Massive Election Fraud
Well, the buzz today is all about Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s piece in Rolling Stone ("Was the 2004 Election Stolen?"). Sometimes I feel like I'm just waiting for everyone to catch up to the obvious (see my "Massive Election Conspiracy Not Required"), but it is after all a rather delicate subject.
Why didn't the Democrats make more of a fuss? No doubt they can see from the ridiculous mess the Republicans have made of rational discourse and deliberative procedure that it's hard to put the genii back once he's let out. After six or so years of the Republicans' frivolous pursuit of impeachment against Clinton, one feels nearly certain the presidency from here on, at least for some time to come, will be marked by nonstop impeachment proceedings just as a matter of course, regardless of whether they're solidly indicated as with the current President — unless, of course, the President's party can hold on to a congressional majority by hook or, more likely, crook.
So, I imagine that the woeful Democratic leadership must feel that once one starts lawsuits or other proceedings over election fraud, doing so without cause will just become yet another in the Republican bag of dirty tricks as they attempt to assure permanent majority.
The facts in the Kennedy piece have been known for some time. However, now they are all assembled here in one place, telling one coherent story, with a voice that at least has the name-recognition if not the moral authority to help the message penetrate. Penetrate it must, too, because it's clear that the election process, which clearly should not be in the hands of the politicians with their own craven interests to look out for (maybe we'll discuss independent boards for drawing congressional districts later), should be controlled by the people doing the electing.
How shameful is it to confess that our worst president ever was installed in office twice without having actually been chosen by election either time?
His Spaceship
I write to congratulate my friend and former colleague# James Howard, who just had a short story published in the University of Baltimore's annual literary magazine Welter. I could send him a private note, but he's one of my four regular readers and this way everyone else gets to hear about the story.
The story is called "My Spaceship". He wrote it in the spring of 2002 just after we'd fired all of us from Wavix, the now-defunct satellite-communications company I had started with a different colleague. Anyway, he was spending too much time at home looking for a new situation and hatched the idea of effecting escape by building a spaceship in his apartment. This story is a chronicle of his flight of fantasy.
I am rather parsimonious in what I find humorous — especially in written work — but I find this story very funny. It gets my highest marks for beginning with a very funny idea and sustaining the conceit to the end of the story. It's not so long, so I think everyone should read it.
Here's a wee enticement. I won't say that the following bit is my favorite — to avoid choosing favorites — but it does indicate the flavor of the story:
Day 41: I called mother today. She likes the idea of flying away, but suggests I am not thinking this through. She is right. I forgot to make myself a spacesuit! How could I fly without that? Mom is great.
Day 42: I made a spacesuit by sewing together sandwich bags. I have lined it with aluminum foil to protect against radiation. El Niño has left the Van Allen Belts unpredictable this year.
I find this quite funny. One is now free to decide for one's self who was the worst influence on whom during the all-too-short time that Jamie and I worked together.
———-
#And possibly future colleague as well, if I can find lots and lots of money for Ars Hermeneutica. I'll let y'all know when the IRS gets off their … forms and starts processing our Form 1023: Application for Recognition of Tax-Exempt Status. But let's not rush things: they've only had it for a little over eight months so far.
Gore: "Renegade Rightwing Extremists"
The following excerpts are from an interview* that Jonathan Freedland of The Guardian [UK] had with Al Gore, who had just given a speech at the Guardian's "Hay Festival".
"I am Al Gore and I used to be the next president of the United States of America," he says, opening the routine. When that gets a warm laugh, he scowls: "I don't happen to find that very funny."
[…]
"The scientists are virtually screaming from the rooftops now," he says, his voice rising. "The debate is over! There's no longer any debate in the scientific community about [whether carbon-dioxide emissions are warming the Earth]. But the political systems around the world have held this at arm's length because it's an inconvenient truth, because they don't want to accept that it's a moral imperative."
[…]
Later I [i.e., Freedland] ask Gore if he's moved to the left these past six years. After all, he denounced plans for the coming war in Iraq in September 2002, long before his Democrat colleagues, and he now unashamedly attacks corporate special interests. A flash of anger: "No! If you have a renegade band of rightwing extremists who get hold of power, the whole thing goes to the right. But I haven't moved. I'm where I've always been."
For my part, I am beginning to believe that Gore can accomplish far more from his current position than he could as President.
