Speak of the Devil.

I've been thinking lately of the Devil. There are many names for what I am referring to and I'd like to make it clear exactly what I'm talking about. I'm not necessarily speaking of the "Anti-God" so present in the conception of many Christians. My subject here is not one who presides over a mystical place of eternal damnation featuring a "lake of fire". In fact I'm not interested in any "otherworldy phenomenon", but rather in the moral calculus of our own earthly existence. If something akin to "evil" exists, then there must somewhere live the embodiment of that quality, or at least the single individual that represents its greatest accumulation. This creature would be the best candidate for the position of "the Devil".

At heart I am a relativist. I tend to discount broad and sweeping terms, and the words "good" and "evil" are examples of the type that tend to create what I consider "false dichotomies". But perhaps they serve as useful shorthand for the effects that the actions of certain people have on others. Certainly many agree that someone like Adolf Hitler fits the common definition of "evil", regardless of the reality that the memory of his deeds are still honored by his philosophical heirs. Similarly, a majority of folks who are familiar with the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr. consider him a paragon of "the good", yet there are still those who resent the things that he did to permanently change society.

Still there is likely a greater proportion of humanity that puts stock in these categorizations than rejects them. Some believe that "evil" and "good" exist outside the human mind in an objective sense, and work as external forces that possess people. They are somehow beyond the everyday decisions and actions that individuals choose. Others think that these are traits that manifest themselves in the "heart" and/or brain. Obviously this introduces a factor of subjectivity into the moral equation. Furthermore, there is a minority that views these things as more of an allegory. Maybe they aren't willing to commit to the absolute existence of "good" and "evil", but they find them useful labels in describing the choices that people make.

I think the best case for the existence of "evil" is the violation of consensuality. But that's not necessarily within the purview of this particular post, so I won't expand on it. Often "the Devil" takes the physical form of temptation. Someone who is a "bad influence" can be referred to as "the Devil". He/she may try to persuade the individual to do things that he/she believes that they should not do, even though they may want to. I see this as a cop-out. This type of externalization seems like a convenient justification for all manner of misbehavior. The desire to act out obviously manifests itself internally. If you don't have the desire to engage in whatever you define as "sin", then there's no reason to carry it out.

To me, the most intriguing form of "The Devil" is more of a poetic representation. This is an archetype that has found its expression in arts and letters. One notable embodiment of this specter is Dr. Faustus. This is "The Devil" that you make a deal with to get something at the expense of your soul. In this story, "The Devil" is a type of bogeyman who serves as the ultimate heavy in a cautionary tale. He makes you face the truth, and exposes what you are willing to give up to realize your most self-interested dreams. And for this he extracts a terrible price. In giving up the core of your ethics, you merge with "evil" itself. The game is over, and any distinctions melt away. You have become the symbol of your darkest urges.

The Stimulus Package.

It's been weeks since I started thinking about the "stimulus package", and days since I considered writing about it. Yet what's kept me from attempting an exposition of my thoughts is the utter state of confusion that everybody is mired in regarding this prospective legislation. It's simply too big a subject. There may be individuals who claim to understand what it means, but I suspect that this "understanding" results more from ideology (or mere wishful thinking) than any clear perspective about the realities of the situation that necessitates it. My "spidey sense" is telling me that we are fucked beyond conception. Prophets have been foretelling this condition for decades, and so few have heeded their warnings.

I don't think that we can boil down our problems to a demi-glace of credit default and Wall Street shenanigans. The issues plaguing our economy have been sitting rank in the open air for longer than most are suggesting. Sure, our federal and state governments have been compounding the problems with willful ignorance and rampant corruption... but our citizenry must accept its share of responsibility. Ten trillion (+) dollars is an amazing number that lies beyond the reasonable comprehension of the human brain, but that amount is dwarfed by the amounts of personal debt that accumulate when we consider the personal debts of all Americans. And for this there is no easy excuse.

Who do we expect to lead us out of these dark borderlands? If people have built Barack Obama into a sort of messianic figure, it is only because of our desperate need for such a mythical creature. We've already played out that story. How many saviors can we create? Jesus Christ is said to have died for our spiritual sins, and those are certainly beyond quantification. That ambiguity is convenient for those that seek to offer us comfort. But we have created a standard of value for material things, and there will be no symbolic expiation available to clear our books. We are stuck with the prospect of a Day of Reckoning. The "infinite growth" of free market capitalism was a lie. We can't continue to fuel our economy on debt.

Still there is no doubt in my mind that we will try to spend our way out of our predicament, even if we have to pull the money out of thin air to achieve this. Like it or not, hyperinflation is the only answer. The main puzzle to sort out is how to distribute the paper. Shall we continue to put it in the hands of the institutions that have fomented our crisis? Wall Street, the banks, and the global corporate capitalists all ensured us of the viability of our system. They assumed the authority to guide the operation of our society, and they should face the most severe consequences of its failures. Most of us were given no choice to distinguish ourselves from the gamblers. The stakes were pre-determined at our birth.

