Who is the tool?

My (relatively) new domestic arrangement has exposed me to habits and patterns that sometimes confound me. For instance, my roommates have the capacity to be entertained by television shows that I’ve never considered viable sources of amusement. I’ve seen things that have shocked me with the most banal and ridiculous examples of human behavior. I had no idea that both cable and network programming had reached its current depths. Neither would I have expected intelligent viewers to settle for the poor quality product put in front of them.

Still, I’ve been told repeatedly throughout my life that folks value escapism, and apparently the more mind-numbing it is, the better it satisfies the singular need of the audience. Certainly the choices made in my household illustrate that point. The MTV music awards prove to be a meaningless and contrived spectacle, meant to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Reality shows offer insipid dialog, loathsome personalities, and situations that would strain credibility if penned by a scriptwriter for (even) the dullest of dramas. And consumers are meant to laugh at the most cliché jokes of today’s so-called sitcoms.

If I’m in the room when the idiot box is on, it’s sometimes impossible to ignore. As a result, I’ve learned that L.A. is still filled with self-absorbed, sub-human, empty shells that cynical producers put forth as fascinating subjects of study. I find it all insulting to the social condition. But obviously there are plenty that disagree. So I make my best attempt to find something redeeming about whatever’s on. Otherwise my hatred for my fellow man will know no bounds. Most of the time I’m thwarted in my efforts.

Yesterday I discovered “Tool Academy”. The set-up for this show is a supposed nationwide search for the ultimate “bad boy’. Unsuspecting dolts audition for a competition that will identify the “Alpha Males” of America. But within the first (or so) episode they realize that a trick has been played on them. Their girlfriends have submitted them for consideration as the worst mates in the nation. And all the video footage that they willingly had shot of themselves mouthing off and bragging becomes evidentiary material. They get to sit beside their disconsolate honeys as the very worst parts of their personas are displayed for a live crowd and America at large.

To add insult to injury, the creators of “Tool Academy” have enlisted the aid of an imperious relationship counselor with a distinguished British accent apparently meant to mask the vast level of stupidity the proceedings represent. And so it goes- a parade of self-delusion, an awesome lack of common sense, and a cavalcade of absolute nonsense. Is it representative of the quality of intimate pairings of the populace? If it is, then evolution has truly reversed itself, and our species must soon inevitably cede to another classification of animal. Our citizens are literally retarded, emotionally and otherwise.

Could it be that this show actually serves some sort of useful purpose other than the empty calories derived from the titillation of digesting extreme obnoxiousness? Is it a useful guide in what to avoid in dealing with your significant other? Perhaps some unfortunate viewers will see reflections of their own lives in the hapless guys and gals onscreen. I suppose if even a single woman decides to dump her misbehaving man after noting his resemblance to one of these buffoon contestants, then some redemption for its existence might be proven. Yet it’s easy to counter that anyone who has chosen to invite the presence of such a creature into her life deserves the burden of its continued presence.

Politics as Usual in an Exceptional Time.

I've been taking a bit of a break from politics these last couple of months. I realize that it isn't entirely appropriate to pull away during the beginning of a new president's tenure... especially considering how ardent a supporter I was of the pre-executive Barack Obama. It's not fair for me to shine the light of analysis on the preceding administration, and then give this one a free pass. Yet at the same time, I spent so much energy following the 2008 presidential election that I felt entitled to have a rest. Truth be told, my level of involvement in the political scene was unsustainable. There was just no way for me to devote the hours it took for me to inform myself, while at the same time pursue my other interests and obligations.

Still it's not as if I have been living in a bubble. I realize that there has been a rash of government activity aimed at confronting our tenuous economic position. I took a look at the stimulus package, and considered the amount of extraneous spending included in the final bill. I try to keep up with the planning for the disbursement of the second half of the TARP funds. I even tune in for the latest reporting on the stock market. There is little to recommend a belief that we are "righting the ship". Obviously extreme measures have not yet been sufficient, and I think that Congress and the Obama Administration will continue to search for bold steps to jar the American economy out of its current malaise.

It's been slightly entertaining to see just how quickly Obama's hope of a post-partisan era of politics has been revealed as just so much wishful thinking. Michael Steele, the prospective new head of the opposition party, has blatantly labeled bipartisanship "a fiction". Granted the new GOP Chairman has been under great fire lately. I suppose this was inevitable given the state of the Republican leadership in the wake of their great losses. Steele is tasked with rebuilding a party that lays in ruins at the feet of eight years of failure. And he's being asked to deal with a constituency that is notoriously recalcitrant and resistant to change. That's quite a bit to overcome for someone who has never won a major election during his career.

Chairman Steel also has to contend with one of the loudest windbags since Joseph McCarthy. Hack radio host Rush Limbaugh continues to consolidate his power over the "conservative movement", in the midst of total breakdown. Limbaugh strikes me as nothing more than a very fat vulture, greedily licking his lips at the vulnerability of the dying Republicans scattered around Washington. He's obviously aware that this his last best opportunity to be the voice of the GOP. The rank-and-file has been left with nothing but platitudes and defeat. It's been 15 years since the last recapitulation of moral majority values, and the playbook that was drawn under the watchful eye of Newt Gingrich has proved ineffective and empty.

Still it's difficult to understand what productive outcome Limbaugh hopes to achieve with his incendiary stream-of consciousness, especially since it can be reduced to a mercenary desire to see Obama and Co. fail in their attempts to help the nation regain its bearings. As a national figure, he is continuing to erode his own popularity. No doubt his invective is carefully calculated. He realizes that he is increasingly irrelevant, and that his last best chance to be a player is to distinguish himself as the enemy of the White House. I think he truly believes that he can elevate himself by attacking the Commander-in-Chief. The trouble is that he is setting a dangerous precedent that his less deliberate followers are likely to emulate. And that can't be good for the US.

