So there’s this guy standing out in front of the Portland Art Museum, waving a sign. “This Museum Is Racist”, or something to that effect, with a URL that anyone curious to know about the cause can go to for more information. He also is holding a portrait.

I plan on walking up to him to ask what his cause is, but a man I’m familiar with by sight (he’s fairly distinct… a skinny guy who wears a beret, I always see him taking a great deal of photographs around town, leading me to suspect he may have a photo-blog) beats me to it.

“So, why do you think this museum is racist?”
“I am Cuban. This museum does not show my art.” The man’s English is shaky enough that his statement needs further clarification.
“The museum is racist because it doesn’t have (points at him) your art?”
“No. I am Cuban. Cuban.”
“The museum is racist because it doesn’t have Cuban Art?”
“Yes. That’s it.”

He then takes his photograph. I can’t really comment on the derth of Cuban Art in the Portland Art Museum. It does have a pretty good Asian collection, though.

Mr. Speaker, I recently had the opportunity to view the devastation in Southeast Asia as a result of the tsunami. As appalled as I was by what I saw, I must confess that occasionally my thoughts drifted back to the United States. What would have happened if last September, Hurricane Ivan had veered 40 miles to the west, devastating the city of New Orleans? One likely scenario would have had a tsunami-like 30-foot wall of water hitting the city, causing thousands of deaths and $100 billion in damage.

The city has always been at risk because of its low-lying location, but that risk has been increased because of rising sea levels, groundwater pumping and the erosion of coastal Louisiana. Twenty-four square miles of wetland disappear every year, since the 1930s an area one and a half times the size of Rhode Island washed away.

Considering the reaction of the American public to the loss of a dozen people in the recent mud slides in California, it is hard to imagine what would happen if a disaster of that magnitude hit the United States.

The experience of Southeast Asia should convince us all of the urgent need for congressional action to prevent wide-scale loss of life and economic destruction at home and abroad. Prevention and planning will pay off. Maybe the devastation will encourage us to act before disaster strikes.
………………………………………….

Yeah, but Earl Blumenhauer, my Congressman, spends much of his time reading through government reports and picking out things that don’t look quite right. I get the feeling a lot of Members of Congress don’t really do that. (Paging David Wu?)

One of the weird realities of American politics is that while approval ratings always tend to suggest dissatisfaction with Congress, they hold a high approval rating of their own Member of Congress. Make of that what one must.

(The two main rejoinders of this blog entry are lifted from the Reason Magazine “Hit and Run” blog):

George Bush does indeed defecate. (The evidence may be a bit flimsy, or it may not be… decide for yourself.

Who doesn’t defecate?

Apparently, North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il!!

His public schools teach North Korean children that he does not defecate…

Who knew?

(To be fair, a “potty break”, as George W Bush was photographed as requesting, does not necessarily specify defecation.)

In no particular order:

#1: Barbara Bush. Who said of Hurricane evacuees currently residing in the Houston Astro-Dome: “So many of the people here, you know, were underprivileged anyway (chuckle), so this is working very well for them.”

I have one question: What is with the Bushes? (Bush the Better had it, and Bush the Lesser doesn’teven understand the ramnifications of a single mother with three jobs.) Is this genetic, a product of a pampered background, or something else? (Remember though, the great heroes of the Democratic Party are Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy — two products of wealth… and the current Republican Party leader in the House — Tom DeLay — grew up poor, so you can’t paint a broad “class warfare” brush here.)

There’s a thousand points of light
For the homeless man
There’s a kinder, gentler machine gun hand
There’s department stores, and toilet paper
Styrofoam garbage for the ozone layer
There’s a man of the people, says people alive
Got fuel to burn, got roads to drive — Neil Young

#2: Speaking of Tom DeLay… what is his excuse?

The kids were all lying around on a cot and appeared to have no clue who these visitors were. DeLay lightened the subject with the camping out comment. “You gotta admit, isn’t it kinda fun, like camping out?” Then Snow gave one kid an awkward pat on the back and they all moved on.

