Astounding by Alec Nevala-Lee: Transformative Treasure Trove

One of the joys of reading on a Kindle (or, in my case, a Kindle app) is the ease of bookmarking.  As one indication of how important I found Alec Nevala-Lee's Astounding: John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science Fiction, I bookmarked it ten times more than any other book I've read in the past few years.  (The runners-up are The Perversity of Things: Hugo Gernsback on Media, Tinkering, and Scientifiction by Grant Wythoff and Dreaming the Beatles by Rob Sheffield, though I read those two on paper.)

It's no surprise (at least to me) that Astounding had much more of an impact on me - a transformative impact - than The Perversity of Things.  I knew neither Gernsback or Campbell in person, or by any means other than their published writing.  In contrast, I knew and worked with Isaac Asimov, the high point of which was getting him to write a Preface for my first published book, In Pursuit of Truth: Essays on the Philosophy of Karl Popper in 1982.  It was a collection of essays (I contributed one) of which I was the Editor, and I didn't have to work very hard to get Asimov to write the Preface: we already knew each other (I'd sent him my analysis of the Foundation trilogy published a few years earlier in Media and Methods - here's his postcard response - and he quickly accepted Humanity Press's not overly generous offer of $100 to write the Preface for the Popper volume).  And, as President of the Science Fiction Writers of America from 1998-2001, and as a science fiction writer myself, I also knew or still know many of the secondary players in Astounding, including Harlan Ellison, Arthur C. Clarke, Hal Clement, Robert Silverberg, Sam Delany (I first heard about him from his mother Ruth, in the mid-1960s, in the George Bruce Branch Library in Harlem where she worked as a librarian and I as a clerk),  Ray Bradbury, David Kyle, Barry Malzberg, Greg Benford, Joe Haldeman, Janet (Jeppson) Asimov, and many others.  So seeing them in these pages was a tour through many significant conversations and interactions I've had in my own life.

And on being a science fiction writer myself, Nevala-Lee's book also tapped into another profound wellspring of my career:  I've been published in Analog 17 times (15 stories and 2 nonfiction articles - one story acquired by Trevor Quachri, all the rest by Stan Schmidt), and am a card-carrying member (well, pin-affixed) of the Analog Mafia.  Stan's editing philosophy continued the best of Campbell's.  In my case, for example, Stan urged me to not kill off Phil D'Amato (which I had in the first draft of "The Chronology Protection Case"), just as Campbell had urged Frank Herbert not to kill Alia in Dune, one of a plethora of winning details that Nevala-Lee puts in this book.  "The Chronology Protection Case" was made into a short movie, now on Amazon Prime, and Phil D'Amato's appearance in my first novel, The Silk Code, won a Locus Award for Best First Novel of 1999.

Ok, so I love Nevala-Lee's book.  But what about people without my professional history?  I can't say for sure, but I would bet that any science fiction writer, as well as any science fiction fan, would find this book riveting, and a treasure trove of context-setting scenes.   What follows, in rough order of their appearance in the book, are some of the highlights for me:

1. I knew that Paul Krugman was influenced by the Foundation stories, but not Elon Musk.  Given the latter's age, I wonder if he was reading Analog in the mid-late 1990s, when my stories first started appearing in its pages.

2. Campbell, as a kid, kept a garter snake in his pocket.  I wonder if Stan Schmidt, who had pet snakes, knew about this.

3. I was fascinated to learn that Campbell's favorite professor at MIT was Norbert Wiener.  I studied Wiener's Cybernetics when earning my PhD in Media Ecology under Neil Postman at NYU in the late 1970s.  Cybernetics also appears later in the book in its extensive discussion of dianetics - the least favorite part, for me, because I never related to Hubbard, dianetics, or Scientology, but it's an important part of the Campbell story.

4. It turns out that Campbell, like Gernsback, was in effect a media ecologist, presaging the kind of thinking that Marshall McLuhan made famous, by observing that unlike radio, television was very possessive, "you have to look at it," and "Man molded the machine, but the machine is going to mold Man". This difference between radio and television played a crucial role in my doctoral dissertation, Human Replay: A Theory of the Evolution of Media, and I often say that radio amply survived the advent of television if for no other reason than you can listen to radio, but can't (safely) watch television, when driving.  I'm grateful to Nevala-Lee for alerting me that Campbell made this point back in the 1930s.

5.  One thing I do have in common with L. Ron Hubbard: he was elected President of the NY chapter of the American Fiction Guild in 1935.  As I already mentioned, I was President of SFWA at the end of the 20th century.   That, and later being Chair of the Department of Communication and Media Studies at Fordham University in NYC, convinced me that elected office was no pleasure, and indeed took too much time away from writing.

6. A lot of the material about Asimov comes from his two-part autobiography, In Memory Yet Green and In Joy Still Felt, which I devoured as soon as they were published (1979, 1980).  But it was fun to read it all again - ranging from Asimov getting $64 for his first sale, "Marooned Off Vesta," to Amazing Stories not Astounding (my first sale of a science fiction story to a professional publication was also to Amazing Stories - "Albert's Cradle" in 1993 - and the first payment I ever received for any writing was $65 from The Village Voice for "A Vote for McCartney" in 1971) - to Campbell continually coming up with essential ideas for both the Foundation and the robot stories.   (I should also mention that, like Asimov, I have no intention of ever writing under any name other than my own.  Except Asimov eventually did, and I won't.  I want the girl who didn't laugh at my jokes in 5th grade to see the error of her ways when she walks into a bookstore - or, in today's world, when she's browsing on Amazon.)  And it was enlightening to read material about Asimov from other sources that I didn't know.