———-
*Jonathan Freedland, "Born Again", The Guardian Unlimited, 31 May 2006.
Estate-Tax Repeal Would Line a Few "Lucky" Pockets
Here is another interesting bit of analysis, described in an announcement (given below in its entirety) from Representative Henry Waxman's office, that connects a few dots:
New Report Reveals Estate Tax Repeal Would Give Over $200 Million Windfall to Oil Company Executives
May 30, 2006 — Next week the Senate is scheduled to consider legislation (H.R. 8) to repeal the estate tax. Repealing the tax, which has been law since 1916, is estimated to cost $1 trillion from 2011-2021. Although the tax affects few Americans, repeal will give some families extraordinary windfalls. The CEO’s of major oil companies, for instance, would get enormous benefits if H.R. 8 were enacted. The family of one oil executive, Lee Raymond (the former ExxonMobil CEO), alone could receive a tax break worth over $160 million.
Today, Rep. Waxman releases a new report that analyzes the impact that repeal would have on the families of the senior executives for the major oil companies. In 2005, the minority staff of the Government Reform Committee released a similar analysis showing that repealing the estate tax repeal would save the President, Vice President, and 11 cabinet members as much as $344 million.
[All hyperlinks were in the original.]
I've been wondering today whether the President and other elected official should, in future, come with a money-back satisfaction guarantee? Wouldn't that make a nifty Constitutional amendment to protect the core institutions at the center of our democracy.
Social Neanderthalism
Herewith a lovely new phrase — so useful in these days of thoughtless social conservatism — brought to my attention by Pam.* The story itself was interesting enough, about how the conservative Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, has told his party's MPs not to talk about those two gay Mounties who are planning to get married this summer. I'm sure that y'all can come up with plenty of your own reasons why he might do this.
However, could any of us have thought up a reason and expressed it so poetically and concisely as this:
Opposition MPs said the gag order is telling. "It shows that Stephen Harper does not trust his own caucus to avoid social Neanderthalism on these issues," said Liberal MP Scott Brison.
"Social Neanderthalism" seem particularly apposite and suitably ironic, particularly when applied to the beliefs and activities of those who would deny Neanderthals as an evolutionary ancestor to Homo Sapiens.#
———-
*Pam Spaulding, "Canada's Harper puts the gag on wingnuts over Mountie marriage", Pam's House Blend, 26 May 2006.
#Yes, that was largely gratuitous, but I feel obliged to say Homo pretty much whenever I can work it into the conversation.
Beard of the Week IX
In recognition of Memorial Day here in America, I offer this World-War-I photo of two British Officers, c. 1914, apparently behind the lines, in the trenches, and sitting down for supper.
I was not able to find any bearded soldiers from that war, as I had hoped, so I've updated the rules* to include any facial hair. In the olden days when I was less than 20% my current age, moustaches were about all I had to fixate on in the popular-culture offerings anyway, and fixate I did.
At other times I've written that I think the key test for whether one is, you know, that way is whom does one wish to kiss. In my adolescence I was quite clear that I wanted to go lip-to-lip with other men, and kissing a man with a moustache seemed to me the ne plus ultra of romance and eroticism.
I presume that I am not the only viewer of "Magnum P.I." who watched the program for reasons beyond the engaging plot-lines and scintillating dialogue. Oh my — we probably shouldn't even mention the movie "Lifeguard", which combined several of my near-fetishes in one gratifying yet badly conceived movie.
———-
* Besides, it's my blog.
My Gay Belt
As everyone knows, gay people have "gaydar" and we can all instantly recognize each other and pass on the secret handshake. Nevertheless, as an extra aid-to-recognition, I have this belt I usually wear to hold up my trousers. It's woven in six lovely rainbow colors, the rainbow of gay pride, and it works like a charm as a secret-club symbol.
To my embarrassment, however, I often forget that I am wearing it, since I nearly always have it on but don't spend a lot of time regarding my own waist. So it sometimes takes me a bit of time to catch on when some person — male or female — looks me in the eye and says with great significance: "nice belt!" I'd like to respond sooner with the secret countersign, but at least I can now blame my tardiness on advancing age.
This morning I went to have some blood drawn. My phlebotomist was a charming young lady, and she wasted little time in asking "Are you wearing the belt for this weekend?"
Oh dear, this was a bit of an obscure variant on the question, but I was pretty alert this morning for a change.
