NaNoWriMoProMe

The NaNo novel is underway, and now I can share my progress with you via the National Novel Writing Month Progress Meter (NaNoWriMoProMe):

The graphic at right (you might have to scroll down) will update regularly as I update the word count—daily, I hope. That way, if I succeed in hitting the 50k mark this year, I do so publicly; if I fail, I do that publicly, too. I don't want to jinx anything, but I've already decided that if push comes to shove this month, the novel has to take backseat to studying, catching up, finishing my note for the journal, etc. That makes it unlikely I'll “win” NaNo this year, but it's still fun trying. Plus, I'm really loving what I've got started so far; I think it has more promise than anything I've tried in previous years. Maybe that will make the difference. I guess we'll see, won't we? SO how's your novel progressing? ;-)

Posted 10:41 AM | Comments (2) | NaNoWriMo

Another Post-Election Collection

People will be talking about this election for four more years, and maybe long after that, and while I won't be one of those people every day, it's still far too early to move completely on to other things. So first, this awesome map of the vote by county makes the country appear more divided than ever. Perhaps that's why some people are starting to talk less in terms of Red and Blue states and more in terms of a Purple Nation. Still, even though Kerry's support was concentrated in a few small geographic locations, that doesn't make it less significant. This is especially true when you consider that Kerry may actually have won—in a sort of hypothetical sense. Of course, he didn't win, but Greg Palast explains why the discarded and uncounted votes would very likely have put Kerry in the White House. Is this just the talk of sore losers? Perhaps, but we do know that at least one voting machine gave Bush nearly 4,000 votes that didn't exist, and if that happened, oh, about 40 times across Ohio (whether by accident or some other means), the margin of victory is suddenly gone. (A bit more on the evoting problems here and here.) Some Democratic congresspeeps are calling for an inquiry into evoting “irregularities.” With both the executive and legislative (and arguably the judicial) branches of gov't locked up by the Repubs, don't hold your breath on that investigation. The truth may want to be free, but for stuff like this, it's probably going to have to just keep wanting for at least four more years. And it's going to be a long four years; Republican gloating is so not pretty. Meanwhile, lots of people will be talking about how the vote broke down—who really voted for Bush? Sadly, it appears the working class has decided that trickle down economics and other economic policies destined to destroy the middle class are actually good for them. Maybe they appreciate the morbid spectacle, like some kind of sadistic circus act: Come one, come all! Watch as the gap between rich and poor gets wider! step right up folks, to see the gross inequality become even more appalling! I thought we'd all figured out that trickle down economics was just a nice way of describing how the rich piss on the poor, but I guess not. Is this What's the Matter with Kansas? Optimists are speculating that Bush might be more centrist in his first term as elected president/second term serving. Michael Hirsh makes a good point: It would seem difficult for Bush's second term to be more radical than the first, so moving more to the center may be his only option. But no, I don't think so. Bush and Rove etc. are good at what they do; every time you think they've gone as far as they can go, they go farther. I'd like to be optimistic, but we tried that in 2000 and it failed. I'd rather prepare for the worst. Bush's arrogance was on full display in his rare press conference as he admitted that he didn't have the support of the nation before this election, but said that now that he has “the will of the people behind him” he's going to start enforcing rules on the press. That's just the beginning, we can be sure. If you live in a blue state, get your Don't Blame Me t-shirts today. “Responsible clothing for the politically frustrated.” Yeah, but what about D.C.? You can also get a Blame Ohio t-shirt there, and elsewhere you're invited to say Sorry Everybody. All of that is great, but maybe we should start a site called “The Next Campaign Starts Today” because while it's nice to be sorry, it's better to work for positive change. This Ohio mother captures that pretty well:

So what am I going to tell my kids? I'm going to tell them that Bush won. I'm going to tell them that the electoral process worked. I'm also going to remind them that voting is only part of the process. The next part is to do everything we can as citizens and activists to reign in the havoc that Bush and his cronies are prepared to wreak, to find strong progressive candidates who will win the next elections, and to remind the world that here in Ohio, as in the rest of the country, there are lots of people -- half of us for sure, and probably more -- who want our country and our world to be different. We're here, we voted, and we're not going away.

In that vein, Kos says here's to hope, and don't mourn, organize. Cass Sunstein agrees, arguing that “healing” means surrender:

Critics of the Bush presidency do not need to heal our divisions but to insist on them. President Bush has presided over an extraordinarily divisive and polarizing administration. The suggestion that we should now “heal our divisions” is really a suggestion not for unity but for capitulation.