#3: To point to the leaders(?) of the Religious Right is like aiming at the broadside of a barn, so bungle them together.

I will point out that I called the story of Pat Robertson saying that Hurricane Katrina was caused by God’s anger over the selection of lesbian comedienne Ellen Degeneres to host the upcoming Emmy Awards correctly: it is bull. That’s a wee bit specific, and stylistically fits more under Fred Phelps. As for Pat Robertson — no, it’s Abortion that caused God’s Wrath:

You know, it’s just amazing, though, that people say the litmus test for [Supreme Court nominee John G.] Roberts [Jr.] is whether or not he supports the wholesale slaughter of unborn children. We have killed over 40 million unborn babies in America. I was reading, yesterday, a book that was very interesting about what God has to say in the Old Testament about those who shed innocent blood. And he used the term that those who do this, “the land will vomit you out.” That — you look at your — you look at the book of Leviticus and see what it says there. And this author of this said, “well ‘vomit out’ means you are not able to defend yourself.” But have we found we are unable somehow to defend ourselves against some of the attacks that are coming against us, either by terrorists or now by natural disaster? Could they be connected in some way? And he goes down the list of the things that God says will cause a nation to lose its possession, and to be vomited out. And the amazing thing is, a judge has now got to say, “I will support the wholesale slaughter of innocent children” in order to get confirmed to the bench. And I am sure Judge Roberts is not going to say any such thing. But nevertheless, that’s the litmus test that’s being put on, the very thing that could endanger our nation. And it’s very interesting. Read the bible, read Leviticus, see what it says there.

#4: David Duke needs your help. See, his office building has been destroyed and…:

Despite what to many would seem crippling setbacks, Duke vows to continue his pro-White activities, and believes that his readers and supporters — who gave him some 60 per cent of the White vote in races for Governor and Senator in the state — will help him do that. He says: “I must rely entirely on you, your sense of responsibility, and your generosity.”

While you’re at it, you can give to the National Vanguard’s charity to “Help White Families in Need”:

Along with the supplies that are being delivered, we are including our brand new “What is National Vanguard?” brochure with every box that is delivered to the needy families. The brochure is a high quality and professionally designed tri-fold hand-out that emphasizes on the front cover the importance of White families. We are not pushing political issues now — there are more urgent things to do. But we do want our people to know who we are.

If it seems like something of a straw-man to figure into the picture David Duke, I have two things: (1) he won more than half of the White Vote in his Lousiana state-wide races.

#5: Glen Beck: When you are rioting for these tickets, or these ATM cards, the second thing that came to mind was — and this is horrible to say, and I wonder if I’m alone in this — you know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims’ families? Took me about a year. And I had such compassion for them, and I really wanted to help them, and I was behind, you know, “Let’s give them money, let’s get this started.” All of this stuff. And I really didn’t — of the 3,000 victims’ families, I don’t hate all of them. Probably about 10 of them. And when I see a 9-11 victim family on television, or whatever, I’m just like, “Oh shut up!” I’m so sick of them because they’re always complaining. And we did our best for them. And, again, it’s only about 10.

But the second thought I had when I saw these people and they had to shut down the Astrodome and lock it down, I thought: I didn’t think I could hate victims faster than the 9-11 victims. These guys — you know it’s really sad. We’re not hearing anything about Mississippi. We’re not hearing anything about Alabama. We’re hearing about the victims in New Orleans. This is a 90,000-square-mile disaster site, New Orleans is 181 square miles. A hundred and — 0.2 percent of the disaster area is New Orleans! And that’s all we’re hearing about, are the people in New Orleans. Those are the only ones we’re seeing on television are the scumbags — and again, it’s not all the people in New Orleans. Most of the people in New Orleans got out! It’s just a small percentage of those who were left in New Orleans, or who decided to stay in New Orleans, and they’re getting all the attention. It’s exactly like the 9-11 victims’ families. There’s about 10 of them that are spoiling it for everybody.

So… Glen Beck hates victimes of the 9/11 tragedy and he hates the victims of Hurricane Katrina? Well, at least he’s honest. Or desparate for ratings.

