes to who has access to andd who is using the internet...

Interesting interview with a NYU media and culture expert, from the fine folks at Frontline, certainly germane to the topic of commercialism and the media. Since some of us are steeped in school work nowadays, I'll cut and paste a couple of the juicier bits:

Frontline: Give us a good sense of today's commercial imperative and how that's changed things from the past.

Mark Crispin Miller: Well, in a thoroughly commercialized environment, there is very little incentive to be careful of the sensibilities of particular segments of the audience. Thirty years ago, a certain kind of commercial approach to children would have been unthinkable. Thirty years ago, children's TV programs were, by our standards, largely laughable in how slow and elementary and often sentimental they were. People marvel at the miracle that is Mr. Rogers, because he is such an unusual kind of figure in today's media world. Once the commercial logic takes over, children are fair game along with everybody else.

I can give you a very dramatic example from the world of book publishing. Bantam Books was the second mass market paperback company to be formed in the United States just after World War II, and it was conceived deliberately with large masses of young readers in mind. Books like The Grapes of Wrath, Shakespeare's Greatest Comedies, Jane Eyre, sold for 25 cents with the aim of making sure that young people who weren't rich could get hold of really good books. And it did very well.

Well, by now Bantam Books is part of the Bertelsmann empire, which is the largest book publisher in the world, a commercial entity based in Germany that dominates the American publishing landscape. A couple of years ago, Bantam came out with the Barfarama series for young male readers 12 to 15 with titles like Dog-Doo Afternoon and The Great Puke-Off. These are all brainlessly scatological books that were packaged just to make a buck. Now some of the people who do them claim, "Oh, at least we're getting young people reading." That's a very disingenuous thing to say. This is going deliberately and systematically for the lowest common denominator, and the logic there is purely commercial. It has nothing to do with literary quality or with introducing the joys of reading to the young.

The same kind of callousness, the same kind thoughtlessness, the same disregard for propriety and the same uninterest in what kids really need and like dominates throughout the culture industries. If you watch Saturday morning kids' TV, you can see it in programming that is unrelievedly frantic, hyped-up, hysterical, and, in its own way, quite violent and pervasively commercial. It's all about selling, and this, I think, is the primary reason why there is something of a crisis nowadays, a cultural crisis involving children. It is not because there are fugitives from the 1960s generation who are in control of the media. It's not a communist plot. It's not because bad people are involved in those industries. It's because of the inordinate influence of commercial logic and the commercial imperative overall.

What is happening to advertising, and why?

For one thing, it has to do with the fact that we're all far more jaded about advertising than we used to be--more cynical about certain kinds of utopian claims. It also has to do with an increasing desperation on the part of the advertisers to break through the "clutter," as they put it. So they tend to do things that are more outrageous than anything they would have tried 30 years ago. There are other factors at work here, but what it all comes down to is that this all-pervasive commercial propaganda, which sells not only countless products but a whole view of life, has itself become much nastier since, I'd say, the mid-1970s. The utopian element has gone out of advertising, and now it tends to be a celebration of the worst kinds of values.

At some point, that kind of advertising began to be directly pointed to teenagers. When did that happen, and why, and what has been the result?

Teenagers have been a pretty desirable market for quite some time. In a way, teenagers were an important mass market in the 1940s and 1950s, although that whole subculture, that whole market was a controversial one, because rock 'n roll stood in a certain disrepute. The 1960s and the early 1970s were an interesting time, because the youth culture was kind of a non-commercial development. It had certain commercial pay-offs, obviously, but it formed more or less spontaneously, and it was not TV-centered. TV was pretty much irrelevant to the youth culture of the 1960s and 1970s.

Well, what happened since then is that youth culture has tended more and more to be defined by the mass media. You no longer get so much of a sense of the advertisers and the media struggling to keep up with developments that are out in the streets. More and more, you get the sense that the youth culture and the youth market for the most part are indistinguishable, which has meant that things like fashion are far more important than they used to be. And this has much to do with the rise of rock videos, for example.

The youth market today may be called the avant-garde of the consumer culture, if you see what I mean. There's an awful lot of money there, and kids don't tend to have many of the same inhibitions or cherish the same notions as their elders do. So that there's more at stake in trying to be on the cutting edge where kids will appreciate what you're doing, if you see what I mean.