My sister agrees. Story: Someone came into her office and started moaning about how she hoped we could all put down our swords and come together as one nation. My sister called BS on that and said, “Americans don't need to put down their swords they need to pick them up so they don't get slaughtered by the Bush administration!” Yeah, my sister rocks. So as long as we're picking up the swords, Salon collected some “what to we do now?” thoughts from prominent pundit types, and I obviously agree w/what Arianna Huffington had a to say:

Already there are those in the party convinced that, in the interest of expediency, Democrats need to put forth more “centrist” candidate -- i.e., Republican-lite candidates -- who can make inroads in the all-red middle of the country. I'm sorry to pour salt on raw wounds, but isn't that what Tom Daschle did? He even ran ads showing himself hugging the president! But South Dakotans refused to embrace this lily-livered tactic. Because, ultimately, copycat candidates fail in the way “me-too” brands do. Unless the Democratic Party wants to become a permanent minority party, there is no alternative but to return to the idealism, boldness and generosity of spirit that marked the presidencies of FDR and JFK and the short-lived presidential campaign of Bobby Kennedy. Otherwise, the Republicans will continue their winning ways, convincing tens of millions of hardworking Americans to vote for them even as they cut their services and send their children off to die in an unjust war.

Camille Paglia offers some good advice, as well:

Progressives must do some serious soul-searching. Too often they are guilty of arrogance, insularity and sanctimony. They claim to speak for the common man but make few forays beyond their own affluent, upper-middle-class circles. There needs to be less preaching and more direct observation of social reality. America is evolving, and populism may be shifting to the Republican side.

Paul Waldman, editor of The Gadflyer, joins the chorus of those calling for energy and activism in the face of defeat:

So where do progressives go from here? First, they should spend the next four years fighting. If Kerry had won, there would be Republicans drafting articles of impeachment at this very moment, ready to fill in the blank of an imagined crime in January. As I did in the article I wrote for the launch of this magazine, I offer the movie quote that best describes today's Republican Party, from The Terminator: “It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity or remorse or fear. And it absolutely will not stop – ever – until you are dead.” There are a lot of very bad things George W. Bush is going to try to do over the next four years, but they can be stopped.

Of course, organizing and continuing the fight doesn't have to mean increasing division in the country. As Maureen Dowd suggests, “ W. doesn't see division as a danger. He sees it as a wingman.” Somewhere there must be a balance between fighting for what we believe is right, and completely alienating those who don't agree or don't understand. I don't think the balance needs to be that difficult to strike, but obviously we haven't reached it yet. Here's to trying.

---

Miscellaneous other post-election hoo-haw: Why Americans Hate Democrats, a collection of opinions from prominent Democrats that I haven't really had time to digest yet. Still thinking about moving to Canada? Get in line. The last word on Bush's bulge? The SS says it was a bulletproof vest. Ok, thanks. But um, how, exactly, would you have compromised the president's security by admitting that a month ago? One of Newsweek's election post-mortems summarizes the whole Kerry campaign, from the moment party leaders annointed him as their nominee (long before a single primary vote was cast), to getting his ass handed to him by Howard Dean, to being “electable,” to being ultimately defeated. Wow, what a great story. Not. But it is consistent with the idea that Kerry just was never a very good candidate. Do people in red states have a lower average IQ than those in blue states? Probably not (the data in that table appear to be unreliable), but... Alabama vote shows some Old South sympathies. Yay. Ha.

Posted 08:07 AM | election 2004

New Spam Technique

Apologies to anyone who has tried recently to comment using a “yahoo.com” email address. I've been deluged with spam on this blog and in response I've been using MT-Blacklist very aggressively, banning URLs left and right. It seems that in the latest batch of mass banning, I ended up blocking all comments from “yahoo.com” email addresses, making people using such addresses completely unable to post. Thanks to Scott for pointing out the error so I could fix it. Now all you yahoos (no offense intended) can comment away, and I hope you'll do so. The conversation in some of the posts below is terrific. On the subject of spam comments, I've also noticed a new technique: Spammers are starting to quote the post they're commenting on. So instead of getting spam comments full of illicit URLs or jibberish or inanities (i.e. “great site! buy diamonds for pennies!”), the comments sound legit at first glance because they're talking about substantive things. Look closer, though, and you'll see your own words being repeated back to you—without attribution, I might add. So would this be a double-offense: both spam and plagiarism?