7.  I also studied General Semantics in the NYU Media Ecology PhD program.  I still give talks at some of their meetings, and therefore enjoyed Nevala-Lee's recounting of Heinlein's interest in the subject and movement.

8.  I do have something else in common with Hubbard:  when a potential recommender invited Hubbard to write the recommendation himself, Hubbard obliged with "This will introduce one of the most brilliant men I have ever known."  A reviewer once asked me to write a review of one of my stories, because he was pressed for time.  I did, and said it was the best example of this kind of story ever written.  I sent it to the reviewer for his approval and he decided to write his own review, after all.

9. It was great reading about Campbell's launching of the Probability Zero section.  That was where I had my first publication in Analog, in February 1995.

10.  Campbell and Nevala-Lee repeatedly refer to Heinlein as Astounding's (and science fiction's) best writer (until Asimov's The God Themselves in 1972, when Nevala-Lee says Asimov "finally pulled ahead" of Heinlein).  I disagree: Asimov was almost always the best science fiction writer, by virtue of his Foundation stories (at least, beginning with "The Mule" in 1945), his robot stories, and The End of Eternity for good measure.  But Heinlein was second, with no one even close behind him, until Philip K. Dick (who I learned in Nevala-Lee's book was published in Astounding/Analog only once).

11. I love this quote from S. I. Hayakawa: "The art [of science fiction] consists in concealing from the reader, for novelistic purposes, the distinctions between established scientific facts, almost-established scientific hypotheses, scientific conjectures, and imaginative extrapolations," from ETC, 1951. I was book editor of that journal in the late 1970s.

12. Nevala-Lee provides many examples of Campbell's astute - and not-so-astute - scientific thinking.  I'd say that his most accurate was his anticipation of the hydrogen bomb.

13. I hadn't known that Claude Shannon - co-creator of the Shannon-Weaver model of communications, fundamental to any study of the subject - was a neighbor of Campbell in New Jersey!

14. Nevala-Lee should have said more about The Puppet Masters (1951) - one of Heinlein's best novels, one of the best science fiction novels, period, and of which a good movie has yet to be made (unlike Starship Troopers).

15. I don't blame Asimov for long resisting acquiring an agent.  I've had mixed results with agents over the years myself.

16. I also loved learning that Campbell sent Heinlein a Tom Lehrer record as a "peace offering" after an argument (they would "never fully reconcile").

17.  I'm with Heinlein not Asimov in Heinlein's bristling at editors' instructions and revisions.

18. Heinlein's The Door Into Summer (1956) indeed ranks among his best work - and I'd say among the all-time best time-travel novels - but it comes in second, again, in my opinion, to Asimov's The End of Eternity, published a year earlier.  (Nevala does say that it's Asimov's "best single novel".  He doesn't say if Heinlein was moved to write his novel after reading Asimov's.)

19.  Campbell's rejection of Asimov's "Ugly Little Boy" was one of his worst mistakes - the story is one of Asimov's very best (and, as Nevala-Lee tells us, one of Asimov's favorites).

20. The material about Charles Manson being inspired by Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land strikes me as the same as Manson being inspired by the Beatles' Helter Skelter:  you can't blame a creator for what a lunatic gets out of the creator's work.

21. Apropos the mention of Marvin Minsky:  I should add that he's also on record as saying his work in AI was triggered by Asimov's robot stories.

22. Campbell's racism in the 1960s was indeed repugnant, as Nevala-Lee says, not to mention his critique of the demonstrators at Kent State in 1970.  Silverberg was right not to want to work him after the racism became apparent.

23.  I was (sadly) reminded that Mitt Romney said Hubbard's Battleship Earth was his "favorite novel".  Back in June 2007, that was one of ten reasons which led me to wonder if Mitt Romney was a cylon.

So there you have it - a sampling of the gems Nevala-Lee's book offers.  If you have any interest in science fiction, let alone knowledge of its history and authors, you'll find this book indispensable.  And, if you've ever written any science fiction, maybe transformative, too.  It had that exhilarating effect on me, because it made clear that what little I've done as a science fiction writer is tied to a genre, a tradition, that propelled us, and lit up our lives, in the 20th century, and still does.

Lesson #2 of Obama's Victory: Money Can't Buy Elections

If meta-lesson #1 of Obama's historic victory last night is that statisticians like Nate Silver know what they're doing - see Hats Off to Nate Silver  - then lesson #2 is surely that money doesn't buy elections.

I've been making this point as soon as my progressive colleagues got into an uproar about the Citizens United decision.  So what if corporations could vent their spleens and bank accounts and hundreds of millions of dollars in backing their favorite candidates?  That wouldn't move me, in the slightest, to vote for them if I didn't already support them or their political positions.  Would it move you?

I think not.  Neither did Thomas Jefferson, who thought that as long as there was some truth out there in the playing field, human beings would be able to recognize it.  This came from Milton's Aeropagetica, and was a very profound and accurate view of human nature and mentality.  Applied to politics, it means that people can separate truth from falsity, and vote their self-interests.

