Being Wooed By An Abuser

Having mentioned The Daily Howler, I would ask that you click here and read Part 4 of his "Special Report", "An Affair to Remember". Somerby highlights an article Jonathan Alter wrote for Newsweek in 1999. Alter is honest enough to write about the ways in which the contingent of the national press corps was swooning under the spell John McCain was casting.

ALTER (11/8/99): What we all like about McCain is that he might actually govern on principle, and what a strange sight that would be, says Bruce Morton of CNN. Even if he loses, McCain could have an important impact on the Republicans. It's been 75 years since the GOP boasted any major figure who described himself as a reformer.

That reformist impulse, however atrophied from the original muckrakers of a century ago, also animates many journalists, thus further explaining their affinity for McCain. Liberal reporters may disagree with him on abortion, guns and opposition to the test-ban treaty (stands that he softens when talking to them). They know that his voting record would probably appall them if they looked too closely. But they are increasingly comfortable with his hawkish foreign policy and almost unanimously supportive of his core issue, campaign-finance reform.

What I find fascinating about this little blurb is this - it could be written by a woman falling under the spell of a predatory abuser. Such men are usually adept at romancing women; they are dapper and congenial, promising so much, giving so much, seeming to offer exactly what a woman needs. Until, of course, the courtship is over, the deal sealed, and the relationship in full flower. Only then do the anger, the trend toward dominance, and the potential for violence become more clear. Yet, since the spell of love is cast, it becomes far more hard to simply "walk away" because the woman in question is "in love".

Just like the press corps has had a decade long love for the John McCain they created in their mind.

Like serial abusers, the actual facts concerning John McCain - his adherence to right-wing shibboleths, his corruption, his ruthless opportunism, even his unpopularity with colleagues due less to his "maverick" status and more to his volatile temper and more than occasional verbal abuse - were available for them to consider. This availability is mentioned by Alter, then dismissed just as casually as the history of violence of a serial abuser is dismissed by their latest victim. All the restraining orders, the court dates and appearances by police for "domestic disturbances", even the testimony of former girlfriends to beatings and psychological torture become irrelevant because the guy seems so wonderful. Except, of course, he isn't.

While it is nice the press corps is realizing McCain's oft-stated devotion to "honor" and "principle" is nonsense, under the pressure of one of the most dishonest and trivial campaigns in recent memories (quite a feat considering the history of political campaigns over the past quarter century), it should be noted there has been abundant evidence that McCain would not run a campaign any differently than he has. He surrounds himself with Rove proteges. His campaign manager signaled, during the Republican convention, that the campaign would not be about issues, then proceeded to lie about Obama, his person, his personal history, and his record with a relentlessness and thoroughness that was breathtaking. All those folks who "liked" McCain realized he was and is nothing more than a ruthless politician guided by no principle save the continuance of his own grip on power. While Obama is, like most politicians, little different, he at least has the virtue of being honest enough not to cloak his campaign in the nonsensical drivel of "honor", "integrity", and the constant invocation of a non-existent history of "straight talk". Indeed, one of the attractions of Obama, at least for this voter, is that he is pretty transparent about his own status as a run-of-the-mill politician, with all the warts such a specimen usually has.

I do feel bad for the press corps, but only in the same way I feel bad for a woman who is emerging from the shadow of a violent abuser who has a history of such relationships. Yes, she should have known. Just as the press corps should have paid more attention to those things that might have "appalled" them had they not been so heart-struck.

Whiners And Losers

Like most such events, the Presidential debate between Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain was pretty much a draw last night. Not really a surprise. With the rare exception of the single exchange between Bernie Shaw and Michael Dukakis in 1988, and Dan Quayle and Lloyd Bentsen in the same election year, these things really don't produce all that much. The much-hyped Gore-sigh was a non-event until a few right-wingers noticed it and made much more of it than it was (for details, see Bob Somerby's many mentions of the invention of the myth of Sighing Al). Equally silly and false, there was the discussion of Pres. Bush looking at his watch during a 1992 appearance with Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. The idea that these little tics and asides are noticed and become iconic moments is nothing more or less than the fantasizing of people trying to create drama where none really exists.

Having said that the event was pretty much a draw and non-dramatic, I will say that I think this presents a problem for John McCain. Part of his argument has always been that he is far more experienced and knowledgeable about foreign policy matters; that his judgment, especially concerning the war in Iraq, is far superior to Sen. Obama's. Now, anyone considering the actual facts of the matter would question the basis of such a claim, but we'll let that slide for the moment. For our purposes, I would only ask folks to think about this: If McCain has such a great grasp of foreign policy, and if his judgment is far more sound that Obama's, then how could Obama hold his own? How is it possible for Barack Obama to be able to stand on the stage with McCain and not end up with egg on his face, is McCain is the expert?

This is to say that the results of a tie, at least in this case, go to Obama, at least on points.

Having said this, I don't think this matters in the immediate aftermath. Unless someone finds a video clip of Obama sighing while looking at his watch and humming Rage Against the Machine songs while putting his prayer rug down, pointing towards Mecca, I think most people will consider the debate as some kind of hermetically sealed event, cut off from the arguments both campaigns have been making, and from the events of the past couple weeks. Had Jim Lehrer been smart, savvy, or even as tricksey as Bernie Shaw twenty years ago, he might have had a good "gotcha" for each candidate, with McCain's manic weirdness from the past couple days being top of the list. He did not do so, more's the pity.

Over all, this debate didn't really do much more than allow each candidate to repeat his talking points, elaborating a bit. I think a far more interesting debate will be next Thursday's between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden. I do so hope that Biden sets aside any thoughts of chivalry and deference. I think it might be funny if one question concerned her understanding of the English language, since - from the various clips circling around from her interview with Katie Couric - it seems clear she can't even construct a sentence.

When Is A Suspension Not A Suspension?

From TPMTv, a little reality is discussed, in the middle of some serious fantasizing.

A Song I Dedicate To Senator John McCain In Light Of His Heroic Decision To Skip Friday's Debate

I cannot think of a better ode to the Republican candidate.

A Masterful, Recondite, And Subtle Review Of The Sarah Palin Interview On CBS

This is why she doesn't do press conferences. She is as stupid as a bag of snakes.

Calamity?

Apparently, Bush will be using the Presidential Pulpit of Bull to warn of cats and dogs sleeping together should Congress not give Secretary of the Treasury $700,000,000,000 right now.

Piffle.

While the economy is slowly sinking, and the stock markets are "volatile", and a whole lot of banks, big and small, are still either holding bad assets, or using bad assets as collateral for other bad assets, we have hardly reached the stage where fire will reign from heaven and the top song on the Hit Parade will be "Brother, Can You Spare A Dime?"

How many banks are calling in non-mortgage loans to cover runs? How many banks are having runs? In the hours running up to the March 4, 1933 inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt as President, not just banks, but whole states were giving up the ghost; Hoover had a liaison with Roosevelt's people covering phone calls from governors (Hoover and Roosevelt detested one another, Hoover thinking FDR a lightweight who didn't understand the problems, Roosevelt thinking Hoover neither courteous nor aware that he had lost the election) as they notified the federal government they had officially run out of cash. I don't see that happening.

One of the root causes of the Great Depression was the already-existing depression in the agricultural sector, with a combination of depressed prices, over-production, and the human-made catastrophe of the Dust Bowl leading to the auctioning off of farms in the hundreds of thousands of acres every week.

I don't see that, either.

The retail sector is weak, to be sure, but hardly perched on the precipice of failure.

The economy is weak, not collapsing.

One part of our financial markets, the part the is populated by those who used to be described as "social parasites" back when people thought that not working for a living was a sign not just of laziness but moral degradation, is in a mess. Does this mean the whole thing is teetering so precariously that if Wall Street doesn't get its check this week we will have a nation-wide epic fail?

I don't think so.

When George comes on the screen tonight, turn the sound down. Or better yet, change the channel to the Food Network.

Afraid?

Not only is John McCain hiding Sarah Palin away from the press, scared she might say something . . . less than erudite and off message or perhaps even flagrantly stupid; now, in light of the "financial crisis" (which is really only about a few investment banks betting stupid using bad loans as leverage), he wants to "suspend his campaign" and cancel Friday's debate.