A Failure of Compassion.

This is the time of year to think about the better qualities of humanity, such as charity and compassion. The problem is that some of us tend to get pretty depressed when we make an objective assessment of ourselves regarding these traits. I have extended family that I would rate very high on these factors. They are conscientious people who make significant efforts to consider the plights of those less fortunate than them. They organize benefits to address social ills, and invite people to their houses to participate in doing something good. These affairs not only bring local folks together, but they also contribute to meeting the vast needs of the poor and downtrodden. Mostly I admire them for doing something to help.

With Christmas coming, my in-laws are now trying to rethink traditions. Every year we have a gift exchange, and each person goes home with something that someone else brought. We set a money limit and even run a concurrent gag trade. This is not an uncommon practice, and saves us from having to buy presents for each individual separately. It also gives us something to do on the 24th of December. But this time around, my sister-in-law came up with an alternative suggestion. She sent out an e-mail documenting some of the terrible conditions that others face in third world countries. Her idea was that we skip the exchange this year, and donate the money we would have spent to the charity of our choice.

Obviously the birth of Christ should be celebrated with actions that run deeper than a consumerist orgy of spending. If we were truly honest in our faith and respect for the Son-of-God, we might strive to follow his philosophy and give to the less unfortunate. However this threatens to take the fun out of Xmas. Let's face it- we get a charge from taking home luxury items that we didn't buy ourselves, especially when we didn't even ask for them. Why would we give up these time-honored activities? Sure, there are people starving somewhere, but is that our problem? Don't we have enough to concern ourselves with during this period of economic downturn? Don't we have a responsibility to go out and shop in order to "save our nation"?

I'll freely admit that I'm not particularly charitable. I don't spend a lot of time thinking about the destitute and disease-afflicted in far flung lands. I won't even give pocket change to homeless Americans nowadays. At some level my perspective can be distilled to "better them than me". I'm not proud of that, yet I can't defend self-deception. I've said it before and I'll repeat it... humans aren't that special. They have no innate right to survival at the expense of other living creatures. And we perpetuate our survival by exploiting the Earth and all of its inhabitants. That's just the way it is. If I participate in sending food to a region that can't support its current population, who exactly am I serving?

And yet... my lack of so-called "humanity" occasionally gnaws at me. That's why, against my better instincts, I never bitch about paying taxes. I realize that a lot of that money goes into the pockets of corrupt and greedy politicians, and more of it feeds monolithic corporate interests, but at least there's a minimal amount being diverted to assist fellow citizens. I'm glad that there are people willing to sacrifice their time, resources, and energy to improve the lives of others. That type of self-abnegation is truly noble. I'm not going to fool myself- if I wasn't forced into this secular tithing (or is it more appropriately trithing?), I'd be more than happy to sock that money away. But when it comes to the holidays, I'm more likely to defend the status quo.

Safe Haven.

Once again I find myself here at home taking care of Baby E. It has been nearly a full week of diarrhea for the boy, and it's putting a fair amount of stress on our little family. Yesterday he visited the hospital again, and they suggested that his situation may be bacterial as well (or instead of) viral. They set up a diagnostic test of his stool to find out, so M. spent the bulk of the day back and forth between medical facilities. When she finally got to the front of the line of the testing center, she was told they would need a bigger sample. It would take about five grams (how much is that?) to get a proper reading. Babies don't poo in big chunks. Anyway, I tried to run it by after work, but they were already closed. Sometimes nothing comes easy.

So E. is taking a nap, and I'm thinking about a story I heard on the news the other day. Nebraska has approved a change to their "Safe Haven Law". I didn't know it, but it turns out that every state in our union has a similar provision on their books. Apparently if you have a kid, yet for one reason or another you can't (or won't) take care of him/her, you can drop your child off at a hospital without prosecution. I guess too many babies were ending up in dumpsters. What made the land of the Cornhusker different was the age limitation, or lack of it. Many states restrict a "parent" from passing off his/her responsibility once the tyke reaches a certain cutoff point. In 13 states, that threshold is thirty days.

For some reason there were no parameters in the Nebraska law. Last Friday the last unwanted offspring (14-years old) was left at a hospital, making him the 36th minor to be abandoned since the problematic law went into effect in July. Reportedly many of these individuals were preteens, and one was actually 17-years old. A majority was said to have serious psychiatric or behavioral problems. Occasionally, people were driving in from out-of-state to ditch their responsibilities. I find that particularly sad. Are people really so desperate in our modern age to free themselves of their burdens? Is our social support system so inadequate that this is the last resort?

Obviously this isn't an option anymore. It's likely that Nebraska will end up imposing a limit of thirty days after birth for its "Safe Haven Law". But it's also clear that the problem is not going away. Todd Landry (Nebraskan state bureaucrat) expressed the official position: "The role of the state’s child-welfare system is to protect children who are fundamentally unsafe." He made it quite clear where the authorities stand on the issue- for "safe" children,"it is not the role of government to intervene". Of course that statement evokes certain questions about how we organize our society. If people are reaching out for help by simply ditching their kids under circumstances where they won't be prosecuted, is the government acting in an invasive manner by lending a hand?