#6: John Stossel. Does he believe this ultra-libertarian economic stand on the issue of price gouging, or is this affected contrarianism? I don’t really have the answer.

More later.

I’ve been listening to some (operative word being “some”) of the testimony of the hearings to confirm Chief Justice Roberts (get used to that, for good or ill), and some things strike me:

#1: This is a whole lot of bullshit. Everyone knows that he will be confirmed. Everyone knows that Roberts is not going to answer a single question. Everyone knows that there will be little fits of humour gibes thrown in, as when Schumer makes an analogy on what Roberts’s answers would go if he were asking Roberts about his favourite movies, and he answered “Dr. Zhivago and North by Northwest.” Cue soundtrack.
#2: NPR is functioning as C-SPAN by airing this pretty much 24 / 7. It’s not a good role for them.
#3: Why is Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas proud that his state is the state that was the focus of the court case “Brown vs. the Board of Education”? Hoo-ray … my state was especially segregated!!
#4: Can we just admit that Ruth Breyer Ginsburg was more forthcoming than Roberts, but not as forthcoming as the paradigm of Forthcomingness (whatever that may be), in her testimony and move on with it?
#5: How many ways can you ask about Roe v Wade without asking about Roe v. Wade?
#6: They’re all pompous buffoons, but that’s just the nature of the Senate. It’s a rich lawyers’ hangout.
#7: I always thought Bush’s choice for the “I can nominate a white male here” would be Robert Bork… he surprised me by nominating this Roberts fellow instead. Now that Bush must nominate a woman (to fill Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat), he can nominate Attila the Hun. It’s the right ideology, and we can move Justice Thomas and Scalia into the “court’s moderate wing” camp.
#8: One Senator mentioned looking at blogs, and made reference to what the blog said. Blogs have arrived.

The story goes that there was this long-time Pennsylvania heavyweight politician at the 1992 Democratic Convention who due to his pro-life views was snubbed from a speaking role. The Democratic Party hierarchy (that’d be Clinton’s people) disputes this, saying that (a) there was no reason for Bob Casey — at the end of his career — to have earned the right and (b) He did not endorse Bill Clinton for president and wasn’t much of a team-player in the Democratic Party. Bob Casey rebuts with a “But Jerry Brown has a speaking role, and he didn’t endorse Clinton” — rebutted with a “Jerry Brown won delegates, so we’re stuck with him.” (And “stuck with him” is the opportune phrase, as the Democratic Party was always kind of embarrassed by Jerry Brown.)

Fast forward to 2004. The Democratic Party is said to have lost a presidential election to such a thing as “Values voters”. Some bean counters somewhere believe that the party needs to … blur lines (?) and be less rigid(?) on various social issues. Step to the plate Bob Casey’s son… Bob Casey… who beyond being against Abortion…

and… for state muddling into the Terri Schiavo affair, a position which public response against sort of turned the whole post-mortem “The Public is voting JEESUS by way of Pat Robertson” election analysis its head.

and… against Embryonic cloning beyond what Bush proffered in 2001… which, again, politically and policy wise is annoying…

It’s a curious gambit, and the man is the candidate de jour based on name recognition. He’s running against the much reviled Rick Santorum, he of “dog on man” fame. In a state which went for Kerry and went for Gore. In a state whose other Republican Senator is considered “moderate” in the realm of social issues (which, in terms of our narrow political discourse we’re stuck with in this country, really only means he’s “pro-choice”.)

There is a basic problem here in that this continues the trouble with the Democratic Party in that nobody knows where it stands. I’ve come to the conclusion that the Democratic Party should boldly take a political stand, thematically, for Science — and if it seems bizarre that a “I support Science” platform be injected as a stand in a political debate, it’s an indication of how depressing the political climate is right now. As per a package, what you have at the upstart is: Stem Cell Research, the search for Alternative Energy, um… Evolution… utmost seriousness when scientific explanations come in of how levees might break if a category 5 Hurricane hits New Orleans… that sort of thing.