Romney had an op-ed in The New York Times that said "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt".  True, he didn't write that headline, but neither did he howl in protest when the Times published his article that way.  And so, when he later denied that that was his intention - when he claimed he actually loved cars and wanted to save the American auto industry - anyone who was not already strongly in support of Romney, and was wearing blinders, saw right through that lie.   Jefferson and Milton called it right.  People, presented with a lie and the truth, saw through the lie.

The fulfillment of Jefferson's vision does not mean that money has no impact on elections.  It obviously can buy ads, and hire campaign workers.  But, in the end, as long as the truth is available in any corner of the country, it will get out.  Whether via a waiter who captures on his smartphone Romney's professed disdain for the 47%, or an op-ed in the New York Times, or Romney's statements all over the map, this way and that, about women's rights, the truth will come out.

So let the corps spend their money.   We don't need or want the government to regulate them or counter  their propaganda.  We can do it ourselves, jus fine, as we did last night.

Obama Wins - My Thoughts on a Great Evening

Some of my tweets tonight - one of the great nights in American history!

Yes!! MSNBC now calls PA for Obama!! Now all Obama needs is Ohio+Fla - or Ohio+WI+IA - & he's in!! (I said hour ago that PA would be Ob) ... 

Stephanie Cutter's face after PA call for Obama gives me confidence that Obama is winning this election! ... 

And WI called for Obama! Just one or two more swing states - Ohio with either Fl or Iowa - and Obama is in!! ...

Sherrod Brown wins in Ohio!! Human rationality triumphs over big money! Thomas Jefferson would have been proud! ... 

And the robot is moving closer to the rust pile, where he belongs. ... 

Eliz Warren takes back MA for the Dems! Good riddance Scott Brown! ... 

Another Dem gain in Senate: Donnelly beat Mourdock in Indiana - it was God's will ... McCaskill beats the anti-woman miscreant in Missouri! ... 

+Howard Fineman reports that Romney high-command in Boston in radio silence, not talking to anyone ... their end is nigh ... 

With MN going to Obama, David Axelrod's moustache is safe ... I can relate ...

Obama wins Iowa ...he made a moving speech there last night ...the nation is about one state away now from moving forward for 4 more years!

And Obama just won Ohio!! At 11:12pm Eastern time, Obama is re-elected President!!

God bless the American midwest ... they didn't fall for Republican lies! Yes!!

The Republicans got what they deserved ... Romney was one of the worst candidates in American history.

Health care for everyone is safe! The reactionary tide has been turned back!

Trump says the election was a travesty - he must've been looking in the mirror

Lame lack of class: Romney the robot refuses to concede

Stephen Schmidt, an honorable Republican, says the GOP needs to repudiate the anti-women & other positions that lost them this election

Tonight's also a great night for Nate Silver @fivethirtyeight and his statistical analyses. Congrats Nate!

MSNBC reporting that Romney will give his concession speech in 5 mins ... he phoned Obama to concede .. I'm glad he's doing the right thing.

Inspiring speech by Obama - he'll fix waiting in line for hrs to vote- his re-election shows his election 4 years ago was more than a blip

On Last Night's Obama Triumph in the Third Presidential Debate

And so the books are closed - or, better screens - on the third and final Presidential debate of 2012.  The President did poorly in the first debate, dominated in the second debate, and did even better in the third debate.

Romney offered little but weak agreement with Obama, and a customary stream of misleading statements and lies.   As in the second debate, Obama did well in challenging these statements, and urging people to go to the record for the truth.

A prime example last night concerned Romney's claim that he didn't want American car companies to fail, but rather wanted the government to shepherd them to health through a "managed bankruptcy".  When Obama correctly called Romney on that, indicating that Romney had never wanted any government money to go to car companies, Romney said Obama was misrepresenting his position.  Romney said people should "look up" what he in fact had written.  Obama said people would.

Here is the applicable sentence in Romney's "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" op-ed in the November 18, 2008 New York Times - the only sentence that talks about government financial guarantees:  "The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk."  Clearly, the "guarantees" that Romney is talking about are to consumers - car buyers, not car companies - to make sure "their warranties are not at risk".  Such guarantees offer no government assurances of post-bankruptcy support for the car companies.   Romney's idea was to let the car companies fail, but make sure consumers were not left holding the bag.   This was admirable regarding consumers, but Obama realized that consumers and the nation would be better served not by letting the car companies fail and then rebuilding them, but doing something to keep the car companies afloat long enough to recover.

And indeed, if we continue to the concluding sentence of the op-ed, we get Romney's summation of his argument: "In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check."  But, in fact, Obama's transfusion of funds, which allowed the car companies to meet their debts and remain viable, did not "seal their fate," and to the contrary served as a springboard to their becoming the most successful car companies in the world today.  Obama's "bailout check" has been totally repaid - literally and figuratively.

Obama bested Romney is just about every exchange last night. (Obama remains vulnerable to Romney's observations about what has not improved in the economy in the past four years, and will remain so until Republican obstruction in Congress is cited by the President).  In the nonverbal realm, Romney looked tired, pasty, out of his element, and far worse than Obama did in the first debate.  But will winning this third debate be enough to win the election in two weeks?   So far, Obama's success in the second debate has perhaps stopped the pace of Romney's surge, but has not put the President clearly back on top.

The election in two weeks should help answer the complex question of the impact of the debates, and well as the related and much more important question of who will be President for next four years.