When I hear the voices of those that have belatedly discovered "fiscal conservatism", my blood pressure rises and the muscles in my forehead spasm involuntarily. When Congressional "leaders" lament the prospect of increased taxes, I feel like puking. Everyone needs to realize that we've already spent our legacy. We've been profligate, and future generations will inevitably suffer from our wasteful ways. If we are going to "inject" more currency into our economy, we have a duty to invest it in such a way that our heirs will see some small benefit. It's time to go beyond considerations of our own comfort. We have earned the impending Depression. There's no avoiding it.

David Hajdu, "The Ten-Cent Plague" (2008).

I was a bit surprised a week or so ago to learn that my father had bought me a "pre-Xmas present". He told me to look for a package, and explained that he sent me the gift because he thought I would be particularly interested in it. I had no idea what to expect, and so I awaited it with anticipation. When it arrived, I can honestly say I was puzzled. It was a a book by David Hadju (with whom I was completely unfamiliar), and it was entitled The Ten-Cent Plague. By scanning its jacket (which featured a great drawing by Charles Burns, one of my favorite cartoonists) I learned that it was a history of a period during the early development of the comics. It focused on the 1930's through the 50's, during which the new artform came under increasingly intense criticism.

While I am certainly a fan of (what I can only refer to as) "alt-comics", I didn't have a lot of curiosity about genre comics, with superheroes and the like. Still I resolved to plow through Hajdu's study, and hoped that it would give me some insight into the stuff I choose to read now. It started off with a fairly comprehensive look at the invention of the form, and an explanation of how a brand new industry sprouted to produce these "picture books". At the very start, comics did not necessarily focus on men in tights at all, but rather tended to reflect the existing genres of entertainment- horror, crime, war, romance, early sci-fi, and comedy. They were almost exclusively targeted to adolescents.

Hajdu did a good job at conveying the spirit and the attitude of the early comic creators. Fortunately for his book, many of the major players from the beginning were still alive for him to interview, including Will Eisner, Charles Biro, Bill Gaines, Al Feldstein, Bernie Krigstein, Will Elder, Harvey Kurtzman, etc. These now iconic figures spoke of their free-wheeling approaches to a brand new entertainment medium. As comics reached the end of their first decade of existence, they were so novel that the field was wide open, and for all intents and purposes without limits other than market-driven concerns. This freedom allowed sales to increase astronomically and individual creativity to flourish.

Many of the businessmen, artists, and writers that made comics were from minority groups that had nowhere else to become successful. As a result a lot of the content reflected an outsider perspective that tended to glorify facets of society that many conventionally-accepted adults found troubling. But the kids loved it! The more extreme, the better- gore, lust, perversity, violence, and general mayhem prevailed. And then the authorities noticed, and a reactionary backlash followed. The Catholic Church, professors of education, psychiatrists, and some of the more prudish politicians began to bemoan the general lack of respect for authority exhibited in comics. They began to accuse the comic companies of contributing to juvenile delinquency.

Obviously there are modern-day parallels to other forms of youthful amusement. Over the years, movies, television, cartoons, rock-and-roll, and videogames have all taken their turn at being vilified. Society is always looking for a scapegoat for the "wicked ways" of its members... especially the kids. However the level of vitriol and shrill hysteria over comics was amazing to read about. It didn't take long for the powers-that-be to work together with the cultural guardians, and crush the independence and sheer fun of comics. It took decades for the form to recover even a smidgen of its relevance and energy. Ultimately The Ten-Cent Plague tells a larger story about who we are, and who we've been, as a nation.

Nathan Sproul and Lincoln Strategy Group.

By now it seems that every American has heard of ACORN, a community organization started decades ago to assist the poverty-stricken. The GOP is waging an all-out attack on that group, hoping that if it can't beat Obama, at least it can vanquish a bunch of "liberal" community organizers. So it's seized on some apparently fraudulent voter registration forms that ACORN was required by law to submit to elections boards, and provoked investigations by various state authorities and the FBI. But behind the Republicans' assault on so-called "Democrat"-run voter fraud, they are waging war on another front in order to gain themselves an advantage in the coming election. And with that in mind, I give you Nathan Sproul and Lincoln Strategy Group.

Exactly who is this Nathan Sproul? He is a graduate of the Pillsbury Baptist Bible College, and a Republican political consultant and strategist with ties to the Arizona GOP and the Christian Coalition. Early in his career he worked tirelessly to end sex education in his state. In 2004, he was instrumental in the nearly successful efforts to remove the Arizona Clean Elections Law. Sproul also set up a voter registration drive in 2004 called "America Votes", which just so happened to have the same name as a progressive group trying to expand the electorate. His intention was to register as many new Republicans as possible. This in itself is not illegal, but the methods that Sproul and Company used to do so were highly suspect.