Posted 07:37 AM | Comments (1) | meta-blogging

Post Post

Ok. Let me get this out of the way. George W. Bush was elected President of the United States for the first time two days ago. There were, um, a few problems, but the outcome appears to be undisputed. Conservatives are ecstatic and some are plotting “revolution.” Many other people think this is bad news. I spent yesterday thinking all kinds of uncharitable thoughts and trying to avoid talking to people so that they would not be infected by my rage, despair, frustration, utter bewilderment, etc. What's there to say? Some people are saying “I'm moving to Canada,” so here's a reader's guide to leaving the country from Harper's Magazine, if you're among those who feel that's the only or best option. Here's why you might want to leave (link via Actus Reus). Mark Schmitt (via Cooped Up) says the Bush administration will now be held to the “break it you buy it” rule because they'll have no one to blame for the problems they create. Let's hope so, but voters didn't seem to care about holding their leaders accountable for their mistakes in this election—why will they do so in the future? William Saletan thinks he knows why the Dems keep losing to this idiot: he's simple, and voters like simplicity.

If you're a Democrat, here's my advice. Do what the Republicans did in 1998. Get simple. Find a compelling salesman and get him ready to run for president in 2008. Put aside your quibbles about preparation, stature, expertise, nuance, and all that other hyper-sophisticated garbage that caused you to nominate Kerry. You already have legions of people with preparation, stature, expertise, and nuance ready to staff the executive branch of the federal government. You don't need one of them to be president. You just need somebody to win the White House and appoint them to his administration. And that will require all the simplicity, salesmanship, and easygoing humanity they don't have.

Saletan thinks that simple leader is John Edwards. Maybe, but if he's right about the simplicity message (which has a lot going for it), it seems less important to find that simple leader today than to figure out what the simple message is going to be. How about this: “Democrats: People who care about each other, our neighbors, and the future of the planet and human life on it.” Damn, is that too complicated? Hollywood Phil has a great postmortem roundup of what actually happened in the voting and possibl resons why. In contrast, Atrios isn't interested in thinking or talking about what went wrong with this election. “What matters isn't what was done wrong, but what needs to be done right for the '06 elections.” Well, maybe, but there are lessons to be learned from the Democrats' losing streak, and one way to figure out what needs to be done right for the future is to figure out what you did wrong in the past. In my opinion, the biggest lesson is that pandering to the “center” is a plan for failure. I'm sure there are many more lessons to be learned, but that covers a lot of them. Finally for now, Howard Dean says look on the bright side, and he's right.

Regardless of the outcome yesterday, we have begun to revive our democracy. While we did not get the result we wanted in the presidential race, we laid the groundwork for a new generation of Democratic leaders. . . . That process does not end today. These are not short-term investments. We will only create lasting change if that sense of obligation and responsibility becomes a permanent part of our lives. Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” We will not be silent. Thank you for everything you did for our cause in this election. But we are not stopping here.

We have to remember that. If all of those who have opposed Bush for the last four years continue working, there's not telling what we can do. If we can start now with the level of passion and organization and activism that we've seen in the last six months, and build on that, the Republicans don't have a chance in 2006 or 2008. But if we fall apart, become demoralized, tune out, drop out, give up . . . if we do that, then we'll lose yet again, and we'll keep losing. Come on people, take the red pill! The rabbit hole is very, very, very deep.

Posted 09:36 AM | Comments (6) | election 2004

Fun and Games

At the right you'll find a new countdown to Inauguration Day 2009. See, on the bright side it's only 4 years, 11 weeks, 1 days, 2 hours, 42 minutes, 29 seconds until George Bush is no longer president! And here's a great game: Ponder all the possibilities!

1. What is the worst thing that's going to happen in the next four years because of Bush's election?
2. What is going to be the worst long-term consequence of nearly a decade under Bush?

Posted 08:19 AM | Comments (11) | election 2004

Center? No. No. No!