Since the past two weeks have been anything but good for McCain and his campaign, does anyone smell something fowl about all this?

I Get Email

As is my usual routine, I was clearing all the junk out of my email account before logging on this afternoon - all those viagra ads, you know, I'm not that old yet! - when, lo and behold, I receive the following email:

Hey Geofrrey

Go jump in the nearest body of water that is over your head.

You made comments you could not back up..

When called on them you weaseled out

So take your computer and put it where the sun does not shine.

You are a slimeball.

The sender is only noted as "Reactionary", which should be obvious. I do so love anonymous attacks like this, especially those without any references to where I might have made comments I didn't back out of, or where I weaseled out of something.

Now, if this person had left a name, a reference, a link, a quote, something to reference this very odd note, I might consider it somewhat more substantive than it is. As it is, I just publish it now so that we can all see what cowardly little children we have in contemporary conservatives. Anonymous, threatening, no details or information, a demand for death rather than debate.

Since I was a competitive swimmer, I'm really not all that afraid of water over my head, by the way. As far as being a slimeball goes, that may be true, but you can only say that if you really know me.

I think the email I got might have been notes for McCain for Friday night's debate.

UPDATE: I forgot to mention the subject line: "Arrogant Leftist". So original. And, I just noticed this person spelled my name wrong, even though it's clearly spelled out all over the place.

Music Monday

In the fall of 1983, Roberta Flack performed at Alfred University, accompanied by the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra. It was beautiful. She happened to have a song in the top ten at the time, a duet with Peabo Bryson (whatever happened to these people?). "Tonight I Celebrate My Love" is a beautiful song about making love for the first time with someone. She sang it, although with an unknown back-up singer.

She had yet another hit duet, with Donny Hathaway, with "The Closer I Get To You". I have always liked the synthesizer backing on this; it provides a wonderful atmosphere. This is, also, another wonderful love song.

She became famous for the song, "The First Time Ever I Saw Your Face", a piano arrangement for which my older sister had, and which I tried to teach myself, without much luck.

Crisis Mismanagement

It seems to me that the "bailout" legislation the Administration is demanding Congress pass without changes, add-ons, or even debate can be summed up in a phrase we have either used or heard in our own lives - "Of course I'll respect you in the morning." Now, this statement implies a certain amount of respect at the time it is stated, which should be, quite obviously, considered false.

Bush is demanding no oversight, no judicial review, no punitive measures, no regulatory scheme, nothing at all but the purchase of what has become known as toxic assets. Without review, without careful consideration, without delay. In the middle of a hotly contested Presidential election season. At a time when Presidential poll numbers still have not climbed above 30%. At a point when it should be abundantly clear these people should not be trusted, not only because they are criminally duplicitous, but laughably incompetent. If Congress were smart, and run by people with even a modicum of intelligence, they would simply grin politely at the Administration and say, "Thanks, but no thanks."

But . . . But . . . the Administration will sputter that something has to be done. Or else Western Civilization will end.

Nah.

Indeed, a good question at this point would be, if you think government should step in now to prevent such a collapse, would you be willing to allow certain regulatory measures as would prevent such an occurrence in the first place? To reiterate - Glass-Steagall was in place for 60-odd years, and we managed to avoid the kind of financial meltdown we saw last week. In only nine year after its repeal via Gramm-Leach, we are at a point where the credit markets, for all practical purposes, have ceased to function. If Congress said now, and the Administration threw a tantrum, Congress should say, "Only if Glass-Steagall is reinstituted, punitive measures against CEOs are enforced, the are guarantees for homeowners, extended unemployment insurance, and other measures."

It is unfortunate that this had to occur in the middle of a Presidential campaign, particularly one in which one of the candidates in question has a little problem telling the truth (McCain/Palin), and an even bigger problem understanding how we arrived at this particular juncture in the first place (McCain/Palin). I say "unfortunate" because were we in a less silly, less fevered, less fabulist time, we might actually be able to accomplish something constructive. We might also be able to do something if the people in charge were honest or competent. They are neither. Nor are they to be trusted. It seems to me that we should simply let the chips fall where they may for now, and wait until after Congress reconvenes in January with new members and a new President. The world isn't going to collapse between now and then, after all.

Not a dime to these people. Not one. Shiny. Thin. Dime.

Dirty Words And Blasphemy

Over here, we see an interesting discussion on the whole issue of what constitutes blasphemy. After linking to this rant by comedian Margaret Cho, ER opens up the floor, and by some great stroke of luck, ELAshley comes around not only to scold us all for celebrating all those dirty words, but to inform us that our status before the Almighty is in question because we do so.

I will be clear. Compared to tossing around a few expletives - which I will stipulate is both shocking and could be offensive to some - claiming to know another's status before God is a far worse offense, to me at any rate. Indeed, that is the point of Cho's little rant. Her righteous anger is directed at those who deem themselves the sole arbiters of God's justice and love. It is one thing to read Cho's post, or even it's title, and click one's tongue and shake one's head. It is quite another to claim that those who read this with a certain amount of approval (and, yes, I am one of them) are on their way to hell. Personally, I would much rather face the Throne of the Almighty with this on my conscience than having to answer the following question:

So when, exactly, did you realize that you knew how We determine who goes to hell?

An even better question such individuals might face (and I want to be clear that, while ELAshley is the only person who responded this way at ER's, this represents a much broader swath of a certain perspective held by some Christians) would be:

There are children dying of diarrhea - DIARRHEA - in Third World countries because pharmaceutical companies refuse simply to send these countries the medicines necessary to help. And you're worried about some words some people think are dirty?

It's about time that something explicit (no pun intended) was said about this particular point. All the people who get the vapors over the sight or sound of foul language, insisting that such paves the way to hell, really, really, really need to get over themselves. There might be all sorts of reasons not to use such words in every sentence, but these reasons have little to do with one's ultimate status before God and more to do with social etiquette and acceptability. I realize that there are verses in the Bible that some people can point to that seem to refer to Divine Displeasure at vulgarity. If you want to read them this way, and apply them to your own life, that's OK. I don't read them that way, though, and that's alright, too.

Even more important, however, is this. Arrogating to oneself the role of arbiter of Judgment is the root cause of the rage evident in Cho's piece. I would disagree with Doc in comments, by the way, when he says there is no love evident in Cho's post. On the contrary, the reason for the rage is the love not only for God, but for other Christians, for the message of grace. When that is stolen by those who believe themselves somehow more qualified to understand that grace and love, and denies it exists for some individuals and groups, is it any wonder it inspires anger?

An Excursion Into The Scary

As is my wont at this time of year, I am taking some time away from the crappy Presidential campaign (all McCain gaffes all the time; is Obama even a candidate?), to explore various and sundry topics of the paranormal. I did this last year and got some interesting responses. I am opening comments to any honest stories of realsppoky encounters you might have had - no crap, silly things, but really scary stuff, mind - but first I a couple videos. Yesterday morning I spent watching videos of Ghost Hunters that were uploaded to YouTube. A couple actually seemed interesting enough, although not really scary, and I thought I'd share one with you.


Now, this one is not from the TV show, but purports to be from a man videotaping his house. After an initial discovery of something strange on his home video camera, he took to taping as much as possible. What follows is one of two videos he made. This one, to be honest, kind of scares me. I am well aware it could be a fake, but if so, it is a well done fake. Anyway, any stories of scary sounds, sightings - I love that kind of stuff. This is an area where I have a pretty open mind - I am open to skeptics, and to the possibility we are dealing with something real. My own experiences have been few, one very frightening, the others more interesting than really scary.