From my point of view, this unfortunate phenomenon should be a wake-up call. A large segment of the populace is adamant that human life begins at conception. "Pro-life" warriors insist that every "act of creation" must be allowed its opportunity to be born. Yet evidently society's responsibility ends once the new being exits the birth canal (or after some arbitrary period like 30 days). Under this perspective, mothers who get pregnant are left entirely to their own devices in providing for the children they bear... regardless of whether or not they truly wanted them in the first place. Perhaps the anti-abortion crowd needs to realize that not every soul is equipped for parenthood. If they are unable to face this simple reality, they should be prepared to step in and provide support for every child that is abandoned, no matter at what age.

What's With the Price of Oil?

Note: I wrote this post several weeks ago, but am only getting around to posting it now.

Last week, while the Dow Jones index was showing a precipitous decline, my thoughts turned toward "opportunities" to protect the current value of my savings. I've always been cautious regarding investments, to the point of (perhaps) hurting myself. Even when things looked rosy, I hesitated to buy into the American economy. For far too long the financial system has felt like a shell game. It doesn't seem like we make anything anymore, although (of course) I realize that isn't really true. Still I get the feeling that, more than anything else, the "success" of the dollar has much more to do with how fast people can keep it moving. So much of the time it seems like nothing is being produced in that process.

I'd be the last person to try and claim any expertise when it comes to understanding market forces. But now I am suspicious of so many who have put themselves forward as experts. There have been so many layers of complexity and obfuscation that no one really can provide a straight answer that will describe the current situation. Most of the time it appears that people are merely making decisions based upon "gut feelings". A consensus builds that the current climate is favorable, or alternatively that it is perilous, and ordinary folks tend to accept whatever conclusions are put forth in the name of "conventional wisdom". Ultimately if the argument can be framed in terms of supply and demand, then the argument is all the more convincing.

So what makes the price per barrel of crude drop so quickly at the same time the market is tanking? Logic suggests that as the US dollar value decreases, the cost of gasoline should rise (and vice-versa). Yet one of the most dramatic downturns of the economy in 100 years has been accompanied by sharply decreasing prices. One could suggest that the oncoming recession (or depression, or whatever) is has been affecting the demand for oil. After all, less activity requires less fuel. However, I'd be surprised if the markets are really responding that fast. One could also point to the frenzied speculation on energy commodities over the past year. That could certainly be playing a role as well.

The interesting thing is that when I talked about investing in oil commodities to a friend who many recognize as a "financial wizard", he advised me against it. His outlook on the potential recovery of the banking and credit systems is intensely pessimistic, and he expects oil prices to continue on a steep decline. And yet that still seems counterintuitive to me, as I would expect a functional resource of undeniable utility to retain (or even increase) its value during a sustained economic downturn. People may look to cut costs, but they still need to get to work. Add to that the variable of home heating costs during the upcoming winter, and everything appears further out-of-whack. It's hard not to suspect that there are shenanigans at work.

I've never gotten around to a formal study of the phenomenon, but it seems to me that gasoline prices always fall before a presidential election. I realize that oil trading is tied to the US currency, and that certainly complicates the picture even more. Ultimately we are at the mercy of these fluctuations, and it's disturbing that external forces could be manipulating the situation to make us act in a particular way. Alternatively, oil could merely be caught up in the huge sell-off of Wall Street, with everyone (including hedge funds) rushing to liquidate all their assets at once. I wonder if this affected the election cycle, with the challenge of energy independence seemingly at the top of everyone's list. I hope this crucial issue doesn't get relegated to the back-burner again.

"Socialism" Vs. Progressive Taxation.

In my earlier post about "Joe the Plumber", I wrote about how his elevation (by the McCain campaign and the Right Wing media) to the status of "middle class everyman" obscured the very real arguments being made about taxation in America. Apparently the majority of Americans are secretly seething about Obama's proposal to suspend the Bush tax cuts to the very wealthy. We are supposed to believe that 95% of America thinks that the richest 5% is overburdened by progressive taxation. Evidently no one realizes that we have reached the point where the interest on our national debt is approaching the amount we spend on our federal budget. How we are supposed to finance the government is increasingly an underexamined question.

We are in the midst of a financial crisis that is about to hit the American middle class with the force of a category 5 hurricane, and the GOP and its cronies have been trying to make the "socialist" brand stick to Barack Obama and his fiscal and domestic policy platform. I think that (once again) it's time to get our definitions straight. "Socialism" is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". Progressive taxation obviously doesn't fall within the parameters of the definition. But this is what the extreme Right is referring to when it talks about its opponent's "socialist" policies.

Republicans would have you believe that the core principal of Socialism is income redistribution- "Take from the haves to give to the have nots." Not only is this crudely simplistic, but it is a Cold War-based lie that's been repeated since Ronald Reagan's presidency. Perhaps that's why the GOP is running on an anti-intellectual and anti-academic platform- because careful analysis exposes their argument for what it is. The US has been traditionally referred to as a "Capitalist" country. It is therefore illuminating that the vast majority of American economists (81%) support progressive taxation (SOURCE) and Obama's policy positions (SOURCE). But why should you bother listening to the experts when you have "your own" strong opinions?

What does a study of history tell us? If you are dead-set in changing the definition of the word "socialism" to include progressive taxation, then you have to accept that the USA has been socialist since 1862, when the first progressive income tax was passed in this nation (SOURCE). It is therefore an AMERICAN VALUE that has carried us through the years and helped us become a superpower. If you are against this tax policy, the case can be made that you are ANTI-AMERICAN. Naturally a "free market" idealogue is going to attempt to fight this conclusion using any means necessary. But the reality is that their alternative is a fantasy- "free markets" have never existed anywhere except in theory. It's a grand "utopian" fairy tale that wealthy people (and sycophants) have used to put the masses to sleep.