See also On Last Night's Obama Disappointment in the First Presidential Debate and On Last Night's Biden Success in the VP Debate and On Last Night's Obama Triumph in the Second Presidential Debate

On Last Night's Obama Triumph in the Second Presidential Debate

The British have a great expression - "face like a well-slapped arse" - which describes Mitt Romney's face to a tee at the end of his debate last night with Barack Obama.   Romney looked tired, drained, flustered, slightly desperate.   As well he should have after his 90-minute encounter with Barack Obama, back in top form, getting the best of every encounter with Romney, and looking much better in the bargain.

In the first debate, Obama let Romney have the last word in almost every exchange.  Not so last night, as Obama challenged just about every one of Romney's distortions and lies, with zest, power, and style.  A signal moment came when Romney tried to badger the President to admit that he and his administration took 14 days to recognize that the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi which killed our ambassador was a terrorist attack.  Romney brazenly challenged the President on his statement that he mentioned terrorism the day after the attack.  Obama coolly let Romney finish his rant, then calmly let moderator Candy Crowley school Romney on his error - Obama had in fact mentioned terrorism in a Rose Garden statement the very day after the attack.  This was also an honorable, admirable moment for Crowley - it couldn't have been easy for her to correct Romney, and the American people owe her a debt of gratitude.

Obama's mention of terrorism was not the only aspect of foreign policy in which he schooled Romney before the American people last night.  Obama took the discussion of the Libyan attack as an opportunity to show how foreign policy should be conducted during an election - not as an occasion to make political points, as Romney and the Republicans sought and are still seeking to do, but as a time to stand up for our people in the field.

Romney tried again and again last night to dominate the discussion with his deceptions and distortions.  And again and again, Obama stopped him cold.   When Romney appealed to moderator Crowley, she schooled him on what was his proper time to speak during the debate.  In the first debate, Romney walked all over moderator Jim Lehrer, as Obama just looked on.  Last night, Crowley as well as the President stood up to Romney's bullying.  You could see and hear the result, as Romney's started whining about his time to speak, and as he reverted to Romney-speak with his talk about "binders full of women".

So now we have a split in the Presidential debate results, with one more to go.   Obama has now done a good job highlighting the differences between him and Romney of most domestic issues, including health care, women's rights, immigration, and the economy.   The exchanges on Libya last night promise a good third and final debate this coming Monday as Obama and Romney discuss foreign policy.

See also On Last Night's Obama Disappointment in the First Presidential Debate and On Last Night's Biden Success in the VP Debate

Obama vs. Romney: Social vs. Mass Media

As the dust begins to settle on what just about everyone agrees was a weak performance by Barack Obama in his debate with Mitt Romney on Tuesday night, it's interesting to think about what the most damaging moments have been to both candidates in the campaign so far, and through which media they occurred.

Obama's worst moment, clearly, was his lackluster performance in the debate.  Nonverbally, he looked tired and uninterested.  Verbally, he failed to engage Romney for most of the debate.  In this traditional mass media event on television - seen by 60 million people - Obama was clearly at a loss.

Romney's worst moment, clearly, was the grainy video recording of his 47% remark that was put up on YouTube and further disseminated on cable and network television.   Unlike the debate, the recording and initial postings of this video were not seen by millions of people.  Like all social media - or, what I call "new new media" - the impact of this viral video grew exponentially over a period of time.

The 47% remark cost Romney in the polls.  It's too soon to know what Obama's poor debate will cost him in the polls.  But it's unlikely that a debate seen by 60 million will not have some negative impact.

So we're left, at this point, with a contest not only between Obama and Romney, but between social and mass media.  Social media have thus far helped Obama and hurt Romney.  Mass media, at least insofar as Tuesday's debate and its single broadcast to millions of people, have had the reverse result.

It has been tempting to count the role of mass media out, or at least demote its importance, in our age of social media such as YouTube and Twitter.   But as Isaac Asimov explored dramatically in his Foundation trilogy decades ago, a declining empire (read: mass media of today) can still exert powerful influence in a new age (read: social media).

Media and communications are, of course, by no means the only factors that determine an election.  Further, Obama may well do much better in the next debate.  But  if the current split continues - Romney hurt by social media, Obama by mass media - the election would well be decided by which media have the most power in our world today.

See also On Last Night's Obama Disappointment and Romney's 47% Remark and the Power of New New Media

On Last Night's Obama Disappoinment in the First Presidential Debate

It's generally accepted that nonverbal communication - body language, posture, facial expressions - are more important in Presidential debates than spoken words.  That's likely because it's true.  People who saw the JFK / Nixon debates in 1960 on television thought Kennedy won; people who heard the same debates on radio awarded the debates to Nixon.  Nonverbal actions on camera often speak louder than words.   It's been that way ever since, including in last night's debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, except Obama performed poorly in most of the verbal exchanges as well.

About the only negative thing you could say about Mitt Romney's nonverbal performance was that he seemed a little hyper at times.   But he also seemed crisp, clear, energized to be on the stage and in a contest for the Presidency.   In contrast, although Obama had flashes of humor and style - as when he said that he liked the name Obamacare - his demeanor in general was low-energy to the point of looking tired, even listless.  Although he appeared at ease, which would have been good in moderation, the President appeared to be so much at ease last night as to barely be there.