So there's often a kind of official and systematic rebelliousness that's reflected in media products pitched at kids. It's part of the official rock video worldview. It's part of the official advertising worldview that your parents are creeps, teachers are nerds and idiots, authority figures are laughable, nobody can really understand kids except the corporate sponsor. That huge authority has, interestingly enough, emerged as the sort of tacit superhero of consumer culture. That's the coolest entity of all, and yet they are very busily selling the illusion that they are there to liberate the youth, to let them be free, to let them be themselves, to let them think different, and so on. But it's really just an enormous sales job.

What is it like for kids to grow up in this wall-to-wall media environment and the lowering of standards?
Democracy is based on the assumption that we are able and obliged to make up our own minds to pursue our own interests, to honor our own talents. Democracy requires that we always be able to keep at least one foot outside of whatever propaganda may come along. One of the frightening things about the so-called totalitarian systems is that that governments in those cases were all-powerful and could, as it were, seal off their entire populations through the use of propaganda and indoctrination.

Well, advertising and the highly commercialized mass media that we live with today do something comparable. They may not necessarily exalt the state above all, although they do tend to celebrate violence, and they may be more about selling than conquest or anything like that. But the fact is that that commercial propaganda also strives to be everywhere and contain all of our impulses.

Now, I think we have to appreciate the enormous difference between life for young people and life for young people a few decades back. Now kids grow up in a universe that is utterly suffused with this kind of commercial propaganda. And by that, I mean not only the ads per se, but the shows that sell the ads. What this system does is it closely studies the young, keeps them under very tight surveillance to figure out what will push their buttons. Then it takes that and blares it back at them relentlessly and everywhere, because these are interests with a tremendous amount of power and technological sophistication.

And these are kids who are, to an unprecedented extent, hooked in through their gimmicks, their toys, their computers, and so on. So there's really very little space that these giant interests can't completely fill up with this kind of message. The bombardment is amazing. It's hard, therefore, to keep that kind of crucial distance. It's hard to be critical. It's hard to think about what might be going on at the top, especially if the media doesn't tell you. It's hard to figure out who you are and what you really want. It's hard to make your own music because that thing is always there listening, watching, taking notes, and packaging something so that it can sell you more stuff.


Ok, that was a little more than I had anticipated posting, but the interview really is pretty compelling. Here's the link to the entire shhbang. IM me if you read it and tell me what you think.

Ok I dunno who all saw Lost In Translation, but this scene bugged the hell out of me because I wanted to know what the hell the director dude was saying. I've been thinking about this movie quite a bit and although I still don't think it was all that good, it did make me want to go to Japan.


This from a blog called RowBoat. The original nytimes articles is now archived and you have to pay...

...

The New York Times has posted a translation of one of the key scenes in Sofia Coppola's brilliant film "Lost in Translation" which is entirely in japanese, without subtitles.

The scene is brilliant, and seeing this translation in hindsight makes it even more so.

TRANSLATED DIALOG FROM THE MOVIE 'Lost in translation' (from http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/21/fashion/21LOST.html)

Bob, who is in town to make a whiskey commercial, doesn't speak Japanese. His director (Yutaka Tadokoro), a histrionic Japanese hipster, doesn't speak English. In one scene, Bob goes on the set and tries to understand the director through a demure interpreter (Akiko Takeshita), who is either unable or (more likely) unwilling to translate everything the director is rattling on about.

Needless to say, Bob is lost. And without subtitles, so is the audience. Here, translated into English, is what the fulmination is really about.

DIRECTOR (in Japanese to the interpreter): The translation is very important, O.K.? The translation.

INTERPRETER: Yes, of course. I understand.

DIRECTOR: Mr. Bob-san. You are sitting quietly in your study. And then there is a bottle of Suntory whiskey on top of the table. You understand, right? With wholehearted feeling, slowly, look at the camera, tenderly, and as if you are meeting old friends, say the words. As if you are Bogie in "Casablanca," saying, "Cheers to you guys," Suntory time!

INTERPRETER: He wants you to turn, look in camera. O.K.?

BOB: That's all he said?

INTERPRETER: Yes, turn to camera.

BOB: Does he want me to, to turn from the right or turn from the left?

INTERPRETER (in very formal Japanese to the director): He has prepared and is ready. And he wants to know, when the camera rolls, would you prefer that he turn to the left, or would you prefer that he turn to the right? And that is the kind of thing he would like to know, if you don't mind.

