A Slice of St. Louis

My wife, my almost three year old daughter, and I took the opportunity to ride the Shrewsbury extension free this Sunday. I have ridden the MetroLink before, but my daughter had never been on a train, so we decided to walk down to the station from our humble abode in the city and take in what some were calling a "historical moment," or at least a moment when St. Louisians would experience something new.

The train was packed, and while I was one of the people who was enraptured by the newness of light rail extending a bit further in the StL, I was a bit perplexed by how some folks were acting.

They were taking pictures. And it was clear that for many folks public transportation was "new" to them.

To quote a character in Toni Cade Bambara's "The Lesson," "White folks crazy."

The specter of various natives taking pictures of a commuter train took me through stages of revulsion, amusement, and anger. My first instinct was to think, "You people really need to get a life, for Christsake. It's a train. Haven't you been on a damn commuter train before?" Then, after some reflection, I kind of laughed at how folks of the 52nd city need little reasoning to make something a big deal: pet parades, toasted ravioli, unnecessary standing ovations at Busch, among others. Are we as a city that starved for attention or something new to do? And how does this reaction fit with Bill McClellan contention that St. Louis has a serious inferiority complex? Ponder that for a bit.

I finally got around to anger though, which fits my character I guess. It's sad that this area doesn't have effective public transportation to all parts of the metro area. The Shrewsbury extension is a small step in larger direction, but the area needs to expand it.

Perhaps instead of tearing up Highway "Farty," we could ave paid for a good bridge over to Illinois and help fund expanding MetroLink?

Just a thought.

The Post-Dispatch

So I got the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Tuesday, and I found a front page article that compares Pujols to Babe Ruth. This is not a surprise since, to modify Marx a bit, sports are the new "opiate of the masses." I initially chalked up the article to yet another example of St. Louisians holding baseball in too high of a priority and glorifying Pujols to SNL Ditka-like status (drunken Southsider to another drunken St. Louisian at Busch Stadium: Q: If Pujols and Jesus Christ arm-wrestled, who would win? A: Pujols--burp.).

But today's front page showed how limpid the Post has become. Above the fold is a story about John Goodman's return to New Orleans to commemorate Katrina, and below the fold is a wire story about how Survivor will now divide teams early on in the show along racial lines.

This is on the front page.

Now that's INFOTAINMENT!

Let's not focus on Iraq or or the November elections or Pentagon graft or put more important stories on the front page today [Medicare refunds, Iran, Illegal Border Crossings, the (lack of) security at chemical plants and water facilities, et al.], no, let's follow the herd--Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC--and churn out canned, witless reportage.

And I don't even want to get started on page 2 of the Post where they provide gossip about celebrities.

Daily papers around the country are trying to attract more readers.

If they want more readers, they are better served by doing some true investigative reporting rather than imitating People.

Bill McClellan, Sylvester Brown Jr., and Eric Mink are pretty solid columnists, but the paper of record in the St. Louis area needs to reach higher than the lowest common denominator.

More hard-hitting, investigative journalism attracts readers--not crap.

Gearing Up for November...

The hyberbole and mischaracterization has already begun as has been documented by the good people at FactCheck.org.

See for yourself--good stuff on both the Democratic Party and the GOP:

Murtha out of context and Dean as Hitler: http://factcheck.org/article418.html

There's something goin' on over here. It's fact-strainin', but it ain't exactly clear: http://factcheck.org/article417.html

(Not) Hitting the Mark

I applaud the various agents who helped apprehend and scuttle the recent terrorist plot. The plan was startling, and like everyone else I'm happy they did their jobs well.

A recent editorial from the The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/opinion/11fri1.html) does a good job of exposing the crass political opportunism about this event though. As we've heard repeated just as much as we had heard that Iraq had WMDs and how Saddam had supported Al Qaeda, now we have politicians once again using the recent events as a way to paint Democrats as somehow implicitly supporting terrorists or being "soft on defense."

That's just fucking pathetic and unethical. And it reflects the Right's use of the "stab-in-the-back narrative," the myth of American betrayal detailed in this essay by Kevin Baker: http://www.harpers.org/StabbedInTheBack.html.

Yep, that's right Tricky Dick, the Democrats really are encouraging "Al Qaeda types" by wanting to seriously question the plausible effects of American intervention in the Middle East or wanting to set a timetable for withdrawal. And, Liebs, you're desperate.

Give me a break.

As a number of foreign policy analysts of the liberal, middle of the road, and conservative persuasions tell us, the Iraq War, our tacit okaying of Israel's actions in Lebanon, and our reticence in helping get a cease fire done (whether short term while Condi tickles the ivories or truly "sustainable") are simply enraging more folks who are susceptible to hate America/Americans.

