Art Machine
Just another former infatuation junkie

I have a friend who has a violent reaction any time somebody makes the simple statement that the Civil War was fought over slavery. And when I write, “a violent reaction,” I don’t mean raising his voice, I don’t mean eyes bulging – I mean jumping up and down, clenching of fists, and screaming. His reaction usually consists of this statement repeated frequently and loudly: “Saying the Civil War was about slavery is stupid! It wasn’t about slavery! It was about states’ rights!”

Well, yes. And the right being argued in particular was the right to own slaves. So what’s your point?

As a matter of fact, the Civil War is a perfect example of how those who claim states’ rights the loudest are usually the fastest to take them away. A violent conflict in Kansas was the result of Southern states sponsoring “border ruffians” to cross into the predominantly-abolitionist Kansas territory and steal the elections, ensuring Kansas would enter the union as a slave state. In a territory with only 2,900 registered voters – not all of whom voted – over 6,000 votes were cast in the election, the vast majority coming from people who were not legal residents and whose pilgrimage had been sponsored by the pro-slavery South.

At the height of the conflict, conservative President James Buchanan urged ratification of the Lecompton Constitution, which would have made Kansas a slave state against the wishes of the majority of its citizens. Congress, however, voted down statehood and called for another election. Through it all, it should be noted, the “states’ rights” champions of the South who would later go on to justify secession from the union as a revolt against an unfair federal system that restricted their self-governance were the same people who sponsored the efforts to subvert the will of the Kansas territory residents.

In the modern day, we see the so-called “states’ rights” conservatives declaring that medical marijuana bills – though popular in the states and popular with the voters – do not, in fact, legalize medical marijuana, because it’s still a crime under federal law. Which doesn’t sound much like states’ rights to me. Then again, this is the same group of conservatives that paints pictures of “jack-booted thugs” kicking down doors to rifle through your dirty laundry, but feels that the medical treatment of Terry Schiavo is too important to be left in the hands of her own husband.

Or, more recently, that states have no rights to protect their own citizens when they fly on national airlines.

Under the New York law, the only of its kind in the country, airlines could be fined up to $1,000 per passenger if they failed to supply water, fresh air, electric power and working restrooms during lengthy delays. A federal judge in Albany upheld the law in December, only to be reversed on Tuesday by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The appellate judges agreed with the Air Transport Association of America, an airline industry group, that New York’s law was pre-empted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 and hindered the Federal Aviation Administration’s ability to maintain uniform standards for air travel.

In other words – the rights of the corporations that own the planes supercede the rights of the people, or the states’ attempts to protect those rights. But those corporations contributed roughly $25,000 directly to George W. Bush in the 2004 election through their corporate PACs, not to mention the money that was slipped to the President by airline executives through donations to other funds and PACs. In the 2008 election cycle, the airline corporate PACs have contributed over $522,000 to both Democratic and Republican politicians, with $193,500 of that coming from the American Airlines Political Action Committee alone. (figures from campaignmoney.com)

People standing in line for canceled flights have been interviewed on the news, and by and large they’re angry because “I’m not getting out of here tonight.” But, honestly, they should be angry – and we should be angry – on a much larger scale. The abuse of customers by the airlines is on a systemic level, and now we learn that the airlines aren’t even taking measures to ensure the basic safety of the people who fly with them. The air transit system in America is broken at its very foundation, and the problem starts with the exploitation of the very people who purchase the product. And, to top it all off, we now learn that the states have rights – but not when those rights involve protecting the environment, civil liberties, access to health care, or consumers.

For those of you not particularly eager for a political discussion right now, might I suggest you pop on over to First Look and take a look at the first pictures of costumes from the upcoming film adaptation of Watchmen? The sprawling anti-superhero graphic novel is coming to the big screen, and the costumes have gotten the Batman Returns treatment, it seems.

And now on to political news.

Following the Texas and Ohio primaries, Hillary’s supporters are back and screaming for blood. A strong showing in Ohio and a razor-thin win in Texas seem to have trumped the fact that she made minimal gains on Obama in terms of delegate count, and it’s time for Obama supporters to gird their loins as they get attacked for yet another few weeks as idiots and cultists by the same people who will be begging for their vote should their candidate actually take the nomination.

At the heart of Clinton’s strategy is a simple notion that I honestly find offensive – that it doesn’t matter how many states you lose, as long as you win the “big” states.

Of course, the strategy has its proponents. It helped put Bill Clinton in office, after all. It also lost both Gore and Kerry their elections. But the fact of the matter is that when you decide to focus on “big” or “important” states, you alienate the other states. Your message doesn’t get played in them, and the voters wonder why they should care about you. In the last Presidential election, Virginia – my home state – was considered a “swing state” for once. The DNC made the decision not to campaign there because it’s a traditional Republican stronghold. Almost immediately the state went red.