Saturday Rock Show

Motorhead is an easy band to make fun of. Most of their songs are short, fast, and relatively simple (although I think that simplicity is deceiving). In Lemmy, their lead singer, they have perhaps the ugliest leader in rock. They have been dedicated to being loud, fast, more than rude on occasion, and providing nothing more or less than fun for their fans for decades. On their album Overkill, however, the last track, "Capricorn", is different. I remember the first time I heard it. I thought it was so different, and so good. I offer it here, from their live release, No Sleep Til Hammersmith:

Socializing Failure

I have few thoughts on the collapse of the big investment banks and the roller coaster on Wall Street and around the world. I am waiting to see what happens, if and/or how the proposed rescue attempt by the Fed and Treasure passes and plays out, and if it is at all possible to have an honest discussion about what has led us to this point. I realize there are all sorts of important things to talk about in a Presidential campaign - lipstick on pigs, "respect" and "deference" to candidates, and all the other crap that's swirled around - but it might just be important for someone, somewhere with a louder voice and larger audience than my own to say, "You know, the government does stuff that's important, that impacts our lives, and while some of it is difficult to understand, most of it isn't, but it isn't talked about because some 'expert' somewhere says that people are too stupid to understand it." It might even be true that, on average, the details of the financial disruption this week are beyond the public as a whole. Yet, since it effects most people in some way or other (people have pensions, 401(k)'s; shoot, I've been buying a share of my company's stock a week through their employee stock purchase plan) the issue of whether or not some reader will write in and complain about how difficult it is to understand all the arcana of investment banking and financial instruments, I think an enterprising editor might just feel it important to get some information out there.

As for the proposed bailout (remember, it isn't a done deal, Congress holds the purse strings and even the Republicans in Congress, who loathe Bush now and are not too keen on McCain, either, are more than miffed at the way the proposed AIG bailout was handled), and all the talk of firms being "too big to fail", all I can say is, "bunk". No business is so large that it shouldn't be allowed to collapse, especially if it made poor investment choices, worked under a shoddy business model, or simply ignored prudence and financial wisdom and sought ever greater returns on more and more marginal investments. With the attempt to pump hundreds of billions of dollars to companies that have already proven themselves unable to manage these sums of money wisely before us, a good question might be, "Why are we tossing good taxpayer money after bad private money?" Of course, the answer usually is, "Because they're too big to fail!" I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want my investment adviser telling me to invest in a company about to tank in order to keep it from tanking.

Other than re-imposing Glass-Steagall, buffing up the SEC and reinvigorating the Anti-Trust division of the Justice Department, I really have few thoughts on what should be an on-going response to our current financial woes. In respect to Glass-Steagall, it should be noted that this Depression-era limitation on banking and investment was long hated by many in the Republican Party, although most banks and financial institutions not only learned to live with it but welcomed the security it provided. It was essentially repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach Act (yes, that's right, Phil "Whiners" Gramm, who not only authored this bill, but a whole series of corporate and financial bills that led to Enron and other disasters; as Gramm has a Ph. D. in economics, he is a poster child for why I am not impressed with someone who has an advanced degree; he is still just as stupid as a dead snake). The financial markets were pretty stable and investment houses were quite solid for decades. It took only nine years for them to piss it all away once Glass-Steagall was gone.

Think about that.

Small Towns

I've been taking a breather the past few days because (a) I realized I was far too plugged in to the day-to-day ups and downs of the Presidential race for anyone's good, including my own; and (b) my family, specifically my children, wanted some time with their old man. This post has been brewing for a while, so if it's irrelevant to our current moment, the only thing I can say is that it still needs to be said.

In her acceptance speech, Gov. Palin quoted Westbrook Pegler on the many vaunted virtues of folks from small towns. This theme is an old one in American politics, particularly in recent years as the culture wars have continued apace. It has been a staple of American political culture that urban life not only depersonalizes individuals, it strips them of the values cultivated by family and community. As someone who grew up in a town of around 5,000 people, and who spent his early adulthood in the Washington Greater Metropolitan Area (as it is officially known, encompassing both Washington, DC, its VA and MD suburbs on up to Baltimore and its environs), I can speak to this directly, but have chosen, instead, to use a piece of writing to point up the ridiculous idea that small town folks are inherently more virtuous than city-slickers.

I realize people might chuckle, but 'Salem's Lot by Stephen King is the perfect vehicle for examining the question of the virtues of small town people. If this seems odd, or even absurd, please bear with me as I defend my choice of writing.

This book concerns vampires in a small town in Maine. I first read it in 1978 or so, picking up my sister's copy. The book made me an instant fan of King's writing. One of the things that attracted me to the book, and brings me back time and again to it, is the image he creates of small town life. Growing up in Waverly, I knew the people of whom he spoke. I knew the life of the town. Except for the One Haunted House in town in the book (The Marsten House, which is a real house in Maine, and where the author resides), Jerusalem's Lot could have been Waverly. When I was in college, I realized that the novel was as much about the social psychology, including deviant sociology, of small town life. The characters in the book, even now, do not seem so much caricatures or types as real people I have known - drunks, gossips, outcasts, dedicated teachers who slog through life either beloved or ignored by their students, the whole milieu of middle school life with its social code and hierarchy, the hidden secrets so many people wish to hide, whether criminal or simply marginally deviant. One of the points I think King was making was that small towns would be the perfect place for a vampire to assume control (indeed, the vampire in question, Barlow, makes the point in a general way) because, unlike the rarefied air of urban life, the pressure points in small town life are much more vulnerable. Except for those secrets that lie so far deep, or are so well-hidden, everyone knows most of the life of everyone else, and the guesses at the parts not known are usually pretty good. The extra-marital affairs, the secret sexual longings, the shady business deals, the lives teetering and petering out towards hopelessness and meaninglessness - these are well-known and the topic of much discussion and analysis. A vampire, with the need to puncture the bubble of bonhomie in order to intrude itself in to this fragile web of denial and deceit, would find such a place congenial.

That's what frightened me most. I could easily see my little hometown falling under the spell of a Barlow very easily.

While many in recent years have reverted to a certain series of platitudes concerning the inherent virtues of small town life, I think 'Salem's Lot is a good antidote to the idea that small town life produces people necessarily more virtuous than suburban or urban population centers. The book reminds us that, in fact, the vices, crimes, and desires of residents of small towns are far more visible, and the cracks in the facade we create around our rural communities are far more vulnerable, than in cities.

This is not to say the opposite of Gov. Palin's obviously rhetorical point, viz., that small town folk are somehow inherently more morally vicious than others. Rather, it is to say that small town folks, like everyone else, are a wonderful mixture of good and bad. The major difference, for me, is this - the crystal walls we build around our lives in small towns is much more easily penetrated. Rather than an opaque wall around our private lives, being crystal it is not only more prone to shattering, it also means our private lives are much more visible to those outside.

Richard Wright, RIP

One of the founding members of one of the most influential rock bands of all time died yesterday after a long battle with cancer. Along with Nick Mason, Roger Waters, and Syd Barrett, Richard Wright produced an album in 1967 - Piper at the Gates of Dawn - that rivaled The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band (recorded in the same studio at the same time) for sheer inventiveness. Initially inspired by a combination of the blues and LSD, as well as the limited familiarity with the electronic instruments they were using, Pink Floyd managed some seriously creative music. After Syd Barrett's psychosis reached the unmanageable stage, a childhood friend of his, actor and model David Gilmour, was brought in first to stand in for him in concert, then to replace him full time. The band fiddled and faddled, including producing a couple movie soundtracks and an interesting concept LP, Atom Heart Mother, until 1973's Dark Side of the Moon was released. Giving Roger Waters the room to lead the band maight, in the long run, have given the band both commercial success and internal turmoil, but it also produced a certain amount of darkly wonderful music. When Waters left, the band seemed to end, regrouping under Gilmour's leadership for two more studio releases, A Momentary Lapse of Reason and The Division Bell and a combo live CD/DVD, Pulse. Ironically enough, I was watching Pulse on Sunday night, then got a flash email about Wright's passing. Here's "High Hopes", from their last release.

Dow Drops 500 Points

This can only be good news for John McCain.

Adding that McCain's latest line - "fundamentals of economy are strong" = "don't pick on the workers" - makes as much sense as "We've already won in Iraq so we have to stay there until we win". Obviously, employees are still working hard at their jobs, people still need stuff, and all that other day-to-day economics stuff still goes on. When billions of dollars in value disappears in a day, threatening even more losses in the days ahead, however, that kind of empty platitude doesn't mean much. I think people should be reminded that Herbert Hoover tried the same line over and over again, and look where he ended up.