The storyline goes that the Democratic Party gave up on much of Rurality by abonding economic concerns, advancing NAFTA and GATT — and then took on a rock solid stand for social issues such as Abortion for to gain Suburbia (thus becoming a party of Moderate Republicanism, in a sense.) I’m curious to know what would happen if a party gives up both.

In the realm of this weird kinder, gentler Rick Santorum that the Democratic Party is asking Pennsylvania to vote for… I ask that you vote for the opponent in the primary.

More of the problem in this “same as it ever was” motif concerning Hillary Clinton, presumptive nominee for president in 2008, and Harold Ford — automatic candidate for Tennessee, later.

(from New Orleans, on Fox News)

SHEPARD SMITH: You’re live on FOX News Channel, what are you doing?

MAN: Walking my dogs.

SMITH: Why are you still here? I’m just curious.

MAN: None of your fucking business.

SMITH: Oh that was a good answer, wasn’t it? That was live on international television. Thanks so much for that. You know we apologize.
………………………..

IA professor in the field of Criminal Justice asked my class “You’re walking outside at 2 in the morning. (or it might have been ‘in a bad neighborhood’ or some suggestion of suspicion with you.) The police pull over and ask you what you’re doing. What are you obligated to do, and what should you do?” The answer, as he gave it, “Tell the police to bug off. You owe them nothing.”

As a statement of principle, it is correct. In reality, you really can’t do it… and it’s not particularly worth whatever point you’re making to tell a police officer to get away from you.

A conversation I once had with a stranger:

Him: You’re driving along, and see the police turn their lights on. It doesn’t matter that you’ve done nothing wrong, you still get nervous. That’s programming.

Me: Well, it’s … you see… you just don’t know what little item from the past, long forgotten, may be back on their record.

Him: That’s right! That’s right!

Actually that’s not quite it. I’m nervous if a police officer approaches me anywhere because of the nature of policing: literally nothing good can from this transaction. Generally speaking, what comes out a police officer approaching me is innocuous — perhaps a quick exchange of pleasantries — but if anything happens, it’ll be a bit of a bummer. Thus, there’s the source of my nervousness. (Things are turned around when I’m in a situation where I seek the police officer, mind you. I’m not an anarchist.)

I was sitting at a park bench at about 7:30 in the morning with a loaf of bread, peanut butter, and yogurt, purhcased from the grocery store that morning. Fred Meyers had in their coupon section bread for 25 cents a loaf and peanut butter for $1 (yogurt is typically on sale for either 40 cents or 50 cents). I was whipping through a batch of peanut butter sandwiches, and throwing pieces of bread at pigeons. I notice a police car coming by and stopping. I’m vaguely nervous, and considered for a second leaving for a different bench before deciding toward a “deprograming that itch” resolve.

The police officer (who had an assistant with him that I can easily imagine was “in training”) and I exchanged pleasantries, before he pointed me to the beer can — in a paper bag– and asked why I was drinking it in public. This was the first time I was aware that I was sitting next to an empty beer can.

I told him that it wasn’t mine. He gave me an incredulous look, and asked why it was there then. I answered that I see beer and soda cans all the time in public spaces, garbage left by other people. He shook the head, and gave a bizarre answer of “I don’t.”, a statement that defies me. He swooped up and spilled the drops of beer that remained in the can out onto the grass.

“Why is it still cold if it’s not yours?” I could think of no answer that he would believe, since he already decided to believe I was lying. But the answer to that question is one of two things: (1) whoever was drinking from it was here very recently (2) It’s been cold outside since last night, and won’t be warm for another couple of hours. Welcome to Autumn.

“We can play games all you’d like…” I’m thinking that this expression should be banned out of existance.

He asks for my i.d., and had his assistant write down my name — I suppose for future reference in case I ever sit in a park next to an empty beer can. I ask “Can I get a breathilizer test?”, to which the police officer gives a stern response of “No.” (Does peanut butter squelch alcohol?) I’m resentful of his presumption of guilt, and don’t even want the trifle of punishment that I’m being doled out… I once had a roommate who for a couple weeks thought I was Mormon because of my lack of drinking. (and other indulgences, actually.) He was a blockhead, but there you go.