You often hear the "free market" dictum that “wealth creates wealth”. It’s not that there’s no merit to this argument. That’s why I don’t necessarily support “socialism”. But on the other hand, entrenched wealth creates obstacles to competition and innovation. The ideas that make men wealthy eventually become outdated with the changes in the environment. Yet wealthy men often have little incentive to adapt to those changes, because they risk losing their competitive advantage. They are more motivated to protect their wealth artificially by working to maintain the status quo. They have the resources to set the conditions to attain that end. Progressive taxation works against that stagnation.

Thomas Jefferson said, “"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I’m not in favor of class warfare or anarchic revolution. I believe in incremental social change. By shifting the tax burden on to the wealthy, you free up the middle class to provide new ideas to adapt to a changing society (and to put their own money behind these ideas)- something that the entrenched wealth of the upper classes has proved itself incapable of. Entrenched wealth stifles innovation and competition the same way ruling classes have in so-called "socialist" nations. Progressive taxation doesn't "punish" achievement. That's a ridiculous notion. It fosters enhanced economic class mobility, which is crucially necessary in encouraging the adaptation necessary over the long run.

Rush Limbaugh IS a Racist? Who would have ever guessed?

Former Bush Administration Secretary of State Colin Powell has announced his endorsement (read the transcript of his appearance on "Meet the Press") for presidential candidate Barack Obama. Powell is one of the most revered American figures in the political landscape. He is broadly respected across party lines. His public image was tarnished only by the false message he delivered in front of the United Nations during the run-up to the Iraqi invasion and occupation. But despite the fact that we now know that George W. Bush and his cronies knew that the information they sent through Powell was unreliable and likely false, conventional wisdom suggests that they had convinced Powell of its veracity. That's a clear indicator of just how trusted Colin Powell is by the American people. He remains unsullied, even by Bush.

It is for these reasons that the Powell endorsement is so meaningful to so many. The nation has been patiently waiting for his considered judgment since he told the media he would wait to make his pick until after the last debate. No doubt that this was out of deference to his friend of 25 years, John McCain. Perhaps in his heart Powell was hoping that the former "maverick" would convince him that he had not lost his much-vaunted integrity. Still the signs were already inscribed on the wall. McCain has been moving steadily toward the positions and philosophy of George W. Bush for the past four years. He has run a dishonorable campaign. It would have been difficult for Powell to support a man who has succumbed to the most extreme wing of his party, as evidenced by his choice of Sarah Palin for the VP slot.

Naturally many on the Right have bemoaned Powell's decision. Powell didn't just make a short comment about Obama, but rather implicated the entire GOP for its increased divisiveness. Certain high profile pundits have taken an almost violent exception to his words. George Will did not shrink away from suggesting that Obama benefits from his race. But the most appalling accusations came from (not unexpectedly) the wingnut Rush Limbaugh. As soon as he heard about Powell's endorsement, he couldn't stop himself from dashing off an e-mail message to the Politico website. Right from the start he questioned Powell's assertion that his endorsement was not about race.

Limbaugh said he would be doing research to find out what other "inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates" Powell had supported in the past. Of course all three of those qualities have been attributed to Obama by Limbaugh (and the like) in the past. Yet it was that last adjective that loomed so large within that sentence. Racism is (most appropriately) the elephant in the room for the GOP's propaganda machine. It's been entertaining to see them biting their lips and trying to contain it for these long months. Now it's out of the bag. Limbaugh has shown his true color(s). From his perspective, how could racial identity NOT be an issue when an observer considers the worth of a politician (especially if they are thought of as "black"). Apparently that's completely unthinkable for this pill-popping freak.

However, what I found most problematic in Limbaugh's message was not the obviously racist sentiment. It was the embedded revelation contained in a later part of his e-mail: "I guess he (Powell) also regrets Reagan and Bush making him a four-star [general] and secretary of state and appointing his son to head the FCC. Yes, let's hear it for transformational figures." From these words it is plainly evident that Limbaugh has ALWAYS considered Colin Powell the token Republican affirmative action case. In Limbaugh's mind, Powell didn't EARN these distinctions, but rather they were generously bestowed on him, as "a person of color". And now Powell is being ungrateful for the lavish gifts he has received. This is truly a disgusting insinuation, and I believe that "conservatives" everywhere should be pressured to denounce Rush Limbaugh.

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.

Who is “Joe the Plumber”, Really?

A few days ago the American citizenry was introduced to a new political figure. He's a man named Samuel Joeseph Wurzelbacher, and he lives somewhere in Lucas County, outside of Toledo, Ohio. He came to national attention via an interaction he had with Barack Obama over the weekend. The candidate was canvassing door-to-door in Wurzelbacher's neighborhood on Sunday, when the two fell into a discussion about Obama's economic policy. "Joe" asked the Illinois senator if he believed in the "American Dream", and started peppering him with questions about taxes. A FOX News crew was there to record the entire exchange, and it was soon spread throughout the web.

When John Mccain's campaign learned of the footage, they apparently scrambled to integrate a narrative about "Joe the Plumber" into their debate strategy. A strange version of Wurzelbacher's "story" was introduced by John McCain right from the start. He portrayed "Joe" as someone who wanted to buy a small plumbing business, and was concerned that Obama's proposed tax structure would hurt him. McCain kept returning to "Joe" throughout the 90-minute contest, at one point exclaiming maniacally, "Congratulations Joe. You're rich!! You're rich". The Arizona senator made a point of pulling out a quote from the Obama/"Joe" recorded dialog that suggested that his opponent wanted to "spread the wealth around" in America*.