Ok, really, I'm going to think and write about something other than the election someday soon. But not yet. First: The results of this election do not show that the Democrats need to move further to the center. No no no! Bush-light has failed for the past three elections—it has failed miserably! Yet I keep hearing pundits claim that this is the message to the Democratic party—you've got to move to the middle. Are these people insane!? The Democratic party needs to provide a real alternative to the Republicans, not try to be more like them! How many people did you know or hear about who said prior to this election that they didn't really care for Bush but they didn't really know what Kerry was about or how he was different? I know of many, and many of those people apparently voted for Bush. And the reason they didn't understand what Kerry stood for or how he was different is because he was too afraid to take real stands on issues to set himself apart from Bush. He was playing for the center, and he lost the whole field. And that's exactly what Gore did, too. And that's what happened to most of the mid-term races in 2002. Lots of people felt it was time for a change this year, but they didn't see how Kerry would give that to them. So they decided to stick with the devil they know. Democrats! Wake up! Stand up for what you believe in and tell the mythical “center” (which is moving further right every freaking day!) you're not going to pander to it anymore! Show the world what a farce the Right's “moral values” are by standing up for your own values—peace, equality, justice, environmental conservation, sustainable economies, living wages. . . basically, humanity before profit. There's a winning ticket waiting at this station and it's just sitting there. If the Democrats claim it, there will be no stopping them. But if they continue to play the Republican game and pretend to care about the “center,” they're going to lose lose lose lose lose. Leadership does not go to where it thinks the people are and try to convince the people it agrees with them. Leadership goes where it thinks the people ought to go, then it shows the people why it thinks they ought to go there, and asks them to join together to help move that direction. Democrats have to lead or lose, that's all there is to it.

Posted 08:15 AM | Comments (9) | election 2004

The Day After

!#?@*(^$!@*)$@%T#!!????????!!!!??????

Posted 07:57 AM | Comments (4) | election 2004

See you on the brighter side

So I'm off to help out Impact 2004 protect the election in Philly. I hope there's no election fraud and the trip turns out to be a total waste. The good thing is, at least it will distract me from surfing the web for news for the next 30 hours or so until we know that John Kerry won, for sure. So I hope everyone who reads this votes or has voted. Find your polling place and do your little democratic thang. And If you have any problems voting please report them to: 1-866-MY-VOTE1 or 1-866-OUR-VOTE. But yeah, so barring massive election fraud or some other catastrophe, the next time I post here John Kerry will be president-elect and everyone will be scratching their heads wondering how the hell George Bush ever got appointed president in the first place. ;-)

Posted 05:10 PM | Comments (4) | election 2004

Positives for Kerry and final pre-election craziness

We all hope that within 48 hours we'll know who the next president will be, and I can't imagine there are really that many people who have not decided how they plan to vote. (Although I've heard pundits saying that many “undecideds” claim they decide at the last minute, either on their way to the polls or even in the voting booth.). Still, if you're one of those who is still looking for reasons to vote for Kerry, don't miss Half-Cocked's megalist of reasons why he's voting for Kerry—and why you should, too. Here's another “Why for Kerry” from blogger Ed Cone. Also, if you haven't yet read the Kerry campaign's own description of Kerry's record, you really should. Sure, you can expect it to be biased, but after all of the Bush campaign's rhetoric about how Kerry's a flip-flopper who's got nothing to show for 20 years in the Senate (which is just flatly untrue), it's only fair you know Kerry's side of the story before you make up your voting mind. I heard Cokie Roberts on NPR this morning saying something like all the issues are breaking in Kerry's favor, but now there's a new category that voters are considering, the “other” category for issues like “leadership” and “security,” and that category is starting to break for Bush. Hype! Don't you believe it! Every time I hear Cokie Roberts it's like fingernails on a chalkboard; she's a Republican spinmeister in the guise of an NPR commentator (which is a lot like a wolf in sheep's clothing) and I long ago learned not to trust a thing she says. This spin has Rove written all over it. But that's nothing. It's down to turnout, and the Dems have the lead there. Polls of the huge numbers who have already voted give Kerry a big lead in Florida and Iowa. Of course, there's no way to predict how the widespread and growing voter suppression efforts will affect the outcome. It seems an Ohio judge is trying to limit some of those efforts by ruling that challengers won't be allowed at all in Ohio:

A federal judge issued an order early Monday barring political party challengers from polling places throughout Ohio during Tuesday's election. State Republicans planned to appeal. U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott found that the application of Ohio's statute allowing challengers at polling places is unconstitutional. She said the presence of challengers inexperienced in the electoral process questioning voters about their eligibility would impede voting. . . . Dlott ruled on a lawsuit by a black Cincinnati couple who said Republican plans to deploy challengers to largely black precincts in Hamilton County was meant to intimidate and block black voters. Republicans said they wanted to prevent voter fraud. Dlott said in her order that the evidence “does not indicate that the presence of additional challengers would serve Ohio's interest in preventing voter fraud better than would the system of election judges.”

