we have seen the enemy, and he is US...

now playing: boz scaggs, "lowdown"


i'm having one of those moments, and i just had to write it down before it got away.


i think i finally understand.


i know this feeling...i remember it well from when i was younger - that feeling of enlightenment, when you connect with someone or something and feel you share a common thread or you hear someone express something in a song or a poem that speaks directly to you somehow, as if that person had stepped into your shoes and lived a part of your life with you...


well, ok, maybe it's not quite like that...but i do feel enlightened.

i just clicked through a link from digby to an article that mark ames wrote for the new york press back in june called spite! it wins votes!

ames makes some points that are at once disturbing and revealing...it's equal parts political and societal commentary in its abandon to point out some not-so-noble characteristics that exist within the middle class. he also makes some interesting, if not chilling, comparisons between Dubya and Milosevic.

seriously, read it. to quote my buddy mike hudson from tenth grade, it'll fuck you up.



one thing that i'm noticing in myself is that i'm finding that i'm only too willing to allow ones' political bent to totally override any other trait that they might posess in determining what my opinion of them might be. for instance, i'm noticing that it's been very easy for me to allow dennis miller's latent republican bent to completely color my impression of him as a comedian. now, thankfully, there aren't a whole lot of people who fall under the GOP umbrella who seem to have any other redeeming qualities in my book (brooks and dunn? the gatlin brothers? michael w. smith? of course, my old high school alumni darryl worley will be there, but this comes as a shock to no one...).

i did encounter an exception on monday night, though...in one al michaels.

i've always enjoyed the familiarity of michaels' play-by-play presence on monday night football, and can't say that i ever remember a time when he interjected too much of himself into his work from a political standpoint...but this past monday, he broke with tradition on several occasions, culminating in touting missouri's presidential voting history, and mentioning that only three times in the past hundred years have they not gone in the direction of the eventual winner in the election (thomas dewey, adlai stevenson, and al gore), and then showing a poll report from some group called rasmussen reports that showed bush with a 50-46 advantage over kerry. now, it bears mentioning that a quick visit to the wall street journal battleground states poll, which uses zogby as a source (who the fuck is rasmussen reports, anyway?), not only shows kerry ahead, albeit by less than a percentage point, but it points out that bush won missouri in 2000.

and, as it turns out, al's true colors run parallel to that of most GOP shills...apparently, al thinks that katherine harris is an american heroine, as well.

now, the sometimes-bigger part of me...the normally sensible, compassionate, and occasionally even forgiving part - would like to intervene and say, well...that's his politics, and he's obviously not alone in his beliefs, and that is one part of him that doesn't speak to what you personally enjoy about his work...

but that's not really true. i wonder, in fact, if i'll even bother to watch any more monday night football games until after the election. and if W wins somehow, i think i'll be done for the year. i won't be able to take it.

maybe it's selective memory on my part, or maybe it's because i hadn't been that politically active until 2000, but i don't remember him ever interjecting this part of himself into his work before.


now...this is the part where i come grinding into a face-to-face confrontation with my own glaring hypocrisy:

i'm sitting here slamming al michaels for daring to interject his personal politics into his work in the same space i've defended the right of linda ronstadt, the dixie chicks, don henley, bruce springsteen, and many others - to interject their politics into their work without fear of public reproach.

if i should expect a conservative to allow linda ronstadt her affection for michael moore without allowing it to color his perception of her as a singer and performer, why then should it be a contemptible matter from the point of my perception if al michaels wants to write checks to dubya and scrape the countryside for a poll that shows bush ahead of kerry in a state where kerry is clearly ahead (although by less than the margin of error) in that state? i guess the whole "digging for a best foot to put forward" thing pisses me off, but that's human nature. if you're looking for a way to present a viewpoint and support it with raw data, it's pretty easy to understand how one might look for the best possible light in which to cast his raw data.


i think, though, that to be completely honest with myself, i'm gonna let that nagging little episode this past monday night bother me for quite some time to come....


...which makes me no worse than the assholes at the alladin.