In the process, "Joe the Plumber" became a talking point and a minor celebrity. But it quickly became apparent after the debate that Samuel Joeseph Wurzelbacher wasn't exactly what he had at first seemed. To begin with, it turns out that "Joe" really isn't a plumber at all. He's neither licensed nor registered in the profession, and consequently not supposed to be practicing plumbing in Lucas County. Additionally he makes around $40,000 per year, and is in no position (as a divorced father) to buy the company he works for, or any other company for that matter. In fact he has several outstanding liens against his house, including one for neglecting to pay his property taxes.

"Joe the Plumber" is in a heap of trouble, and he has sacrificed his privacy for fifteen minutes on the national stage. He's been used by John McCain and the GOP, and is quickly replacing Sarah Palin as America's Greatest Joke. Rather than an entrepreneurial hero, it appears that Samuel Joeseph Wurzelbacher is merely yet another partisan tool to be exploited in the Republican's desperate attempt to hold onto political power. The ironic thing is that "Joe" would in fact benefit under Barack Obama's tax structure. When Barack Obama talks about "spreading the wealth", he's not talking about handouts. He's talking about shifting the very real tax burden of this nation on to the wealthiest members of society.

The entire "socialist" meme being pushed by the McCain/Palin ticket is a red herring. The reality is that there won't be any broad new social programs, no matter who is elected. The difficulty lies in financing the obligations that our society has already accrued. Our government is over $10 trillion in debt (when we include the money to be spent in the bailout), and the interest on that sum is astronomical. This is eroding international confidence in our currency. What "Joe the plumber" really represents is the large contingent of middle class schmucks that wouldn't recognize their enlightened self-interest if it bit them on their collective ass. People like Wurzelbacher, who still believe in realizing the "American Dream" through the "free market system" are drinking the Kool-Aid that is destroying our country.

* To really understand what transpired between Obama and Wurzelbacher, you have to see the complete video and/or read the trancript. You can do that HERE.

NOTE: If you didn't see it in the above link, you can find out how the McCain and Obama tax plans will affect you HERE.

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".

Naomi Wolf's Coup.

A friend of mine sent along a video for me to watch yesterday. It featured Naomi Wolf, a "Third Wave Feminist", who famously accused Howard Bloom of sexual harrassment (decades after the fact) and called Al Gore a "beta male" when she was supposedly working on his campaign. Her latest book is called The End of America, and it concerns her formulation of ten steps that a nation can take to assume control of its citizens' lives. Apparently she studied Hitler and Mussolini, and their rise to power, and came up with a step-by-step "how to" guide on fascism. Obviously she makes the point that the United States is well on its way to replicating the conditions that she describes.

There is no doubt that the Bush Administration has taken a number of extraordinary steps to consolidate the power of its executive office. Using Wolf's words, they have indeed "invoked a terrifying internal and external enemy", "created secret prisons where torture takes place", "set up an internal surveillance system", and "engaged in arbitrary detention and release". Her argument that the cabal behind the president is ramping up its efforts to clamp down on our essential freedoms is therefore somewhat persuasive. Her concerns are certainly not unjustified given the prologue of the last eight years. Where she begins to lose me, however, is when she claims that a coup has already taken place in the United States, and calls upon her listeners to find a local district attorney who will arrest President Bush.

Her argument involves the suspension of the long held principle of posse comitatus. For those not familiar with the concept, it was firmly entrenched as the citizenry's protection after Reconstruction. In basic terms, the statute generally "prohibits federal military personnel and units of the United States National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress" (link). The problem is that Bush/Cheney and Co. eroded this crucial check on their power by attaching a rider in the Defense Reauthorization Bill of 2007. While Congress tried to redress that overstep in 2008, Bush issued a signing statement which basically demonstrated that he wasn't that concerned with prudent governmental limits.

There have been two events in recent weeks that have set off Naomi Wolf's internal alarms. The first was actually what seemed to be a minor indiscretion committed on the floor of the US House of Representatives. Congressman Brad Sherman (D-CA) cited unspecified sources who reportedly told him that there would be an imposition of martial law if the bailout bill was not passed (he ended up voting "no"). The second omen was the announcement of the deployment of the 3rd Infantry's 1st Brigade Combat Team within the borders of the United States "as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks." The mission is expected to be a permanent one.

While the presence of a 3000-troop strength active military unit in the homeland is indeed disturbing, it's difficult for me to make the logical leap that this deployment means that a military coup is officially underway. It doesn't seem like enough men to subdue any potential insurrection should the election be cancelled. Still the potential uses of the force are a bit worrisome- "they may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control or to deal with potentially horrific scenarios such as massive poisoning and chaos in response to a chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear or high-yield explosive, or CBRNE, attack." On one hand it does seem understandably proactive for the federal government to prepare for a bit of back-up during this particularly tumultuous election cycle. But alternatively, it reinforces a vague paranoia that seems to be spreading amongst the populace.

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

Hopes and Fears in the Presidential Race.

One of the things that I've found particularly fascinating during this presidential race has been hearing about the reasons different people support their respective favorites. While a few individuals have been motivated by the defense of a particular ideology, many find themselves choosing between the lesser of two evils (and these aren't necessarily mutually exclusive motivations). Many of the arguments that I have heard formulated over the last couple of weeks are framed in terms of fears. As is typical in cases of divisive elections (like the vast majority of national races nowadays), there are a lot of poorly reasoned accusations being bandied about. Only occasionally do they seem to have some grounding in reality.