Sproul and his group have been repeatedly investigated for voter fraud. His own employees have alleged that they were specifically instructed only to register Republicans, and told to shred thousands of forms submitted by people wanting to become new Democrats. Yet even with his terrible track record, and the small amount of local media attention he has drawn to himself and his company, Nathan Sproul remains a trusted operative of the GOP. During this very presidential race, John McCain has directed $175,000 worth of funds to Sproul's Lincoln Strategy Group for get-out-the-vote efforts. Meanwhile the Republican National Committee has diverted $37,000 to the Lincoln Group during this cycle, explicitly for registering voters.

What makes all of this especially problematic is how vocal Sproul has always been in support of McCain and the Far Right Wing of the Republican Party. He's given the McCain campaign $30,000 of his own money for this election. He is absolutely dedicated to winning at any cost, and I believe characterizations of him as "Arizona's Karl Rove" are unfair to Sproul, as he is quite obviously more of an idealogue. While it's true one could make the case that ACORN leans politically left, there is a big difference, as Republican Congressman Chris Cannon noted in May of this year: "The difference between ACORN and Sproul is that ACORN doesn't throw away or change registration documents after they have been filled out."

It is widely believed that Sproul will do anything possible to advance his political agenda. Since 2004, Democrats in Congress have been aware of both his objectives and methods. In fact, in October of 2007 Representative John Conyers complained that the Bush Administration Justice Department had refused to closely scrutinize the activities of Sproul and the Lincoln Strategy Group. Given the ample assistance Sproul provided to Bush in the 2004 presidential race, I guess that's not surprising. But what is surprising is that the mainstream press has remained mum about this fraud, especially if you believe that the corporate-owned media has a "liberal bias" (as many on the Right maintain). Why aren't Sproul and his Lincoln Strategy Group household names, like ACORN? I guess you'll have to decide that one for yourself.

What is ACORN and Why do Republicans Hate it?

Now that John McCain's attack ads on Barack Obama's character and "associations" have mostly been exposed as signs of impotence in an increasingly desperate campaign, the McCain/Palin has implemented a new strategy. No, it doesn't have to do with presenting a broad platform to address the growing economic concerns of the middle class. Nor is it a bold new program seeking to stabilize our financial markets. It's not even a new strategy to contain Iran or to track down al Qaeda in Pakistan. To the contrary, it has little to do with anything that will occur after the first week of November. John McCain's staff has decided to to attack the Obama campaign with accusations of "cheating", and they mean to cast doubt on the results of the coming election.

The recent GOP disinformation blitz has to do with ACORN- which stands for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. ACORN was founded in Arkansas in 1970 by Wade Rathke and Gary Delgado. Its broad mission has always been to advocate for low- and moderate-income families by working on neighborhood safety, health care, and other social issues. Its activities have included programs to address better housing and wages for the poor, more community development investment from banks and governments, and better public schools. ACORN has generally been aligned with the Democrats, due to their focus on helping segments of society that are less advantaged.

The current "controversy" revolving around ACORN is its voter registration drive. Since 2004, they have been the target of investigations in a small number of the many locations in which they have been active. These challenges to its existence have been overwhelmingly initiated by conservative politicians, free market advocacy groups, and the rightwing media. The latest charges accuse ACORN of systematically engaging in and encouraging the practice of submitting fraudulent voter registration forms. Yet the organization has been quick to point out that they have consistently demonstrated full cooperation and public support for the investigations of rogue employees, and has fired them when found guilty of voter fraud.

Duriong this election cycle the McCain/Palin campaign has attempted to make its case against ACORN by "revealing" that its employees turn in forms that are later discovered to be ineligible. What they (and their "Conservative" operatives in the mediasphere) fail to mention is that workers involved in most voter registration drives are mandated by state law to turn in every form they collect, without alteration. It is left solely to the discrimination of state election boards to determine the eligibility of these prospective voters. Defenders of ACORN have rightfully pointed out that the only reason fraudulent forms have been brought to public attention is because its employees are in the practice of flagging those that are suspect.

But none of this matters in the brutal political climate that the GOP has fostered. Regardless of the reality of the situation, the Republicans are determined to follow up on Sarah Palin's Convention speech slurs against community organizers. The Mccain/Palin ticket is no longer trying to claim that the profession has no "real responsibilities". They are attempting to place Obama in a supposed conspiracy plot. They have accused their opponent of being a community organizer for ACORN in the early 90's. This is patently false. In his capacity as an attorney, Barack once represented ACORN in a successful lawsuit alongside the U.S. Department of Justice against the state of Illinois to force state compliance with a federal voting access law.

Meanwhile, it turns out that John McCain was "associated" with ACORN as recently as 2006, when he appeared at a rally to address immigration reform. I guess in his mind it's OK as long as his own "maverick" political ends are being achieved.

The McCain/Palin Campaign Embraces "Agents of Intolerance". Part 1.

John McCain has offered signals that he is about to tone down his focused strategy of character attacks, and get back on the subjects and challenges that most citizens are concerned about. Still his campaign chairman Rick Davis (a Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac former lobbyist) defends his continuing advertising strategy, while leveling character assassination charges against David Axelrod (Davis' counterpart on Obama's side). Apparently Axelrod's been accusing Davis of selling access to his chief. Meanwhile Davis is out on the stump trying to put forth the case that VP candidate Sarah Palin has done nothing wrong in the "Troopergate" Scandal, despite last Friday's announcement that the Alaskan Legislature had found her guilty of an ethics violation.