It's hard to believe the ruling will exclude all challengers, but would it be a bad idea if it did? Why don't we leave it up to the poll workers to determine who's registered, who's not, and who should be put in the question (provisional) pile? But nevermind, no need to worry. The Redskins lost yesterday, which means Kerry will win tomorrow, game, set, match.

Posted 08:49 AM | Comments (1) | election 2004

Norway?

Randomly, I dreamt last night that I had just arrived in Norway, and that it was so breathtakingly beautiful that I made an immediate decision to never leave again. I have never been to Norway. I know it has many fjords, and that those glacial anomalies are, indeed, very beautiful. Still . . . Norway!? Maybe this election is getting to me in ways I don't even realize . . . .

Posted 07:14 AM | Comments (2) | life generally

Kerry not Scary

For a good number of people, it's really not hard to figure out why to vote against Bush. For example, here are 100 reasons and Bush by the Numbers has more, just for a start. But some people seem to have greater trouble finding reasons to vote for Kerry (rather than simply against Bush). If you're among those, I suggest you watch “Going Upriver”, a short documentary about Kerry's service in Vietnam and his role in the anti-war movement when he returned to the U.s. The film is available to download from Internet Vets for Truth, or you should be able to find it at your local movie rental shop. I watched it last night and was extremely impressed with the courage Kerry showed both in going to Vietnam and in trying to end American involvement there. The film shows us a Kerry who was never really radical in any way. He went to Vietnam because he thought it was the right thing to do to serve his country. While there, he learned that wasn't necessarily so. He saw lots of senseless death. He came back to the U.S. and acted very reasonably and deliberately, and with restraint and caution, to convince U.S. people and leaders to end American involvement in Vietnam. Apart from “Going Upriver” and Kerry's Vietnam-related record, you'll find more reasons to vote for Kerry if you read the Rude Pundit's endorsement, and look at Kerry's long record of support for progressive issues. Of course, as Time wrote:

Friends and enemies alike can find in his 19 years and 6,500 votes in the Senate whatever they are looking for: bold words that suggest fresh ideas but a lack of follow-through that suggests political caution; shifting positions on education, welfare and affirmative action that show either a capacity for growth or an absence of core beliefs.

Perhaps that's why the Kerry campaign has done such a poor job of using that record to Kerry's advantage. Other people have made important distinctions between the candidates' positions, and it's not hard to find summaries of where Kerry stands. In this comment thread on Three Years of Hell, someone named Martin argues that what defines Kerry is a continuous effort to do the right thing, even when it's unpopular:

John Kerry spent twenty years in the senate, and while he was there he did his damndest to make each vote count. This has got him attacked for flip flopping, but I'm telling you that those votes were about trying to do the right thing, each time even when it didn't matter. He wasn't voting against weapon systems, he was voting against pork. He wasn't voting against $87 billion for the troops, he was voting against $87 billion without a budget or a plan attatched. Things in retrospect that seem like a good idea. Those votes are hard to explain on the campaign trail, but I don't care. This was a guy who tried to do the right thing.

The rest of Martin's brief comments are worth reading as a concise list of reasons to vote for Kerry. As the Bush campaign points out, Kerry has a “liberal” record. Bush wants you to think that's a bad thing, but I'd encourage you to look past the label and the rhetoric. Kerry has shown good judgment, real concern for the environment, for the poor, for promoting peaceful and mutually beneficial solutions to both America's problems and those of the larger world. My read of Kerry's record shows someone who has always been drawn to big ideals, and who has had impressive successes and failures in pursuing those ideals. Kerry has spent his life working to make the world a safer, more peaceful, more fair and equal place for everyone. He's also frequently focused on the responsibilities of elected representatives to their people; time and again he's investigated and tried to end corruption, abuses of power, injustices perpetrated by leaders but paid for by the powerless. If you find that record objectionable, by all means, vote for someone else. But if that sounds more like the goals and values and priorities of the country you'd like to live in, vote for Kerry.

Posted 09:54 AM | Comments (4) | election 2004