Plugging The Local Church

I haven't done this in a while. A couple years ago, Lisa tossed aside the lectionary and started what for lack of a better word could be called "topical preaching". She has done nothing but a series of worship series since, structured around thematic material. The current worship series is call "Worship is . . ." Yesterday's was particularly good, and you can download and listen by clicking here.

By the way, if anyone out there has any insight in to how to set these up as downloadable podcasts, use the "contact" button on the PGUMC homepage to get in touch with our tech person. That way, you don't have to sit and listen to the thing while you download it.

Thanks ever so much.

Monday Music

OK, it's official. Between the stinking weather and the stinking election - how in the world is John McCain ahead, when all he can do is lie? - I am depressed. There is no better cure for this kind of blues than, well, The Cure.

"Boys Don't Cry"


"Let's Go To Bed"


"Just Like Heaven"

More Of This, And Much Harder (UPDATE)

Here's Obama's new ad. It's OK, but we need about ten variations on this theme in the next five days.



UPDATE: Let's get those outside groups in on it!

Let Us Remember Those In Most Need

I have been obsessing recently with the whole political race, and was reminded, politely enough of course, that there was a little bit of weather in Texas.

I think we should all remember those in need right now. Not just in silent prayers. We should dig as deep as we can to help out. This was bad, much worse, I think, than people anticipated. The fact that there are boats blocking I-45 should be a nice symbol of the road ahead for first responders and others seeking to assist those in need.

Texas needs our help. There are people hurting right now. I think it would be a nice gesture if we all sent a bit that way. Even, perhaps, if not now at some future time, volunteered to go an help rebuild. God knows they just might need it (remember New Orleans?).

Every Woman A Runner-Up Queen

Serendipity plays a part in life. I am currently reading David M. Kennedy's magisterial Freedom From Fear: America in Depression and War, 1929-1945, part of the Oxford University Press series of books on American history. Kennedy, a historian at Stanford, has read and considered everything from economic theory to social and internal migration patterns, absorbed it, and offers a wonderful account of this most turbulent half-generation in American history.

In the early years of Roosevelt's first Administration, there emerged two men more than any others who posed real threats not just to his leadership, but to the course America would take. The first was the Limbaugh-like Radio Priest, Father Coughlin. The other was the colorful, bombastic, autocratic King of Louisiana, Sen. Huey Long. It is difficult to remember the way he captivated the country. Ruling the entire state as his own personal fiefdom, Long in 1932 and 1933 was both Governor and Senator. Refusing to leave his perch in Baton Rouge, he didn't take his seat in Washington until he had maneuvered a replacement. Even then, the entire apparatus of state politics was his to command, and he was ruler in all but name.

He wrote a couple books, too, offering promises not just to the people of Louisiana, but to all Americans, quick, easy nostrums that ignored the harsh realities of economics and politics. He understood in a visceral way that his moment had struck. He treated Roosevelt with disdain, calling him "Frank" in meetings where he refused to remove his hat. He was moving to unseat the President in 1936, not with himself but a conservative Republican who would then create an opportunity for him to run in 1940. Like Joe McCarthy and Tom DeLay (two other near-autocratic politicians), Long had much of the Senate intimidated. Roosevelt felt that he, along with Army Chief of Staff Douglas MacArthur, was among the most dangerous political threats in the country at the time. Long's plans died with him when an assassin's bullet took him down in 1935, so we will never know if Roosevelt could outclass him on the national political stage.

I was thinking of the Long phenomenon yesterday as I considered the contemporary Palin phenomenon. Objectively, considering her actual record and her almost constant lying about everything from earmarks and going to Iraq to the on-going Troopergate scandal, taken as a whole she is a most unworthy candidate for high national office. Yet, she offers a case study in the ways in which a certain amount of physical attractiveness, a certain charismatic presence, an understanding of creating a folksy mythology about oneself can all play a part in creating an image that allows an individual to ignore the dirty realities that might intrude upon it. With that in mind, and with a generous tip of the hat to Josh Marshall for the link, I would insist that you read this piece in The New York Times in its entirety. Here is just a bit:

an examination of her swift rise and record as mayor of Wasilla and then governor finds that her visceral style and penchant for attacking critics — she sometimes calls local opponents “haters” — contrasts with her carefully crafted public image.

Throughout her political career, she has pursued vendettas, fired officials who crossed her and sometimes blurred the line between government and personal grievance, according to a review of public records and interviews with 60 Republican and Democratic legislators and local officials.

--snip--

Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.

State legislators are investigating accusations that Ms. Palin and her husband pressured officials to fire a state trooper who had gone through a messy divorce with her sister, charges that she denies. But interviews make clear that the Palins draw few distinctions between the personal and the political.

Last summer State Representative John Harris, the Republican speaker of the House, picked up his phone and heard Mr. Palin’s voice. The governor’s husband sounded edgy. He said he was unhappy that Mr. Harris had hired John Bitney as his chief of staff, the speaker recalled. Mr. Bitney was a high school classmate of the Palins and had worked for Ms. Palin. But she fired Mr. Bitney after learning that he had fallen in love with another longtime friend.

“I understood from the call that Todd wasn’t happy with me hiring John and he’d like to see him not there,” Mr. Harris said.

“The Palin family gets upset at personal issues,” he added. “And at our level, they want to strike back.”

From the same TPM post comes a link to this piece in The Washington Post, covering Gov. Palin's tenure as Mayor of Wasilia.

Palin took office as mayor in October 1996 with a show of force. She fired the museum director and demanded that the other department heads submit resignation letters, saying she would decide whether to accept them based on their loyalty, according to news reports at the time. She clashed with Police Chief Irl Stambaugh over his push for moving bar closing time from 5 a.m. to 2 a.m. and for his opposition to state legislation to allow people to carry guns in banks and bars.

In notes that he took during a meeting in Palin's first week on the job, Stambaugh wrote that the new mayor told him "that the NRA didn't like me and that they wanted change," according to the Seattle Times, which reviewed the notes at a federal archive in Seattle. Stambaugh was fired on Jan. 30, 1997, partly, the mayor said, because he had not taken seriously her request for a weekly progress report "on at least two positive examples of work that was started, how we helped the public, how we saved the City money, how we helped the state, how we helped Uncle Sam." Stambaugh filed a wrongful-termination suit, which he lost.

Palin also differed with the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons. The Frontiersman reported at the time that Palin asked Emmons three times in her first weeks in office whether she would agree to remove controversial books. The librarian said she would not. The McCain campaign has confirmed Palin's questions but said that she never demanded removal of any specific books. Palin also fired Emmons on Jan. 30 but reinstated her after an uproar.

Although the town had a $4 million surplus, Palin cut the museum budget by $32,000, and the three older women who worked there quit instead of deciding which would have to go. But Palin dipped into the budget to create the deputy administrator slot, which some council members complained was at odds with her small-government stance. She told city officials not to talk to reporters.

A recall effort in early 1997 fizzled out, but hard feelings lingered. "Working in small towns, I had never seen someone come in and clean house like that in such a precipitous manner. It was pretty scary and emotional," said Dvorak, the city planner, who left after eight months.

Deuser, the former city attorney, said it was upsetting to hear the McCain campaign refer to Palin's takeover as a matter of getting rid of the "good ol' boy network."

"They were just good public servants who did a really admirable job and deserved better," said Deuser, who was replaced in 1997.

To call these reports "unsettling" is to couch one's feelings in euphemism. While the Times story in particular notes that Gov. Palin has much support across Alaska, it should be clear from a reading of the records contained in these stories that this woman, as I have said previously, is a thug, pure and simple. As Josh notes in the post recommending these two article, Gov. Palin is "a small-minded person who populates her administration with cronies and grade-school friends, fires those who dare to criticize her and uses the power of her office to pursue personal vendettas. In other words, someone in the habit of abusing official power who should not be let within a mile of being president."