Does anybody really think that these chaotic politics are going to subside during the last three weeks heading into the election? I certainly don't. In fact, Sarah Palin is trying to shake things up even more with her calls to revisit the Jeremiah Wright flap that hit the media months ago. It's understandable that she would want to change the subject from her abuse of power tactics in Alaska, but her method of altering the dialog may result in a more careful analysis of some of the figures that have shaped her own thinking. John McCain has been adamant about not wanting to inject a discussion of religion into the race. I can empathize with this view, since I've been sick of the conflation of faith and policy for the last eight years.

In 2000, John McCain spoke eloquently about the developing rifts in the American scene. He notably bemoaned the "corrupting influences of religion and politics", and even went as far as suggesting that portions of the religious right were divisive and un-American*. He specifically identified Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as "agents of intolerance". He also directed his criticism at his primary rival George W. Bush for giving a speech at the "Conservative Christian" Bob Jones University without addressing the institution's ban on interracial dating. What McCain did in the run-up to that election, not even a decade past, was truly a "maverick" move and likely cost him a primary victory.

My, how things have changed since then. In 2006, while McCain prepared to enter the current presidential race, the Arizona Senator decided to deliver the commencement address at Liberty University. That school was actually founded by "intolerance agent" Jerry Falwell, who since McCain's earlier denunciation of him "has said that Jews can't go to heaven unless they accept Christ, that the Prophet Mohammed was a terrorist, and that gays and feminists bore responsibility for 9/11" (source). While McCain claimed ,"I'm not trying to make up to anyone, either liberal or conservative or anyone else", it was clear that Falwell got the message. He replied, "I do think, like any wise politician moving toward a presidential election, he is trying to build alliances".

And perhaps it was necessary for a wizened politician seeking the GOP nomination for the presidency to embrace a group that makes up a large proportion of the most loyal base of the party. There's no doubt that McCain realized that he had to compromise his formerly-expressed values in order to have a chance at winning. This past summer McCain put together a nine-member Christian Outreach Team to travel to battleground states. In early July, he sent his exploratory committee to its first destination, where they met with the Ohio Christian Alliance. Apparently it was clear from that meeting that Evangelical Christians had specific demands that had to be met in order for Mccain to gain their support. It soon became quite clear what these demands entailed.

TO BE CONTINUED IN PART 2.



*"The political tactics of division and slander are not our values," Mr. McCain said. "They are corrupting influences on religion and politics, and those who practice them in the name of religion or in the name of the Republican Party or in the name of America shame our faith, our party and our country" (link).

The McCain/Palin Commitment to The Bush Doctrine.

What an amazing day John McCain had Friday. He finally confronted a couple of his (or Sarah Palin's?) rabid followers at a "Town Hall" style rally in Minnesota. Surely you've seen the video by now? He's officially set the record straight. For one thing, he finally admitted that his opponent is not an "Arab". That is remarkable. Now all he has to do is share that information with his staff. Apparently they haven't been sure about Obama. Is he some kind of "Manchurian Candidate"? Is he a "socialist"? Does he "pal around with terrorists"? Those have been the messages for (at least) the last week, and it was starting to get really ugly among the "faithful". The secret service even had to investigate a possible threat against Obama's life.

Now we don't have to ask ourselves "Who is Obama?" anymore. Because John McCain has found one of the last vestiges of honor and dignity buried beneath his capitulation to the basest elements of the GOP. If anyone brings up Barack Obama's character to you, you can simply quote McCain: "I have to tell you, he is a decent person and a person that you do not have to be scared of as president of the United States." You know, if McCain wasn't running against Obama for president, I'd have to say that this was an endorsement. Or... how about "I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments"? That sounds unequivocal. Even when he got back on the attack, he sounded kind of moderate- "He's a decent family man, a citizen who I just happen to have serious differences with on fundamental questions."

But what you have to ask yourself is why did McCain wait so long to tell the truth? Why did he give in to the tactics of Karl Rove-protégé Steve Schmidt? Did he forget what he famously said about negative ads during his failed bid for the presidency in 2000? Why did he hire the exact same folks that smeared him with ungodly rumors eight years ago? Maybe he made a Faustian bargain. This is undoubtedly his last shot at his most coveted dream, and he's seeing it slowly slipping away. If he is honest with himself he's probably wondering how the hell he got the nod from the Republican Party in the first place. Somehow the neocon wing of the party took control of the maverick, and we are seeing the results. It's an open secret that the cabal's head "intellectual" picked Sarah Palin as his running mate.

So what does that mean in terms of philosophy for the McCain/Palin team? Consider these now famous words:

"We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

-George W. Bush, September 20, 2001 address to the United States Congress.