I find I side more with the people who push the 50-state strategy – which happens to include Senator Obama. The notion is that all states are important, and all states should be campaigned in. As for the big state strategy, Robert Creamer has a better criticism of that at Huffington Post than I could ever hope to write. I will, however, say this – pronouncing your candidate the most “electable” of the potential nominees loses some of its effect when between the Chesapeake primaries and the latest batch, Senator Clinton went from a 10 point lead in the polls to a 2 point victory. Losing 8 points after practically living in the state for a few weeks does not bode well for electability.

As to why Texas and Ohio went the way they did, there are a number of theories. Some people suggest that the photo of Obama in a turban turned people off. Hillary flogs are particularly fond of what they’re calling “NAFTA-gate” as a reason. And over at The World According to AmericanGoy, he’s got his own theories.

What’s a republican voter to do? It’s simple – the republican voter will vote in the democratic primary for his state, and vote for the WEAKEST democrat nominee, that McCain could beat, to help his republican party.

It’s an interesting theory, and it’s made even more interesting by the fact that Rush Limbaugh has been encouraging his listeners to do exactly that – to vote for Clinton in open primaries because McCain is already the Republican nominee, and if they can’t have Clinton to campaign against then they can at least keep her in the race to make Obama “bloodied” by the time he hits general elections. So, tell me – does anybody have the numbers on how many Republicans voted in the Democratic primaries in Ohio and Texas, both of which are open primary states?

Back when Obama made a comeback after Hillary supposedly beat him down, I received a rambling e-mail in my inbox. It had misspelled words, no paragraph breaks, and a line of logic that made no sense to my poor Earth-bound, reality-based brain. Basically, it said that Obama should bow out of the race following his wins because his campagin was a “distraction.” From what, I really couldn’t tell. But since that time as Obama has gained more and more momentum, I’ve seen Hillary supporters screaming that asking Hillary to bow out of the race is unfair.

The fact is, however, that the longer Hillary has stayed in this race, the less I have liked her. It was hard enough back when she was part of the pro-censorship lobby in the Senate, but her campaign practices at first made her seem slightly spoilt, then un-democratic (either big “D” or little “d” democracy – take your pick), and now she seems to be bordering on full-blown megalomania.

For starters, the argument of “experience” has never washed with me. One: She is unwilling to speak up and name her experience for what it truly is – wife of a governor and First Lady. Frankly, I think she should be proclaiming it loudly and proudly, and explaining to the American people how, exactly, that prepared her for office. It would make for a compelling argument and a stirring debate. However, time and again she has shown that she desperately wants to claim the experience without actually having to talk about how she got it. This is moot, however, since it’s not experience that equals leadership, it’s judgment. If experience equaled leadership, then Dick Cheney would have ensured that the last seven years would have gone smoothly.

Second, she campaigned in Florida. I know, I know – she didn’t land in Florida until after the polls had closed. The fact remains, however, that both Edward and Obama signed pledges along with Hillary not to campaign in Florida, and she was the only one who promised to show up for a victory party at the close of voting. Making that promise is campaigning.

Third, she has downplayed the power of the written and spoken word. Her constant refrain against Obama has been that he makes “pretty speeches.” It’s not an implication – she outright states that Obama talks pretty while she acts. However, Obama has acted, has a plan, and can make the speeches that get people rallying behind his plans. Wouldn’t it be nice to have a President who can both talk and play a good game?

Fourth, she has demonised hope. ‘Nuff said, really, but honestly – whose bright idea is it for the wife of Bill “Keep Hope Alive” Clinton to go out on the stage and proclaim that it’s ridiculous to hope for things to change in Washington?

Fifth, she wants to count Michigan and Florida after the DNC decided not to seat them, and has suggested that she will be at the convention not only schmoozing superdelegates, but Obama’s pledged delegates, as well. In other words – screw what the people actually want. Nominate me anyway!

Sixth and finally – CBS News reports that Clinton has endorsed McCain.

Hillary Clinton told reporters that both she and the presumtive Republican nominee John McCain offer the experience to be ready to tackle any crisis facing the country under their watch, but Barack Obama simply offers more rhetoric. “I think you’ll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

Of course, the quotes don’t explicitly endorse McCain, and CBS News doesn’t proclaim it to be an endorsement. However, Clinton’s statement clearly suggests she is saying, “If I’m not the Democratic nominee, you should vote for McCain.” After all, she says McCain has the experience – but Obama just has speeches.

The Democratic party needs to recognize that at this point, the Clinton campaign is out of control. Her rhetoric is unhinged, and her statements are damaging the party in what should honestly be a “gimme” of an election. After eight years of Bush, people want a change in our leadership – but Hillary is ready to make sure that the White House remains in Conservative control if she can’t be the one running for it.

Much like Thudfactor, I already thought we were doing this everywhere, too.

The program takes treated sewer water, runs it through the same reverse osmosis process that bottled water companies use to purify their artesian (or tap) water, and then injects it into a deep aquifer that provides water for Orange County. The idea is to recycle as much of the water as possible and, in the process, reduce the water needs of a very arid and highly populated region of the country, southern California.