I'd like to think that I could make my decision primarily on hopes, rather than fears. In my case I can truly say that I am ultimately voting FOR someone, rather than AGAINST his opponent. But that line has certainly been blurred for me recently. There was a time not long ago when (though I supported Obama) I believed that a McCain presidency would not be disastrous for the nation. He seemed to genuinely want to reach across the aisle and consider ideas on their merits. Perhaps his gradual shift back to the most conservative wing of his party over the last few years should have been a tip-off. Still I can admit that I was honestly shocked when he announced Sarah Palin as his running mate.

I have mentioned a lot of negatives regarding the Governor of Alaska in this blog. However I think it's important to keep a sound foundation in the real-world when it comes to my doubts about a McCain/Palin ticket. As much as Palin represents an extreme version of social conservatism, as long as McCain is able to fulfill the duties of the office (should he win, of course) I don't think this will be much of an issue. I don't believe that Palin wil be able to get the nation to agree to outlaw abortion in cases where a woman has been impregnated as the result of rape or incest. I don't think the citizenry will look favorably on her urges to ban books. And I don't think she'll be able to fully integrate creationism into our science curriculum at a national level.

On the other hand, I think it's unlikely that the Obama/Biden ticket will likely enact comprehensive health care reform that substantially increases our national debt. I don't believe he will boost corporate taxes by any meaningful degree. And I'm certain he won't seek to outlaw personal property rights (as some wingnuts suggest). My expectations regarding his (or McCain's) presidency are naturally contained by the limits of the office. The Chief Executive serves as Commander-in-Chief, and sets the tone for the country's foreign and domestic policy. I want a president who approaches relations with other nations with an intellectual and overtly diplomatic approach. I want him to consider war only as a LAST Resort. I want nuanced and considered strategies that enhance our international standing.

The biggest national issue facing the United States is energy independence. It has extraordinary ramifications for national security, the future of our economic success, and our relations with the rest of the world. We MUST somehow develop alternative sources of energy. Aside from the issue of global climate change, it is in our best interest. We cannot bear another presidential administration that is beholden to the military-industrial complex and the oil industry. Compare the records and stated positions of the two tickets. McCain has not supported tax credits for companies developing solar/wind power, and Obama has. Look up their voting records. The GOP platform is "Drill, Baby, Drill" and Palin practices "Alaskanomics". That's enough reason right there to support Obama/Biden.

GOP Media Manipulation.

After a long week of discussion, argument and contemplation about the conventions and the developing race for the presidency, I felt the need for a prolonged burst of relaxation in order to recenter myself. Of course that ended up being wishful thinking, as just about everywhere I went people wanted to talk about what's been happening. Overwhelmingly I encountered varying degrees of disgust and shock over John McCain's decision to select Sarah Palin as his running mate. Additionally there were quite a few that I talked to that were appalled by the way the media has salivated over her, building her up into a social phenomenon and a singular event. That was ironic, given the Right's insistence that the press is against her.

It seems that all the GOP has had to do over the last week is to keep Palin sequestered so that her legend can grow without interference from critical analysis. Her handlers have been clear that she will meet the media whenever "she is ready". I find that particularly ironic given their strenuous and insistent claims that Palin is experienced and ready for the national political stage. If that is their sincere belief, I wonder why they don't release her from their imposition of silence. They should be anxious for Palin to have the opportunity to reveal her positions and attitudes regarding the issues that confront the nation in this dark hour. Given the acid tongue that she unleashed at the Convention, she should be well-prepared and anxious to go.

But exactly the opposite seems to be the case. McCain's campaign manager Rick Davis has made his feelings about this situation very clear:

"Why would we want to throw Sarah Palin into a cycle of piranhas called the news media that have nothing better to ask questions about than her personal life and her children? So until at which point in time we feel like the news media is going to treat her with some level of respect and deference*, I think it would be foolhardy to put her out into that kind of environment."



That seems to me to be a transparent strategy aimed at getting the media to go easy on her. Yet we are told time and again that she is just as effective in extemporaneous debate as she is in front of a teleprompter. What does this self-proclaimed "pit bull" have to lose?

I would suggest that the worst thing that can happen to the spectacle of "Palin-mania" is for the American Public to discover who she really is. She is self-serving, hugely ambitious, and a "skilled politician"- when it comes to saying what her "base" wants to hear. The problem with that is the message that McCain delivered last week. He says he wants to encourage a bipartisan approach to governance in Washington DC. This approach is clearly meant to appeal to independent and undecided voters. My impression is that many within that segment of the populace are going to be put off by Palin's style, her extreme views, and her misrepresentation of her record in Alaska. It's better for the GOP to let her profile build itself while she is a novelty.

I've repeatedly stressed the fact that the Republicans are much better than the Democrats about "staying on message". They have built a well-defined structure that imposes discipline and disseminates talking points. They are desperately trying to frame the conversation before it even begins. We are more than a week past the point that Palin was announced as a vice-presidential nominee, and yet the GOP has not allowed one single question to be asked of her. I find that amazing. They are billing her as the future of their party, and yet she still hasn't faced a single test. The fact that Republicans are that anxious to find a figure within their party that can excite them demonstrates a level of desperation that I see as a bit dangerous.


* Yes... they actually used the word "deference". That made me laugh too.

The "New" Culture War of McCain and Palin.

I'm glad I watched John McCain's speech on Thursday. I got to see the would-be president proclaim his commitment to bipartisanship and "reaching across the aisle. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, he almost had me going too. But then he proceeded to outline a policy that keeps the entrenched political power in Washington exactly where it is. Still the most obvious disclosure of McCain's fealty to party politics is his decision to run with the GOP's culture war meme. Despite their record on the issues, the Republican Party is still insisting that it represents "small-town" values. Implicit in that contention is the idea that there is just something about city people that's essentially wrong and Anti-American.