I think that all the political observers that accused Sarah Palin of not knowing about the Bush Doctrine need to reassess their beliefs. She may not have been able to communicate the principles intelligibly, but she has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt, that she has internalized an understanding of the tactics that the approach involves. The McCain/Palin ticket is simply applying the Bush Doctrine to its political opponent. The accusations that Palin and McCain have made by insinuation (and in some cases quite directly) have very real consequences, and they need to be held accountable for them.

So if John McCain really wants to retain his "maverick" status, he needs to do what the 2000-era McCain would have done- jettison Sarah Palin*, Steve Schmidt, and the rest of their cronies. If McCain was truly uncomfortable with going negative (as some pundits have suggested), he needs to realize that he was forced to buy into a losing strategy. It's probably too late to turn the race around, but it would be an incredible move that would restore the faith a lot of people used to have in McCain's decency. It would be a game-changer, and not just a transient one. It might also go a long way in rehabilitating the dishonored Republican party. At this point, it looks like the old war hero has very little to lose by throwing one last "Hail Mary". Hell, maybe he can ask Hillary if she's available.


* Now that Sarah Palin has officially been found guilty of an "Abuse of Power" ethics violation by the Alaskan legislature, McCain has the perfect excuse to get rid of her. After all, he is the "reform candidate".

Setting the Palin Narrative. Part 3.

In the previous two installments in this series, I outlined the basic story of the Palin experience since she was chosen to be John McCain's running mate. I've also attempted to explain why the McCain campaign has gone to great efforts to keep the media from questioning the Governor from Alaska. If there is any possibility that Palin won't be able to deliver the core message and talking points, her handlers will try to keep her under tight control. Of course she is running for a high national office, and they haven't been able to completely eliminate her media appearances. But the ones that have gotten through have proven to be completely disastrous and she is increasingly drawing criticism.

When I first heard that McCain asked Sarah Palin to join the ticket, I almost couldn't believe it. It seemed to undermine his reputation as a "maverick" within the Republican party, and his promise that he would select a highly qualified candidate that was able to step in if he was able to fulfill his duties as president. The more I learned about her, the more I expected her to be gone by the Republican convention. Obviously I misjudged the GOP commitment to Palin, and this incorrect speculation reinforced my reluctance to make predictions for this race. Now the McCain campaign is facing the prospect of a VP debate that they were unable (despite obvious efforts) to delay or cancel. The nation anticipates this event with a mix of excitement, fascination, and trepidation.

Some political commentators still expect Palin to be removed from the ticket. If McCain was to choose this option, it might make sense for her to be withdrawn before the debate. Palin's supporters tend to believe that it is the "liberals" drivingthis sentiment. But a growing number of "conservatives" are calling for her removal. A short list includes Senator Chuck Hagel, George Will, David Brooks, Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, and Kathleen Parker. These aren't lightweight pundits like Hannity or Limbaugh... these are serious journalists. And contrary to what the McCain campaign has tried to suggest- they are not criticizing her to create lower expectations for Sarah Palin's performance in her debate. They want her to go back to Alaska.

I have to wonder if this would be political suicide for McCain. Certainly he would risk losing the support of the Palinmaniacs. They probably wouldn't vote for Obama anyway, but they might just stay home or choose a third party candidate on election day. Regardless, there is no way to tell how many of these people actualy exist. We have to operate under the assumption that Palin will be showing up to confront Joe Biden. Apparently the McCain campaign has whisked her off to Arizona for what some have referred to as "deabte camp". Do they plan to continue cramming her head with the type of talking points that she has consistently mangled so far? Palin loyalists suggest that is why she has performed poorly in interviews. They want a change too.

With an odd twist upon Campbell Brown's call to "Free Sarah Palin", her supporters are pleading with the McCain people to "Just Let Sarah Be Sarah!". They point out that she wasn't chosen to be the source for facts and information about policy, but rather in order to personalize the campaign and give the "good folks" someone to relate to. While this may be true, it reveals a particularly problematic and cynical strategy. Does America care about who Sarah Palin really is? Do her positions and record as governor and mayor matter? Do we want someone that close to the presidency that lacks crucial knowledge of policy and facts? Maybe you do, but I don't. We'll have to wait-and-see how willing moderator Gwen Ifill is to indulge Sarah Palin's "I'm Just Like Y'all" act.


NOTE: I had to throw this in here... I really can't tell whether McCain is joking in this video... or not. What do you think?

NOTE #2: I keep finding this stuff, so I might as well post it. I'll come out and say it directly- I don't care that he spent five years as a POW, it doesn't excuse this attitude.

Sarah Palin's Obstruction of Justice.

Mercifully, people finally seem to be coming to the understanding that the Sarah Palin phenomena consists mostly of empty calories. While the Christian Right is determined to back her solely on the merits of her "socially conservative" views, and her "anointed-by-God" status, the rest of America is starting to have second thoughts about her capability to play a role in the federal government. Even in pre-scripted performances with Sean Hannity, and "Town Hall"-style meetings with meticulous pre-screening by GOP agents, Palin looks woefully under-prepared to assume any important office, let alone the vice presidency. Important members within the Republican party are finally admitting she is a liability for the McCain campaign.