"Is it that time of year already?" I asked. We both know we were talking about June, the time when gay people in America celebrate Pride Month.*
It was, indeed, that time of year, if slightly early. But, scheduling dates for major festivals can be a challenge, especially if it's a gay pride parade and festival. There is, of course, a major drawback to holding a gay pride festival the day before Memorial Day: no white shoes allowed!
She allowed as how she was looking forward to partying. There was some party she was planning to go to, which I don't doubt is typical, that wouldn't even heat up until 11pm and would last until about the time the sun comes up. I thought it sounded good in principle, but Isaac and I can barely manage to stay up until midnight on New Year's Eve anymore.
We had a nice discussion about things she doesn't get to talk about much in her workplace. When I left, she said "Have a great weekend!"
"You, too!" I said. "You, too!"
———-
*For those who don't know, June is Gay Pride Month to celebrate the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots, which began on 27 June 1969, the same day as Judy Garland's funeral in Manhattan.
Beard of the Week VIII
I am continually amazed at the search strings people submit to Google that bring those searchers for knowledge to this blog — both that such frequently odd and unexpected search strings would show me so much Google favor, and that people would even think to ask such things.
Recently, someone reached a beard of the week posting by searching* for "beard styles and ideas". I hope they found something to spark the imagination; if not, give me a few more weeks, months, years, and we'll have some additional styles.
There are at least as many beard styles — not to mention colors! — as there are men, and each of those men can trim his beard in countless ways, so the number of styles may seem be infinite but, alas, it is only finite. However, that's still a really big number. Should one try to develop a beard classification scheme? Surely it appeals to the architect personality in me, not to menion my anal-retentive side, but I'm not sure there would be a point to it. On the other hand, if someone paid me….
Isaac tends to prefer the full beard on men: let it grow naturally and see it at it's most pristine and beautiful. I like a full beard, certainly, but I'm also delighted to see all the varieties of van Dyke variants that people come up with, partiularly the younger crowd. We'll surely see more examples as we go.
Perhaps it's all a matter of mood and the day; somedays I prefer Italian-style gardens, some days I prefer French-style gardens — then at times nothing but an English-style cottage garden will be just the thing.
———-
*Along about the same time, someone else searched for "goatee without the mustache" and no doubt got an eyeful of my curmudgeonly carrying-on about how a van Dyke beard without the mustache is a goatee.
Mounties to Marry
Frank and Kenneth sat at their computers, variously intent on reading the online news that caught their attention.
"Oh, isn't this romantic!" Kenneth said.
Frank responded with "hmm?"
"It seems* that two boy Mounties have fallen in love and intend to get married this summer."
"That's sweet. I suppose the news report is filled with bad puns and doubles entendres?
"Inevitably. Asking a journalist to avoid a pun is like asking the wind not to make waves."
"Let's see — they're more like calvary than cowboys, but I suppose…."
"Exactly! The news story says:"
"We've heard the bad puns, like 'Brokeback Mounties' and all that. Actually, I think it's quite funny," said [Const. David] Connors[, the man affianced to Const. Jason Tree]. An RCMP spokesman said the marriage shows the law enforcement agency is open to all of Canadian society.
Even in the small Nova Scotia fishing town where the officers live, residents couldn't care less about the marriage.
"There's nothing wrong with that. If they can't find a woman, they go for the men," one resident joked.
Another just said: "It doesn't matter."
"Well," Frank responded, "I guess we'll know we've arrived and it really doesn't matter when it's no longer a headline story. Until then, I suppose stories of weddings and saying it doesn't matter are the next best think."
"And in this picture of them riding in their car with their uniforms on they look so cute. I wonder if it's a panda car. We'll have to ask Chris."
"What a shame that they didn't pose on a horse riding off into the sunset."
———-
*"Two gay RCMP officers plan to marry this summer", CTV.ca, 21 May 2006.
Speaker of Truth vs Facilitator of Intolerance
I'm just as amused as any good-hearted liberal at the news of John McCain's being booed when he delivered the commencement address at New York's New School. As promised, this was reportedly the same speech he gave at Jerry Falwell's Liberty "University", generally seen as a transparent attempt to pander to extremist religious power — and personally rehabilitate Falwell from McCain's former assessment as "an agent of intolerance", which he objectively is — as McCain contemplates a run for president.