An Open Letter

I realize this will be ignored. I provided a link in order, in some slim hope embedded in some small part of my brain, to attract the attention of the Obama campaign. Every liberal blogger is offering advice, and I have no reason to pretend that mine is any better (or worse) than theirs.

Dear Senator Obama,

I am a constituent as well as a supporter of your Presidential campaign. More than either, I was moved by your victory speech after the New Hampshire primary to see in you the future of both the Democratic Party and the United States. You and Sen. Clinton fought a hard, sometimes nasty, campaign and came out the other side joined in the common purpose of taking back the White House not only for the Democratic Party, but the American people.

I sat and watched the speeches at the Democratic National Convention with surprise and enthusiasm. I actually had a chill up my spine as you shouted, "Enough!" to the Republican Party's constant use of distortion and destruction in the name of hollow, narrow political victories. Yet, since that triumphant night, the impetus and momentum and coverage has all been controlled by the Republican nominee because he chose the very next morning to announce his running mate selection. It has turned into "Sarah Palin" all the time.

While a certain amount of credit is due the McCain campaign for both the audacity of the pick and the way they hijacked the news cycle, there is more than enough blame and responsibility for you to shoulder for not retaking the momentum. You used the word "lie" in one ad. One. Uno. A single ad. Over the past week both the Presidential and Vice-Presidential candidates for the Presidency nominated by the Republican Party have released a spate of ads that are all patently false, play on dangerous racial and sexual stereotypes, and both have demonstrated an almost comical lack on understanding of even the most basic policy positions not only of the current administration, but what they might do themselves if they won office. The only way to counter this weird combination of pathological lying and ignorance is to call it by its name.

I am no longer convinced you had any idea how low the McCain campaign was willing to go. I even wrote a post in defense of your silence, in defense of your acquiescence to the on-rushing pile of bilge the Republicans started this summer with Sen. McCain's line, "He would rather lose a war than lose an election." I have read over the past couple days that you would begin to fight back.

I'm waiting.

I want to see ads that call Sen. McCain a liar. I want to see ads that call Gov. Palin a liar. I want to see ads that detail their lying. I want to see ads that feature you saying that John McCain would lose his integrity before he would lose an election. I want to see an ad that highlights the fact that, in an interview with Time magazine just a few short weeks ago, he refused to define "honor".

I want you to yank his chain so hard on his personal integrity that he begins to lose his infamously short temper. I want you to fight and win the Presidency. Do not stand on the principle that yours is a different kind of politics. That principle will lose this election for sure, because the Republicans, fearful that they might lose, have pulled out all the stops, and simply tossed factual content out the window.

I want them called out. In every townhall meeting. In every ad you put on television and radio. In every interview you give, whether locally or nationally. Use the words "lie", "lying", and "liars" as often as possible. At least one iteration per sentence would be good enough. Don't use euphemisms. Don't be afraid. Don't worry what some journalist somewhere might say. Call it what it is.

Should you lose this election, Sen. Obama, there will be little lenience, and no forgiveness. To be blunt, Senator, you had this in the bag and you are about to lose it because you refuse to fight fire with a blowtorch. Do it, not for yourself, Senator, but for all of us who still believe you want to make this country better than it has been. Before you can actually do any of that, you have to win the election. Prove you are willing to fight for it.

Regards,
Geoffrey Kruse-Safford

What Profits A Man?

It is abundantly clear that John McCain has no intention of presenting any reason to elect him President. It is abundantly clear that he simply removed the issues of experience and competence from the table of contents for discussion when he asked the thoroughly unprepared Sarah Palin to be his running mate. The flurry of ads the McCain/Palin campaign has released in the past couple weeks, none of which contain a single scintilla of factual content; the repeating of the easily debunked "Thanks but no thanks" line by Gov. Palin; the remarkable appearance of Sen. McCain on The View yesterday, which pointed up the relative tongue bathing McCain gets from some journalists because hosts Joy Behar and Barbara Walters managed the attempt to pin down McCain on his campaign's many falsehoods all make it quite clear that the only reason McCain thinks he should be President is . . . because he is John McCain. It is more than narcissism. It is a kind of meaningless solipsism that, were our journalistic class working properly, would be the main story. That is to say, the word liar would be tied around McCain's neck so hard it could never be removed.

I think there is a sermon here. In the Gospels, Jesus is quoted as saying, "What profits a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?" It is quite clear that John McCain has decided the Presidency is worth everything, including losing what little integrity he had left. A man bereft of honor, of anything to compensate for his clear lack of reasonableness, has no business seeking let alone holding high office. Were our journalistic class operating properly, this would be the only story of the campaign season. Not just that he and his campaign are serial liars; but that, by demonstrating a lack of integrity he has forfeited any indulgence by the American people for listening or heeding his words.

It is clear to me that John McCain wants office for no reason whatsoever but to occupy a position of power. He has no real plan on governance, indeed shows no real interest in the nitty-gritty details of policy. Why in the world would anyone seriously consider this person for high office if he offers no plan for using that office to serve those who elected him? This is a caricature not only of recent Republican governance pushed to its logical extreme. It is also an object lesson in the dangers of the pursuit of power for its own sake. Neither Sen. McCain nor Gov. Palin offer the electorate of the United States any reason to take them seriously.

It might be nice if someone, not least Sens. Obama and Biden, would make that case forcefully and coherently.

Saturday Rock Show

The weather here is absolute crap. Everyone is paying attention, and rightly so, to the hurricane moving ashore in the Gulf of Mexico. Yet here on the northeastern prairie, it started raining yesterday and will continue through tomorrow night, an unending, dismal haze of rain, the threat of flooding (the Rock River already flooded nearby Machesney Park and South Beloit in late-spring/early-summer and those areas have yet to recover fully), and a general feeling of "Blech". While not technically autumn, these kinds of fall rains are not only energy-draining, they are emotionally taxing, at least for me.

They also put me in mind of England, don't ask me why. For some reason the music of some English bands just seem to go well with dreary weather. Pink Floyd, especially Dark Side of the Moon and Animals just pick me up from wherever I'm at and put me in Perfidious Albion, where Jerusalem will be built among their dark Satanic mills (in the words of William Blake). Another, more recent, band that is so quintessentially English is Porcupine Tree. I mentioned them earlier in the summer, and I have been enjoying getting to know. Yet, in many ways the seasons have brought their music in to its own. What follows is long indeed, and I realize these music posts are rarely paid attention to, but I ask for your indulgence and patience. "The Sky Moves Sideways" was an attempt at a single piece of music, at close to fifty minutes in length. It failed to reach that extreme of self-indulgence, but at thirty-four minutes it does pretty well. The following four pieces together capture not just the music, but with the accompanying photograph, the mood of the piece as well.

Hard Hitting, Viewer Discretion Advised

First, the ad. If you do not like visuals of brutal slaying of animals, don't watch.

I saw this at Sadly, No! and I have to agree that this is the kind of ad we need more of, not less.

This is no dig at hunters. This is no dig at hunting. See, I don't think of this as sportsman-like hunting, with a human being on the ground, doing his or her best in a blind, in a stand, or running a pack or herd. Flying along in an airplane and shooting an animal over and over again, then leaving it for carrion eaters, taking only a limb for a bounty isn't hunting. It's butchery.

Now, if only there were a 527 out there that would run an ad calling John McCain a desperate, lying panderer willing to sell his soul to the devil to win the Presidency, even though it is evident he has no idea what he will do once he occupies the Office.

New Obama Ads - A B-minus On The Curve

Christy puts up two new Obama ads:


And . . .


She then asks what we think. Overall, considering the tone the campaign has taken, the absolute refusal of John McCain to deal with issues, and the flagrant disregard for the truth or for the intelligence of the American people, I think these are, all in all, pretty wimpy. I have, below, a video feed from an Obama campaign stop in Terre Haute, IN which would have been much better. The first ad has the virtue of being kind of funny - I had flashbacks to my high school days with the picture of the TRS-80 and a Rubick's Cube - but the second ad, I am sorry to say, just comes across as pathetic, Obama begging to be heard above the din.