And Romney bested Obama in the verbal as well.  Time after time, Obama let Romney have the last word, and the President was over-solicitous to the moderator, Jim Lehrer.  Romney made sure he made his points in spite of Lehrer's saying the debate needed to move on.  In contrast, Obama just smiled and let it slide.

Obama, in general, failed to challenge Romney on the Republican's outright lies.  For example, when Obama rightly claimed that American businesses go overseas to get tax breaks, and Romney said that wasn't true, Obama just left it at that.   Further, Obama never raised crucial missteps in Romney's campaign and positions - not a word about Romney's disdain for the 47%, nothing about Romney's urging the government to let American car companies go bankrupt, nothing about Republican obstruction on budget actions in Congress.

The one bright spot for Obama was his clear, impassioned defense of the Affordable Health Care Act - Obamacare.  This is one of the top issues for Americans, and in besting Romney on that crucial issue, Obama may have done lasting damage to the Republican.

But, obviously, the President cannot rely on that.  He has shown great resiliency in getting back up and into the fight in the past.   He owes it to the American people and himself to do that now.

Romney's 47% Video and the Power of New New Media

As the video clip of Mitt Romney's "47%" remark does increasing damage to his campaign - latest polls show him trailing by 10% in Ohio, and by almost as big margins in other swing states -  we have another example of the power of new new media in politics.

The video was not taken by a professional news crew or camera.  Rather, as Ben Smith points out in BuzzFeed, "Its emergence offers a glimpse at the workings of the contemporary media: Chaotically driven by an anonymous leaker; empowered by ubiquitous recording devices."

Like the George Allen "macaca" video of 2006, the Romney video may well be his undoing in 2012.  In both cases, traditional media played a crucial role in fanning the flames of the story.  But the story itself was captured by a recording device which epitomizes a world in which every consumer has become a potential producer - every attendee at a rally, everyone in every audience, can be a reporter through which audio and video clips of the event can be seen by everyone else in the world, first via posting to YouTube, then via ripple dissemination through mass media.   Multiple copies of the Romney video have been viewed more than four million times on YouTube, and millions more times on cable and network television.

It's hard to say who was more clueless - Allen or Romney - in the ways of new new media.  Allen's error was made in 2006, when YouTube was just a year old and the iPhone still a year away.  But he should have known that, even with the media of his time, anything said at a public, outdoor rally could be captured for later national listening and viewing.   Romney must have been aware of what happened to Allen - though, with Romney, you never really know - and was likely lulled into thinking he could say whatever he needed to please his rich Republican funders, without fear of it being made public, because the venue itself was so private.  But not private enough.  Nothing is reliably private in our age of smart phones and YouTube.  Romney should have known that even the ritziest private venue was vulnerable to social media.

Politics continue to be shaped and driven by new new media - not just by their savvy use by campaigns, but, even more profoundly, by the ignorance of campaigns of what new new media can do.

The Real Motive for Todd Akin's Comment

I just heard Hogan Gidley tell Thomas Roberts on MSNBC that Rep. Akin's comment about women not getting pregnant from "legitimate" or forcible rape has no connection to the view that life begins at conception and abortion should therefore be prohibited at any time after conception and regardless of the circumstances of conception (such as rape).  Gidley says "leftist Democrats" are seeking to "tether" Akin's comment to the GOP position prohibiting all abortion when in fact there is no connection between Akin's comment and the GOP position.

Other Republicans have said similar things in the past day.

And they're all untrue.

Why did Akin make his comment in the first place?   Clearly, because he was trying to justify the prohibition of abortion in cases of rape by saying in real or forcible or "legitimate" cases of rape, there would be no pregnancy (because, according to the junk, pseudo science that Akin alluded to, the woman's body would somehow prevent conception from taking place in cases of forcible rape).  Whether Akin - and others who quietly support his position - feel guilty about prohibiting abortion in cases of rape, or, more cynically, find such a position politically untenable, their motive in accepting this non-scientific nonsense is to hold that all cases of pregnancy are in some sense wanted by the woman or not resisted by the woman in "non-forcible" rape.  This shifts the burden of responsibility in such non-forcible cases to the woman, which in turns makes it less repugnant to anyone with any decency to insist that victims of rape be obliged to bring any resulting pregnancy to term.  The Republican implication is that, if woman would just practice more self-control, there would no unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

But the fact is that as even Akin now has been pressured to admit, all rape is, by definition, against the victim's will.    So does that mean rape victims should not be prohibited from having abortions?  Romney and Ryan, in the wake of Akin's statement, have said rape should be an exception from any no abortion policy - but this contradicts their earlier positions and the platform of the Republican Party.   Gidley's implication - in saying Akin's statement has no connection to the GOP policy of total prohibition of abortion - is that Republicans could condemn Akin's statement but still support a total no abortion policy. 

But if Republicans agree that Akin's statement is absurd, they'll have to come up with another justification for prohibiting abortion even in cases of rape.  The view that human life begins at conception - also nonscientific, because although the embryo has a full set of DNA, the DNA has not yet created a complete human being - is not only questionable, but not enough to warrant government regulation of women's bodies.

The Romney Cylonic VP App

Mitt Romney announced Paul Ryan with a spiffy VP app, available to anyone who wanted it on social media.  This announcement came a little past 7am New York time, a few hours before the two appeared together on television.  But this was hours after Chuck Todd had said on MSNBC that three very reliable sources had confirmed  Ryan as the choice.