Anyway, I'm not interested in his remarks, and I wouldn't want to give them any space here in my little blog, but I was pretty impressed by the report I read* of a speech that preceded his, given by New School distinguished senior speaker (one of two) Jean Sara Rohe. An excerpt:#
"The senator does not reflect the ideals upon which this university was founded," Rohe proclaimed to loud cheers, with McCain sitting just a few feet away.
She added that she knew what McCain would be saying to the graduates since he had promised to deliver the same speech he gave at Rev. Jerry Falwell's Liberty University last weekend and Columbia University on Tuesday.
"He will tell us we are young and too naive to have valid opinions," Rohe said. "I am young and though I don't possess the wisdom that time affords us, I do know that pre-emptive war is dangerous. And I know that despite all the havoc that my country has wrought overseas in my name, Osama bin Laden still has not been found, nor have those weapons of mass destruction."
———-
*at: Ari Melber, "New School Rejects New McCain", The Huffington Post, 19 May 2006.
#from Beth Fouhy, "McCain greeted by protests, speeches at university commencement", Newsday, 19 May 2006.
The English-Minus Plan
Sometimes it's like shooting fish in a barrel; do comedians need writers when we've got the Bush administration?
From a Reuters story:*
He [Attorney General Gonzales] said Bush has instead [of making English the "official" language of America] long supported a concept called "English-Plus," believing that it was good to be proficient in more than one language.
It sounds nice, but wouldn't we say that W practices more of an "English-Minus" plan himself? And wouldn't it be a shame if he had to use his first-ever veto to scuttle a plan to make English the official language of the USA?
And then not speaking of Will Rogers — well, I was looking for a quotation that I thought was from his mouth on the subject of the natural humor provided by our elected officials, when I tripped over these# (c. 1930) that seemed altogether too relevant not to share:
"I hope some of the men who get the most votes will be elected."
"The Democrats are having a lot of fun exposing the Republican campaign corruptions, but they would have a lot more fun if they knew where they could lay their hands on some of it themselves for next November."
———-
*Dan Whitcomb, "Bush opposes English as national language: Gonzales", Reuters via Yahoo! News, 19 May 2006.
#"QUOTATIONS: Will Rogers Speaks", Los Angeles Times, undated.
In: All, Common-Place Book, Laughing Matters
Payback & Return on Investment
Avedon Carol with two pieces of insight,* in one post no less, right next to each other!
I wonder what really happened when he [George W Bush] was in the TANG [Texas Air National Guard] that makes him hate the Guard so much. I mean, he sure seems to have it in for them. I also think it's well past time people started talking about the fact that, ever since 9/11, Bush has been bent on a program of weakening every mechanism America has for protecting our people – first responders in every category. He almost instantly started closing fire houses, weakening the police, and of course sent the NG off to foreign countries and left them (and their equipment) there. What's up with that?
But then, the big question everyone should have been asking all along is finally starting to peek over the edge of the wall: What does Bush, or any member of his administration, or any of his supporters, mean when they talk about "our freedoms"? It's certainly not freedom of religion or freedom of speech or freedom of the press; it's not the freedom to be secure in our homes and our persons; it's not even freedom of upward mobility. If they really mean "freedom for corporations to abuse us anyway they like," we should make them say so.
So, payback for the National Guard, perhaps because they didn't guard his AWOL record with enough secrecy?
As for those corporations — I could smack my head in disgust! of course it's about "freedom" for corporations — and "they hate us because they love our freedom" — I guess I'll be writing more in the future about corporations in America. Until then, I save time and energy by quoting myself from a comment that I made# at SW Anderson's Oh!pinion Blog:
People have become so accustomed to the idea that corporations in America are treated like people that it seems taken for granted — surely it must be in the Constitution or something.
Well, it’s not. Corporations operate at the pleasure of the government that, in turn, is of the people. That corporations have rights like people was a relatively recent court decision, and we the people are under no moral or legal obligation to maintain the hands-off attitude to taxation and regulation that corporate leaders — naturally — overwhelmingly prefer.
Who promotes the “free-market” philosophy and paint[s] it as the 11th commandment? Those who profit from it the most, of course.
———-
*Avedon Carol, "Blogtopiana", The Sideshow, 19 May 2006.
#JN Shaumeyer, comment to "Friday food for thought: free markets bite", Oh!pinion, comment dated 14 April 2006.