Even the surface details of the Republican convention were carefully constructed to deliver this point. The slogan "Country First" was an insidious appeal to our nation's townsfolk. It took me a while to figure out what that essentially meaningless phrase was meant to suggest. Yet all it really took is one look at the projected back-drop behind McCain as he was giving his nomination convention speech- waves and waves of endless corn flowing in the wind. You see- it's the folks in the country and in the small town that really "get it", according to the GOP. They represent values like community pride, marital fidelity, honest and hard work, pride and love for family. That's their profile, and the Republicans claim to be the sole representatives of them.

To hear this cynical strategy shoved behind its "innocent" shell is particularly offensive to any city-dweller. The Republicans would like to portray us all as baby-killing, decadent, elitist, criminal-coddling, drug-addled, communist sympathizers and neglectful parents. They would like to make America believe that "community pride, marital fidelity, honest and hard work, pride and love for family" aren't values that are universally professed no matter where one travels. But they obviously won't come out and accuse us directly. Instead they have the audacity to suggest that urbanites look down on small-towns for what we ostensibly see as these "redneck values". We are enthralled by the Ivy-League elites who have propagandized us.

After leveling these charges they go one step further by warning us not to underestimate the "ordinary folks" who are just like the candidates (Sarah Palin, George Bush, etc.) that they float for national office. Never mind the reality behind these carefully-manipulated public personae. The GOP has even made higher education seem like a bad thing. This anti-intellectualism is the end-result of the cultural war that many Republicans are trying to foment (and have been for decades). What's needed is simple "common sense".... faith in these party leaders and in their ability to transform our entire nation into the "Shining City on the Hill" that will provide all the world's saints and sinners a perfect role model. This is where the "family values" platform comes from- wedge issues like gun ownership, abortion and gay marriage.

The thing is that I believe that it is the GOP that is actually insulting small town citizens. They are assuming that they are so stupid that they will never be able to see behind the facade. They act as if country people are too "simple" to catch on that the Republican leadership never has any intention of addressing the wedge issues that they promise to "resolve", and every intention to save them in order to encourage future divisiveness. They are too "naive" to challenge the hype- the reality is that the GOP continues to be led by the oil industries and the military-industrial complex. They won't notice that McCain has initiated a campaign of change that employs Sarah Palin as his front-line warrior in this age-old culture war. And they certainly aren't expected to see through the Bush-like hypocrisy of putting Palin* in the projected new role of "energy independence chief".

But you know what? I think the Republicans are wrong. I think that there are people all throughout the United States (the small towns, the cities, the exurbs AND the suburbs) that will see through to the truth of the McCain/Palin ticket. I think they'll reject this GOP "Culture War".


*Sarah Palin freely promotes "Alaska-first" values, is committed to the interests of "Big Oil", and currently married to a BP employee of nearly two decades. Here's an idea- why doesn't McCain cut out the middleman (and the middle-woman) and just appoint a board of oil company executives? After all they have the kind of experience the GOP is touting in their VP candidate. Palin is completely unqualified to work on "energy independence", as she is inextricably linked to the oil industry.

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.

You Go, Sarah Barracuda!

So it looks like the Palin family and the McCain campaign have finally found a way to put one nasty rumor to bed. Of course they've used a tactic that none of us expected- they announced that Sarah and Todd Palin's 17-year-old-daughter is indeed pregnant now. They say that she is "about five months" along the way. I wonder if the dirty deed was accomplished before or after Bristol got over her nasty bout with mononucleosis. I guess we know what she was doing during her 5 months of bed-rest while away from school. Anyway, the time-line (if accurately reported) would indeed seem to rule out that Trig is her baby. For some reason, a lot of Palin's fanatical supporters believe this somehow should suspend any investigations into her family's life. But that's a ridiculous supposition.

As I've noted before, Sarah Palin has politicized her personal life by claiming to represent the "family values" plank of the Republican platform. Indeed she led off with an introduction to her growing clan in her acceptance speech. She wanted potential voters to get to know what she is about. First and foremost she proudly proclaimed that she is a "hockey mom". And the Christian Right Social Conservatives ate that up. They applauded her decision to birth a child that she knew had Down's Syndrome. They cited her parenting as "executive experience". Who else can we count on to potentially lead our country, if not a good mother? So now when I am told that it is inappropriate, cruel, and/or wrong to shed light on her family life, I have to call "bullshit"*.

When I heard about the rumors that questioned the maternity of Trig, I immediately went on record as saying I considered them a distraction. I wasn't going to form any conclusions before I got as much information as possible. I decided instead to take Sarah Palin at face value, and confront her version of Trig's birth. You should know that well by now- it's the tale of her following through with a political speech in Texas while her amniotic fluid was trickling down her leg. It's the one wherein Ms. Palin is aware of the fetus' disability, and the attending risks of delivery... whereby she completes her speech and gets on an 8-hour airplane flight. She doesn't alarm the on-flight staff of her difficulties. She grins-and-bears her premature labor. After all, she's hunted moose!

Finally Ms. Palin touches down in Anchorage, where the state's most advanced and equipped medical facilities reside. But she chooses instead to be driven to her hometown doctor. She pops out the kid, regroups, and returns to work three days later. She juggles her Blackberry and her breast pump. This is the conservative version of heroic motherhood. What strength she has! She would never let parenthood get in the way of her work; she just lets her family accentuate her career. That's why she sure she can step up to the plate if something happens to McCain. Her kids will be alright. She has a large extended family. She ALSO so happens to have a pregnant daughter that we've just been informed about. But Ms. Palin is super-lady... all things to all Republicans.

