Big Black Car

It should come as no surprise to anyone that I'm sharply critical of the current Bush administration; it terrifies me to such an extent that I'm careful to keep my passport easily accessible and could list the addresses of every foreign embassy in Texas and Boston, along with most nations' visa requirements. What might be less obvious given my semi-frequent political rants and related breakdowns is that as of 2000, and even early 2001, I was pretty happy about W's election. I didn't vote for him, but I didn't like Gore either - both Tipper and Lieberman are very pro-censorship and "won't someone please think of the children," which doesn't gibe with my 1st amendment love. I mean, yeah, Cheney had that whole creepy "Project for a New American Century" thing, and Bush himself was stupid, but Bush was not particularly mean - people make a lot out of the death penalty stuff and education cuts that happened while he was governor of Texas, but Texas has a weak governor system. We pay our governors to look pretty and kiss babies; they can't do much else.

I figured Bush would be the same as president; the way things were going then, I didn't think it was particularly relevant who was elected. The economy was running strong, even with the recklessness of the tech bubble, and we had that nice budget surplus. We weren't in crisis; there wasn't much to fuck up. More importantly, the Senate was split 50/50 and Republicans had just a 3-delegate lead in the House. Any president was going to be a weak president - especially a president without a clear electoral mandate from the people. Any legislation would have to be moderate, backed by two-party coalitions.

I was completely wrong. Partisan politics deadlocked Congress, and laws passed by slim majorities had no way to override the presidential veto. Then, after the tragedy of 9/11, well . . . you know the rest. Aside from the political and civil rights fallout, the American press lost any accountability they had. Facts no longer seemed to matter, (which, to be fair, was true as far back as the Jefferson/Adams runoffs, but they also didn't let women or non-whites vote then. There were no worker protections, no public education. I thought we'd come further than that). So anytime I start wondering how anybody could still back Bush, (anybody who doesn't have a large financial stake in the administration's policies,) all I have to do is look at "conservative" news sources' alternative spin on reality. Then I drink a lot. (Liberal media is not much better. There's a lot of misinformation and heavily doctored quotes. However, the Liberal media is at least less flagrant about it. Most of the time.)

So, since the news is unreliable - is more opinion than news - you need to go read Gore's May 26 Move On speech. Do it right now. I don't care whether you've read or heard excerpts, which were all over the news; if you haven't read the whole thing, you've experienced a skewed version. (I felt the same way about the famous "Dean Scream" newsclip, which was almost totally unlike the way it was represented in the media.)

Okay. If you followed my instructions, you have now read Gore's full speech. We're on the same page.

Pretty interesting speech. Moving, decently organized, well reasoned. Doesn't devolve into baseless character attacks; is careful to back up assertions with evidence and examples. Even includes an explanation of why Gore waited so long to speak out against Bush after the election. There are things in the speech you could disagree with - there are bits I disagree with, like that America is more committed to "good" than other nations - but you'd have to be careful with your criticism, or risk sounding reactionary. You'd have to give some thoughts to the points Gore is making; you'd have to examine them and figure out exactly where the logic falls apart, if indeed it does. (You, of course, know all this, because you've read the speech.)

So how has the neo-con media responded? Like this. With a dozen or more suggestions that Gore is insane, is off his medication, and has been made unstable by recent national events. They don't bother to defend their positions, or to intelligently criticize Gore's: he's crazy. You should ignore him. As evidence, look at how long his speech was. Clearly the work of a madman. See, here are some psychologists who say so. And reliable psychologists always make that sort of serious diagnosis on the basis of a news clip. Let's just put ol' Al on a talk show. They'll fix everything, and give him a makeover in the bargain.

This kind of pseudo-science makes me furious. This is worse than courtroom psychology; this reminds me of the kind of research which said that women couldn't lift more than 20 lbs without hurting themselves. This is the kind of misuse of science which proved blacks are inferior to whites, women are stupider than men, and women are not related to the children they bear. It's a cheap trick to dismiss dissenting viewpoints by writing off the messenger as crazy. Even if he is, you still have to deal with the message.

In particular, I don't understand how "angry" came to equal "crazy," and "worried" became "paranoid." Just because someone isn't desensitized - just because someone is still capable of outrage - that person is not neccessarily manic. But then, I'm probably just hysterical. Yep, my uterus has detached and is wandering around my body upsetting things. I should hurry up and get pregnant before I do myself an injury.