The Bash Mary Cheney Amendment
What I've been reading about today was the "movement" for the national constitutional amendment to ban marriage equality for gay people. It's all very odd and mixed-messag-y. I mean, we homos were the wedge issue in 2004, but now illegal aliens and big fences with sharp points are suddenly du jour, while "values voters" (pace George Will) wring their hands because their anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-sex agenda isn't getting the attention it deserves.
So here's Mary Cheney publishing a book whose title suggests that she's hitting back hard (I keep seeing coiffed interviewers quoted, saying "hard words" as coming out of her mouth, whatever that means), but in retaliation for what is far from clear. Apparently she is, as she has been for years, an out lesbian — but you'd better not mention unless you're conservative or … kerplow! We were very impressed when she revealed that she almost left her Daddy's campaign in 2004 because of the party's attitude about, you know, the "L" thing.
Then along comes Laura Bush telling her husband's would-be successors not to make marriage equality an issue in the campaigns. No one's quite sure why she would say that.
Then today we had the long-heralded committee vote on the Constitutional Amendment in the Senate Juciary Committee. It's passed on to general consideration — all those principled senators voting for it now because they think it "should be debated on the floor", but convinced it will be defeated again. They might even make a principled vote against it if need be. That's how stroking the base works, right?
So it seems that the committee hearing was a bit odd, too, not to mention a bit contentious. (See, e.g., Pam on the subject.) For one oddity, the committee action was moved to a tiny little room in the Capitol (the "Capitol President's Room" — ever heard of it?) where, as it was reported, there was barely even room for the honorable senators. Why the low profile? Does the committee realize that, at this point, even though Frist promised a vote on the amendment it's not going to make anyone happy?
So here we have this ultra-low-profile committee markup thing going on, and it seems that it got a bit heated for some reason and Russ Feingold had words with Arlen Specter — evidently neither of them likes to be "lectured to" — so Feingold departed with some drama and Specter said "good riddance" to the liberal buttocks as they left the venue. Gosh but those straight boys sure can get emotional.
John Aravosis wrote some interesting analysis, saying that Mary Cheney has now embarrassed Republicans enough that the Senate Judiciary committee was afraid to hold their mark-up meeting "in the light of day" — the anti-gay forces are heading back into the closet, symbolized by the committee's meeting in this tiny, inaccessible room. That conclusion seems a bit premature to me, but I do like the conceit.
In that same piece, Aravosis refers to the "Bash Mary Amendment". I like that! I'm thinking we should market it as the "Bash Mary Cheney Amendment", and hope that it personalizes the issue enough for someone so that the "values voters" lose a bit of traction on the issue.
Not-So-Secret Republican Agenda
At last! The Secret Republican Agenda has been revealed:*
During the May 16 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly claimed that The New York Times and "many far-left thinkers believe the white power structure that controls America is bad, so a drastic change is needed." O'Reilly continued: "According to the lefty zealots, the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide, a rainbow coalition, if you will." O'Reilly's comments came during a discussion of opposition by the Times and others to deploying the National Guard to help secure the border.
It's so nice to have spelled out what we've known for so long: the Republican Party is the party of angry white men. It's also convenient that the racism that has for so long been encoded and shrouded in euphemism can now be discussed openly by party whitespokesmen.
Apparently, in a secret plot O'Reilly called "the browning of America", liberals are encouraging illegal aliens to flood the American Southwest so that America can become more multi-cultural (said with a sneering expression) and (fie!) liberal. Of course, illegal aliens don't vote, but I'm sure we liberals will come up with a way around that. Not to mention that flooding California will hardly make it more liberal. Shouldn't we be browning all the states rather than just concentrating on southwestern electoral votes?
Gosh, I guess we lefty multi-culturalists aren't all that smart. Darn!
———-
* "O'Reilly claimed NY Times, other 'lefty zealots' believe 'the white Christians who hold power must be swept out by a new multicultural tide'", Media Matters, 17 May 2006.
Nevaeh: Your Go-To Girl
Things I never knew until I read this article* in the New York Times:
- "In 1999, there were only eight newborn American girls named Nevaeh. Last year, it was the 70th-most-popular name for baby girls, ahead of Sara, Vanessa and Amanda."
- Nevaehs have made the fastest rise in name popularity of all names in "more than a century, the entire period for which the Social Security Administration has such records."
- Nevaeh is Heaven spelled backwards.
- That there even is an "American Name Society".
