whyroots

The Good (inter-web links judged not by moral or righteous good, but by highest level of absurdity or artistic merit):

1)      The gorgeous irony of Palin pardoning turkeys in front of a turkey slaughter.

2)      This photo of Charlie Rangel as a sun-tanning walrus.

3)      Young swedish vampire love: Let The Right One In was a beautiful movie. A love story between two twelve-year-old's in the 70’s. One happens to be a vampire. No, it’s not like Twilight.

4)      I’m Gonna Kick Some Ass With My Own Pipe Wrench

5)      Rachel Maddow <3!!

6)      Somali pirate culture and their swinging luxurious lifestyle. Will somebody make a Somali-pirates-dancing-on-a-yacht video already?

7)      Jamie Livingston took a Polaroid every single day from March 1979 to Ocotober 25th, 1997, the day of his death. The website of a man who documented his own death deserves to be perused obsessively.

 8) And, of course, baby cheetahs.

The Bad:

1. The Media Holiday Party Recession--so the media industry is dying, but now we can't make out with coworkers and cry in the coat-check room? Is nothing sacred?

2. Bloomie Forces Third Term on NY: This could have easily been avoided with a referendum, but no.

3. Hillary as Secretary of State. I don’t know. We are slightly concerned. But I do enjoy the return of the headband look.

4. George Bush is nothing like the Dark Knight. I would know. I made a useless video about it.

5. "Bush 'very pleased' with Iraq war outcome " [Anguished yelp of rage].


The Ugly (Physically and otherwise)

1. Ashley Dupre. Maybe her trashy borderline learning disability shtick would fly if she were a fox, but she is not a fox. And no, I refuse to put an accent on the -e in her fake name.

2. See Charlie Rangel picture.

On Thursday I went to a moveon.org meet-up on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. It wasn't clear what, exactly, they would occupy themselves with now that Obama had won. Dance party? Celebratory orgy? There seemed to be such an excess of energy post-victory I thought there'd at least be some catharsis.

The premise of the meeting was actually a surprise to many of the members. Moveon had concocted this bizarre photo-gathering project that, frankly, seemed a bit superfluous. Take photos of strangers holding up some sort of sign supporting Barack Obama? Really? And spend an hour discussing different places one could potential take said photographs? "A public park," said one. "A dog park," said the other. "No, it's too cold out." "Yes but they're already standing in the dog park." The members couldn't agree on anything. They just wanted to vent and come together, drink, maybe, release that nervous energy, that terrible elated now-what-ness. Also, they wanted Move On to listen to them.

The meeting quickly devolved into chaos. The young leaders couldn't control the older, liberal, opinionated members who just wanted to talk it out. A schism formed in the group. Eileen, the most vocal of the lot, started gathering emails separately from the Move On group. "No! No no! We want to have each other's numbers, not through the council!" There was cursing, anguished head holding/face-wiping, disingenuous applause, and then the "celebration." Weee!

Before Democrats won this election, I assumed every progressive meeting sort of resembled this one--a mess of opinion and open-mindedness, a rodeo of free-thinkers and non-leaders. I left wondering how we won. But really you can't infer anything here on a grand scale, except maybe that the most liberal and active troupe of the Upper West Side are like these few outliers (god bless the literate liberals on the UWS, though).

At the meeting there was much said about the difference between MoveOn.org and MyBarackObama.com. Throughout Obama's campaign, MoveOn struggled to find its purpose with "MyBo" so perfectly organized, an even rootsier-grass movement than MoveOn. Forged in the fires of the impeachment, and now with a president that shares its values, the progressive organization is struggling to find its place in this new era. But if Jon Stewart can still be funny without a Dubya punching bag, perhaps MoveOn can come back. Thoughts?

MoveOn Up to the Upper West Side (NYMag.com)

I know this is a terribly prickish thing to say, but for a moment let's toss that aside:

In commending this administration's policies, Attorney General Mukasey couldn’t utter the words “this country is safer as a result” without giving himself a stroke. 

What are we debating again? What is the debate? Really? And what scientific evidence are we weighing for or against this? How many millions of dollars of taxpayer money is spent studying the benefits of marriage? Isn't there cancer to be cured or wars to win? Instead of spending cash trying to find correlations that prove outdated religious bigotry, can't we be more creative? Here are some programs that could use these millions in research more than anti-gay marriage studies:  

1) The Study on the Benefits of Cute Dog Collars on Dogs, and Whether They Make a Dog Gay
2) Old Library Books: Why Do They Smell So Good? And Is Smelling Them Patriotic?
3) Has It Been Long Enough That We Are Now Allowed To Wear Roller Blades?  

Yes, there are correlations to a child's upbringing and the state of his parent's marriage, undoubtedly. Marriage is good for kids, ok, fine. We get it. Can we move on, now?  Oh, no? We can't? Still debating this? There are times to pretend you are listening to your opponent, feigning objectivity when your burning subjectivity is itching to burst through. But now is not one of those times. When somebody says, "I like Matchbox 20," I keep my opinions to myself. That's fine, I say. I don't, but you are allowed to like them. Though when someone tells me they love Britney Spears' new single, I stand firm. "No, you can't. You cannot. You are wrong. And this is not a matter of opinion." There are times when we must lose the mantle of "debate" and say, "Sorry, no. Not this time. Not gonna debate it. You are absolutely, objectively wrong."  