And this scuttled plot brings up some many larger issues that I'm sure will be discussed on every talk show on the various cable networks. If Al Qaeda directed it, how? What are/aren't we doing in Pakistan? And why haven't we found these people? If it wasn't directed by Al Qaeda, I have to agree to a number of commentators who say that makes it even worse. That would mean that the terrorist networks are even more loosely affiliated and hard to get to while being united around a common theme: Kill Westerners or Those Who Don't Share Our Beliefs.

I'm neither a proponent of closing off our country to the rest of the world nor shutting down serious but Constitutionally legal intelligence gathering to protect ourselves. But there has to be a better foreign policy than one based on sports metaphors ("the best defense is a good offense") or Biblical hokum ("it's an eternal struggle between good and evil") or some screwed up reverse domino theory ("If Iraq becomes a democracy, then democracy will spread to the rest of the Middle East and create peace.").

Pre-emptive war has taken us to a place far worse than we would have been without it. It's certainly not the root cause of terrorism as we now know it, which would be fundamentalism and lack of respect for humans and their diverse viewpoints/beliefs, but Iraq and other recent events haven't helped matters.

And Dubya calling them "Islamic fascists" is not helping. The term fascism usually assumes that there is a nation-state, but terrorists don't have one.

Terrorists' lack of nation-state (one distinct place) is the main part of the serious challenge before us. I'm just glad there are people catching 'em.

Joe-mentum

Lieberman losing the Democratic primary yesterday wasn't a big shock, as Ned "I got lots of money to spend for tv ads" Lamont did quite the rhetorical hatchet job on old saggy-faced Liebs.

One thing for sure, if you're a current Democrat in D.C., I'd stay away from kissing distance from Dubya. Perhaps it was a compassionately conservative kiss o' death.

It's hard to gather what will happen with that race in CT with Liebs now out in the political wilderness, with no party to back him. A lot of pundits see Liebs fading away in the race, but I kind of disagree. The wild card, obviously, is whether traditional Democratic voters will switch to an former "Democrat" and now Independent. Hard to gauge. I don't see it happening because Lieberman has the charisma of a turnip, but we'll see.

Some of the liberal intelligentsia seem to think that a strong anti-war message and/or general displeasure about Iraq is going to swing a number House and Senate seats toward the Democrats, possibly even making the Democrats win the majority in the House or Senate.

The professional odds-makers disagree though. As related in the most recent issue of The Atlantic, the folks at www.tradesports.com give a 54% chance the GOP keeps its majority in the House, a 81% chance the GOP holds its majority in the Senate, and a 48% chance they win the presidential race. In particular, the rationale is that the Dems won't garner a majority in the Senate because "swinging six seats, with just thirty-three in play, is a tall order. And because senators are usually better known to their constituents than are House representatives than are House representatives, they tend to be less vulnerable to negative perceptions of the party or the president" (39).

Nevertheless, the Republicans should be on the defensive in November. If Claire McCaskill's tactic of seriously questioning Iraq War related graft, as related in an interview last night, is any indication of how some Dems might approach their campaigns, they might not win a majority in either of the two chambers, but they could make it fairly close.

Even if it boils down to the fact that a number of Americans are fed up with the ways things are going at home and abroad, the party in power of all three branches of government could become the scapegoat, or so some hope.

Yes, I Was One of "Those People" in Today's Primary

You know the ones who stand outside the polling stations delivering candidate fliers, "Here is some information on Candidate X...We hope for your support," etc.

It was muggy.

And the turnout was pathetic in my idealistic eyes. The polling station I vultured at had a slow trickle of people coming to vote.

This 4th District race is an interesting one. Gambaro is strong, obviously, on the Hill and appeals to the "Pro Life Democrats." Boykins and El-Amin will divvy up most of the African-American vote. And Smith corrals significant splinters--young progressives, a small and important portion of African-Americans, fervent liberals, and folks who like his grassroots moxy.

We'll see what the 10 o'clock news brings, but we probably won't know until late tonight.

Now This Is Getting Downright Strange

I opened my mailbox Saturday only to find a letter for Gambaro.

I feel like a person who has prepared for a storm, but it never came. I am disappointed. I am dejected. I'm so unrequited. Have I contracted some sort of political Stockholm Syndrome? I expected more from these folks.

But there's always Monday and Tuesday I guess.

The letter I received on behalf on Gambaro is a curious one, one filled with politically motivated pathos.

Get this: It's written by his wife, Linda.

He has his wife write a letter for him? I would normally take this as utterly befuddling and almost political suicide. My wife would write a great letter for me if I go out on the job market too, but the whole point of this missive is to sway the reader through its emotional content.

In particular, Mrs. Gambaro details exactly why Derio didn't try for a third term as a state representative. She tells us that "His choice was made because I had just spent a year battling breast cancer" and "he made a choice to spend quality time with his family during an uncertain and frightening time."

Now, I know breast cancer survivors; I'm perplexed by this letter. It's hard to get angry at his wife trying to shill for him. But, then again, I'm kind of disgusted by someone using a trying and horrible situation as political leverage. It scratches me the wrong way. It's, as the pols call it, crass "dog whistling."