- That "The surge of Nevaeh can be traced to a single event: the appearance of a Christian rock star, Sonny Sandoval of P.O.D., on MTV in 2000 with his baby daughter, Nevaeh. 'Heaven spelled backwards' he said."
- People who therefore used the name "Nevaeh — Heaven Spelled Backwards" (apparently the tag line functions as part of the name) because they thought it sounded "original" don't really understand the idea behind "original".
———-
*Jennifer Lee, "And if It's a Boy, Will It Be Lleh?", New York Times, 19 May 2006.
The Road Map to Totalitarianism
Remarks excerpted from the Bob Herbert column, "Fear and Power":
In the dark days of the Depression, Franklin Roosevelt counseled Americans to avoid fear. George W. Bush is his polar opposite. The public's fear is this president's most potent political asset. Perhaps his only asset.
Mr. Bush wants ordinary Americans to remain in a perpetual state of fear — so terrified, in fact, that they will not object to the steady erosion of their rights and liberties, and will not notice the many ways in which their fear is being manipulated to feed an unconscionable expansion of presidential power.
If voters can be kept frightened enough of terrorism, they might even overlook the monumental incompetence of one of the worst administrations the nation has ever known.
[…]
The Constitution and the elaborate system of checks and balances were meant to protect us against the possibility of a clownish gang of small men and women amassing excessive power and behaving like tyrants or kings. But the normal safeguards have not been working since the Bush crowd came to power, starting with the hijacked presidential election in 2000.After the Sept. 11 attacks, all bets were off. John Kennedy once said, "The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war." But George W. Bush, employing an outrageous propaganda campaign ("Shock and awe," "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud"), started an utterly pointless war in Iraq that he still doesn't know how to win or how to end.
If you listen to the Bush version of reality, the president is all powerful. In that version, we are fighting a war against terrorism, which is a war that will never end. And as long as we are at war (forever), there is no limit to the war-fighting powers the president can claim as commander in chief.
[…]
Well, I give you fair warning. This is a road map to totalitarianism. Hallmarks of totalitarian regimes have always included an excessive reliance on secrecy, the deliberate stoking of fear in the general population, a preference for military rather than diplomatic solutions in foreign policy, the promotion of blind patriotism, the denial of human rights, the curtailment of the rule of law, hostility to a free press and the systematic invasion of the privacy of ordinary people.There are not enough pretty words in all the world to cover up the damage that George W. Bush has done to his country. If the United States could look at itself in a mirror, it would be both alarmed and ashamed at what it saw.
[quoted by egalia, "Herbert: America the Fearful", Tennessee Guerilla Women, 15 May 2006.]
Trawling for Meaning
In a short posting yesterday ("Trolling for Phone Sex?") I quoted a paragraph about a curious use of the word "trolling" by the President, a word whose slang meaning is "to cruise for sex". In the comments, Chris pointed out that, in a similar situation, he would use the verb "to trawl" which, by analogy to its literal meaning of fishing with a net or long line, means to go through information or materials on an unspecific search for something of interest (i.e., to go on "a fishing expedition").
I agree with Chris as, evidently, did the author of the piece I quoted as well as the author of the Denver Post article she quoted, called "Bush: we don't 'troll' personal lives." But was it in the official White House text that way, or was it a transcription error on somebody's part? In other words, was it written by someone in the White House as "trolling", or was it merely heard that way?
The answer is not clear, but some interesting things turned up that surprised me. I looked for the White House transcript of the remarks. It appears that they came in a weekly radio address, dated 13 May 2006. The relevant excerpt:
This week, new claims have been made about other ways we are tracking down al Qaeda to prevent attacks on America. It is important for Americans to understand that our activities strictly target al Qaeda and its known affiliates. Al Qaeda is our enemy, and we want to know their plans. The intelligence activities I have authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. The privacy of all Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities. The government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval. We are not trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda terrorists and its affiliates who want to harm the American people.
Now, whether this is a prepared text or a transcript of what the President said is not clear, but it is an official document of the White House showing the word as "trolling".
Nor is this a singular incident. Search Google for "trolling", restricted to the White House site, and you'll find that the word has had a mini-vogue in this administration. One that I dipped into was a "Press Briefing by Scott McClellan", dated 11 February 2004. In this instance it was a reporter who introduced the phrase "trolling for trash" into the conversation; Mr. McClellan later used the phrase three times in his answers. I'd like to backtrack that reporter's use of the phrase "trolling for trash", too.