Keeping Sarah Palin protected from the "liberal media" will likely be just one among many problems that the presumptive VP presents the GOP. They are going to have to (somehow) prepare her for the debates if she is to avoid embarrassing herself , her supporters, and her party... let alone provide further ammunition for her opponents in their quest to impugn McCain's political and personal judgment. But there is an even bigger threat on the horizon then a debate with Joe Biden. Palin (and by extension the National Republican Party) has to watch out for the Alaskan legislature. It doesn't appear that the bipartisan coalition that has been bound-and-determined to investigate Palin's possible abuse-of-power wants to back off.

I'm not going to get into the intricacies of "Troopergate" in this post. Any reader who is unfamiliar with this scandal has had plenty of opportunities to inform himself already. If you don't know what is at stake in this case, then it's likely that you really don't want to know. However, you should be aware that the investigation into possible malfeasance in the dismissal of popular Public Safety Commissioner Walter Monegan is taken very seriously in the Great White North. In fact that's probably why Palin herself directed her Attorney General (Talis Coberg) to initiate a separate in-house investigation to look into the allegations. Unfortunately for Palin, Colberg himself knew she was lying... indeed he was personally involved in the controversy.

Before Palin accepted McCain's offer to join his ticket, she expressed a willingness to cooperate with the Alaskan Congressional investigation (it must be pointed out here that the Alaskan legislature is controlled by Republicans). But predictably, when it became a possible black mark for the McCain campaign, she began to take every possible step to delay the release of that inquiry's conclusions. First she suggested that the state Personnel Board had jurisdiction over ethics issues. She called for another review of the findings. Then the legislators decided to expedite the investigation and set an October 10th completion date for the study. At last in a state of complete desperation, Palin (and/or the McCain campaign) ordered all of her administration (along with her husband Todd) to disobey subpoenas. Such an action is a criminal violation.

Perhaps Sarah Palin thinks she can pull the wool over the eyes of observers in the Lower 48, and convince everyone that she did nothing wrong. She's obviously proven herself completely capable of fooling a large proportion of the Republican base. But from all available evidence, she is not going to be able to do that in Alaska. The residents of that state are fiercely independent, and don't seem to follow the conventional party divide. In fact it is Alaskan Republicans that are driving the Palin investigation. It occurs to me to suggest that maybe we could learn something from their example. Do we really want someone else this close to the Oval Office who enforces loyalty by imposing a gag rule on his/her employees? Do we want another executive that refuses to cooperate with criminal investigations? Do we need four more years of that?

Condoleezza Rice Tries To Re-ignite The Cold War.

I can't tell you how many times in the last few weeks I have had people suggest that I am a "communist" because I disagree with them about the proper direction of our county. This would be completely understandable if I was advocating the common ownership of all property in the United States, or if I wanted a single, self-perpetuating political party to control all aspects of the nation's social and economic spheres. If I was stating my support for such a situation, then it would be fair to accuse me of communist tendencies. That's clear because those are the definitive conditions necessary for that type of government. But I've never been in favor of those things. No, instead my opponents are reacting to my support of Barack Obama- who coincidentally has also never called for the aforementioned measures.

How long is it going to be before the McCarthy-ites in the extreme Right Wing abandon the tired and ignorant tactic of branding all those who disagree with them as "communists", "socialists", or "Marxists"? Never mind that these terms are used interchangeably as if they were truly communicating the same thing (a "socialist" is in favor of the government assuming control over the country's "means of production", and a "Marxist" is someone who follows the philosophies of Karl Marx*). Never mind that I've never actually met an American who seriously aligns himself with these views. These are simply outdated labels that have lost any connection to the reality of the world. Someone needs to remind "conservatives" that employ these labels that the Soviet Union collapsed nearly two decades ago.

Still the spectre of our former "superpower" rival seems to loom large on the periphery of GOP perception. I was frankly dismayed to hear about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's comments to an audience at the German Marshall Fund on September 18th. If you aren't familiar with what she said, here are some highlights:

“Our strategic goal now is to make it clear to Russia's leaders that their choices are putting Russia on a one-way path to self-imposed isolation and international irrelevance. (...) Russia's international standing is worse now than at any time since 1991. And the cost of this self-inflicted isolation has been steep.”

In typical Red-baiting fashion, the Bush Administration's reigning "Sovietologist" called out the world's largest nation (and the world's largest exporter of natural gas, the second largest oil exporter and the third largest energy consumer) in one of the most provocative manners possible.

Besides the fact that Rice's position betrays the essential hypocrisy of the Bush administration, it exposes the decreasing relevance the United States has on the international stage. Bush can send out his surrogates to deliver veiled warnings to rising powers all he wants- but the sad truth is that the policies put in place by this presidential administration (with the fawning assistance of Republican legislators) have consistently eroded our ability to be respected (or even feared) by would-be competitors. Given our inability to stabilize a third world country such as Iraq, I don't think Rice is fooling anyone. She is merely inflaming any two-bit opponent that dreams of giving the United States a hard time.