Two things pop in my mind: if I’m ever at jury duty again, I’m mentally popping up the 50.1% preponderance of guilt rule to 60%. And… there oughta be a law that a person accused of alcohol-related anything can ask for a breathilizer test.

“Now, I should exclude you from this place, but I’ll just ask you to move to another location.”

Pleasant dichotemy I’m being given. How lucky of me. For the crime of sitting next to an empty beer can, I’ve been given amnesty from being banned from the area.

It was minor to say the least, but it left me in a bad mood. I don’t know what this is instructive of.

Wow. It almost looks like he’s going to march right with them, and dressed like that I imagine as the fire-fighters go about their rescue mission in the swamps of hurricane and flood-ravaged New Orleans, Bush will climb a tree and save a kitten!

It’s a bit difficult to “reading a book about every presidential election”, as I have scattershot been doing.

Tends to be limiting in picking up whatever it is I’m looking for.

Example: I picked up a sense of the election of 1928 from the vantage point of the Democratic nominee, Alfred Smith, through this biography, read sometime last year. Touched upon as well are traces of 1924, 1932 (running to FDR’s right, although FDR was a little wavering on how he was running) and especially the bitterness that he had in 1936, an act I compare to Zell Miller (except that Zell Miller was on the winning side.)

Where does that leave Herbert Hoover? There was an interview on NPR’s Weekend Edition with the author of a book on the Mississippi River Flood Disaster of 1927. Herbert Hoover’s management of the situation earned him the acclaim that catupulted him to the White House. I did know that (and it is in the High School History Books nobody bothers to read — and, I may as well add, my Junior Year High School teacher skipped the 1920s completely with a cursory “that was a decade of fakery”), but there was something said that I’ve never thought about…

“This started to change the public’s attitude about the role of government.”

That makes sense. Herbert Hoover wasn’t as laissez-fare as his predecessor, Calvin “the business of America is business” Coolidge — who it’s difficult to ascertain how he would have dealt with the onslaught of the Great Depression within his narrow ideology.

This book on Wendell Willkie’s 1940 run for presidency was ultimately a disappointment. Given the evidence the author presents me, I reached conclusions counter to what he believes. If Wendell Willkie’s nomination was enough to give Roosevelt enough rope to help Great Britain withstand the German advance, it’s threading the needle very thinly. Public support was with Roosevelt — even if the strongest opinions were held by the isolationists — and I’m guessing Roosevelt would have judged the political winds with him taking the “responsible” stance.

Further, Willkie was pretty much an elite institution — he was thrown at the Republicans from on high from a relatively small number of influential publishers. (And thus, public debate is thrown into that weird “Skull and Bones” realm that I allude to from time to time.)

In the end, I ponder something: the Republicans in 1940 nominated a Democrat for the presidency — (and not just a Internationalist Republican amongst a party of isolationists). I’m not comfortable with a party rallying around someone they don’t really like. (The party wasn’t in totally bad shape — they did stop the bleeding and battered Roosevelt around in the 1938 midterm elections.) This is why Zell Miller referenced Wendell Willkie in his RNC speech — though I don’t know who the Democrats were supposed to nominate in 2004 to placate Zell. (perhaps Zell?)

Regarding the 1796 election, and the partisanship that was thrown around between the Republican Party and the Federalist Party…:

Some Federalists turned upside down Jefferson’s commitment to religious liberty, asserting that he was irreligious and hoped for the liberty not to worship. Furthermore, many Federalist bloggers suggested that Jefferson’s admiration of the French Revolution was proof that he was an “infidel” and hence a danger to Christianity in America.

— Adams Vs. Jefferson, page 90. John Ferling.

A google serach shows that I am not the first person to notice this utterly bizarre slip. Where does it come from?

Curious, I decided to try to see if, somewhere in the backlog of the Internet, from way back in 1796 I found one of the blogs he’s referring to!

Here it is!