I am impressed with Obama's insistence on running "a different kind of campaign". By telegraphing ahead of time that he wasn't going to get all sleazy, he opened the flood gates to Republican operatives like McCain campaign chair Rick Davis to beat the crap out of him. He has hit back hard at times, but the attacks by the Republican nominee have been constant, unremitting. They are also ten pounds of shit in a two pound bag, but I honestly believe they couldn't care less.

I hate to say this, but while I am not - yet - panicked, I am concerned that Obama has allowed the McCain/Palin campaign not only to set the agenda and tone of the campaign, but receive by far the greater amount of coverage over the past few weeks. A few more, and better, more hard-hitting ads, I think would boost this Obama/Biden supporter's confidence.

9/12

Drlobojo is haunted by the images of the jumpers. I am, too.

The reason I am posting a "9/12" remembrance, and mentioning the jumpers in that context follows.

I had planned the vacation for a couple months. That Saturday, the 15th, was my father's 80th birthday party. My sisters decided to have a big "do", invited friends and family from all over. My wife and our newly born baby, Miriam, didn't go, but Moriah, just turned 4 at the time, was going with me. I got off work the morning of the eleventh, looking forward to a week away from work, with pay.

My memories of the eleventh are hazy. Lisa bursting in to our bedroom screaming that we were under attack in New York and Washington. This happened just as I had finally drifted in to deep sleep. When I got up, around one o'clock, I went and sat and watched, in shock, as the images of that horrible day played over and over, a terrible newsreel of death and destruction. Like pretty much every other American, I felt wounded, vulnerable, exposed. I felt victimized.

I was also worried about my trip. Even in the midst of the chaos of that day, I wondered if things were going to be pulled off for my Dad's birthday. News reports out of New York were sketchy. It was clear that then-Gov. Pataki had closed all the bridges and tunnels in to and out of the island of Manhattan. There were rumors that all the highways in the state would close. I called my parents, and they told me that, as far as they knew, the highways were open, even though not a single big-rig truck was running.

I lived across the street from a convenience store where we got gas. I managed to beat a rush to the pumps by mere seconds, yet even as I pumped my gas, the prices jumped up twice (!!) to the then-exorbitant price of $1.99 a gallon.

As Moriah and I made our way across I-80/90, it didn't hit me until we were in Ohio. There were no trucks on the road. Every single truck in the country was stopped. The skies were empty of plane contrails. We hit Cleveland at what should have been rush-hour and zipped through. It was as if the city had shut down.

It was when we got my parents' house and I finally sat for a few minutes and glanced at a copy of their local paper that it hit me. The image above, or one like it, was above a story about a teacher in lower Manhattan, leading her students to a place of safety. The teacher related how one of her students pointed and said, "Look at the bird!" The bird, horribly enough, was a falling human body. I had not seen or heard of the jumpers before then. I will never forget them, now.

We are a nation that suffered a horrific attack at the hands of persons bent on destroying our will by causing fear. It seemed, for a brief moment, that we would be led through that fear. I was even grudgingly admiring of President Bush's refusal to attack the religion of Islam, and encourage interfaith dialogue. It seemed, for one brief moment, he would rise above the ashes of the Pentagon and the World Trade Center and have the courage and vision and strength of character to rise to the historical moment.

And he pissed it all away.

For that, he, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Doug Feith, and the rest of this hoary bunch of political gangsters and moral cretins should be held in ignominy by history. That man in the picture above, crazed by a situation bereft of any exit, jumped to his death, with the whole world watching, one fleeting moment of his final plunge captured for all ages. For the memory of that man, that he may not have died in vain, I think it is past time to call to account the men and women who have failed him, and us. While we all bear a measure of responsibility for ensuring that his death was not meaningless, that the deaths of those thousands on that day was not empty, in the end, it is our leaders who should pay.

Interesting, But Relevant?

Yesterday, there was much buzz about a missing story at The Washington Post that was supposed to chronicle Cindy McCain's drug addiction, including first-hand, contemporaneous accounts from a former confidante, Tom Gosinski. When people attempted to find the story, all they received was a blank screen for their troubles. There were furtive rumblings that the McCain campaign had managed to spike a potentially damaging story about the Republican candidate's wife.

Well, the story is out. Written by Kimberly Kindy, it lives up to its title, "A Tangled Story of Addiction", and the only conclusions I came to when I read it are as follows:

* It is clear that Cindy McCain's connection to a United States Senator helped her avoid jail time. She was clearly guilty of forgery, fraud, and theft. She also, it seems, was probably guilty of a few conspiracy charges as well, due to the connivance of a doctor who worked with the charity from which she stole the drugs she used.

* I think the Post, whatever its reasons, did well to downplay the role of Gosinski, who, it seems, did indeed attempt a type of extortion on the McCain's, making an offer to stop assisting prosecutors for a measly quarter million dollars. Appearing at a press conference under the auspices of the Democratic Party does not help. While his contemporaneous accounts are certainly interesting, in a chatty-Cathy kind of way, other sources provide enough information to detail the multiple ways Cindy McCain lied, cheated, and stole her way through Vicodin and Percocet for three years.

* The essence of this story has been around, as Kindy notes, for some time. The press started sniffing around it in 2000, until, as she notes, it became clear McCain wouldn't win the nomination. It remained a story local to Arizona until recently. The only details added by the Post's accounts, as far as I can tell, are the ways McCain managed to beat a pretty air-tight wrap through the assistance of an excellent attorney, and the way she has lied about it in subsequent interviews.

* Like Bristol Palin's pregnancy, I am wondering about the relevance of this story for the Presidential campaign. Cindy McCain became addicted to prescription pain killers in the same year many young men and women who will vote for the first time this election cycle were born. She managed to avoid prison, and beat back her addiction - not an easy process by any stretch of the imagination - sixteen years ago. While it might be nice to imagine scenarios in which there were all sorts of nefarious machinations on the part of John McCain to keep his wife out of prison, the narrative presented by the Post is pretty straight forward - she had a good lawyer. She could afford one, after all.

Now, I do not mean to downplay this. I am quite sure there are many who will insist "the whole story hasn't been told", or some such nonsense. The "whole story" is rarely if ever told, even in hindsight, so I fail to see how that means anything. In essence, this boils down to a simple story of a powerful woman who used her connections and money, a), to keep herself and her drug habit going; and b), after being confronted with it, and the potential legal penalties for her actions, doing what was necessary to help herself. While it may be regrettable that Cindy McCain did not lose as much as others in the process - the doctor who provided her with the drugs lost his license; Gosinski lost his job; Cindy McCain's life went on pretty much as before - I'm not sure how relevant that is, either. I think we all understand that, if you have the resources, and access to an excellent attorney, things the two other main protagonists in this narrative did not have, you can usually manage to wriggle out from under whatever rocks the legal system attempts to place upon you.

More to the point, there are myriad reasons to consider John McCain unworthy to hold the office of President. Helping his wife through a painful drug addiction and recovery is hardly one of them.

Brave New Films On McCain's Lies

I saw this, and part of the duty after watching it is to pass it on. So, I am passing it on. There are a number of videos at YouTube that feature the unending lies of John McCain. Robert Greenwald packages them all nicely. If I were Obama, I would buy this ad, and run it. Please watch it, and if you have a blog, post it. If not, mail it, or the link, to a few friends who may not know what's going on.

A Point Of Personal Privilege, Again

A member of our church, 49 years old, has to have cardiac bypass surgery tomorrow morning. He went from having chest pains yesterday to the discovery that the blood vessels around his heart need to be replaced. Please remember Mark Gray and his family, especially his two young children, and his new wife, Jill.

Veracifier

Courtesy of TPMTv, we have this little video. By the way, I think we need to keep James Carville's pinched face off the TV until after the election. Shut up, James. You're as stupid as they come.

Remember Turkmenistan!

War with Russia? As Josh asks, over Armenia? What if they decide to take back Tajikistan? Ukraine? Shoot, Azerbaijan is a hot-bed, just ripe for the plucking.

God help us. Do the McCain people think this kind of talk will help outside the lunatic fringe?