I believe it's time for us to take a good hard look at our new standing in the world. No matter what you might hear from Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly or John McCain- our self-image as the dominant force in the international realm is becoming nothing but a delusion. Our economy is on the brink of collapse. The free market system that we've been trying to forcibly impose on the rest of the world is in dire need of re-evaluation. More and more we are being seen as a "paper tiger". And as far as "socialism" is concerned, the Bush administration is embracing that approach with its proposal to nationalize the home mortgage industry. It's time to abandon previous assumptions.

*Characterized by a "system of economic and political thought developed by Karl Marx, along with Friedrich Engels, esp. the doctrine that the state throughout history has been a device for the exploitation of the masses by a dominant class, that class struggle has been the main agency of historical change, and that the capitalist system, containing from the first the seeds of its own decay, will inevitably, after the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, be superseded by a socialist order and a classless society."

- Dictionary.com

Palin's Incompetence Revealed... Now Put the Focus on McCain.

There was a time not long ago (two weeks, actually) that I still believed that John McCain was a good and honorable man. He seemed to be above rolling in the mud and sleaze of a dirty political campaign. Unfortunately I can no longer credit McCain with such intentions. His stated approval of an ad that deliberately lied about Obama's stance on sex education in our schools was absolutely reprehensible. One wonders whether he puts the same amount of time into the approval of his ad campaign as he does into the vetting of potential running mates. Or has he completely given himself over to crass and cynical politics aimed at convincing people to vote against his opponent, rather than for him?

While such strategies are common for the GOP, McCain has always prided himself on being somehow "different". In fact he was one of the only Republican politicians to decry the low-ball slime demonstrated by the Swift-Boating of John Kerry in 2004. Unfortunately it appears that giving in to his comrades is more important than principle. After all, as one of my Republican acquaintances said- "Hey, you can't change things if you don't win". Still a fitting response would be to point out that running the executive department entails a series of invitations and temptations to abandon your values. I find it a bit sad to see McCain jump the gun merely to achieve more political power.

Why have his policies on immigration, torture, tax cuts for the rich, offshore drilling, windfall profits taxes, gay rights, defense cuts, lipstick remarks, etc. changed so radically over the last two years? Why has he met (in 2008) with the same sort of Christian Right leaders that he called (in 2000) "agents of intolerance"? Why did he risk the future security and prosperity of our nation by choosing a running mate with NO national or international experience, extreme social conservative values, and a penchant for lying? And why does he continue to trumpet those lies even after learning the truth? If he genuinely doesn't know the reality of Palin's record of pursuing earmarks, of her support for the "Bridge to Nowhere", of her fealty to oil companies, and her almost total ignorance of foreign affairs- then we MUST question his fitness for the presidency.

Instead of continuing to accept the "received wisdom" that McCain is a man committed to integrity, the voting populace needs to face the possibility that this experienced politician is merely a purveyor of half-truths and obfuscation. John McCain stood on a stage in Minneapolis and warned that "change" was coming to Washington. Ostensibly he is referring to the same nation's capitol that we refer to as "D.C.". It's the one that featured a scandal that exposed Republican lobbying corruption and sent Jack Abramoff to prison, and Tom Delay back to Texas. We're talking about the GOP-the party that McCain is now the nominal leader of. How is John McCain going to clean the place up after employing more lobbyists on his campaign staff than any other 2008 presidential candidate?

Like many other opponents of McCain's candidacy, I cringe at the the thought that Sarah Palin will be so close to the Oval Office (especially after her embarrassing interview with Charlie Gibson this past week). She is frankly incompetent. But we really need to redirect the light of truth back on the actual GOP nominee for president. If nothing else, the Palin selection reflects on his poor judgment as a leader. Yet still the message is patently clear, whether or not the worst nightmares of the anti-McCain/Palin contingent come true. McCain has called for "change" after voting 95% of the time with Bush in 2007 and 100% of the time in 2008. And I agree with him- we cannot afford another four years of the Bush play book. Obama/Biden must prevail.

Who Is John McCain Trying to Fool?

Frankly I had little intention of watching John McCain's convention speech the other night. I'm not going to vote for John McCain. The aspiring candidate has crafted a presentation aimed directly at the heart of the GOP. I'm not a Republican (I'm not a Democrat either). So why would I spend my time analyzing an event that isn't held for my benefit? Well, my father (who happens to be a lifelong Republican) suggested that if I was going to share my political opinions, then it would be appropriate for me to tune in. While I reject the idea that you have to watch the speeches of the figures that you criticize in order to have the credibility to comment on them, I was indeed curious to see the message he'd deliver. And so I watched it... live.

I feel some obligation to disclose that I believe John McCain is a decent man, and that he genuinely cares about the United States (while his running mate will always consider her own interests first, and Alaskans second). I have no interest in entertaining personal attacks on the man. The reasons I am threatened by a McCain presidency are varied, but they start with my perception that he is too hawkish. He did nothing to dispel that view on Thursday night. He talked about standing up to Iran and Russia, and I fear that he would initiate a military operation before expending all other options. I don't believe the United States should be the "world's policeman", nor do I think that we should get involved in military conflicts over oil.