DIRECTOR (very brusquely, and in much more colloquial Japanese): Either way is fine. That kind of thing doesn't matter. We don't have time, Bob-san, O.K.? You need to hurry. Raise the tension. Look at the camera. Slowly, with passion. It's passion that we want. Do you understand?

INTERPRETER (In English, to Bob): Right side. And, uh, with intensity.

BOB: Is that everything? It seemed like he said quite a bit more than that.

DIRECTOR: What you are talking about is not just whiskey, you know. Do you understand? It's like you are meeting old friends. Softly, tenderly. Gently. Let your feelings boil up. Tension is important! Don't forget.

INTERPRETER (in English, to Bob): Like an old friend, and into the camera.

BOB: O.K.

DIRECTOR: You understand? You love whiskey. It's Suntory time! O.K.?

BOB: O.K.

DIRECTOR: O.K.? O.K., let's roll. Start.

BOB: For relaxing times, make it Suntory time.

DIRECTOR: Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut! (Then in a very male form of Japanese, like a father speaking to a wayward child) Don't try to fool me. Don't pretend you don't understand. Do you even understand what we are trying to do? Suntory is very exclusive. The sound of the words is important. It's an expensive drink. This is No. 1. Now do it again, and you have to feel that this is exclusive. O.K.? This is not an everyday whiskey you know.

INTERPRETER: Could you do it slower and?

DIRECTOR: With more ecstatic emotion.

INTERPRETER: More intensity.

DIRECTOR (in English): Suntory time! Roll.

BOB: For relaxing times, make it Suntory time.

DIRECTOR: Cut, cut, cut, cut, cut! God, I'm begging you.

Damn, reading shit like this reminds me that there's a lot of shit to be cleaned up after the Bush administration leaves. My cousin Sharon forwarded this e-mail to me--

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to
head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health
Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two
years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush
Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new
members. This position does not require Congressional approval.

The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial
decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of
obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone
therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical
alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy
termination.

Dr. Hager's views of reproductive health care are far outside the
mainstream for reproductive technology. Dr. Hager is a practicing
OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe
contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager is the author of "As Jesus
Cared for Women: Restoring omen Then and Now." The book blends biblical
accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from Hager's
practice.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the
Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual
syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an
editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A
Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the
Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate
assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.

Hager's mission is religiously motivated. He has an ardent interest in
revoking approval for mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486) as a safe
and early form of medical abortion. Hagar recently assisted the
Christian Medical Association in a "citizen's petition" which calls upon
the FDA to revoke its approval of mifepristone in the name of women's
health.

Hager's desire to overturn mifepristone's approval on religious grounds
rather than scientific merit would halt the development of mifepristone
as a treatment for numerous medical conditions disproportionately
affecting women, including breast cancer, uterine cancer, uterine
fibroid tumors, psychotic depression, bipolar depression and Cushing's
syndrome.

Women rely on the FDA to ensure their access to safe and effective drugs
for reproductive health care including products that prevent pregnancy.
For some women, such as those with certain types of diabetes and those
undergoing treatment for cancer, pregnancy can be a life-threatening
condition. We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs
may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect
women's lives or to preserve and promote women's health.

Hager's track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical
decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate to
serve as chair of this committee. Critical drug public policy and
research must not be held hostage by antiabortion politics. Members of
this important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and
medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women deserve no
less.

Ok, Democratic voters in 7 states will be having their say in which of their party's candidates will go up against Bush in November. An interesting poll by Gallup/CNN/USA Today had Kerry leading Bush by 7 points if the election were held today. The same poll had Edwards over Bush by 1 pt, and Bush over Clark and Dean by 3 and 7 points, respectively. While I think the poll is good news for those of us inclined to favor the Democrats, I don't think it's very indicative of what will actually happen. Bush hasn't even really started campaigning yet and he's got a ton of money to work with, so when he starts swinging, look out.

Polls are pretty much a snapshot of how America is thinking at any given instance, so although number geeks like me might like them, they should be taken with a grain of salt. Momentum is often overemphasized in polls; the 'flavor of the week' phenomenon tends to skew things. The Democrats have been getting a lot of media attention as of late, which may explain Kerry and Edwards' lead over Bush.