There was one document, a White House briefing paper about "faith-based initiatives" called "Unlevel Playing Fields: Barriers to Participation by Faith-Based and Community Organizations in Federal Social Service Programs, that appears to be originally produced in written form (rather than transcribed from a spoken version) that used "trolling". That white paper is dated August 2001.
Still, it's not obvious that "trolling" is not just a mishearing of "trawling" said with a Texas accent. Chris and I apparently agree that the two words, while similar in sound, are nevertheless distinct.
However, in what I find a curious twist, Wiktionary disagrees with us. The entry for trawl claims that "troll" is a homophone! They do, however, seem to prefer "trawl" for the fishing verb, "troll" for the cruising-for-sex verb (which isn't mentioned as a meaning of "trawl").
So, it's still not clear whether the White House pronouncements really meant "troll" or whether they're using a Texas-accented "trawl". For what it's worth, 13 out of 14 of the ads that Google offered up when I searched for "trolling" concerned fishing and not cruising for sex, although the one headlined "Learn Trolling in Utah" I thought was on the ambiguous side.
[Update 1.5 hours later:]
Starting the list of contemporary citations, here's another example from my reading of "trolling" used to mean a metaphorical fishing expedition:
How many Nampa kids will now be trolling for explicit books now that the bible thumpers have alerted them to exactly where they are and what they contain?
— "Radical" Russ, "Princess Barbie Talibania: Arbiter of Appropriate Library Materials", Pam's House Blend, 16 May 2006.
Trolling for Phone Sex?
…last Thursday the country experienced an uncomfortable moment when the President of the United States reassured us that the government['s collecting phone records] was not "trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans." Apparently W's speech writing staff doesn't know that trolling is slang for an older gay man cruising for anonymous sex with younger men. [links in original]
Katrina vanden Heuvel, "Big Brother's Little Brother", The Huffington Post, 16 May 2006.
In: All, Common-Place Book, Laughing Matters
Beard of the Week
I am one of those people who tends to find redheads — men, in my case — something special. It's not an exclusive thing with me, and it doesn't approach a fetish; rather, it's more like extra credit on the attraction score card.
Sometime ago — I think I was still in graduate school, so this would be at least 20, 25 years ago — I happened to mention this to my mother. She wasn't startled at all by this, merely commenting that I must have gotten my taste from my grandfather (i.e., her father) Orville.
For my part, I took the information in stride and didn't think much of it. Indeed, it seemed plausible, since I'd heard somewhere that boys inherit their hair characteristics from maternal grandfathers, something I certainly hoped would be true since my grandfather Orville lived to a ripe age with a head full of lovely silvery white hair. So far, so good: my hairline has barely receded but my mousey dark-brown is slowly turning very silvery, as it has been for years.
But I digress. What has struck me recently concerning this intelligence about my mother's father is: how did she know? So far as I know, my maternal grandmother did not have red hair, so how did my mother come by this knowledge? I'm sure there are many sensible and innocent explanations (e.g.: he told her once!), but I rather like the slight aura of mystery I've created for the story.
Viral Gore
For weeks, months maybe, there's been a continuous, low-level buzz talking about Al Gore as the Democratic candidate for president in 2008. There are many little reasons for the buzz: his speeches, the release of his film about global warming, talk about the election he won in 2000, "security flaws" in Diebold voting machines, polls about who would win today, what the alternate universe would have been like if he'd been installed in the office that he evidently won. There are endless reasons, but they all end in one place: asserting that Gore won't / should / may / must / can't / will run in 2008.
I think it was something Avedon Carol said* that made me realize that we seem to be in the midst of a viral-marketing presidential campaign with Gore as the candidate: using the power of the internet so the people can choose — or something like that.
It makes perfect sense to me, too. Gore is sensibly connected with the internet, despite that silly kerfuffle about his having "claimed" that he "invented it" (which he never claimed — he's hardly the dolt that W is). Gore has what I'm coming to think of as a twenty-first-century sensibility, so one might expect that the internet would be part of his campaign.
So far it would appear that the viral-campaign is going well. The interesting question then would be to what extent is this an explicit part of a campaign strategy?
———-
*Avedon Carol, "President Gore", The Sideshow, 15 May 2006. Of course I'm linking to it, to "spread more of this stuff around".