What's remarkable is that she's as equally comfortable in knee-high go-go boots and a short skirt as she is all buttoned-down and preaching the benefits of abstinence-only education in our high schools. You know the type of educational institution I'm talking about- the kind that daughter Bristol recently spent 5 months away from. We should all be so lucky as that lovely teen-aged girl. She has a super-involved mama who can properly care for her disabled infant, give mothering advice to her kids, and assume the presidency should the worst-case scenario occur. In the meantime she just has to go on the road for a bit before she gets a super promotion that allows her to sit around and consider how her new job will best benefit Alaskans. You go, Sarah Barracuda!


* Here's another question that's gnawing at me- If the Palins were so concerned about Bristol's privacy, why did they choose to throw their kid under the bus when it became politically expedient to do so? If they were genuinely concerned about making sure her pregnancy did not become an issue, they could have simply kept her out of the public eye for the next two months. That's what they wanted to do anyway. Instead they decide to quell those "nasty rumors" by dropping the dime on their daughter. They could have simply released Trig's birth records instead, and everyone would have gotten red in the face and slinked away. Something is definitely rotten in the Great White North Territory. This needs to be addressed. The Palin family and the McCain campaign have made it all fair game right from the beginning.

My Weekend Trip to the Conservative Blogosphere.

This has certainly been an interesting extended weekend. The McCain campaign's decision to roll out their pick for VP came at an intriguing time. Initially the GOP must have felt very self-satisfied about having eroded the "bump" that Obama received after last week's convention. But there were risks as well. People have had plenty of free time over the last few weeks to do their own independent research on Ms. Palin. As a result there is a landslide of information, rumor, innuendo, and disclosure about the current Governor of Alaska. Perhaps the Republican National Committee believed that it could firmly establish a public persona for the little-known politician. However that assumption appears a bit flawed only a few days after their "historic announcement".

I decided to participate in the drama of the event by engaging online communities that I'd ordinarily avoid. In the process I had countless exchanges with self-professed "conservatives" and Palin supporters. There is no denying that the Theo-con wing of the Right has been invigorated by the prospect of a "family values"-espousing politician as second-in-command of the nation. I learned very quickly that they take the defense of Sarah Palin personally. They relate to her story on such an intimate level that to impugn their hero is tantamount to assaulting them. With the knowledge that I was coming into their house uninvited (so-to-speak), I did everything I could to avoid invective, vitriol, and insult in my own responses.

Despite my best efforts I was met with a wave of animosity and a general refusal to engage in a reasoned adult discussion. If you are skeptical about this, simply follow this link for a sample of the experiences I had on just one forum. Here are (just a few of many) highlights for those who would rather not wade through the morass:


"Be careful out there, a snark will get you and crew your detestable body parts into metaphysical mince meat." (Ed. note: actually I found this one kind of witty)

"As Malcolm Reynolds might say, I would bet my rutting life that child has a better upbringing and home life than you did. And as you are evidently a sufferer of moral retardation, the cases seem muchlike. Perhaps Trim or Trig or Tick or Tuck or Tug or whatsisname won't grow up to be an Internet dirtbag like you."

"I call troll on Merge and will not engage him again. He is engaging in creeping Cyrus Pinkertonism. May whatever God or Demon he believes in have mercy on his soul."

"Merge - you stepped into a known big pile of moose shit and kept smearing it all over your body. Stop already."

"Now, please go away you irritating little man. You are not engaging in political discourse, you are engaging in the most boring form of dikhed verbosity."

"No questions here, it's just fun watching an elitist know-nothing try to defend the indefensible."

"merege: what part of "fuck you' do you not understand--no sanctimony here, just pure loathing."

"Your net value to the participants is either zero or negative. It is a nuisance value.
If I every take a blog seriously, I will ban or suspend right and left among those who bore me."

"Do you actually believe the shit you post?"


That's pretty impressive stuff from a group of folks that (presumably) identify with the "family values" plank of the Republicans. Of course there were also a smattering of folks that rose above the ordinary shit-flinging, and simply "agreed to disagree". There always are. And I have to be fair and point out that there are many so-called left-wing sites wherein conservative posters (even ones employing frank sincerity and rational argument) might be similarly attacked.

I want to make it clear that I wasn't hurt or personally offended by any of these comments (although I didn't especially enjoy being called a "baby-killer" on another site). I knew exactly what I was getting myself into when I initiated contact with this bunch. Remember that I listen to conservative talk radio on a daily basis. The nasty tone flows downhill certainly. The truth is that I benefited greatly from these interactions. I got to see some interesting viewpoints that I wouldn't have otherwise encountered. The anonymity of the net allows folks to get beyond the niceties that apply in face-to-face encounters. One gets to see within their minds in a way that is much less adulterated by ordinary social decorum. It's just a shame that so many of us have become inured from ever entertaining an opposing position.


Addendum: It appears that Ann Althouse has some difficulty fielding dissenting opinion over on her blog (either that or she didn't appreciate the flow of traffic away from her site). I posted a comment tonight, and within a couple minutes she had deleted it. I understand that the shepherd has to protect her flock, but she appears to have an awful low regard for her regular posters' collective ability to defend their views. I guess eternal vigilance is required for her to stay on message. Maybe we should give her a break, and not rile her up too much- Hitler was a failed artist too.

Addendum #2: (9/2/08) Either someone from Althouse must have read this post and alerted Ann. Either that or she's read the e-mail I sent her. Now she's reinstated my comment and dropped it straight into another unrelated thread without any context. Very interesting... see it here.