In the future we'll look back and shake our heads and roll our eyes at the enormity of ignorance we've had to put up with. To even engage the debate is pure idiocy, see. But what should we do? What is needed is a true shift in language. You can't change the minds of the staunchly religious, but if you confuse them maybe we have a shot. First ask them to ban straight marriage. They will say, "That is crazy talk." You agree. But this is the old foot-in-the-door trick. Ask for too much and then, after you have primed them for compromise, go in for the kill. "OK, fine. Don't ban straight marriage. Just ban gay marriage banning." Say the last "banning" under your breath so that they don't hear it, and in confusion they will lift the ban. It's the only way.

Let us not forget that "progressive" was the word liberals chose after the word "liberal" was so thoroughly vilified by all the Limbaughs and Coulters.  We liberals were constantly portrayed as 'effete academics' with our arugula and espressos and for some reason our mascot was little Michael Dukakis in his stupid little tank.

But now we are not liberals, no, but progressives. Liberals believe in what's right, but they are whiny and have weak biceps and therefore don't actually do anything. But progressives! Progressives are driving a steam-powered locomotive through the dark heart of the country, hauling a load of Change in its cab. Yes, the word choice is much, much better. Progress intimates movement, action while liberal is now just a conversation over white wine. But what kind of 'progress' is to be made? We must look at the word in terms of application, of how best to act, and quick! Or else Coulter will condemn our shiny new rubrick before we've used it!

Martin Luther King, Jr. famously said, "Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice." Really, Martin? Because until last week it seemed the arc of history was actually a straight line bent towards conservative Armageddon. I had resigned myself to the idea that each liberal state would eventually secede and become part of Sweden.

It's ironic that King believed this, given all he did to ensure that arc stay bent. 
There are moments when, as progressives, we must lead the country to better itself, not simply wait for it to change, when it's our moral prerogative to accelerate the rate of progress with a little nudge. In the Brown v. Board ruling, Chief Justice Earl Warren did not simply rule against segregation but added that is must happen "with all deliberate speed." Was he the kind of "radical judge" the Bush administration is so fond of condemning?  In their eyes, perhaps. Because he did not wait for the wrong to be righted. He chose his position of power to change that. Years after his decision, Warren explained his choice: "There were so many blocks preventing an immediate solution of the thing in reality that the best we could look for would be a progression of action."

A progression of action. Yes.

So the party of Dukakis and Carter are now "progressives." What does that mean? We are looking to the future. We are not content to rest on the laurels of our backwards and bigoted past. Unlike conservatives, who preach about so-called non-interventionist government (except of course when it comes to marriage and abortion and sending citizens to die in needless wars), we view the government as a machine that can protect and improve the lives of our citizens. And for once progressives are in charge of that machine. Let's see what happens.

Hi, everyone. My name is Jonah, and I used to be completely disillusioned.

I know. It’s such an easy reaction to such a ridiculous decade of idiocy and hopelessness. But I let it happen to me. Perhaps I was weak. But something about the hope and zeal in the eyes of protesters and volunteers always made me queasy, embarrassed. Why were they even trying? Didn’t they know nothing we did mattered?

For the entirety of my thinking/formative years, I’ve been under this absurd administration. I’ve spent countless nights watching returns in bleak Sheraton Ballrooms only to leave feeling dejected, empty, resolved in my belief that my guy never wins. And suddenly, the morning after Obama won, I woke up with a giddy, embarrassed feeling of having just fallen in love.

Huh. Watching the country and world unite under the same banner of joy and optimism was unfamiliar territory. After years of disenfranchisement, I had forgotten what it felt like 1) to win and 2) to feel pride in my country. Thousands of drunken revelers flooded the streets in Manhattan dancing, shouting, hugging. Is this what our hippie parents once called ‘idealism’?

In Union Square we chanted “USA! USA!” like it was now our own.

The next day at work nobody could concentrate, for good reason. I took a lunch break to walk around town blasting Bruce Springsteen and getting teary-eyed. But a friend, a more reticent reveler, sent this email to me: Yo, I'm psyched about Obama, but I'm a little bit skeptical about the overwhelming Democratic presence in Congress.  The way people were celebrating last night made me a little nervous, despite my own excitement.

What? Why. Why would he say that? Of all days. This was supposed to be the day without skepticism! A holiday from apathy. Our one moment to radiate together, and he sends me this! The tone was all wrong, goddammit, wrong!

We exchanged many heated emails, came to some kind of agreement, and then went out to get drunk.

As everyone is dying to know: Why Whyroots, Jonah?  While I don’t know if we young people are now actually empowered, and while I don’t think I know what "netroots" means, I know this: I believe in political intercourse. I mean discourse. That’s what I meant.

And as much as I wanted to punch my friend in the face, I was glad to spar with him over this—because at least this killjoy got the conversation going.  Maybe he’s right to distrust the celebration in the streets.  It’s that same zeal that once made me feel uncomfortable.  It’s not good enough to feel hippie joy because Barack O’Perfect won (But isn’t he perfect? And so cool. OMG, remember that three-pointer with the troops?). We need to stay vigilant, skeptical and open-minded.  I’ve endured too much heartbreak to suddenly give up all that well-earned distrust.  I’m jumping off this political pendulum to keep focused, and I’m joining Whyroots to keep this exploration alive.