Obama tried something similar for the Biden VP announcement in 2008, but word was leaked beforehand to mainstream media.   Bottom line: social media are just not that important when it comes to VP announcements.  But unlike in 2008, both Republicans as well as Democrats are now adept at using them.

Aside from the app, what does the Ryan do for the Romney ticket?  It certainly humanizes the robotic Romney, who I've been saying since 2007 may be a Cylon.  But, politically, it puts Romney hand-in-hand with the man who wants to undermine social security, and whose calls for cuts in government spending for the poor have been condemned by the US Council of Catholic Bishops - which is saying a lot, since Ryan is also an opponent of abortion.

I think this is a very good development for our political process - whether you're a progressive like me or otherwise - because it puts before us in this election some remarkably clear choices.

Super Tuesday: Money Isn't Everythng in Politics

Mitt Romney outspent Rick Santorum better than ten to one in GOP primary states voting or caucusing today.   The result:  Santorum won in Tennessee, Oklahoma, and North Dakato;  Romney won in Massachussetts, Virginia, Vermont, and Idaho, and won by a whisker in Ohio.  And Gingrich, who also has spent much less than Romney, won big in Georgia.

Is this an example of money talks, everyone walks your way in voting booths across America?  Hardly.  Rather, these results show that people vote their hearts and minds, whatever media satuaration may say to the contrary.

Which I think is a very good thing, even though I would not vote for any of these candidates in any election.  But a defeat for money is a good thing for democracy in America.  I've been saying, ever since the outrcry against Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision which unleashed big spending and corporate financing of campaigns, that it's no big deal.   Because, as John Milton and Thomas Jefferson saw, as long as there's some truth in the field, no amount of falsity - in today's terms, false advertising - can drown it out.

Of course, people will differ on what they perceive to be truth.   I think the greater truth resides with the policies of Barack Obama as what America most needs.   But what we certainly don't need is a Presidential election determined by money, and  Romney's weak showing decisively says that's unlikely to happen.

Romney Win in Florida Supports Impact of TV Debates

So why, in terms of media theory, did Romney do so well in Florida, as well as Gingrich did over Romney in South Carolina?

If you listen to Chris Matthews on MSNBC, you'd think the answer was that Romney and his pac outspent Gingrich by a large margin, with a torrent of negative ads against Romney.   This was the same reason Matthews (and other commentators) gave for Romney's evisceration of Gingrich in Iowa.

Except ... Rick Santorum beat Romney in Iowa (or came in just a few votes behind Romney, when Matthews offered his assessment), and Santorum spent next to nothing on ads in Iowa compared to Romney.  And Romney outspent Gingrich not only in Florida but in South Carolina.

Which means the ad expenditure theory in primary wins and losses just doesn't add up.

What does add up is this:  Gingrich pummeled Romney in the two debates prior to the South Carolina primary, and seemed weak and even befuddled in his two debates with Romney prior to Florida.   In terms of a simple experiment, you can get much better evidence than that.

What this means for the future is ... well, it depends upon which Gingrich we see in upcoming debates.  The pre-South Carolina Gingrich in debates could and may well get the nomination, whatever Romney spends.  The pre-Florida Gingrich in TV debates doesn't stand a chance.

Any Bad Results from Obama's Health Plan?

I just saw a pro Newt Gingrich anti Romney ad airing in Florida that, unsurprisingly, attacked Romney-care in Massachusetts as being the basis for the "disastrous" Obama-care.

I put "disastrous" in quotes because every time I hear something like this, I wonder, what, exactly is the disaster that has occurred because of Obama's health plan?

I'm not talking about some courts that have said the mandate part of the law may be unconstitutional.  I disagree with everyone being obliged to get health are, whether or not they want it, too.  But that's hardly a "disaster" - it's just a part of the law that I and many disagree with.

To say the law has been a disaster would indicate, I would think, that one of more patients or people needing medical care died or got or remained very ill due to some application of the health law.  Or maybe that a doctor went bankrupt or had to give up her or his practice as a result of the law.   Or a hospital had to close.  Or a business of any sort had to shut down because it could not meet some provision of the law.  Or, even, an insurance company went bankrupt (I can't see being too upset about that, but I'll list it as a criterion of disaster just to show how reasonable I am).

So ... any takers?  Can anyone cite a single instance of a bad result obtaining from Obama-care?   Not a disagreement in policy, not a concern that something bad will result from the law, but an actual, real-life, non-hypothetical, bad result?

If not, then, the incessant Republican repetition that Obama's health care plan is "disastrous" is just a piece of classic propaganda - tell a lie often enough, and maybe you'll get some people to believe it.

Lesson in Gingrich's Win for Obama

If I were Barack Obama, I'd be very unhappy about Newt Gingrich's win tonight in South Carolina.  As it is, I'm a mostly supporter of Obama, and I'd much rather the see the President face the robotic Romney than Gingrich.

Gingrich not only is a highly effective debater, he has a capacity to surprisingly endorse positions that pull the rug out from under his opponents.  In the debate the other night, what I most noticed was Gingrich's powerful condemnation of SOPA and PIPA - the now shelved Internet anti-piracy legislation that would have crippled the Internet.

In contrast, Obama was mostly silent about this and eventually came out with a mild backing off statement expressing reservations with the bills.