What I heard about from someone today, and if it's true, has just taken this race to a whole new lower level. Apparently, there were calls ("robocalls," automated phone messages) the past couple of days by someone impersonating Jeff Smith and saying outlandish things. Now that's sketchy campaign-induced behavior. How can a 5'6" political science nerd inspire so much vitriol?

Still not much scorched earth in the 4th District.

Yet.

Gambaro vs. Smith: A Rhetorical Cage Match

Since my last post, the Missouri Senate race for the 4th District has become even more heated. With St. Louis Post-Dispatch's recent coverage of the race, with the paper's editorial page giving its endorsement to Smith while highlighting Gambaro's ruse (a GOP masquerading as a Democrat), and with columnist Sylvester Brown's assessment of the race (he thinks it'll come down to El Amin vs. Smith), the crucial weekend before the big vote is upon the 4th District.

And do we ever know it.

In my area of the city, I've only received one flier from El Amin and nothing from Boykins or Jones. Probably based on some form of cost-benefit analysis, the three candidates are probably just waiting for a late minute blitz on the more white areas of the district, or maybe they think it's futile to reach out to these voters. Who knows, but if they want to represent the whole district, I'd at least appreciate more than perfunctory contact.

In my section of the district, the 23rd ward, it looks like a battle between Smith and Gambaro. After the Gambaro campaign's phone calls to folks in the district about whether Smith is being "straight" with them (wink, wink--nudge, nudge), Smith has fought back with some of his own attack ads, though they're supported by "facts."

In a couple of feel-good ads, Smith is showcased with a number of diverse political players in the St. Louis area. One, in fact, is entitled "They're telling it to you straight," which is a savvy way to use your opponent's words against them.

The last two days, however, Smith has raised the hostility factor. One slick ad provides four main points why voters should "Vote NO on Derio Gambaro--A Republican in Democrat's Clothing": 1) he supports Bush's privatization scheme for Social Security, 2) he opposes stem cell research, 3) he supports police officers being able to move out of the city, and 4) "Now he's trying to smear an honest Democrat."

The first three talking points are supported with a pseudo-Works Cited insert called "Check the facts," which is a smart move. It adds at least some glimmer of credibility to a political ad.

The ad's third talking point, "Then he backed a plan that put our safety at risk" probably doesn't hurt Smith politically that much because the police have officially endorsed Gambaro, but there was more rhetorical hay to be made here. As many of us probably realize now, housing prices in the city (and many parts of the county) have stagnated because of a variety factors. But Smith might have wanted to make a causal claim here. If a substantial portion of city police officers are putting their homes up for sale, that floods the real estate market in the city and would further stifle housing prices. If Smith would have pressed that possible connection--police officers leaving the city not only make the city less safe but also decrease the value of your home--that could persuade some fence-sitters. And, if I remember correctly, wasn't the the GOP the main proponents of letting cops relax residency rules, which as the ad says, "ignored the clear will of City voters..."?

Smith's ad today had a Western theme, "WANTED: For Trying To Kill Social Security," an ad that pounded on talking point 1) from the previous ad: "Derio Gambaro Helped George W. Bush Try to Kill SOCIAL SECURITY." Gambaro's op-ed piece in the Hannibal rag is being used mercilessly as political fodder again, but even more revealing is the statement by the Vice-Chair of the St. Louis GOP that Republicans should vote for Gambaro and the 20K funding of Gambaro's campaign by the Show-Me Institute. I wonder, however, how "conservative" this so-called think tank is though.

If a message on my answering machine tonight is any indication, this cage match isn't going to get statesman-like over the weekend. A testosterone-filled voice on my machine reeled off a number of statements about Jeff Smith. The caller stated that he's a "part-time professor of African-American Studies." From my understanding, Smith is instructor at both Wash U and UMSL, and he teaches Political Science. Why the mention of "African-American Studies"??? This may be a reach, but is this some "reverse race card"? Is the caller trying to say, "Mr. White Person in the 23rd Ward, Smith will side with the Blacks." That's truly sad if that's the intent.

The caller then proceeded to label Smith a "carpetbagger" because he was a resident of New Hampshire and supposedly he wasn't rehired at a university there. I have no knowledge of that and really don't care. I've lived in the city since '03, what of it? Perhaps the implication is that he isn't a "Massachusetts liberal," but a "New Hampshire liberal"? Funny.

My favorite part of the message was the way it ended. In rhetoric, it's sometimes more interesting to analyze what isn't said as opposed to what is actually said. The caller simply stated that Smith is out of touch with the concerns of Missourians, and he left it at that. The message didn't identify who he was calling for at all. Both hilarious and ridiculous! At least the attack ads about Gambaro identify that Smith's campaign sent them. Jeez.

It's hot out there for folks in the 4th District.

There's a lot of scorched earth.