And while we are on the subject, I abhor the dependency on oil that McCain promotes as the main element of his proposed energy plan. The overwhelming message I heard at the Convention is "Drill. Dril often. Drill now", as if that would solve the problem of dependence. He's name-checked alternative sources of energy (primarily nuclear plants and liquified coal), but he has given us no indication how he would encourage this diversification as president. The same thing applies to creating American jobs- he claims to support the idea, but has provided no substance on the issue. It's the age-old Republican platform we've heard for years... dole out tax cuts to the corporations and the wealthy, and that will create jobs. It hasn't happened yet, despite decades of trying.

John McCain has tried to paint himself as a "maverick" during this campaign. He's talked about change. But what has he been doing for the 21 years he's been in office? He's certainly talked a good game. He used to be against the Bush tax cuts. Now he wants to extend them. He used to talk about the need for experience and qualifications in the executive branch, until he chose a woman with no national experience and limited education. In his speech he says that he supports alternative energy, going so far as to briefly name-drop wind and solar power. But the truth is that he's 0-for-8 on crucial legislation that would support renewable energy (including energy tax credits to wind & solar power industries). And that's only in the past year alone. Now he's chosen a partner that wants to open up the remaining protected land in ANWR to "Big Oil".*

Here we have a guy that's giving every indication that he represents oil interests, the military-industrial complex, and the Christian Right. Still he talks of shaking Washington up. Where's he been the last eight years? Who does he think the entrenched powers have been during the vast majority of that time? He speaks of bipartisanship, and reaching across the aisle. So did Bush in 2000. He talks about ending the political rancor and vitriol plaguing the country. But then who does he choose as a running mate? Sarah Palin, who boasts about being an attack dog (with lipstick!). Why else would he have chosen an extreme right-wing Fundamentalist Christian with little to recommend her other than her smugly naked ambition? Who is he trying to fool?





*For a master list of McCain's Flip-Flops, see this site. Very informative and well-sourced.

When Will Families Be Off-Limits?

So do we have this established now? I believe that Ms. Palin has shown questionable judgment as a mother, and I wonder how anyone could possibly trust her in the capacity of President. And that is exactly what this is about. I wouldn't be attacking anyone so strenuously if I wasn't genuinely concerned about seeing them in a position that demands complexity of mind, training, education, and experience in national politics. Sarah Plain clearly lacks all of these crucial qualities. On top of that, she has put forth "family values" as her strength. How anyone in her position could consider this an asset is entirely beyond me. But that is the public profile the GOP has assigned to her, and thus I consider it fair game to focus on it.

But Barack Obama and a legion of conservatives disagree. They all insist that "families are off limits". It actually sounds funny coming out of the mouths of Republicans. After all the invective that they have poured out on Michelle Obama, Chelsea Clinton, Billy Carter, and every single member of the Kennedy clan they can get their hands on... this smacks of rabid hypocrisy. Yet I understand why they want to change the subject after they introduced it in the first place- it's simply not working in their favor. They foolishly took Sarah Palin at face value- listened to the things she said about abortion, abstinence, gay marriage and creationism, and said "She's our girl!" Now they realize that she couldn't possibly live up to the standard they set for her.

Everyone is flawed, obviously. I'm sure Sarah Palin has her good moments, in addition to all of the mistakes we've seen and heard about already. It's quite possible that it would be entertaining (in a reality-TV sort of way) to see what type of shenanigans the Palin clan gets into during the next four years. But the problem with that is that there could be international consequences if her ticket gets elected. So why do we focus on her "family values"? Because that's how she was sold to the lower 48. And because we've had to hear this kind of self-righteous crap from the "Moral Majority", Christian-Right, nut-bags for decades. And we are tired of it and want it to stop. Still no matter what we've done it hasn't gone away.

We've been forced to this point out of exhaustion, frustration, resignation, and cynicism. It's completely appropriate to counterattack with the weapons they've been bludgeoning us with for years. The desired result is that they get so defensive that they themselves make public pronouncements condemning it. And then it will be over, and the public will have to turn their attention to something else. The minute the GOP gets off the "family values" train is the point that I'll back off Sarah Palin's relationship to her family, and her peculiar approach to parenthood. Because (like most Progressives) I am at heart a tolerant and non-judgmental guy. I'd love to agree to live-and-let-live. I want the Palin family to prosper.

Finally there's the question of Obama's insistence that "families are off-limits". Is anyone truly puzzled by this gesture? First of all, the guy's always been about the issues. That's because he's thought a lot about policy. He's not a knee-jerk reactionary or a fundamentalist. He recognizes nuance, and that's refreshing for a lot of us. But he also understands the value of taking the high road, and he's a shrewd politician. He realizes that if everyone agrees that "families are off-limits", then the Republicans are basically disarmed. That's all they've got in this election. They lose on substance. If we don't talk about Sarah Palin's "family values", then what is left to say? The reality is that no one really knows. And that's a disaster waiting to happen for the GOP.