Obama cannot afford to be outflanked like this in the general election.  My best advice would be that he be true to his progressive views, take a more libertarian position on respecting the First Amendment and the Constitution, support Occupy Wall Street, and energize his base which he has not especially done in the past few years.

Romney the robot - whom I called  a Cylon back in 2008 (attention Battlestar Galactica fans) - would have been a push-over for Obama, or indeed any candidate with a real passion for his or her ideas and ideals.

Obama has that, and he'll need to call upon all of it to beat Gingrich.  The Republican convention is still a long way off, and anything can happen in the rest of the primaries, but tonight could change everything.

Rick Tyler's Good Defense of Anti-Romney Ads and Movie

I just saw Rick Tyler (on Andrea Mitchell's MSNBC show) give  a spirited, excellent defense of the Gingrich PAC-group attacks ads and movie directed against Mitt Romney.  You've no doubt seen them - "When Romney Came to Town" - a scathing portrayal of what Romney did at Bain Capital, destroying rather than creating jobs in the companies Bain acquired.

Republicans ranging from  Limbaugh to Giuliani have condemned the ad and the anti-Romney campaign, saying it plays right into Obama's hands.  That would be enough to make me kindly disposed towards the ad - I can't recall the last time I agreed with anything Limbaugh and Giuliani have said - but Tyler made some good, objective points that make a lot of sense.

We're in a primary, not a general election, he said of the contest now going on among Republican contenders.   This is a time when candidates are supposed to be vetted by the press, and then voters.

Some economists have joined the critique of the ads, saying that what Romney did at Bain embodies Schumpeter's notion of "creative destruction," as one of the necessary, healthy engines of capitalism.  I'm Darwinian in my theory of media evolution - see my The Soft Edge - so I'm well aware of Joseph Schumpeter's work.   But Tyler had a valid response to this, too:  it doesn't matter whether you dress up what Romney did at Bain in sophisticated economic theory.  Romney did preside over the dismantling of weak companies Bain had acquired, and profited from this.  

And Romney apparently enjoyed it.  Vultures may be part of the natural world, and play a role in evolution and survival of the fittest.  But that doesn't mean we have to like them, or want one to be President.

Beyond that, as I said last week about Gingrich's handwringing about Romney Pac-group attack ads on Gingrich:  people are not that influenced by them, anyway, people can separate truth from falsity, stop whining.
 

What the Iowa Caucus Results Show about Campaign Financing

There has been much outrage expressed - by unlikely allies Newt Gingrich and Chris Matthews - about the baneful influence of political commercials financed by big money groups not specifically affiliated with any candidate.  Gingrich, who came in 4th in Iowa, and Matthews of MSNBC, specifically singled out the four million dollars worth of campaign ads put on the Iowa air by a pro-Romney group against Gingrich.

And Gingrich did lose.  And Romney did win-

But by a total of eight votes.  And Rick Santorum, who came in such a close second, had virtually no money spent on his behalf on ads.   He came in so close to first the good old-fashioned way - by pressing the flesh, in-person, across Iowa.

I agree with literally none of Santorum's views that I know of.  But I appreciate the unavoidable conclusion of his almost-victory: spending on TV commercials counts for nothing.  One candidate spent a fortune, the other spent next to nothing, and they both came in tied in the lead.

I've been arguing, for years, that the Jeffersonian view that people are inherently rational, can separate truth from falsity, means we shouldn't get so upset about campaign financing, and in fact the government, as per the First Amendment, should stay totally out of this.  Last night the Republican caucuses in Iowa made this point with clean, mathematical eloquence.

Why Obama Was So Wrong to Sign the NDAA into Law

On the last day of 2011, Obama signed into law what may well be the worse piece of legislation to come across his desk.   The NDAA - the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 - has actually been on the books since 2008, and has language that authorizes indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without trial.   An attempt to amend the bill to prohibit the indefinite detention of American citizens on U.S. soil was defeated in the Senate.  Obama supported the amendment, and issued a Presidential letter along with his signing of the NDAA, stipulating that his "Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens".

But he signed the bill into law anyway.

Why is that so wrong and dangerous?

Let's first look at the logic of the section of the law (Section 1021) that authorizes indefinite detention without trial, for it does have its logic.  Let's say the FBI is able to break-up a terrorist plot on American soil, something it was not able to do prior to September 11, 2001.  If the suspects were arrested and put on trial - as required for all other people arrested - they would be entitled to mount a defense, call witnesses, etc.  The prosecution could be compelled to reveal sources and information which could impede stopping of other terrorists, and damage American security.

And that logic is not insane, not unsound.  It has merit.  But does it justify what could be done to American citizens having nothing to do with terrorism?

I believe Obama when he says he won't use the law to lock up Americans indefinitely without trial.  But what about his successors?

I'm old enough to remember what America was like when JFK was President - a country full of hope and purpose.  If JFK had signed such a bill into law in 1962 - after Richard Nixon, beaten in the Presidential election of 1960, and again in the California gubernatorial race of 1962, had announced that the press would not have "Dick Nixon to kick around any more" - would I or anyone have imagined back then that Nixon would be sitting in the White House just seven years later?   I certainly did not, and yet Nixon was elected President, and created an "enemies list" which was secretly targeted for harassment by his administration.   That enemies list consisted not of terrorists or even run-of-the-mill criminals, but of Nixon's political critics, period.   Is there anyone alive back then, or who has studied that history, who has confidence that Nixon would not have used an NDAA to not only harass but lock up without trial the Americans he deemed the worst of his enemies?