It will be interesting to see if Charlie Gibson - not the brightest bulb on the tree by any measure - asks a follow-up. Does she really believe risking nuclear war over South Ossetia is even close to a sane policy position?

Cultural Elitism And Its Discontents

I came across this little blurb from some yahoo named Megan McArdle, courtesy of alicublog:

Let's be honest, coastal folks: when you meet someone with a thick southern accent who likes NASCAR and attends a bible church, do you think, "hey, maybe this is a cool person"? And when you encounter someone who went to Eastern Iowa State, do you accord them the same respect you give your friends from Williams? It's okay--there's no one here but us chickens. You don't.

Now, Roy Edroso addresses this kind of thing quite well, and since I, on a much smaller scale, have had this same kind of crap tossed at me, I thought I'd pass some information along.

First, to call us "poor" when I was growing up would be correct. To call us "one hour away from finding ourselves looking for a place to lay our heads" would also be accurate. When I was a baby, we had the heat turned off in our house on Christmas Day. I rarely ate lunch at school because my parents couldn't afford the then exorbitant cost of 50 cents every once in a while. My father was a public school teacher in New York State, which pays not quite slave wages. My mother was a stay-at-home Mom until I was in sixth grade, when she went back to work as a Home Health Aide, again, hardly the roots of riches.

Yet, our house was filled with books, intelligent talk, and more important than anything, a lot of activity and love. With five kids, roughly spanning eleven years in age, "activity" is a nice euphemism for near-chaos. Both my parents were college educated, thoughtful, well-read, and the five of us were all smart, funny, and garrulous. I never noticed it until after I was married, when my wife commented that sitting at the dinner table with my whole family was a dizzying affair, because there were as many conversations going on as there were people, with everyone participating in all the conversations at the same time. Growing up, I never thought this was strange.

Even though we were poor, between help from our parents and help from the state and federal government, all five of us went to college. Two of us, my brother and me, went to private universities, when the cost should have been prohibitive. My sister and I have advanced degrees, managing the maze of academe to a Master's Degree (me) and a Doctorate (my sister).

For all that, when Lisa and I married, we made a decision to put her career first, because of the odd demands of the United Methodist ministry. I have worked as a hotel clerk, a convenience store clerk, a truck driver, and am currently an employee at the Wal-Mart in Belvidere, IL. For those of you who may not know what a third-shift employee at WM does - I stock shelves. The people I have worked beside in my life have been some of the best, smartest, funniest people in the world. I have yet to work with anyone who has the educational background I do. Yet, these men and women I have counted my friends - people with criminal records; single Moms or those who are essentially single Moms; active or recovering alcoholics and drug addicts; NASCAR fans; football fans; right-wing Republicans; left-wing Democrats. I have known women who have had abortions. I have known men who are dead-beat Dads. I have worked with people from all races, immigrants from Mexico, Bosnia, Japan, Poland, Vietnam, Thailand, and Great Britain. Some of the best and most intelligent insights I have ever had did not come from professors in classes, but the people with whom I have worked. I have been challenged and rewarded so often I can't begin to count.

As someone who lives on the rolling prairies of northern Illinois, which turns, just a few miles north, in to the rolling hills of Wisconsin, I can tell Megan McArdle that here in the American heartland there are people who would read her pap and laugh out loud. As someone who grew up in one of the original thirteen colonies, I can tell Megan McArdle that we have a genuine NASCAR veteran from my hometown, a couple in fact - the Bodine brothers. Geoff Bodine graduated from HS with my cousin Peggy. Brett would not have graduated from HS or passed physics (which he hardly needed to do considering his chosen career path) if not for my brother's help.

The kind of nonsense those on the right peddle about cultural elitism is so much bullshit. Just like John McCain's entire campaign thus far. I realize it plays well to certain elements of the Republican base, but so what? I think it is long past time for people to stand up and shout, with Barack Obama, "Enough!"

The Sound Of Millions Of Heads Hitting Millions Of Walls, Desks, Anything Hard

First, isn't it amazing that the recent spate of ads the McCain/Palin campaign has released have all been a tissue of lies? While I think Andrew Sullivan overstates the idea that John McCain was once an honorable man who has sold his soul to the devil (I do not believe McCain was ever honorable for the simple reason that few human beings actually are in the technical sense, and I have yet to meet a politician who is), he gets it exactly right in the second half of his equation - McCain's campaign has demonstrated that he is morally unfit to be President. It's really that simple.

Yet, in recent memory, when have Republican candidates for the Presidency demonstrated anything but contempt for the American people, or for the seriousness and gravity of the job? While many people consider George H.W. Bush's "Willie Horton" ad the beginning of the slide, in fact one can go back to Ronald Reagan's 1984, "Morning in America" ad for the way in which Republicans sidestepped any notion that the Presidency was about governance. In 1992, President Bush actually instructed parts of his Administration to investigate Gov. Bill Clinton's travel records. Some members quit. This largely forgotten story has never been completely resolved, because it became clear in the waning days of the campaign that the President would lose.

The 2000 campaign was as dishonest and trivial as they come, with Al Gore recreated as some odd mixture of megalomaniac who was unsure of his own masculinity, a pathological liar who needed a woman to dress him properly. Yet, an even cursory glance at the facts - such stupid things - would have revealed that George W. Bush was intellectually and morally unfit to lead the United States. He lied so often on the stump, in debates, in interviews, it became impossible to keep up. The nadir, for me, was the dog-whistle blowing "Jesus is my favorite political philosopher". There was actual discussion whether this was a serious answer or not. Political journalists can be really stupid. . . .

2004, in many ways, was a doubling down. When the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth emerged, I believe the Kerry campaign trusted to press to call them out on their lies. When they didn't, he tried to, but their campaign of distortions and lies was already out there, and it was a major distraction and waste of campaign resources to work against them.

This fall, we have the spectacle of a Republican Presidential candidate who offers no serious alternatives to our current policy malaise, yet insists he is the candidate for change. We have a Republican Presidential candidate who insists that experience is a necessary qualification for high Executive office, then picks an inexperienced, unknown governor for his running mate. We have a Vice Presidential candidate who lies so often in her canned stump speech, many are no longer keeping track. We have the McCain/Palin campaign weeping profusely because - in a sane world the following wouldn't even need to be typed - Barack Obama used the phrase "lipstick on a pig".

Whether it's the race-baiting, bullshit-filled McCain ad that lies about Obama's support for a bill in the IL legislature on sex education, a McCain ad that had to be pulled because of copyright violation (the sixth time the campaign has failed that particular legal test), or the lying about Obama's tax plan (more esoteric to some people, but far more important to their real lives than the contrived hissy-fit over the whole lipstick rigmarole), it seems McCain/Palin is constitutionally incapable of telling the truth.

There is some concern that the Obama campaign isn't keeping up. I think that's true, but I also think there's a reason they can't keep up. The lies are so transparent, and they come so fast, so often - at some point they are wondering if someone, somewhere might not just call John McCain a big fat liar and be done with it. Now, Obama did it in one ad. It would be nice if the campaign took the recent potshots McCain has tossed at him, bundled them in to an ad, and just had the word "Bullshit" printed across the bottom. Of course, that won't happen.

It is impossible to keep up with this kind of thing because it is quite clear that McCain doesn't really care about the truth, about how he is perceived in the eyes of voters, or anything other than winning. The irony, of course, is McCain once tried saying that Obama would rather lose a war than lose an election. The past couple weeks have made it abundantly clear - if it hadn't been already - the real pandering opportunist in this election, who would do quite literally anything including lying, cheating, and stealing (at least in ads, so far; in the technical sense, the McCain campaign has done all three) to win, the man who has no honor or integrity at all - John McCain.

This is more than just four more years of a George W. Bush Administration. Consider how this man has run his campaign, then imagine America run by this clown.

Emerging Narratives

Taking a step back from the day-to-day back and forth, I think I see a pattern emerging. To be honest, it is one of despicable dishonesty on the one hand, and counter-offensive belittlement on the other. If the national media can catch up, discard the discredited notion that John McCain was ever a "maverick", and experiences "Palin Fatigue" (I'm quite tired of her already; can you imagine if the Republicans won and she was around for at least four years?), it might be possible for this narrative to come out more forcefully.