The article says that many people are “squicking out” about the fact that their water supply may contain water that came from someone’s toilet, but – as they also point out – pretty much all water came from someone or something’s toilet at some point in history. Heck, it’s only relatively recently that we’ve managed to find ways to ensure that water is safe to drink. Prior to that, people depended on the anti-microbial properties of alcohol in weak wine and beer to get safe hydration. Well, that is to say, they depended on it without realizing what “anti-microbial” meant. Let alone “microbe.”

Just like land, they’re not makin’ any more of water. The more we can process and reclaim it, the better off we’re all going to be.

If you’ve voted for my video on Project Breakout – Thanks! The vote isn’t over yet, though, and you get 15 votes a day. Which, it appears, you can use on a single video if you’re so inclined. To move on to the finals, all I need is to finish in the top three for one of the weeks of the initial stage. Help get the ArtMachine on television! Vote early, vote often!

Tomorrow’s the primary in Virginia.

But if you’d like to vote today… I’m running for political pundit.

My recent political videos got somebody’s attention on MySpace, and now I’m registered in Project Breakout’s political pundit competition.

So I’d appreciate it if some of you would click the banner below and go vote for my video – and see if I can get some work ranting about politics on television.

Because Virginia actually matters in this primary season, no less a figure than Bill Clinton came to the area to speak yesterday. Honestly, I’m not fond of the things he’s been saying lately, but I still believe he was one of the greatest Presidents of the 20th century – and I can’t pass up the opportunity to see a former President speak, anyway. So I went.

The speech was in classic form. But I learned two things about how Hillary runs the lead-in to her campaign events.

First: She’s managed to reduce Bill’s bad press by leaving the personal attacks on Obama to the campaign loyal who introduce him.

Second: Really, Hillary? Journey?

Over on Thudfactor, Thud posted recently about Bigfoot. Specifically, he posted an examination of what it says about our attitudes toward inquiry when mentioning that you have sighted Bigfoot automatically discredits you.

Not that there aren’t any witnesses. It’s just none of them are credible. In his Darklore essay, Loren Coleman makes the point that part of the reason these witnesses aren’t credible is they claim to have seen Bigfoot. That’s what you would call something of a Catch-22.

Now, if I were to see something like the creature featured in the Patterson-Gimlin film, my second thought would be that I’d seen a very large ape. (My first thought would be to get the hell out.) It might cross my mind that I’d seen Bigfoot, but then I’d play the “what’s more likely” game and decide I’d seen a large ape. In that (hypothetical) instance, I’m technically a Bigfoot witness. But I don’t even believe myself, so I’m not going to do anyone any good. My skepticism prevents me from reporting a sighting.

Then I came across this little zinger from Kit O’Connell at Words Words Words (where Steven Brust, by the way, has just released his Creative Commons-licensed novel based on Joss Whedon’s Firefly as a free download) who reminds us what, exactly, the term “UFO” means.

Let’s look at that last sentence — ‘what many believe is a UFO.’ What does UFO stand for? Unidentified Flying Object. It was a thing people saw (an object), moving through the sky (flying) and no one knows what it is (unidentified).

All of which reminded me of the moment in the Democratic debates when Dennis Kucinich admitted to having seen a UFO. It doesn’t matter, of course, that Kucinich explained the meaning of “UFO” (Unidentified Flying Object, for those who came in late or are intensely dense), that America had previously elected a President who had seen a UFO, or that 14% of Americans claim to have seen a UFO as pointed out by the moderator. That one clip of him saying that he had seen a UFO – which was not even his complete answer as given – set off a storm of jokes. Cable news turned it into a gag reel on constant loop. Bloggers cracked jokes about Kucinich being picked up by ET, and FOX News’ John Gibson declared it final proof that Kucinich was crazy. In fact, that editorial relates nicely to what Thud has to say about the way we “investigate” phenomena like Bigfoot, because John Gibson specifically states:

If you’ve seen UFOs you probably shouldn’t go around calling other people nuts. If you admit to seeing a UFO, martians, space creatures, big foot and all the rest, you are by definition on the defensive against a charge of craziness.

The congressman doesn’t eat meat. Perhaps that is an explanation.

If not eating meat means you see UFO’s, that only accounts for a fraction of the sightings – 14% of Americans have seen UFO’s, while only 4% of Americans are vegetarians and only 0.2% of Americans consider themselves vegans.

But, of course, we live in a “what’s more likely” world. Expressing curiosity about what’s overhead automatically pegs you as a loon and an X-Files freak. Who needs honest, open discussion with an eye toward true investigation and the civilized exchange of ideas when you can make somebody the butt of a joke by having them utter one simple sentence? Enough about your domestic policy and your beliefs regarding America’s place in the world community, congressman Kucinich – can we get you to say something that we “normal” people can laugh you out of town over?

On a side note, John Gibson is such an out-of-touch dork he doesn’t even know that “bigfoot” is supposed to be typed as one word.

Edited to note: I originally credited the UFO entry and the Firefly novel to the same person, but Kit O’Connell pointed out that while he wrote the entry on Words Words Words, the novel was by fellow Words3 scribe Steven Brust. Thanks, Kit!

To see John McCain’s reactions to Giuliani’s speech isolated from the rest of the video, see YouTube at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCTSRa0XGYg