Obama, in part because of that law - which has been rightly denounced by the American Civil Liberties Union and has angered progressives who are his political base - could conceivably be a one-term President.   Look at the Republican candidates for President.  All but  Ron Paul are far more hawkish than Obama.   Are you confident that Rick Santorum or Mitt Romney wouldn't use the NDAA to put Amercans in detention without trial, for reasons they thought justified?

Bill Clinton made a similar error, less grievous, perhaps, when he signed into law the Communications Decency Act, which punished salty language on the Web (including political) with fines and imprisonment. Fortunately, the Supreme Court struck down that violation of the First Amendment. 

Obama missed his chance to defuse this currently ticking time bomb to American democracy and due process.  It's now up to the Supreme Court to strike the NDAA down for the unconstitutional game of Russian roulette that it is with our freedom and way of life.

Is Sarah Palin Ready to be President?

Picking Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as VP running mate was the best thing John McCain could have done for his campaign. But I think it won't be enough. McCain is 72 years old, and not in perfect health. Can someone with Palin's complete lack of national experience - two years as Governor of Alaska, one of least populated in the nation (47th) - really know how to lead and protect our country as President? Will voters be ok with someone so far from the world stage just a heartbeat away from the President?

Palin was the best possible choice for the Republicans. It puts the Republicans on the right side of history and change - along with the Democrats and Obama. Some of Hillary Clinton's supporters, loyal more to her gender than her policies and positions, may well be tempted to vote for McCain and Palin. Joe Biden will likely find it a little more difficult to be tough with Palin than with Romney. But these may well be all secondary advantages, not enough to offset the glaring disadvantage of Sarah Palin: Americans do not know her, and what we do know gives us no confidence that she can take over the highest office in the land.

Capacity to take over as President has always been the single most important qualification of Vice President. We can't get away from that, especially with someone of John McCain's age.

When Americans go to the polls in the November, I'm betting that will be the decisive factor.

Mitt Romney, Cylon, Withdraws from Race

Mitt Romney has just withdrawn from the Presidential race. In a speech just delivered to the Conservative Political Action Committee in Washington, D.C., Romney said he "must now stand aside".

It was about as Neanderthal and ugly a speech as you ever heard from a Republican, or anyone. Romney ranted about the sanctity of marriage, and the need to uphold our "culture," as if such matters were ever the business of government in a free society.

The lowest part of Romney's speech came when he painted the positions of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as a "surrender to terror".

Typical Republican lies. Obama and Clinton want not to surrender to terror, but fight terror more effectively and intelligently, in a way that does not bog down our military in a war that was based on grossly false information in the first place. Obama saw that from the very beginning, but Clinton and Obama are united in seeing that now, in contrast to Republicans who can do nothing better than beat their chests and drums for more of the flawed same.

I have jokingly put up several posts in the past eight months about Mitt Romney being a Cylon - his flip-flopping on issues, his wooden delivery, etc.

But Romney's withdrawal speech today was no joking matter. It should be a wake up call for every American who wants to live in the 21st not the 19th or some past Cylon century.

See also Is Mitt Romney a Cylon? and Further Evidence that Romney is a Cylon

Obama and Clinton in Precedent Setting Split of Super Tuesday Vote//How About Debate with Dems and Repubs at Same Table?

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton pretty evenly split the SuperTuesday primary vote tonight. Obama won more states. Clinton won more of the bigger states. Obama won the South and Midwest. Clinton won most of the Northeast (with the exception of Connecticut) and California. The all-important delegate count looks to be evenly split.

Hillary Clinton gave a fine and inspiring speech. I found Barack Obama's speech even more inspiring, but that's ok, and takes little away from Hillary.

I voted for Obama in New York today, and would vote for him again. He has the better capacity to generate and lead a new kind of politics in America. But Hillary has something special and important, as well. I hope I have the chance to vote for Obama in the general election, and will do all I can to make that happen, but I would gladly vote for Hillary over the any of the Republicans, and would work hard to elect her President, if it comes to that.

When I cast my vote today, I realized that I had never felt happier, better, voting in a national election. I was too young to vote for JFK. In 1968, I held my nose and voted for Humphrey. It has sometimes been somewhat better since then, but nothing as good as today.

I had a choice between two extraordinary people. The first African-American and the first woman with a real chance to be our next President. It was an extraordinary feeling. My wife, who also admires both candidates, said it felt to her as if the 21st century had truly begun in politics this year - or last year and this year - and she's right.

I hate to even mention the Republican candidates, because they are not of the 21st century. One of them - Huckabee - doesn't believe in evolution. That's not even 20th century. Another - the current frontrunner, John McCain - lashed out at one of his rivals today, Mitt Romney, because Romney dared to criticize Bob Dole, who had endorsed McCain. In McCain's world, Bob Dole is beyond political criticism because he is a war hero. Is that the kind of reasoning we want in a war hero who is now running for President?

So the race is on. Two candidates, indisputably of the 21st century, indisputably of hope and a new kind of America, versus three (or two, depending upon what Mitt Romney does) who worship the old false idols and way of doing things.

Hillary Clinton has called for four debates with Obama in the next month.

I have a suggestion for at least one night of another kind of debate: how about the Democratic and Republican contenders sit down together at one table? All five or four of them.

That would be a debate that would really show America the choices we have in this election.