One of the things Democrats have in their favor this time around is a candidate in Barack Obama who is running his campaign his way. In 1988, the Democrats chose a good, solid, smart, tough experienced politician who ran a dismal campaign that allowed the Republicans to make non-issues in to issues. This year, the Democrats have chosen a candidate who is solid, smart, tough, and refuses to allow the Republicans to get the better of him or his campaign. He dismisses their claims with derision, but not the Adlai Stevenson kind of derision, in which he tries to make himself look smart. It is a derision that points out McCain thinks American voters are ninnies and fools. It is a derisory on the simple point that McCain thinks he can lie with impunity. Obama calls the claims of the McCain/Palin campaign lies, without hesitation or apology. He refuses to allow McCain to run the kind of campaign he wants to, and Republicans have been running, for decades.

The latest McCain ad, which highlights Obama's support of a measure in the Illinois legislature regarding sex education, is a deft piece of dog-whistle politics for the right. It is also, to be far more blunt that the Obama/Biden campaign can be, a crock of shit.

It is shameful and downright perverse for the McCain campaign to use a bill that was written to protect young children from sexual predators as a recycled and discredited political attack against a father of two young girls - a position that his friend Mitt Romney also holds. Last week, John McCain told Time magazine he couldn't define what honor was. Now we know why.

One of the promising things about these kinds of responses, for me at least, is they may just push McCain's infamous temper to the breaking point. That would be popcorn-worthy, to say the least.

This is why I don't worry all that much. Obama's responses aren't just defenses; they are counter-offensives.

As long as McCain keeps putting out garbage like this - and Republicans can't help themselves - Obama actually keeps the initiative in his favor, because the blows just don't land.

Long live rope-a-dope.

"It is a track record that deserves to be celebrated, not ridiculed or scorned."

Bob Herbert. Click, read, discuss.

"These People"

Courtesy of Ezra Klein, I came across this from The Washington Post's "The Trail", written by Peter Slevin.

Sen. Barack Obama delivered an impassioned defense of the Constitution and the rights of terrorism suspects tonight, striking back at one of the biggest applause lines in Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's speech to the GOP convention.

It was in St. Paul last week that Palin drew raucous cheers when she delivered this put-down of Obama: "Al-Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights."

Obama had a few problems with that.

"First of all, you don't even get to read them their rights until you catch 'em," Obama said here, drawing laughs from 1,500 supporters in a high school gymnasium. "They should spend more time trying to catch Osama bin Laden and we can worry about the next steps later."

That's good, and it gets better.

Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago for more than a decade, said captured suspects deserve to file writs of habeus corpus.

Calling it "the foundation of Anglo-American law," he said the principle "says very simply: If the government grabs you, then you have the right to at least ask, 'Why was I grabbed?' And say, 'Maybe you've got the wrong person.'"

The safeguard is essential, Obama continued, "because we don't always have the right person."

"We don't always catch the right person," he said. "We may think it's Mohammed the terrorist, but it might be Mohammed the cab driver. You might think it's Barack the bomb-thrower, but it might be Barack the guy running for president."

Obama turned back to Palin's comment, although he said he was not sure whether Palin or Rudy Giuliani said it.

"The reason that you have this principle is not to be soft on terrorism. It's because that's who we are. That's what we're protecting," Obama said, his voice growing louder and the crowd rising to its feet to cheer. "Don't mock the Constitution. Don't make fun of it. Don't suggest that it's not American to abide by what the founding fathers set up. It's worked pretty well for over 200 years."

He ended this particular bit, according to Slevin, with the two words I quote in the title.

I would just add that Palin's comment in her speech was disturbing for the simple reason that she is running for Vice President of the United States. If elected, she takes an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet, here she was, reaching for an easy applause line in which she denigrates that very same document.

Applause lines are easy. Governing is a bit more difficult. That's what the Republicans have never understood.

If an ad appears soon in which Obama picks this up and makes it clear - that would be choice indeed.

"Politicians Lying About Their Record" - Obama Uses "L" Word In New Ad

Smack!

Obama In Terre Haute (UPDATE)

Courtesy of YouTube, we have this little snippet of Barack Obama campaigning in Terre Haute, IN. What I like about this is the simplicity of it, and the way he gets some free advertising for his message. It also shows how Obama is going to win this. Meetings with people in towns all over the country, telling it like it is. "They must think we're stupid," indeed. Of course, some liberal bloggers, by panicking over recent tracking polls, are certainly acting that way as well . . .



UPDATE: Steve Benen at The Washington Monthly on-line makes a good point. One hopes the Obama campaign refines it, and puts it out there - the Republican campaign is, indeed, premised on the idea that the American people are stupid, can't find out the facts for themselves, and will buy whatever is sold to them. It is both hard-hitting and appeals to the better angels in the American character. This is the kind of message that needs to get out there, hard, fast, and often to keep the McCain campaign off-balance.

Music Monday

In 1983, Yes released 90125, with a new sound, courtesy of a new guitarist. The back story was simple. Steve Howe quit, and drummer Alan White and bassist Christ Squire were looking for new players. They played briefly with Jimmy Page, and planned to record and tour, but there were various legal hassles. Squire had been given a tape of South African musician Trevor Rabin, however, and invited him around. It took a year and a half, a band name change, and the re-emergence of Jon Anderson (who had quit Yes in 1979), but the band was back.

Except a lot of Yes fans didn't like the change.

Well, Rabin was a very different style of guitarist from Howe. Howe, who has a prickly personality, didn't get on very well with Rabin during the "Union" tour. Yet, for all their differences, both are extremely gifted musicians. Here's an example of Rabin's early work, "Getting to Know You Better":

Here's Rabin doing his acoustic solo piece, "Solly's Beard":

In 1989, he released a solo album that did quite well. This is "Something o Hold On To" from Can't Look Away:

Small Towns

I love this video from The Daily Show:

The cowboy? Queerer than a three dollar bill in Confederate money.

I grew up in a town about the size of Wasilia, Alaska. Waverly sits on the border of PA, and there are three boroughs - South Waverly, Sayre, and Athens, PA - all of which run in to one another. The area, physically formed by the junction of the Chemung and Susquehanna Rivers, is simply called The Valley by locals (I still refer to it that way, even though there are other valleys in the world). As an adult, I have lived in both small towns and two cities, one medium sized (Rochester, NY) and one large (Washington, DC). I'm still scratching my head over the whole "small towns are better" thread running through the Republican convention.

Of course, I recognize the politics of it. This is a kind of dog-whistle - it's all about "values". No gay, abortion-loving anti-Christians in LaMoille, IL, South Waverly, PA, or other "towns under 10,000". Except, of course, small towns are as diverse as large cities. The differences are largely that the power structure is inert, in place for generations. The Republicans interviewed by TDS represent the problem with small towns. Inarticulate, narrow-minded, these men and women are caricatures of what is wrong with those in power in small towns. In fact, there are many, diverse and distinct groups living in small towns. People of color, sexual, religious, and other minority groups have their own little enclaves. Some areas have different smaller groups than others. For example, not just Waverly, but the whole Finger Lakes area of western New York State, has a scattered but large population of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Recognizing the politics of such rhetoric is one thing. Cutting through the rhetoric, however, to reveal the hollowness of it is not only a wholly different matter, but necessary. Small Town USA no more provides a moral backbone to the country than do cities undermine them. The only good thing about this kind of rhetoric is that it is about a century too late. In 1896, William Jennings Bryant ran a campaign similar to this; we all know how much of a landslide he won . . . oh, wait, that's right.

Bryant lost to Ohio Sen. William McKinley.

Making It Up As They Go Along

There's been a story going around that the Democrats trashed their American flags after their convention was over. It seems the source of this story is . . . the McCain campaign.

Not only should they be ashamed of themselves, nothing coming from them should be considered legitimate at all.

I just love the way the anti-patriotic dog whistle is being blown by these clowns. They're almost too clever by half. I suppose this is another illustration of Mark Twain's dictum that a lie makes it around the world before truth makes it out the door.